The Ottoman empire, but not Japan, joins the global north.

I've heard this quoted, and I am aware that Shevket Pasha did demobilize forces after the Italo-Turkish war, but I have no idea where the numbers come from. Do you have a source for that because I would really love to find that.

They were weary Anatolians who had been fighting Albanian rebels.

From :The Balkan Wars in the Eyes of the Warring Parties: Perceptions and Interpretations By Igor Despot. p56. Author cites Voino-istoriski glasnik, Milutin Lazarevic "Jedan turski izvor o srpsko-turskom ratu 1912: Isazi Dzavid pasinog nacelnika staba" (1952)
 
Ohhh. Bonus points for an obscure PoD! Do you have any good sources on Ottoman-era Yemen? I'd heard of the Yemeni revolt, but your post just here is the most detail I've ever seen on it.

fasquardon
My knowledge comes from Turkish articles and columns. There are some Turkish books about Yemenî uprisings but in English only book that I know this
 
Keeping Libya requires holding the coast. To do that you need seapower which the Ottomans don’t have regardless of how many troops they have.
Making a Egypt-like deal with Italian colonial enterprises would buy much needed time to hold fast at the Balkans. The OTL Young Turks made an understandable, but doomed attempt to stand fast on a colony they no longer even had a land connection to. And by doing so they looked weak and encouraged the Balkan League to act. If someone more compliant than Ibrahim Pasha remains at the helm in Libya, they fate of the region would most likely follow the example of Egypt and Morocco, with slower and gradual Italian economic penetration instead of a disastrous war.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Making a Egypt-like deal with Italian colonial enterprises would buy much needed time to hold fast at the Balkans. The OTL Young Turks made an understandable, but doomed attempt to stand fast on a colony they no longer even had a land connection to. And by doing so they looked weak and encouraged the Balkan League to act. If someone more compliant than Ibrahim Pasha remains at the helm in Libya, they fate of the region would most likely follow the example of Egypt and Morocco, with slower and gradual Italian economic penetration instead of a disastrous war.
The Italian were deadset on direct annexation... your gonna need European involvement to get a settlement, unless the agreement is a decade earlier
 
Would there be a way to ensure Yemen is stable so the Ottomans can dedicate all forces against Italy to keep Libya?
IOTL Ottoman government started negotiations with Yemen in 1909. However because of 31 March Incident negotiations ended and Yemenî envoy sent back. If Ottomans keeps up negotiations and made a deal in 1909, 1910-11 Yemenî revolt could have butterflied. So more troops in Libya stays.

Keeping Libya requires holding the coast. To do that you need seapower which the Ottomans don’t have regardless of how many troops they have.
IOTL Italians thought 4000 troops were in stationed in Libya but actually there was 8000 troops in there and Ottomans were at costly war with both Yemen and Idrisids at the same time. Italians thought this war would be cakewalk.
Without Yemen distraction and undefended Libya, Italy could have accepted first Ottoman offer(nominally stays as Ottoman vilayet, de facto Italians control over Libya). Thus Italo-Turkish war could have butterflied.

If war still breaks out, outcome of war could have been different. IOTL war stated with 34k Italian troops vs 8k Ottoman troops and 20k local irregulars. Despite Italian naval superiority Ottomans were able to sent a war material ship without caught(Derne ship, transfered 20k rifle and 2 million cartridge). Later with Italian reinforcements and organization of irregular locals that figures became 120k Italians vs 40k. Ottomans. Despite that war lasted 1 year and Italians couldn't penetrate inside more than 2 kilometers from shores.
ITTL war would have started with 34k Italian troops vs. 30-40k Ottoman troops and 20k locals and eventual figures would have been 120k Italians vs 70k. Ottoman forces. Lets say due to more Ottoman troops Italians attacked with 50k troops instead of 34k, still starting figures would have been 50k vs 40k. I think one or more landings could have failed ITTL.
I think ATL there would be more Italian casualties and financial pressures that could have lead to internal and international pressure againist Italy.
I don't think Ottomans could have maintained status quo in Libya ITTL. Maybe they could have kept nominal suzeranity and/or taken indemnity. Also if war ends sooner than OTL, there would be important butterflies in Balkan Wars.
Even if everything goes similar to OTL. There would be more Italian casualties and war costs. That could have butterflied Italian participation at WW1 too.
 
I don't think Ottomans could have maintained status quo in Libya ITTL. Maybe they could have kept nominal suzeranity and/or taken indemnity. Also if war ends sooner than OTL, there would be important butterflies in Balkan Wars.
Even if everything goes similar to OTL. There would be more Italian casualties and war costs. That could have butterflied Italian participation at WW1 too.
Could the Ottomans have kept Libya permanently? Like, say the Italo Turkish war doesn't happen and then Italy looses some other war.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Could the Ottomans have kept Libya permanently? Like, say the Italo Turkish war doesn't happen and then Italy looses some other war.

Italy wants Libya and were already embarrassed some years earlier in Ethiopia, they will be bombarding Salonika and blocking up thr straights if thats what it takes to seize it. Even in OTL it was only British and Russian pressure that halted them... put the finger on the scale harder i dont believe Britian or Russia are going to war to prevent Italy taking it.

Your going to need an earlier POD that beefs up the Ottoman navy and pray for a Russo-Japanese War situation
 
Could the Ottomans have kept Libya permanently? Like, say the Italo Turkish war doesn't happen and then Italy looses some other war.
You can always enhance a country's situation by screwing their enemies. For example if Italian adventures in Africa goes worse than OTL or another Ethiopian-Italian War breaks out in 1900's this definetely butterflies Italo-Turkish War but this is a bit stretch I think.

As for realistic scenerios. Earlier and/or more stable constitutional era could have created better handling of navy and army. IOTL between 1908-1913, Chief of Navy changed 13 times!
 
The Mediterranean house of cards started to collapse from Fashoda. Chance that, and you change French posture towards Egypt and Suez. Change that, and you change British and French views to Moroccan question. Change that, and the OTL French attitude towards Italian colonial adventures at Tripolitania changes as well. A different outcome for the Bosnian annexation crisis is also a large enough butterfly to alter Italian attitudes. They wanted to play in the same league as the Great Powers, that much is true, but it still took over a decade of active lobbying and a lot of external circumstances that had to go just right to whip up enough support for an actual war.
 

Germaniac

Donor
I think the only way you are going to get the Ottomans in a place where they can defend Libya is with a POD earlier than the Young Turk Revolution in 1908. The Committee was active and working to overthrow Abdul Hamid as early as 1892 and ebbed and flowed in strength until their zenith in the year or two prior to the uprising. If you could pull off a palace coup prior to the fracture of the Ottoman emigre factions in 1902 you may have just bought enough time. If this government was dedicated enough I see no reason why they couldn't have begun the serious military reforms several years earlier and been able to placate many of the ethnic groups (who before 1909 generally wanted autonomy or at least some type of self government) before the problems got out of control post Illiden.

The major issue though is the Navy. The Italians just overmatch them totally. There is no possible way, considering the state of the Ottoman treasury, that they could develop a force capable of meeting the Italians at sea in that short a timeframe. The Ottoman navy in 1911 basically consisted of 4-6 seaworthy ships, including two ancient German battleships. A naval plan begun in 1902 for instance could easily supply the Ottomans with several pre-dreadnoughts and/or armored cruisers, especially with the arrival of the Dreadnought in 1906, but even the most optimistic Ottoman planners never imagined a force large enough to contest the Italians, so I would suggest the Ottomans force the issue.

(Given a 1902 YT Revolution) When Italy comes demanding its share in 1908 (war between the Ottomans and Italians was avoided during the Bosnian Crisis, but given some changes it could happen) the Ottomans flat out refuse compensation. If they rely on British shipyards, as several plans which fell through due to Abdul Hamids reactionary treatment of ethnic groups, I could see the Turks being able to put together a fleet of at least 3-4 modern Pre-Dreadnoughts along with cruisers and destroyers. This force won't be able to directly contest the Italians, but will make their attempts to force the Wars ending in the Aegean a moot point, as the Italians will not risk whatever it can spare in the region. By going after it earlier they are protecting themselves from Balkan interference. Serbia was militarily incapable of fighting a war at this time, Bulgaria was in the middle of reforming its army, and Greece was too little removed from the disastrous war in 1897. By dragging out the conflict they are allowing more time for diplomacy among the European powers to work, and the Ottomans with some luck can retain at least de jure control of Libya.
 
Would there be a way to have the Ottomans develop a natively produced naval force rather than just buying ships?
Following the proclamation of the Second Constitution in 1908, efforts to revive the state and its institutions and a desire to regain great power status gained momentum. Views on naval power shifted to a more positive direction where both rulers and the public saw the navy not as a burden or threat but rather as a means for political and social rejuvenation just as it was in other countries at this time. The Navy became a means for Ottoman subjects to mobilise around a patriotic cause. On July 14, 1909, a group of influential merchants led by Yağcızade Şefik Bey founded the “Navy Association” (Donanma Cemiyeti) set out a slogan 'Navy is Life' and aimed to raise funds among the citizens and support the government’s efforts to purchase new battleships. Taxes on matches and cigarette papers were directly channeled to the Navy Association, which was also allowed to organize lotteries and collect special donations during religious holidays. Through these measures, the Navy Association was providing about 952,500 TL (Turkish lira) per year (about £1,047,750). Evidently the procedure was for the government to raise a loan to order and begin paying for the ship and then the Naval Association would pay off the loan.

The Pre-Balkan War Naval rebuilding plan
In light of the lessons learned from the Russo Japanese war, the Ottoman State decided to create a new and powerful fleet based around Dreadnoughts. In 1909, a new naval program was put together. This was a 5 year, 46 ship program of 6 Battleships, 4 Scouts, 20 destroyers, 6 submarines, 2 minelayers, 1 training ship, a repair ship and other auxiliaries and 3 floating docks costing about £17.3m or £3.4m per year.

This 1909 plan was finally put to the Sadaret (Cabinet) in 1910 and postponed awaiting funding. The defense focus was clearly on the Ottoman army which could mobilise 16 Nizain (1st line) and 24 Redif (2nd line) Infantry Divisions or about 350-355,000 troops. There were an additional 6 Nizain Divisons, 18000 cavalry and 2 howitzer regiments. However, the Balkan War a few years later were to show that the Redif formations were unreliable and in need of reform. In November 1910 a £ 4.6m special budget was announced on army equipment over 3 years and £ 4m for Navy construction over 8 years. This Naval program was described as 2 BB, 3 CL and 10 DD although at £ 4m, these ships would be small. They possibly referred to the German pre-Dreadnoughts and Destroyers purchased in 1910 which cost about £2.8m and perhaps the remaining 3CL and 6DD could be ordered new from British yards for £1.2m. As such they would be 750 ton Destroyers and about 3000 tons for small protected cruisers of the type the Ottomans already had. By late 1910 this was being described as a 10 year plan, the limiting factor being suitably trained crews.

To put these programs into perspective, by 1914 the RN was spending £25.4m per year on ship building while Germany spending was at £11m. German and UK GDP were about 10 times that of the Ottoman Empire so the £3.4m per year is an eye watering amount for a purely maritime nation and treble the amount for a military/naval power like the Ottoman Empire. In this light, the 5 year plan is more like a 10 year plan and a more manageable £1.7m per year. In comparison with a nation requiring both an army and a navy, the Ottomans should be able to fund a fleet 1/10th of Germany's ie. 6 Capital ships, 4 cruisers, 14 destroyers, 7 submarines and this approximates the 1909 Programme quite well.

Looking at what was costed, the BB were about 25,000 tons, £1.8m each (the contract for Reşadiye was £1,796,500 over 22 month in 8 installments and £285,000 in interest over 6 years (15%) or 2,304,712 Turkish Lira total. The scouts would be about 4000 tons, the Destroyers 1100 ton and the Subs of about D Class size.

The schedule was as follows
1st year (1909)- 1 BB
2nd Year (1910)- 2 BB, 2 Scouts, 4DD, 2SS, 1 Minelayer, 3 Auxilliaries and 1 Floating Dock
3rd Year (1911)- 1 BB, 2 Scouts, 6DD and 2SS
4th Year (1912)- 1 BB, 5DD, 1SS, 1 Minelayer, 1 Auxilliary and 1 Floating Dock
5th Year (1913)- 1 BB, 5DD, 1SS, 1 Training Ship and 1 Floating Dock

Nearly 2/3rds of the program was to be spent on Battleships, 25% on other warships and 12% on auxiliaries and service ships.

With a poor reputation for fulfilling ship contracts, the Turks initially purchased 2 18 year old (refitted) ex German Battleships in 1910. This was due to the inability to acquire a new BB from any navy. The Porte was in a panic after the Greeks acquired a Pisa class armored cruiser from Italy that the Italian Government withdrew funding for and left the Orlando yard to sell. The Italian shipbuilders had initially engaged the Ottomans in negotiations to buy the ship but these dragged on. The yard switched to the Greeks and they purchased the ship, naming her Georges Averoff. The Turks would later pay dearly for this mistake. A British consortium had tried to acquire the just completed Minas Gerais and the under construction Rio de Janerio from Brazil in return for oil exploration rights in Turkey in 1911. The Germans initially offered the new cruiser Blucher for 2m Turkish lira but the Turks regarded the ship expensive for an obsolete design. They expressed interest in new BC under construction such as Cruiser G (Moltke) but the Germans were unwilling to sell. The two refitted battleships were 1,070,000 lira each and were delivered to Turkey by German crews in August 1910. The Ottomans also purchased 4 torpedo boats for an exorbitant 120,000 lira each, the then building S165, S166, S167 & S168. They were renamed in the spirit of the funds raised; Muâvenet-i Millîye ("National Support"), Yâdigâr-ı Millet ("Gift of the Nation"), Nümûne-i Hamiyet ("Exemplar of Patriotism"), Gayret-i Vatâniye ("Endeavour of Homeland"). 13 million marks (715,000 lira) came from the German accounts of the deposed Sultan, the rest from Public Subscription of 1.9m lira raised by mid 1911.

While having an option on 2 additional ex-German Pre-Dreadnoughts, the Ottomans instead placed an order for a Dreadnought with Vickers (Reşadiye) in 1911 for delivery in November 1913. This corresponds with the first year of the program and the Battleship is due for delivery at the end of 1913.

The Izmit Agreement
Coinciding with the purchase of the Rio De Janeiro in late 1913, Turkey was now looking at a much longer range and sustainable plan for rebuilding the navy. The Ministry of Marine signed a £3.6m deal with Vickers and Armstrong to take over the shipyards to service and build ships for the Ottoman Navy. On 1 December 1913 the Izmit Arrangement came into force. This gave Armstrong the authority to erect a navy yard at Golcuk and guaranteed the group all further contracts. They took over interest in Tersane-i Amire and the new yard at Golcuk named Doklar, Tersaneler ve Bahriye Sirketi (Naval Shipbuilding and Drydock Company). Only Englishmen and Turks were to work in these shipyards. A floating dock was ordered in France with French loans. Turkey commits to £1m per year in funding over the next 4 years subject to loan approval to cover the construction of 1BB, 2Scout, 4DD (+2 built in Turkey), 2 SS for £3,972,000. This is very similar to the 3rd year of the 1909 program. However if you add the Osman and the floating dock from France then it is looking very similar to the second year program.

Turkey is probably the smallest of all Naval powers to have a construction capacity. A precedent would be the DD and CL being built in Sydney or the activities going on at Ferrol in Spain. Japanese and Italian yards are also examples but from a much stronger industrial base. To use the 6 River Class Destroyers for the RAN as a benchmark, the 2 ships built in the UK took 550 days. Warrego was built and then disassembled and shipped in pieces to Sydney to be reassembled and launched. The reassembly took 600 days. The last 3 units were built in Sydney from Jan 1913 to mid 1916, about 1200 days, perhaps 1000 days without the war.

The 1914 Program
In addition to the Vickers-Armstrong deal, Turkey is also paying favor with the other western European arms traders. Just days after securing a new £32m French loan, the Ottomans order from France, 6DD with a further 6DD to follow in 1917, 2 subs and 12 torpedo gunboats with an option for 6 more. 4 DD are ordered from from Italy. Army equipment is coming from Germany. In addition to a French built floating dock for Izmit, this is about £1.4m in orders. These were from loans underwritten in partnership with bankers and arms dealers and brokered by the Turkish Naval Minister and most pro-Entente of the 'Three Pashas', Ahmed Djemal Pasha. Djemal was a native of the Aegean island Midili, now Lesbos in Greek hands and as such, quite strongly motivated to eject Greece from the Aegean.

The 6 French Normand type destroyers for Turkey were shortened versions of the Russian Izyaslav class destroyers that the yard was supervising construction of at the Bocker and Lange yards in Reval, Russia. They were 30 ft shorter and had only 2 triple banks of torpedo tubes but carried a heavy armament of 5 4" guns. Probably the 1917 second batch would be built at the Golcok Yard.

The Italian order was for 770 ton Indomito class ships powerfully armed with a single 4.7" gun and 4 3" guns but only 2 17.7" torpedo tubes.

The Destroyers ordered from the Vickers-Armstrong consortium were designed by Armstrongs and sub contracted to Hawthorn Leslie and Co. They were 1,100 tons, 309 ft long and heavily armed with 5 4" guns, two side by side on the forecastle and the other 3 aft. There were 3 twin torpedo tubes with the last twin fitted on the stern. It was intended that 2 more were to be built at Izmit. Hawthorn Leslie were also involved with the Spanish Alsedo class Destroyers at this time to be built in Spain by SECN and so were probably seen as leaders in the field of assisting foreign yards.

Of special note is the names that were put forward. Fatih Sultan Mehmet was the conqueror of Istanbul and brought an end to the Eastern Roman Empire taking South West Europe as far as Bosnia. The Midili was named for the capital of Lesbos (Mytilene). The Greek Destroyers were to be the new gains Kriti, Lesbos, Chios and Samos.

Paying for the warships
The Naval Association was collecting about 880,000 Turkish lira per year prior to the 1st Balkan War. The initial purchase of 2 Pre Dreadnoughts and 4 TB was paid off by mid 1911. At this rate, the loans for Reşadiye and Osman would be paid out by 1916. However, the short term loan for Osman meant a surge in payments from £650k to £1m per annum and this caused temporary financial stress in the first quarter of 1914. It is significant to note that the Naval Association rose to the challenge of the Osman loan and raised £450k between Jan and April, the Civil Servants who had their wages appropriated were back paid. The Fatih, 2 Cruisers, 6 DD and 2 Submarines ordered in 1914 were funded from the sale of the naval shipyards. The 6 French Normand DD, 4 Italian DD and 2 submarines was about £1.4m and this amount would have been paid off by 1918. The 2nd batch of 6 Normand DD slated for order in 1917 would be paid for in 1919. The remaining scouts and submarines that would probably be assembled in the Vickers-Armstrong yard would cost about £650,000 and paid for in 1920. The 4th Battleship of the program , probably 15" armed, could be ordered in 1918 for delivery in 1920 and the loan paid out by 1922. The 5th and 6th Battleships could be ordered and delivered before 1926 and the loans discharged by 1928. By 1920, the annual maintenance bill for a fleet of 3BB, 6 Cruisers, 26 Destroyers and 6 submarines would be close to 500,000 Turkish lira that Vickers/Armstrong would be earning though their Izmit yard that they will run until 1944.
 
The Porte was in a panic after the Greeks acquired a Pisa class armored cruiser from Italy that the Italian Government withdrew funding for and left the Orlando yard to sell. The Italian shipbuilders had initially engaged the Ottomans in negotiations to buy the ship but these dragged on. The yard switched to the Greeks and they purchased the ship, naming her Georges Averoff. The Turks would later pay dearly for this mistake.

ObWI: The Ottomans do decide to acquire the Pisa class AC. What does this mean for the Ottoman/Greek naval balance?

More generally, I am wondering how early Abdul Hamid II could have been overthrown and the Ottomans still built a modern navy (or at least, more modern than Greece). From the sound of it, starting a couple years earlier would have meant a much stronger Ottoman navy at the time of an alt-1st Balkan War. Of course, if the Ottoman navy is stronger, do the Greeks even join the Balkan league? If the Greeks don't join, does the league go anywhere?

fasquardon
 

Germaniac

Donor
ObWI: The Ottomans do decide to acquire the Pisa class AC. What does this mean for the Ottoman/Greek naval balance?

More generally, I am wondering how early Abdul Hamid II could have been overthrown and the Ottomans still built a modern navy (or at least, more modern than Greece). From the sound of it, starting a couple years earlier would have meant a much stronger Ottoman navy at the time of an alt-1st Balkan War. Of course, if the Ottoman navy is stronger, do the Greeks even join the Balkan league? If the Greeks don't join, does the league go anywhere?

fasquardon

The Ottoman state still faces all the issues it faced OTL. Even starting in 1911 the Ottomans could obtain a fleet capable of defeating the Greeks, literally one ship equal to the Averof and the Turks now hold the advantage. To face Italy alone in a naval fight your gonna need a POD well beyond the scope and you probably change the dynamics so much that the Italian war and the Balkan states are in a totally different situation.
 
Impressive, any chance you have sources on this? Please tell me its not "Ottoman Steam navy" I've been trying to get my hands on that for a couple years
Thanks, there are several sources and some are online. I’ll dig out links later. I flicked through Ottoman Steam Navy years ago and it’s mainly ship specs and history so not much of that here.
 
Top