The Ottoman doesn't lose the Levant and Arabia after WWI

All,

I'm writing an amateur Alternate History Novel and have hit a snag.

One of my key POD's was the Ottoman didn't lose the near east after WWI (though they did lose Europe, Armenia and North Africa long before).

The key thread in this is that Arabia remained Ottoman long after it was realized that this area was a treasure trove.

What would the Ottomans do in, say 1920's, when the extend of the Oil deposits were realized?

The Ottoman Turks were repressive (see various genocides). What would be the fate of the then-lightly populated Arabs of the Arabian peninsula?

Could they expect the fate of the Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, etc as the Ottoman attempts to seize control of the oil boom?

I tried to start a more general thread but got no takers.

Thanks. Feel free to expand how this would go for the Ottoman, Arabs and the world if Saudi Arabia, perhaps Iraq, Syria, etc remained Ottoman through the 20th century.

Previous thread.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=10752077#post10752077
 
AFAIK the turks didnt control all that much oil. They would have Iraq without question and there was a long disput because of Kuvait with the british before WWI. Kuvait was nominally under ottoman rule but the british questioned that - no big disput at the time because the turks didnt try to expand their effective rule on the territory. This became a bit more serious when the german built baghdad railway was planned to end in Kuvait.
 

Deleted member 67076

No? What reasons do the Ottomans have to attack the Arabs? :confused: That's both a logistical nightmare and utterly stupid on their part to disrupt a loyal population group.
 
The region would be less effected by Arab nationalism, the Arabs wouldn't be united and wouldn't feel betrayed by the West. I would serious like to see a TL that doesn't have the House of Saud in power.

I don't think the genocides would last very long after the war ends. The Armenian genocide was worse due to the violent military environment. We will still see persecution and discrimination however.

I doubt the Arabs will really care about the Ottomans exploiting the oil. The only issue would be if the Ottomans do something to get them rallied up or if outside powers promise them something.

It would be possible to have the Ottoman's entering the war and still holding onto Levant and Arabia. It would be difficult but if the Ottomans can crush the Arab Revolt, hold the Gaza Line and pin the British down in Iraq it can be achieved.
 
The region would be less effected by Arab nationalism, the Arabs wouldn't be united and wouldn't feel betrayed by the West. I would serious like to see a TL that doesn't have the House of Saud in power.

I don't think the genocides would last very long after the war ends. The Armenian genocide was worse due to the violent military environment. We will still see persecution and discrimination however.

I doubt the Arabs will really care about the Ottomans exploiting the oil. The only issue would be if the Ottomans do something to get them rallied up or if outside powers promise them something.

It would be possible to have the Ottoman's entering the war and still holding onto Levant and Arabia. It would be difficult but if the Ottomans can crush the Arab Revolt, hold the Gaza Line and pin the British down in Iraq it can be achieved.

Didn't you see "Laurence of Arabia"? :)

The "ARAB REVOLT" of 1916 to 1918 was a seminal event. Imagine a "Young Turk" regime seizing power (yes, yes, in spite of no WWI) and modernizing the country. Arabs revolt. What would happen?

As for Turks and Arabs coexisting in Arabia, I think the nomads of Eastern and Southern (Oman) Arabia might care if 200,000 Turks showed up and started pumping oil. The minute the Arabs resisted, the machine guns would be broken out.

Massacre is likely.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Didn't you see "Laurence of Arabia"? :)

The "ARAB REVOLT" of 1916 to 1918 was a seminal event. Imagine a "Young Turk" regime seizing power (yes, yes, in spite of no WWI) and modernizing the country. Arabs revolt. What would happen?

As for Turks and Arabs coexisting in Arabia, I think the nomads of Eastern and Southern (Oman) Arabia might care if 200,000 Turks showed up and started pumping oil. The minute the Arabs resisted, the machine guns would be broken out.

Massacre is likely.

How would this happen if there was no WWI?
 

Deleted member 67076

I think that there was certainly a modernizing force ongoing, even without the war.

Perhaps it is a longer process. Perhaps it would start earlier or later, but I think the result is the same.

Its not about the modernization, its about the nationalism movements. Without World War I, Arab Nationalism was for all intents and purposes, non-existant. Even after the world wars and at its height during the 60s, it wasn't nearly as big as say, German nationalism in the 1860s-70s and had to compete with other ideologies such as Islamism. In a world where the Ottomans are around Islamism gets a huge boost in legitimacy whilst Arab nationalism has no sponser.
 
The only Arabs the ottomans could genocide would be christians and shiites
Okay, I'll bite : why?
Why in the absence of a WW1, would they do that and why could they have a free run with that?

Considering the huge European interest in the empire (French, British, German and Russian) how on earth trying to do this would not trigger huge reactions would it be only for needed inner stability (without even talking of ideological reasons).

There's a reason if it happened during WW1 IOTL, it wasn't just because Turks hold on genocidal insticts (as if Turks were bound to genocide :rolleyes:)
 
Top