There was no such thing as a Pakistan during that time.
Yes, there wasn't a Pakistan, but an organized Islamic group to create a Pakistani like state could exist. I just simplify it as Pakistan.
There was no such thing as a Pakistan during that time.
Yes, there wasn't a Pakistan, but an organized Islamic group to create a Pakistani like state could exist. I just simplify it as Pakistan.
In what way exactly?This could affect the Khaliafat movement in India.
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.
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.I find the idea of the Sudan rising up in favour of a foreign Caliph rather amusing too.
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.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.
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.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.
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.