Speculations: Neutral OE in The Great War and Interwar World?

A question I've been mulling over a little lately, considering how marginal the initial premise seems to be. Let's presume a historical end to The Great War, at least on its fundamental pillars (IE: Entente victory in 1919, German Empire having fallen to Revolution, Russia having gone through the February and October Revolutions and subject to B-L, US enters the war in 1917 on the Entente side, ect.) with one minor butterfly: The Ottoman Empire, after the Italo-Turkish and Balkan Wars, wary on matters of its security, facing disagreements among the Three Pashas, and seeing the opportunity to use the breathing space provided by the rest of Europe being distracted by war decides not to align with Germany and instead; like Iberia, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands remains strictly neutral. Maybe relations break down when the Germans don't offer up sufficient loans of gold and equipment, maybe the Goben and Breslau are denied entry into the Straits in a moment of gun-shyness by the Sublime Porte leading to a diplomatic fall-out, or maybe Enver just eats a bad plate of clams and gets food poisoning creating a diplomatic paralysis; pick your POD and go with it. Given this situation, a few questions emerge.

  1. How do the Ottomans spend their four years of (relative) security from outside pressures? Given historically they unilaterially denounced the Capitulations, its possible they could do so ITTL... but without a treaty where Germany guaranteed them for 5 years after the war's end and such action ran the risk of international reprisal would the CUP be so bold as to try this in our timeline? What kinds of internal activity would they try to get away with otherwise?
  2. To what extent would a neutral OE be able to digest the lessons it learned from its previous wars and observing the current one to reform its military even without German assistance? Equipment availability is obviously going to be a limiting factor, given that global production is... spoken for. Would this encourage the local arms industry (Which could also produce for export), or limit those changes to mostly those of doctrine and reorganization?
  3. What would a neutral OE's reaction to the outbreak of the Russian Civil War be? Obviously, they have regional interests in the Caucuses and North Persia as well as concerns of instability spilling into their own borders, and would have one of the few fresh armies and still not war exhausted populations left with which to potentially pull off some notable interventions. What might their relations be with the various seperatist groups, White factions, and Reds? Would they co-operate with the Entente in their limited post-war interventions?
  4. Since the Empire survives rather than gets partitioned post-war, what might its alignment look like during the Interwar period?
Feel free to post any other questions you'd like discussed as well.
 
The problem in this scenario is the fact that while Ottoman neutrality it's very possible, wihtout the OE you alter greatly the conflict so the fundamentals pillars that you describe will not exist; just the fact that Russia can be supplied as the straits are open (probably just food and other non war material, but still a pretty big butterfly) will be a skycraper sized butterfly, not considering Gallipoli, the lack of various front (Levantine, Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Persian), the lack of ottoman support in eastern europe (around 100.000 men) and the possibility to save or redeploy a lot of resources for the entente.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Ottoman neutrality probably requires the 3 Pashas not being in power, but that shouldn't be impossible to do. But yes, the Great War would be very different without the Ottomans. The Bulgarians might not join (being worried that the Ottomans backstab them), which would lead to the Greeks not joining for example. The straits being open and no Caucasus front would help the Russians. Britain's WW1 strategies would be altered with no front in the Levant or Mesopotamia and no Gallipoli.
 
The problem in this scenario is the fact that while Ottoman neutrality it's very possible, wihtout the OE you alter greatly the conflict so the fundamentals pillars that you describe will not exist; just the fact that Russia can be supplied as the straits are open (probably just food and other non war material, but still a pretty big butterfly) will be a skycraper sized butterfly, not considering Gallipoli, the lack of various front (Levantine, Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Persian), the lack of ottoman support in eastern europe (around 100.000 men) and the possibility to save or redeploy a lot of resources for the entente.

The conflict is obviously going to be altered; butterflies exist. But that dosen't mean its particularly unlikely that you end up with a similar result, at least in the broad strokes I laid out. War doesn't have to be declared for the Straits to be practically closed (Turkey got away with it during the Italo-Turkish War), or could be closed to ALL traffic in a very strict interpretation of neutrality in order to avoid potential reprisal by the CP. As for Gallipoli and the various other fronts... considering Entente leadership incompitense early in the war, there's plenty of other grinders that meat could be fed through with minimal impact. Maybe ANZAC Cove ends up a beach around Salonika or like the Canadians (in terms of symbolism) some ridge of valley in Flanders, and the Brits can afford not to tap Indian manpower (and thus produce Indian resentment) on quite the same scale, while Russian body counts in certain battles are higher. Some events have enough bulk and momentium that temporal inertia renders than others to butterfly flaps. (Like multi-year, international wars on an industrial scale)

Ottoman neutrality probably requires the 3 Pashas not being in power, but that shouldn't be impossible to do. But yes, the Great War would be very different without the Ottomans. The Bulgarians might not join (being worried that the Ottomans backstab them), which would lead to the Greeks not joining for example. The straits being open and no Caucasus front would help the Russians. Britain's WW1 strategies would be altered with no front in the Levant or Mesopotamia and no Gallipoli.

Preventing the CUP coup against the F&A government is certainly an acceptable POD (Alphabet soup, my apologies). As for the Bulgarians, I actually believe they'd still jump in as Serbia is crumbling: after their lose in the 2nd Balkan War this looks like a PLATINIUM opportunity to press their claims that they may never have again for the forseeable future, but that's perhaps slightly bias as I presume they'd be able to work out a border deleniation and demilitarization agreement (at least temporarily in the later case) prior to Bulgaria's entry. Even so, I can't say the Balkan Front is going to nessicerily budge the end of war result to the point that's its unrecognizable. Again, all I'm really asking for is basically: CP loses, Russia still falls into Civil War, all other relevent nations are on their historical side. The exact details of the broader war are less important to the questions I'm looking to discuss.
 

Philip

Donor
War doesn't have to be declared for the Straits to be practically closed (Turkey got away with it during the Italo-Turkish War), or could be closed to ALL traffic in a very strict interpretation of neutrality in order to avoid potential reprisal by the CP.

Someone is going to force the issue.

What happens when neutral-flagged vessels carrying grain to Russia attempt to transit the Straits? Are they interdicted? If not, then the Straits are not really closed, and UK-flagged vessels carrying food will attempt to transit. If neutral vessels are interdicted are, then the UK might well interpret the actions as an illegal blockade.
 
Someone is going to force the issue.

What happens when neutral-flagged vessels carrying grain to Russia attempt to transit the Straits? Are they interdicted? If not, then the Straits are not really closed, and UK-flagged vessels carrying food will attempt to transit. If neutral vessels are interdicted are, then the UK might well interpret the actions as an illegal blockade.
So the UK forces the Ottomans into war? Seems a prime POD for the US public to turn on the Entente.
 
Someone is going to force the issue.

What happens when neutral-flagged vessels carrying grain to Russia attempt to transit the Straits? Are they interdicted? If not, then the Straits are not really closed, and UK-flagged vessels carrying food will attempt to transit. If neutral vessels are interdicted are, then the UK might well interpret the actions as an illegal blockade.

With the legal shenanigans they're pulling with their own blockade?

So the UK forces the Ottomans into war? Seems a prime POD for the US public to turn on the Entente.

I don't think the US cares enough about the Near East, but for both of these posts that's besides the point. Can we at least attempt to keep the focus on the OE and it's independent decisions/developments ratherthan immediately jump into the specific details of the war at large?
 
I'll give this one little push to see if anybody is interested in these topics before letting it completely fall away.
 

Philip

Donor
With the legal shenanigans they're pulling with their own blockade?

Yes. I see the UK adopting a policy something allowing the lines of this: Your blockade is illegal. It is hindering our war effort. We are going to break it. Oh, you think we have an illegal blockade? You are welcome to try to break it.
 
A neutral OE should still be German leaning. The best case is they do not close the Straights to neutral traffic, this gives the Russians a lifeline, but it is debatable if it really impacts them as their internal failing might leave cargo rotting and corruption bleeds off the rest. No Caucasus front or Gallipoli is a huge boon to the Entente but I suspect we see a bigger Salonika front or allied troops in Italy or some other foolishness.

The Ottomans might fare better as a neutral shipping food and resources to Germany, like Italy they get a lot of freedom by Britain trying to court them. The Capitulations are going to rise to the surface, that is going to be a nasty little bomb waiting to set the Ottomans off and both Britain and France cannot really concede it.

The Ottomans can hire Germans like China did so they have an opportunity to reform their military post-war. We might see the illicit German arms efforts set up shop in the OE instead. Wink-wink, Nudge-nudge.

Might we see the Allies give the Ottomans some nudge to intervene in Russia? Like Japan they can do the dirty work and hope to back stop the revolution, like Japan they have ambitions but can be throttled, resentful they get quite independent and anti-British.

Interwar the OE should be as unimportant as ever, more useful to keep out of other's spheres, but intact they could exploit the oil earlier and likely steer towards the USA sooner, more like how Saudi Arabia shook off the British and went into the American camp, here that is Mesopotamia and more of the Gulf coast, likely the OE go after the Saud and if Britain is as distracted then they retake the peninsula, becoming a true oil hegemon by the 1970s.
 
Ottoman neutrality probably requires the 3 Pashas not being in power, but that shouldn't be impossible to do. But yes, the Great War would be very different without the Ottomans. The Bulgarians might not join (being worried that the Ottomans backstab them), which would lead to the Greeks not joining for example. The straits being open and no Caucasus front would help the Russians. Britain's WW1 strategies would be altered with no front in the Levant or Mesopotamia and no Gallipoli.

I think if you simply alter the destiny of Souchon the Ottomans are not brought to war, have him stay at disrupting the French or harbor in the Adriatic. A minor POD.

I would argue the Bulgarians are joining the CPs, especially if the French open the Salonika front, Greece sides entente, the war in the Balkans is in their lap, they should have less fear of the Ottomans than that Greece disturbs their claims. More so if Romania is enticed to the Entente, Bulgaria simply cannot abide by Romania gaining any territorial concessions, something she is getting from the Entente. You need to have both Germany and OR falter earlier for Bulgaria to balk. Assuming Britain is at war it would now be in Greece. This might get you there.

The Russians might yet provoke the Ottomans and a French Salonika front should get them damned nervous. I do this in the "No Belgium" scenario, the French go for a "soft" theater to aid the Serbs and stab at the Austrians. I think it offsets much of the gains a neutral OE brought. Here it absorbs the British efforts to a similar dead end. But with Italy in the war too that might get the defeat the OP looks for, winnowing out Bulgaria, OE and adding Romania to the Entente, it really is just the CPs now.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Ottomans can hire Germans like China did so they have an opportunity to reform their military post-war. We might see the illicit German arms efforts set up shop in the OE instead. Wink-wink, Nudge-nudge.

Remember, during the war global arms production is largely spoken for. Post-war, prices drop like a rock and there's alot of good gear to get.

The Russians might yet provoke the Ottomans

This could happen, although I suspect that the Russians will mind their p's and q's towards the Ottomans after they start taking beatings from the Austro-Germans in the second season of the war.
 
Remember, during the war global arms production is largely spoken for. Post-war, prices drop like a rock and there's alot of good gear to get.

This could happen, although I suspect that the Russians will mind their p's and q's towards the Ottomans after they start taking beatings from the Austro-Germans in the second season of the war.

There was plans to launch an expedition into the Straights by Russia, here that might happen if Russia feels its trade is too constricted. With the French in Greece the Russians might combine efforts. We also know the Russians were backing the Armenians or thought they could influence them, with the OE hostile to the Entente but not at war the prospect for opening another front to weaken Germany might speak to Russia. I do not rule out foolishness until it has been critiqued harshly.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Since we are butterfly-netting I will say that the OE develops postwar as @MichaelWest suggests. Furthermore, there's a second world war along the lines of OTL's, and the Ottomans decide neutrality was the right move then and will be the right move again. When the Cold War evolves however, Turkey will come off neutrality and side with the U.S.
The Turks contribute to the UN force in Korea. In addition to several Turkish officers and men who went to Korea in OTL, there will be more ethnicities and religions in the Turkish contingent. Hafiz Assad from the Sanjak of Latakia, Beirut Vilayet will be one of them. Yitzhak Rabin from the town of Tel Aviv (Jaffa suburb) in the Mutassafarite of Jerusalem will be another promising young Ottoman officer.

answering the OP, point-by-point:

  1. How do the Ottomans spend their four years of (relative) security from outside pressures? Given historically they unilaterially denounced the Capitulations, its possible they could do so ITTL... but without a treaty where Germany guaranteed them for 5 years after the war's end and such action ran the risk of international reprisal would the CUP be so bold as to try this in our timeline? What kinds of internal activity would they try to get away with otherwise?

How will they feel and think about their situation? Frightened that those pressures will come to bear on them. Inconvenienced by disruptions in world trade. Concerned about the fate of Muslims minorities in places like Bosnia, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. Relieved they are not under attack. Heartened by the damage the British and especially Russians are taking. Justified in their choice of neutrality.

I think they will tread with some care on the capitulations, although there will be pressures to take action against them. Maybe that pressure would be irresistible and the security environment might be seen as permissive by around the time of Verdun 1916.

Internal activity would include a degree of light industrial import substitution industrialization (matching what they will have to do in arms), developing the Gulbenkian oil concessions, administrative reform, taking in Muslim (and some other) refugees from Europe. If not unilaterally abrogating the capitulations, certainly trying to negotiate them out of existence.

To what extent would a neutral OE be able to digest the lessons it learned from its previous wars and observing the current one to reform its military even without German assistance? Equipment availability is obviously going to be a limiting factor, given that global production is... spoken for. Would this encourage the local arms industry (Which could also produce for export), or limit those changes to mostly those of doctrine and reorganization?

Some local arms manufacturing, sure. But nothing super-impressive. OE manufactured artillery probably isn't a competitive export to wartime belligerents. Postwar, the price of higher quality foreign gear is a setback for the domestic arms industry, but there are some firms land infrastructure that can grow later. Probably the predominant manufacturing centers would be in Thrace and Western Anatolia, with a secondary production center in Palestine, with much of its engineering and labor and workforce being Palestinian Jews.

What would a neutral OE's reaction to the outbreak of the Russian Civil War be? Obviously, they have regional interests in the Caucuses and North Persia as well as concerns of instability spilling into their own borders, and would have one of the few fresh armies and still not war exhausted populations left with which to potentially pull off some notable interventions. What might their relations be with the various seperatist groups, White factions, and Reds? Would they co-operate with the Entente in their limited post-war interventions?

They at a minimum will take back Kars and Ardahan. They would probably cooperate with the Entente in their limited post-war interventions at least once the Germans have quit the war. They would probably be friendlier to the Whites than Reds, but could have transactional relations with either. Depending on their ambition, ability to modernize arms and so forth, they could do large interventions in the Caucasus and then through the Caspian to Central Asia. If they do such, their most realistic prospects for permanent gains are Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Since the Empire survives rather than gets partitioned post-war, what might its alignment look like during the Interwar period?

Cautious and neutral with a leaning to whoever is more powerful at the moment.
 
Yes. I see the UK adopting a policy something allowing the lines of this: Your blockade is illegal. It is hindering our war effort. We are going to break it. Oh, you think we have an illegal blockade? You are welcome to try to break it.

Britannia may rule the waves and thus waive the rules... but she DOES have to maintain some level of consistency, and I highly doubt the first option she's going to take would be threatening war/trying to browbeat the Ottomans (Which could bring them into the war, sucking up Entente resources unessicerily) before making serious efforts to negotiate an opening of the Straits. Acting like they're above reproach, especially when combined with their "rationing" of the neutrals, is pretty much the only possible way to alienate The United States and other potential allies, to say nothing of the long-term problems it may cause.

Britain is obviously going to, at the very least, try to get the Ottomans to agree to let non-military goods through if not taking coaxing her into aligning to Entente military interests. (Russian grain can be exported for bullion/credit via the Black Sea route; push come to shove the exports to Russia can be sent via alternative routes). There's a distinct possability that these efforts, combined with Ottoman foot-dragging and diplomatic games with the Germans, is what leads to the Ottomans settling into neutrality by default as negotiations and intrigue go on for years.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
A neutral OE should still be German leaning. The best case is they do not close the Straights to neutral traffic, this gives the Russians a lifeline, but it is debatable if it really impacts them as their internal failing might leave cargo rotting and corruption bleeds off the rest. No Caucasus front or Gallipoli is a huge boon to the Entente but I suspect we see a bigger Salonika front or allied troops in Italy or some other foolishness.

The Ottomans might fare better as a neutral shipping food and resources to Germany, like Italy they get a lot of freedom by Britain trying to court them. The Capitulations are going to rise to the surface, that is going to be a nasty little bomb waiting to set the Ottomans off and both Britain and France cannot really concede it.

The Ottomans can hire Germans like China did so they have an opportunity to reform their military post-war. We might see the illicit German arms efforts set up shop in the OE instead. Wink-wink, Nudge-nudge.

Might we see the Allies give the Ottomans some nudge to intervene in Russia? Like Japan they can do the dirty work and hope to back stop the revolution, like Japan they have ambitions but can be throttled, resentful they get quite independent and anti-British.

Interwar the OE should be as unimportant as ever, more useful to keep out of other's spheres, but intact they could exploit the oil earlier and likely steer towards the USA sooner, more like how Saudi Arabia shook off the British and went into the American camp, here that is Mesopotamia and more of the Gulf coast, likely the OE go after the Saud and if Britain is as distracted then they retake the peninsula, becoming a true oil hegemon by the 1970s.
Whether a neutral Ottoman Empire is German leaning or not depends on who's in charge. I don't think a neutral Ottoman Empire is possible with the Three Pashas so it can't be them.
 
Whether a neutral Ottoman Empire is German leaning or not depends on who's in charge. I don't think a neutral Ottoman Empire is possible with the Three Pashas so it can't be them.

The Freedom and Accord faction of the Young Turks are the most likely to be neutral and require the least butterfly netting, at least that's the conclusion I've reached from my research. Preventing the CUP coup is about as early as you can get before we start impacting the Balkan and Italo-Turkish wars, which affect events and the balance of political power in the Empire too much to simply allow for ignoring the changes.
 
The problem in this scenario is the fact that while Ottoman neutrality it's very possible, wihtout the OE you alter greatly the conflict so the fundamentals pillars that you describe will not exist; just the fact that Russia can be supplied as the straits are open (probably just food and other non war material, but still a pretty big butterfly) will be a skycraper sized butterfly, not considering Gallipoli, the lack of various front (Levantine, Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Persian), the lack of ottoman support in eastern europe (around 100.000 men) and the possibility to save or redeploy a lot of resources for the entente.
Ottoman nonbelligerence may not be enough to keep the straits open, but I fully concur on your larger point.
 
Top