See, the thing is, the Arabs didn't advocate complete independence, but they did value decentralization, going against the Young Turk, and CUP measure of centralization. The Young Turks realized they would not obtain complete centralization of the Arab provinces, but they were NOT going to decentralize on Arab demands. Ottoman centralization was mainly focused on the Kurds, Armenians, and Balkans, and especially the Kurds because Russia WAS THE LARGEST threat to Ottoman existence. The Young Turks wanted slightly more centralization in the Arab provinces, like the Hejaz railway, but they could handle not gaining 100% centralization in the Arab states. What they would NOT except is the majority Arab successionist movement, turning into an Arabian nationalist, and independence movement. Considering the Balkans erupted into a volcano, they wanted to ensure Arabic loyalty. If they couldn't, they lose Islamic legitimacy and would lead to a dominos of the Kurd's, and Greeks revolting.

And this is rational. The Balkan wars proved Ottomanism was a failed ideology that wasn't going to work in this day in age. The MAIN criticism of Ottomanism, was that if the Turks didn't consolidate power and centralization, and if they devolved power to local ethnicities, it would allow for people like Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, and Greeks to separate even easier.

The people you are talking about are Arab successionists. These are the most radical of the bunch, who advocate a complete withdrawal from the empire. Considering people like Enver Pasha, who used to live in the Balkans and other CUP members had their homes ripped away from them, they aren't gonna let that happen in the Arab provinces.

While after the war the Ottomans, not threatened by Russia, Britan, and France as much, they would have continued centralization, that was the plan all along. In the 1914 German-Ottoman alliance, it obliged the Germans to protect the Ottoman Empire for 5 years, which made everyone happy, because now they could do their centralization policies for 5 years in peace, and in those 5 years, could gather the strength to compete again as a major power. And since everyone thought the war was going to be over in months, whether a German victory or not, the Germans are still going to be a major power, and 5 years is good for the Ottomans, and Germans. And even if the war is short, or long like our timeline, a weakened Russia, Britain, and France benefit the Ottomans to solve all internal problems and push up.

Would there be centralization in the Arab provinces? Yes, but it wouldn't be "Turkification" and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Yes, it's unsurprising the Sharif would oppose a Hijaz railway, and it's rational to think that, but the Sharif opposed centralization, and that's what made him enemies with the CUP. The CUP didn't have a problem with him, but he had a problem with the change to his power.

Yes, in OUR timeline it happened. But if the disruption of the Suez canal happens, which directly affects India, thins has a few things that would happen. Home Rule became popular in India, and what the majority of the population advocated, and if the Ottomans take the Suez, even for a month or two, means the Indians get to decide their own fate. The Indians could easily, with enough effort have a coup to declare independence, or at least home rule, and make the British take up any demands the Indians wanted.

These aren't a FEW Ottoman victories. You act as if these victories are just some minor help for the Ottoman, and overall Central Power war effort. An Ottoman victory at Sarikamish, makes the brutally suppressed Caucasus people rally to the Ottoman side, such as the Chechens. Azerbaijanis and Caucasus Muslims would probably join the fray on the Ottoman side. The Germans have ALOT of propaganda to use on Caucasian Muslims, because of the many genocides did by Russia on Caucasian people. It also doesn't put the Ottoman military on display as ineffective, which would later inspire successionist movements to continue, due to such a large failure of the Turks.

An Ottoman victory at the Suez makes All Old world colonies owned by Britain and France, able to revolt, or create a ruckus. And in places like India, is especially the place (you know, the jewel in the crown) who can decide their own fate, and revolt, or plan to revolt. This is a BIG DEAL, and it also forces the British, and French to commit more troops to the Ottoman war effort, which indirectly, helps Germany a great deal, especially the fact the British economy is going to severely be damaged without an efficient trade route, especially given the fact U-Boats are a big problem.

A victory at Basra, makes Persian oil fields unprotected, and while British victories might come later, it would most likely result in a British protectionary project, to not advance up Mesopotamia, to just protect the oil fields, and when Gallipoli is won, and the skilled Ottoman troops go to other fronts, They can smash at the British.

Yes at the war's commencement I'm not talking about at the start of the war. I'm talking about after the Suez victory. Bands in the army might be inclined to plot an overthrow of their commanders, and start banding into a unified force. And yes, while the public was very loyal, they were loyal, because they thought they would get home rule, something they did not get at all after the war. If the Indians are able to solve their own fate, they either proclaim Independence, or forcefully establish home rule, and autonomy.

"Would there be centralization in the Arab provinces? Yes, but it wouldn't be "Turkification" and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing" first the a lot of arabs are not apposed to centralisation. The second point is objectively wrong, turkification is bad. That point implies arabs want to turkish, they want to be assimilated, it also implies they will not mind polices forcing them to be more turkish and force them to be less arab. You do know their are more arabs than turks in the empire by a good number. We know arabs dont want to be turkish their is no argument here it is a objective point thats arabs will appose turkification look at ww1 again arabs didn't fight to rebuild the ottomans after ww1 nor celebrate the CUP.

"The people you are talking about are Arab successionists. These are the most radical of the bunch, who advocate a complete withdrawal from the empire. Considering people like Enver Pasha, who used to live in the Balkans and other CUP members had their homes ripped away from them, they aren't gonna let that happen in the Arab provinces." These secessionists are the influential arabs and tribal leaders. Arab society is still tribal they will follow the tribal leader over CUP their is no argument for an arab between CUP or arab tribal leaders. This is the most likely what the average viewed Enver Pasha 'who the fuck is this bastard who is ordering me around in turkish, attacking the caliph and now the arab culture' this is their view of the sharif 'protector of the holy cities trying to keep atheists out of it with their schemes, truly a wise man as he is a decedent of the Prophet Muhammad part of the great hashmites'. You can see my point can you?

"But if the disruption of the Suez canal happens, which directly affects India, thins has a few things that would happen. Home Rule became popular in India, and what the majority of the population advocated, and if the Ottomans take the Suez, even for a month or two, means the Indians get to decide their own fate. The Indians could easily, with enough effort have a coup to declare independence, or at least home rule, and make the British take up any demands the Indians wanted." you have a great point but kinda need to focus more on it taking the suez puts the Raj in a very bad situation, as Britain has to go around Africa to reach it, in short this cuts Britain from india. We seem to be focusing on solely on Islamic revolution but just general revolution all the secessionist hindu, sikh, muslim would see this as a great chance as britain cannot supply india that well.

"A victory at Basra, makes Persian oil fields unprotected, and while British victories might come later, it would most likely result in a British protectionary project, to not advance up Mesopotamia, to just protect the oil fields, and when Gallipoli is won, and the skilled Ottoman troops go to other fronts, They can smash at the British." you are correct Ottomans don't have to successfully conquer Persia just win in Iraq to put Britain in a panic. Another point about indian successionist is that yes it was small compared to its population its large enough to put British rule under threat, Also lets not forget india has a huge population so even if it was only a couple percent of the pop that is still large.

Another point ignored it is that if the ottomans win means that either the entente lose more ground and send more troops to fight them, which means a better time for Austria and Germany Britain will put india first (the ottomans dont actaully have to invade but just give the impression the raj is under threat) If the ottomans can cross the suez and stop being pan turkism, and more pan islam the arabs will more likely support them. Putting Alegria under threat which was considered a intergral part of France. Germany has more oil and food depending the ottomans take Egypt.


Could it help if you have the CUP have a better communications or dialogue with arabs, have them explain what they are trying to do and assure them they are not trying to destroy arab culture and islam. Have them make promise that they will not secularise the empire or make it a turkish empire. That could put the fears off the arabs to rest and if they follow their promise the arabs will remain loyal. It seems the ottomans had a bad dialogue with arabs so that should help.

Also make Gallipoli more of a ottoman victory, more entente causalities, and less ottomans, Osman Fuad fought if he is caliph in your idea that image can be the greatest single peace of propaganda to use to inspire islamic revolt. Also the ottomans need to treat prisoners well, to gain sympathy from colonel territories.
 
Isn't this the equivalent of "if Hitler wasn't a d*ck and the Nazi were smart then the Nazi's could win WW2" thread? Yes that might be true but then they wouldn't be the Nazis. The Ottomans have four hundred years of decadence and nominal submission to the faith to overcome before they can credibly be representing themselves as something akin to the Mahdi

I find the idea of the Sudan rising up in favour of a foreign Caliph rather amusing too.

We did have the example of the Indian Mutiny to see how a mainly Muslim revolt in India might go. And if anything the British / Hindu / Sikh side is even stronger this time around.
 
I find the idea of the Sudan rising up in favour of a foreign Caliph rather amusing too.
Please tell what native caliphate is there, Also the ummah recorgnise the ottoman as the caliph. So when a Muslim in Sudan goes to mosque the the iman and the the norminal religious head would see the ottomans as religius authority.

Wouldn't the sikhs and hindu side with the Muslims as they all dislike britain more. Also most secessionist are hindu, muslims are more likely to be loyal and the sikhs proved to be loyal as well.
 
Please tell what native caliphate is there, Also the ummah recorgnise the ottoman as the caliph. So when a Muslim in Sudan goes to mosque the the iman and the the norminal religious head would see the ottomans as religius authority.

Wouldn't the sikhs and hindu side with the Muslims as they all dislike britain more. Also most secessionist are hindu, muslims are more likely to be loyal and the sikhs proved to be loyal as well.
Well, Sudan did revolt against Anglo-Egyptian rule from 1881-1898 under Muhammad Ahmad and his successors. Who considered themselves to the followers of the Mahdi and hence did not recognise the Caliph. So the Egyptian backed Iman may see it one way but the mass of the people see it differently.

Confused by the second para. You seem to arguing against yourself. But to address the point. Sikh would be loyal, Hindu secessionists were almost non existent in 1914. They were a splinter faction of Congress under Tilak and even he was agitating for "Home Rule" not independence at this time. Mainstream Congress under Gohkale were committed to working within the British structure for more self government. Jinnah was a part of this faction too so the Muslims would not have been organised to participate in Jihad.
 
Well, Sudan did revolt against Anglo-Egyptian rule from 1881-1898 under Muhammad Ahmad and his successors. Who considered themselves to the followers of the Mahdi and hence did not recognise the Caliph. So the Egyptian backed Iman may see it one way but the mass of the people see it differently.

Confused by the second para. You seem to arguing against yourself. But to address the point. Sikh would be loyal, Hindu secessionists were almost non existent in 1914. They were a splinter faction of Congress under Tilak and even he was agitating for "Home Rule" not independence at this time. Mainstream Congress under Gohkale were committed to working within the British structure for more self government. Jinnah was a part of this faction too so the Muslims would not have been organised to participate in Jihad.

Oh sorry i thought you were using just a random islamic place, arguing why would they follow a foreign religious organisation didn't really think you were thinking of the mahdi. But the point still stands arabs, berbers and other muslims (sunni at least) still have reason to rebel. Also the fact the europeans asked the empire to send a representative to make the muslims in the boxer rebellion stop rebelling shows the caliphate does have a level of recorgnition.

Sorry should have made the second more clear. Its working on the idea if their was a rebellion, if one group does have some success and if the british cant supress it quick enough due to the loss of the suez, why wouldn't the hindu join them in rebellion. "And if anything the British / Hindu / Sikh side is even stronger this time around" that was what the second point was adressing if the muslims rebelling why would the Hindus not join in as they benefitted less from British rule. Also jinnah is still for a united india so i was working on the idea of muslims and hindus working together rather than a secterain violence between both sides.
 
Oh sorry i thought you were using just a random islamic place, arguing why would they follow a foreign religious organisation didn't really think you were thinking of the mahdi. But the point still stands arabs, berbers and other muslims (sunni at least) still have reason to rebel. Also the fact the europeans asked the empire to send a representative to make the muslims in the boxer rebellion stop rebelling shows the caliphate does have a level of recorgnition.

Sorry should have made the second more clear. Its working on the idea if their was a rebellion, if one group does have some success and if the british cant supress it quick enough due to the loss of the suez, why wouldn't the hindu join them in rebellion. "And if anything the British / Hindu / Sikh side is even stronger this time around" that was what the second point was adressing if the muslims rebelling why would the Hindus not join in as they benefitted less from British rule. Also jinnah is still for a united india so i was working on the idea of muslims and hindus working together rather than a secterain violence between both sides.
Hindu were not actually benefiting less from British rule (at least the aspirant "middle class" ones weren't). Any rebellion would have to come from the rural poor who were pretty awful at organising themselves until Gandhi came along. I just can't see Hindu supporting a Muslim call to Jihad no matter what the end result was.
 
"Would there be centralization in the Arab provinces? Yes, but it wouldn't be "Turkification" and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing" first the a lot of arabs are not apposed to centralisation. The second point is objectively wrong, turkification is bad. That point implies arabs want to turkish, they want to be assimilated, it also implies they will not mind polices forcing them to be more turkish and force them to be less arab. You do know their are more arabs than turks in the empire by a good number. We know arabs dont want to be turkish their is no argument here it is a objective point thats arabs will appose turkification look at ww1 again arabs didn't fight to rebuild the ottomans after ww1 nor celebrate the CUP.

"The people you are talking about are Arab successionists. These are the most radical of the bunch, who advocate a complete withdrawal from the empire. Considering people like Enver Pasha, who used to live in the Balkans and other CUP members had their homes ripped away from them, they aren't gonna let that happen in the Arab provinces." These secessionists are the influential arabs and tribal leaders. Arab society is still tribal they will follow the tribal leader over CUP their is no argument for an arab between CUP or arab tribal leaders. This is the most likely what the average viewed Enver Pasha 'who the fuck is this bastard who is ordering me around in turkish, attacking the caliph and now the arab culture' this is their view of the sharif 'protector of the holy cities trying to keep atheists out of it with their schemes, truly a wise man as he is a decedent of the Prophet Muhammad part of the great hashmites'. You can see my point can you?

"But if the disruption of the Suez canal happens, which directly affects India, thins has a few things that would happen. Home Rule became popular in India, and what the majority of the population advocated, and if the Ottomans take the Suez, even for a month or two, means the Indians get to decide their own fate. The Indians could easily, with enough effort have a coup to declare independence, or at least home rule, and make the British take up any demands the Indians wanted." you have a great point but kinda need to focus more on it taking the suez puts the Raj in a very bad situation, as Britain has to go around Africa to reach it, in short this cuts Britain from india. We seem to be focusing on solely on Islamic revolution but just general revolution all the secessionist hindu, sikh, muslim would see this as a great chance as britain cannot supply india that well.

"A victory at Basra, makes Persian oil fields unprotected, and while British victories might come later, it would most likely result in a British protectionary project, to not advance up Mesopotamia, to just protect the oil fields, and when Gallipoli is won, and the skilled Ottoman troops go to other fronts, They can smash at the British." you are correct Ottomans don't have to successfully conquer Persia just win in Iraq to put Britain in a panic. Another point about indian successionist is that yes it was small compared to its population its large enough to put British rule under threat, Also lets not forget india has a huge population so even if it was only a couple percent of the pop that is still large.

Another point ignored it is that if the ottomans win means that either the entente lose more ground and send more troops to fight them, which means a better time for Austria and Germany Britain will put india first (the ottomans dont actaully have to invade but just give the impression the raj is under threat) If the ottomans can cross the suez and stop being pan turkism, and more pan islam the arabs will more likely support them. Putting Alegria under threat which was considered a intergral part of France. Germany has more oil and food depending the ottomans take Egypt.


Could it help if you have the CUP have a better communications or dialogue with arabs, have them explain what they are trying to do and assure them they are not trying to destroy arab culture and islam. Have them make promise that they will not secularise the empire or make it a turkish empire. That could put the fears off the arabs to rest and if they follow their promise the arabs will remain loyal. It seems the ottomans had a bad dialogue with arabs so that should help.

Also make Gallipoli more of a ottoman victory, more entente causalities, and less ottomans, Osman Fuad fought if he is caliph in your idea that image can be the greatest single peace of propaganda to use to inspire islamic revolt. Also the ottomans need to treat prisoners well, to gain sympathy from colonel territories.


But they are not "successionists" there was no unified successionist movement at the time. The idea only developed by the British, and the Sharif. Arabs were divided on what to do, and independence wasn't a large demand. Arabs don't want to be Turkish, and the CUP didn't want Arabs to be Turkish either. The policies are not assimilation, but the ability to integrate into the Turkish state. In elementary schools, Turkish was mandatory across the empire. You can view it as turkification, but that was not the intention. Putting Turkish in elementary schools started before the 1908 revolution. They allowed people to use local languages. You act as if they tried to suppress all Arabic at all times. That sounds like a policy that was implemented in a rushed homework project, not an actual law. I can't take such a law seriously. Purging Arabic is what starts a decentralization movement.

Yes, there are more Arabs than Turks, but saying Arabs didn't celebrate the CUP, is kind of wrong. Many supported the CUP, and if some didn't, well the Arabs you talk about are ones who valued decentralization, and not changing anything, and those are the ones actively involved in politics.

I have a quote, from here file:///C:/Users/kayaz/Downloads/213283273-Ulker-Contextualising-Turkification-Nations-and-Nationalism-2005%20(1).pdf

Kinda long

"Accordingly, the state policies served more to hinder the flourishing of separatist political programmes among the nationalities, than impose cultural assimilation. This aim becomes clearer when we look at the language policy. The CUP’s political programme of 1908 included the clauses which declared the official language of the empire as Turkish. It also decreed that teaching of Turkish in elementary schools should be obligatory.12 However, the 1876 constitution had already designated Turkish as the official language of the Ottoman Empire. Neither the clause designating the official language nor any other reference to language in the constitution was modified in 1908, nor thereafter (Kayali 1997: 91). In addition, the aforementioned clauses of the CUP programme with respect to education by no means indicate an assimilative mentality. First of all, the adoption of Turkish as the medium of elementary education had started before 1908. More Nation-building in the late Ottoman Empire 619 importantly, there is a difference between the teaching of Turkish in elementary education and its adoption as a general language of instruction. The state opted for the former in the aftermath of 1908. The overall educational policy of the second constitutional period, however, allowed the use of local languages as well (ibid.: 90–1). This demonstrates that assimilation was not the primary objective. Rather, the integration of the society into the imperial administrative and social system remained the primary purpose. The policies of the state in terms of language in the constitutional period differed from the earlier era in one respect, which had a lot to do with the formula of dominant nationality. The state in this period was stricter in carrying out the clauses of Kanun-i Esasi (the constitution) regarding the official language. It was emphasised very often that the official language of the Empire was Ottoman, which practically meant Turkish. For instance, the non-Muslim communities were warned not to use Greek or Armenian in their official correspondence.13 Non-Turkish Muslims also took their share of the sensitivity concerning the use of Turkish. The petitions written to the state had to be in Turkish not Arabic. The members of the town councils were to be selected out of Turkish-speaking people for the same reason.14 In another case, the government was informed about an Arabic-published newspaper, el-Arab, which disseminated the idea that Arabic had been accepted as the official language of the empire. The reaction of the government is an edifying one. It was held that such gossip damaged the idea of Ottomanism and the unity of the empire. Arabic was only allowed as the educational language in Arabic in the Arab provinces. Therefore, el-Arab ought to have been officially warned and even closed down if it continued to propagate similar ideas.15 Indeed, these examples proved that the state did not attempt to Turkify the non-Turkish communities. More than Turkification, the civilising mission of the state vis-a`-vis the peripheries retained its importance in the period at hand. The issue of educating and settling the nomads of the Asian parts of the Empire came very often onto the agenda of the Ottoman Assembly."

the majority of Arab officials valued decentralization, not succession. I think many more would think of Enver Pasha as "Thank this modernizer, and liberal, who is increasing the prosperity of the empire, and indirectly, the Islamic world, who will now be able to modernize our nation, and the Islamic world will not be the victim, but the one who will be making the decisions. The Pasha's aren't atheist. They are Muslims. Centralization and a small bit of secularization don't equal being atheist.

Enver Pasha and some CUP members were pan-Turkic, but they were not going to bring Central Asia under an Ottoman rule, but wanted a Buffer state in Central Asia united by Turkism, not restoring the homeland to Ottoman rule.

Yes, I plan for Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims to all play a part in India.

The Ottomans will not try to Take Egypt, but they will try to create an Egyptian revolt, and as someone put out, put a figure that would be able to secure Egyptian revolution.

I wasn't thinking about making Gallipoli a larger Ottoman victory. I could do it by having the Gallipoli evacuation fail, but I feel like that's too much of an Ottoman wank, but our timelines Gallipoli victory is what starts a worldwide Jihad.

The Ottomans treated Muslim prisoners of war with great care, such as Indian ones, and many joined the Ottomans post prisoner.
 
Isn't this the equivalent of "if Hitler wasn't a d*ck and the Nazi were smart then the Nazi's could win WW2" thread? Yes that might be true but then they wouldn't be the Nazis. The Ottomans have four hundred years of decadence and nominal submission to the faith to overcome before they can credibly be representing themselves as something akin to the Mahdi

I find the idea of the Sudan rising up in favour of a foreign Caliph rather amusing too.

We did have the example of the Indian Mutiny to see how a mainly Muslim revolt in India might go. And if anything the British / Hindu / Sikh side is even stronger this time around.

Sudan isn't rising up in favor of the caliph, but out of self-interest. A Jihad might help, but what you don't get, is that an Islamic revolution in some aspects is due to the religious aspect, but a lot has to do with the political, and independence factor. The Majority of Sudanese remember when the Mahdist revolt took place, and veterans will be coming back to fight a revolt for independence and a new Mahad.

The Indian mutiny is different. It was done by only a small band of Army officials, there was a much less Pan-Indian movement back then and only existed in the northern provinces. Many factors that lead to the Sepoy revolt failing, is not that it was impossible, but because of way different reasons. There was no cohesive plan for what to do after the revolt, but after the Suez closes, Indians can now decide what they want. Pan-Indianism has developed, and while not fully secured, there is more to take into consideration. Many Indian tribes and leaders helped Britan to win favor, and since no one will be helping them, an Indian revolution has a large chance of success.

Also, Hindu's probably want out, or home rule as much as the Muslims would, and the Sikhs might be down for a Sikh empire restoration.
 
I think you are drastically over-estimating the Pan-India / independence movement in India and under-estimating the religious issues to the Muslims and Hindus co-operating ostensibly in response to a call to Jihad from the Ottomans. I also think you are overestimating nationalism elsewhere in the colonial empires, particularly rising up in support of another colonial empire.
 

Philip

Donor
I think you are drastically over-estimating the Pan-India / independence movement in India and under-estimating the religious issues to the Muslims and Hindus co-operating ostensibly in response to a call to Jihad from the Ottomans.

I tend to agree. I could easily see some Hindu leaders arguing that they should support the British in the face of an Islamic revolt. Should the revolt be put down (and it is not unreasonable to think it will be), what better way to strengthen your position in either a continuing empire or eventual home rule?

Likewise, I would not be surprised to see the same, mutatis mutandis, in and Hindu based revolt.
 
But they are not "successionists" there was no unified successionist movement at the time. The idea only developed by the British, and the Sharif. Arabs were divided on what to do, and independence wasn't a large demand. Arabs don't want to be Turkish, and the CUP didn't want Arabs to be Turkish either. The policies are not assimilation, but the ability to integrate into the Turkish state. In elementary schools, Turkish was mandatory across the empire. You can view it as turkification, but that was not the intention. Putting Turkish in elementary schools started before the 1908 revolution. They allowed people to use local languages. You act as if they tried to suppress all Arabic at all times. That sounds like a policy that was implemented in a rushed homework project, not an actual law. I can't take such a law seriously. Purging Arabic is what starts a decentralization movement.

Yes, there are more Arabs than Turks, but saying Arabs didn't celebrate the CUP, is kind of wrong. Many supported the CUP, and if some didn't, well the Arabs you talk about are ones who valued decentralization, and not changing anything, and those are the ones actively involved in politics.

I have a quote, from here file:///C:/Users/kayaz/Downloads/213283273-Ulker-Contextualising-Turkification-Nations-and-Nationalism-2005%20(1).pdf

Kinda long

"Accordingly, the state policies served more to hinder the flourishing of separatist political programmes among the nationalities, than impose cultural assimilation. This aim becomes clearer when we look at the language policy. The CUP’s political programme of 1908 included the clauses which declared the official language of the empire as Turkish. It also decreed that teaching of Turkish in elementary schools should be obligatory.12 However, the 1876 constitution had already designated Turkish as the official language of the Ottoman Empire. Neither the clause designating the official language nor any other reference to language in the constitution was modified in 1908, nor thereafter (Kayali 1997: 91). In addition, the aforementioned clauses of the CUP programme with respect to education by no means indicate an assimilative mentality. First of all, the adoption of Turkish as the medium of elementary education had started before 1908. More Nation-building in the late Ottoman Empire 619 importantly, there is a difference between the teaching of Turkish in elementary education and its adoption as a general language of instruction. The state opted for the former in the aftermath of 1908. The overall educational policy of the second constitutional period, however, allowed the use of local languages as well (ibid.: 90–1). This demonstrates that assimilation was not the primary objective. Rather, the integration of the society into the imperial administrative and social system remained the primary purpose. The policies of the state in terms of language in the constitutional period differed from the earlier era in one respect, which had a lot to do with the formula of dominant nationality. The state in this period was stricter in carrying out the clauses of Kanun-i Esasi (the constitution) regarding the official language. It was emphasised very often that the official language of the Empire was Ottoman, which practically meant Turkish. For instance, the non-Muslim communities were warned not to use Greek or Armenian in their official correspondence.13 Non-Turkish Muslims also took their share of the sensitivity concerning the use of Turkish. The petitions written to the state had to be in Turkish not Arabic. The members of the town councils were to be selected out of Turkish-speaking people for the same reason.14 In another case, the government was informed about an Arabic-published newspaper, el-Arab, which disseminated the idea that Arabic had been accepted as the official language of the empire. The reaction of the government is an edifying one. It was held that such gossip damaged the idea of Ottomanism and the unity of the empire. Arabic was only allowed as the educational language in Arabic in the Arab provinces. Therefore, el-Arab ought to have been officially warned and even closed down if it continued to propagate similar ideas.15 Indeed, these examples proved that the state did not attempt to Turkify the non-Turkish communities. More than Turkification, the civilising mission of the state vis-a`-vis the peripheries retained its importance in the period at hand. The issue of educating and settling the nomads of the Asian parts of the Empire came very often onto the agenda of the Ottoman Assembly."

the majority of Arab officials valued decentralization, not succession. I think many more would think of Enver Pasha as "Thank this modernizer, and liberal, who is increasing the prosperity of the empire, and indirectly, the Islamic world, who will now be able to modernize our nation, and the Islamic world will not be the victim, but the one who will be making the decisions. The Pasha's aren't atheist. They are Muslims. Centralization and a small bit of secularization don't equal being atheist.

Enver Pasha and some CUP members were pan-Turkic, but they were not going to bring Central Asia under an Ottoman rule, but wanted a Buffer state in Central Asia united by Turkism, not restoring the homeland to Ottoman rule.

Yes, I plan for Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims to all play a part in India.

The Ottomans will not try to Take Egypt, but they will try to create an Egyptian revolt, and as someone put out, put a figure that would be able to secure Egyptian revolution.

I wasn't thinking about making Gallipoli a larger Ottoman victory. I could do it by having the Gallipoli evacuation fail, but I feel like that's too much of an Ottoman wank, but our timelines Gallipoli victory is what starts a worldwide Jihad.

The Ottomans treated Muslim prisoners of war with great care, such as Indian ones, and many joined the Ottomans post prisoner.

Yes their must have been large support among arabs for the CUP as shown by the collapse of empire the arabs formed new CUP parties and where pushing secular and turkish polices where ever they could oh wait. There were no successor parties to the CUP pushing for their polices, guess what instead islamism grew an ISLAMIC POLITICS AND IDENTITY GREW NOT THAT OF THE CUP.

"That sounds like a policy that was implemented in a rushed homework project, not an actual law. I can't take such a law seriously." Enver pasha *sends 700,000 to freeze to death* yes because the young turks have a reputation of being smart or competent.

"I think many more would think of Enver Pasha as "Thank this modernizer, and liberal, who is increasing the prosperity of the empire, and indirectly, the Islamic world, who will now be able to modernize our nation, and the Islamic world will not be the victim, but the one who will be making the decisions. The Pasha's aren't atheist. They are Muslims. Centralization and a small bit of secularization don't equal being atheist." Sorry but where do these arabs live. Libya oh tribal warfare, egypt muslim brotherhood such a secular party, iraq oh a cleric is going to win the election such a modernist, Saudi arabia monarchy, sharia very progressive, Syria a bastion of modernity. The arabs are a very conservative people they don't believe that the empire needs to modernise as to him that is western. Also secular laws will go against religious which Will go against the quran so the word of god so to them it is atheists, arabs are not turkish they have very different views.

The fact is their is a general agreement among historians that the young turks were not good for the empire they were incompetent bad military commanders (they lost their homes with their shitty cimmand not ottomanism) and they destroyed the empire identity and unity, it doesn't matter what they believed they would achieve with their policy, destroyed arab loyalty to the empire and broke the entire system. The three pashas are not celebrated in the islamic world even though you say they improved peoples life, they are viewed negatively rightfully so. Its asb for thr young turks to get s jihad why it never happened. Why is the CUP ideology dead because of them.

Also sorry but you have to wank the ottomans for the jihad as you refuse to get ride of the CUP, So a greater victory at Gallipoli makes more sense.
 
Yes their must have been large support among arabs for the CUP as shown by the collapse of empire the arabs formed new CUP parties and where pushing secular and turkish polices where ever they could oh wait. There were no successor parties to the CUP pushing for their polices, guess what instead islamism grew an ISLAMIC POLITICS AND IDENTITY GREW NOT THAT OF THE CUP.

"That sounds like a policy that was implemented in a rushed homework project, not an actual law. I can't take such a law seriously." Enver pasha *sends 700,000 to freeze to death* yes because the young turks have a reputation of being smart or competent.

"I think many more would think of Enver Pasha as "Thank this modernizer, and liberal, who is increasing the prosperity of the empire, and indirectly, the Islamic world, who will now be able to modernize our nation, and the Islamic world will not be the victim, but the one who will be making the decisions. The Pasha's aren't atheist. They are Muslims. Centralization and a small bit of secularization don't equal being atheist." Sorry but where do these arabs live. Libya oh tribal warfare, egypt muslim brotherhood such a secular party, iraq oh a cleric is going to win the election such a modernist, Saudi arabia monarchy, sharia very progressive, Syria a bastion of modernity. The arabs are a very conservative people they don't believe that the empire needs to modernise as to him that is western. Also secular laws will go against religious which Will go against the quran so the word of god so to them it is atheists, arabs are not turkish they have very different views.

The fact is their is a general agreement among historians that the young turks were not good for the empire they were incompetent bad military commanders (they lost their homes with their shitty cimmand not ottomanism) and they destroyed the empire identity and unity, it doesn't matter what they believed they would achieve with their policy, destroyed arab loyalty to the empire and broke the entire system. The three pashas are not celebrated in the islamic world even though you say they improved peoples life, they are viewed negatively rightfully so. Its asb for thr young turks to get s jihad why it never happened. Why is the CUP ideology dead because of them.

Also sorry but you have to wank the ottomans for the jihad as you refuse to get ride of the CUP, So a greater victory at Gallipoli makes more sense.

Arabs are a conservative people, I guess. It seems like a bit of a broad term for like 10 million people. Considering many Libyan Arabs fought for the Young Turks, and even directly under Enver Pasha, not everyone was opposed to a tiny bit of secularization. The Young Turks aren't gonna Ataturk the empire. They are just going to do enough for adequate centralization, and modernization. And when some of these efforts were unliked by Arabs, they gave concessions to Arabs. Would they be revoked post-war? Probably. But this secularization isn't in an extreme form. The Young Turks and CUP was going to only implement secularization that would benefit, and improve the state of the empire. Anything that didn't could stay.

Many of the great failures like the First Balkan war, Italo-Turkish war, Suez, and Sarikamish, were not supposed to be failures and had a large potential to succeed. Arab loyalty to the empire was a problem, but they didn't "destroy" it. Many Arabs stayed loyal to the empire, and many more Arabs protested the Arab revolt, as many opted for other ways of solving the issues peacefully, instead of violence. Maybe they aren't celebrated because they overthrew a Sultan, not that they had bad policies.

The victory at Gallipoli was already a huge blow, and you don't need to wank the Ottomans to get a Jihad like that.


Enver Pasha didn't send 1/18 of the Ottoman population to death. It was 60,000 deaths, and if I didn't make it clear enough, let me try again.

The climate at the time of Sarikamish was one of a mind-blowing defeat of the Russians at Tannenberg, which forced the Russians to deploy thousands of soldiers to the Eastern front.

The Ottomans had numerical superiority, of 100,000 to 80,000 a fairly good number of extra soldiers.

The time was winter, and while on paper it looks bad, the Russians would have no knowledge of a thousand well-armed Ottoman army pursuing at a quick pace. As well as the fact that when Russian prisoners were interrogated, the Ottomans learned there was virtually no troops to defend Sarikamish, except "a few rear units without artillery."

Many say Enver Pasha was awful, because he gave his troops summer clothing in winter, in the Caucasus, and refusing to keep the army at a slow pace. Except if they went slow, Armenian defectors could easily go solo to snitch to the Russians about an impending attack, and accurate numbers. There were 50,000 Armenian defectors in August to September. If a few Armenians broke from the Army, they could alert the Russians easily, so if they went slow, they would be snitched on, and if they went fast while losing numbers, could pull a victory even easier.

The thing that mainly spewed doom for the campaign, was that on the 26th of December, they captured an Ottoman officer, and got copies of Enver Pasha's war plans, and were able to send reinforcements, and plan a defense. If he isn't captured, the Russians wouldn't be able to defend Sarikamish.
 
See, the thing is, the Arabs didn't advocate complete independence, but they did value decentralization, going against the Young Turk, and CUP measure of centralization. The Young Turks realized they would not obtain complete centralization of the Arab provinces, but they were NOT going to decentralize on Arab demands. Ottoman centralization was mainly focused on the Kurds, Armenians, and Balkans, and especially the Kurds because Russia WAS THE LARGEST threat to Ottoman existence. The Young Turks wanted slightly more centralization in the Arab provinces, like the Hejaz railway, but they could handle not gaining 100% centralization in the Arab states. What they would NOT except is the majority Arab successionist movement, turning into an Arabian nationalist, and independence movement. Considering the Balkans erupted into a volcano, they wanted to ensure Arabic loyalty. If they couldn't, they lose Islamic legitimacy and would lead to a dominos of the Kurd's, and Greeks revolting.

I honestly don’t understand how you can say that the Ottomans didn’t aim their centralisation projects at the Arabs when we’ve established that to be the case several times in this thread.

The people you are talking about are Arab successionists. These are the most radical of the bunch, who advocate a complete withdrawal from the empire. Considering people like Enver Pasha, who used to live in the Balkans and other CUP members had their homes ripped away from them, they aren't gonna let that happen in the Arab provinces.

First of all: No. They were Arab secessionists. Secondly... yes? That’s what I wrote earlier. I really don’t understand what the take-away point of your post is.

While after the war the Ottomans, not threatened by Russia, Britan, and France as much, they would have continued centralization, that was the plan all along. In the 1914 German-Ottoman alliance, it obliged the Germans to protect the Ottoman Empire for 5 years, which made everyone happy, because now they could do their centralization policies for 5 years in peace, and in those 5 years, could gather the strength to compete again as a major power. And since everyone thought the war was going to be over in months, whether a German victory or not, the Germans are still going to be a major power, and 5 years is good for the Ottomans, and Germans. And even if the war is short, or long like our timeline, a weakened Russia, Britain, and France benefit the Ottomans to solve all internal problems and push up.

What is your point?

Would there be centralization in the Arab provinces? Yes, but it wouldn't be "Turkification" and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

History is rarely about whether or not something is “a bad thing.” The fact is that Ottoman centralisation was met with opposition from Arab elites who saw the project as an attack on their cultural identity. At first they did not advocate separation from the empire, but came to endorse it as the war drew on.

However, Arab-Turkish relations during WW1 was not a clear cut case. On one hand, it was a bare minimum of Ottoman Arab troops who defected to the Shariffian forces and a majority still felt some kind of state patriotism towards the Sublime Porte. On the other, enthusiasm for the war effort and conscription was very slim as a whole. Furthermore, Ottoman war policies was a major variable in transforming the elitist Damascene secessionist movement into a viable political alternative to continued loyalty towards the Porte.

Yes, it's unsurprising the Sharif would oppose a Hijaz railway, and it's rational to think that, but the Sharif opposed centralization, and that's what made him enemies with the CUP. The CUP didn't have a problem with him, but he had a problem with the change to his power.

..... The CUP had many problems with Husayn. They planned to have him deposed several times before the war, IIRC.

Yes, in OUR timeline it happened. But if the disruption of the Suez canal happens, which directly affects India, thins has a few things that would happen. Home Rule became popular in India, and what the majority of the population advocated, and if the Ottomans take the Suez, even for a month or two, means the Indians get to decide their own fate. The Indians could easily, with enough effort have a coup to declare independence, or at least home rule, and make the British take up any demands the Indians wanted.

Overthrowing one of the most complex imperial polities isn’t quite as simple as you think, I’m afraid. Who is leading this supposed coup? The Muslim League only became a serious political entity around 1937. Why would this magical pan-Islamic revolution succeed in a country where Muslims are minority?

An Ottoman victory at the Suez makes All Old world colonies owned by Britain and France, able to revolt, or create a ruckus. And in places like India, is especially the place (you know, the jewel in the crown) who can decide their own fate, and revolt, or plan to revolt. This is a BIG DEAL, and it also forces the British, and French to commit more troops to the Ottoman war effort, which indirectly, helps Germany a great deal, especially the fact the British economy is going to severely be damaged without an efficient trade route, especially given the fact U-Boats are a big problem.

The Suez is important, but its loss wouldn’t isolate the Raj from other British possessions. Plus, I doubt the Ottomans would be able to hold it for a prolonged period of time.

Yes at the war's commencement I'm not talking about at the start of the war. I'm talking about after the Suez victory. Bands in the army might be inclined to plot an overthrow of their commanders, and start banding into a unified force. And yes, while the public was very loyal, they were loyal, because they thought they would get home rule, something they did not get at all after the war. If the Indians are able to solve their own fate, they either proclaim Independence, or forcefully establish home rule, and autonomy.

I absolutely agree that if the collected masses of India were given the magical power of foresight, then it would result in considerable unrest. Alas, I do not think it to be plausible.
 
I honestly don’t understand how you can say that the Ottomans didn’t aim their centralisation projects at the Arabs when we’ve established that to be the case several times in this thread.



First of all: No. They were Arab secessionists. Secondly... yes? That’s what I wrote earlier. I really don’t understand what the take-away point of your post is.



What is your point?



History is rarely about whether or not something is “a bad thing.” The fact is that Ottoman centralisation was met with opposition from Arab elites who saw the project as an attack on their cultural identity. At first they did not advocate separation from the empire, but came to endorse it as the war drew on.

However, Arab-Turkish relations during WW1 was not a clear cut case. On one hand, it was a bare minimum of Ottoman Arab troops who defected to the Shariffian forces and a majority still felt some kind of state patriotism towards the Sublime Porte. On the other, enthusiasm for the war effort and conscription was very slim as a whole. Furthermore, Ottoman war policies was a major variable in transforming the elitist Damascene secessionist movement into a viable political alternative to continued loyalty towards the Porte.



..... The CUP had many problems with Husayn. They planned to have him deposed several times before the war, IIRC.



Overthrowing one of the most complex imperial polities isn’t quite as simple as you think, I’m afraid. Who is leading this supposed coup? The Muslim League only became a serious political entity around 1937. Why would this magical pan-Islamic revolution succeed in a country where Muslims are minority?



The Suez is important, but its loss wouldn’t isolate the Raj from other British possessions. Plus, I doubt the Ottomans would be able to hold it for a prolonged period of time.



I absolutely agree that if the collected masses of India were given the magical power of foresight, then it would result in considerable unrest. Alas, I do not think it to be plausible.

They did aim centralization at the Arabs, but they were spending most attention on Kurds, Armenians, and Greeks. I didn't mean to sound like they didn't do centralization there at all, but that Arabs weren't the top priority of centralization, but larger successionist peoples.

They were not "successionists" because they didn't advocate a separation from the Ottoman state, or Pan-Arabism.

I think cultural identity might have something to do with it, but I think the majority, was personal interest, and politics. With the CUP Ottoman state trying to take over, it would mean the end of their semi-independent rule and power. One major thing that got the Arabs ready for war, was especially the Ottoman Syrian famine, in which around 500,000 Ottoman people, (which I call genocide) because Enver Pasha asked if they could lift the blockade for humanitarian relief to the citizens, to which the allies rejected, and even Enver asked the pope to allow it, to which he never responded. The Arab civilians thought it was the Young Turks trying to starve them to death (which was not true), but also the loses in the Suez, and Sarikamish had a good effect on Arab attitudes, and to which the Arab disloyalty was not purely religious.

yes, and their problem with Husayn, was that he actively tried to deceive the efforts of Centralization. When they took power, they didn't have a problem with the Sharif, but when he opposed their policies, that's when tension began.

I don't have an absolute idea as to a central figure I can get the revolution to center around, and while Muslims are a minority, they are a sizeable minority, and this won't mean Hindus will oppose an Islamic revolution. The Muslims at least want home rule, and if the Hindus want, they can separate as well, and create a purely Hindu society, mostly free of Muslims, and a place where they are not second class citizens. There's also the Burmese Buddhists, who probably want out the most, considering they've been under British rule for only a few decades.

You are right, it wouldn't isolate the Raj, but it would so from the home islands more than twice the difference. In this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-Map-shows-DAYS-took-travel-abroad-1900s.html

It took 20 days to reach India via Suez Canal. It would then take around 40 days to reach India, and a lot of development can happen in 40 days. Not to mention the British economy is going to be in wack when this happens, as reaching Asia might prove to be more expensive in times like these. And while no one expects the Ottomans to hold it forever, point is, 30,000 Ottoman soldiers are in the Suez, and not only is no British company going to risk that, but it means thousands of soilders that were supposed to go to the western front are being held up in Egypt, and this indirectly helps the German war effort and might hurry the deployment of more soldiers to the Gallipoli front to break the Ottoman Chain as fast as possible.

it's also a huge propaganda victory for the Ottomans, as they just broke a vital key to the empire. The Ottomans can't damage the canal beside a few mines, but such a victory, even if the Ottomans hold it for a month or two, those 30,000 troops are going to have a huge morale boost and has a gigantic chance to further Arab support for the war effort, especially since the Ottomans probably want an independent Egypt, and Sudan especially an Egypt under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Helmi_II_of_Egypt, even if after, the Ottomans suffer an awful tragedy, such a victory is gonna stick till the end of the war.

If the Suez canal is taken, the Indian people will want to take things into their own hands, and while many might still want to be under British rule, they will decide to take matters into their own hands, and make their own demands, like limit the number of white British troops in India, give religious freedom, and recognize Indian equality with British citizens. And if the British don't accept, then the Indians will revolt, and if they do, they don't intend to keep it that way and might make peace with Germany if they can keep complete control of the jewel in the crown, the heart of the empire.
 
Top