Were the Ottomans and Austria doomed to implode?

Is there any way for the Ottoman and Austrian empires (mainly the Ottomans) to not break apart and survive intact to the modern day?
 
The problem I see is that you have two massive empires populated with significant amounts of people who simply don't want to be unified with the imperial metropole, and who have enough ability to resist the metropole. I can see them puttering along if there is no WWI but they'd have to significantly reform to continue existing, and I doubt that a liberalizing tide wouldn't lead to increased secession attempts.
 
Yeah, I could see Austria the reforming into a federation (an idea Franz Ferdinand apparently toyed with). They had after all allowed the confederation with Hungarians earlier to save the Empire. But I don't see that happening for the Ottomans. The fundamental question there is Turkic vs Arab power, and the Turks are not gonna give in. But maybe most of the Empire is salvageable without the Turks as an Arab Federation? Both of these would obviously require that the Great War never happens, which in turn I think requires a fundamental settling of the German Question.
 
The various nationalities wanted autonomy rather than independence. There were still advantages to being part of a Great Power, or in the case of the Turks, hopes of being a Great Power again.
 
I think people give far too little value to the staying power of the great continental empires. The Ottoman Empire, Austria, the Russian Empire, collapsed only due to the severe stress of war. None of them suffered nationalistic implosion during peace time, and the nationalist revolts and territorial losses before the Great War only succeeded in the context of foreign interventions. Austria proved remarkably stable during the First World War, and it took years for even the very idea that it might break up to become plausible among exiles, much less internally where there was no serious moves to break up the state until the very end of the war. The Arab revolt within the Ottoman Empire only had any significant success because of foreign backing, and more Arabs to my understanding served with the Ottomans than with the Arabs. Our view is skewed to an unhealthy degree by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which occurred in dramatically different circumstances and with a markedly different ideology and constitution.

Without finding themselves in existential, and losing, wars for their own survival, I find the idea of any of the great Empires imploding to be unlikely: generally state security forces and institutions are extremely powerful. At most one might see long running discontent and constant need for political reforms: one would not see their dissolution. Preventing severe world wars, or enabling the quick and decisive victories of Austria and the Ottomans, would be sufficient to enable their survival.
 
The various nationalities wanted autonomy rather than independence. There were still advantages to being part of a Great Power, or in the case of the Turks, hopes of being a Great Power again.

where did you read that ?

afaik everyone wanted independence, claims about "autonomy" a part some bona fide individual exceptions were seen as expedient on the path towards the real purpose - full independence or joining a different motherland (Serbia, Italy, Romania)
 
where did you read that ?

This was mainly in reference to the Ottoman Empire. Despite 1914 appearances, collapse was a long way off. The Ottoman Empire outlasted the A-H, Russian and German Empires, finally being abolished in November 1922. The various minorities within the Ottoman Empire typically wanted autonomy and not independence. Even beyond the empire, Egypt and Cyprus were still paying tribute to the Sultan in 1914.

Prior to the war, it was widely recognised that the Ottomans needed to reform and needed a period of peace to enact the necessary reforms. However, external pressures included the Russians arming both the Armenians and the Kurds where by they were attacking eachother and developing a pretext for the Russians to move in and 'protect' the Christians. The Arabs were also beginning to court English and French aid to ensure a greater say in Ottoman politics, something the CUP were trying to soothe with pan-islamic policies. The German Ambassador to the Porte was advising no external adventures, no entangling alliances and no joining the Central Powers nor the Entente.

In 1914, the Ottoman Empire comprised about 15m Turks, 10m Arabs, 1.7m Greeks and 1.1m Armenians. This multi-ethnic empire's population of 28 million was a religious mix of 80% Muslim to 20% non-Muslim. Three quarters of the population lived in the Anatolian core. The GDP of the empire was about £233m pounds. National debt stood at £140m pounds or about 60% GDP (half held by the French) but this can't have been too much risk as bond rates were at .78% and this is a tenth of the rates on Greek bonds.

The war cost 6 times more than expected at about 3m lira per month. The resilience of Turks was quite impressive. For GB the war doubled prices, France they tripled and Germany quadrupled before collapse. Turkish prices went up 18 fold (A-H was 16 fold). By 1918 GDP had declined 40% and the cost of living had risen by 2000% since 1914, impoverishing anyone on a fixed salary.
 
They were also empires whose borders and composition shifted with some frequency.
For the Ottomans that's because they lost wars to foreign powers who took bits off of it at the edges.
For Austria-Hungary the annexation of Bosnia was just making de jure what has been de facto since the 1870s.

Look at the growth of the French, British and German colonial empires between 1880 and 1914. Those who are paragons of stability in comparison.
 

GI Jim

Banned
There is certainly an over-emphasis on the idea that multi-national empires post 1900 were doomed to failure. Austria-Hungary had no major nationalistic revolts in the entire period before the great war. Sure there were movements such as the black hand and many others, but they were fringe elements, terrorists if you will. Without WW1, or perhaps with a very short campaign in that war, Austria Hungary in its initial incarnation could have survived for decades longer.
 
They weren't straight up doomed to implode, their nature and internal situation did put them in considerable danger. And this doesn't mean their survival would have been a good thing...
 
There is certainly an over-emphasis on the idea that multi-national empires post 1900 were doomed to failure. Austria-Hungary had no major nationalistic revolts in the entire period before the great war. Sure there were movements such as the black hand and many others, but they were fringe elements, terrorists if you will. Without WW1, or perhaps with a very short campaign in that war, Austria Hungary in its initial incarnation could have survived for decades longer.
Nice swerve to ignore the fact that the Austrian Empire became the Austro-Hungarian Empire because of a nationalistic revolt. Indeed the big issues it had leading up to WW1 was that the slav's started demanding the same status as the Hungarians who were adamant that they were not going to share the privilege. Its what caused it to believe it had to crush Serbia to quieten these demands. This made it give the impossible ultimatum to Serbia over Franz Ferdinand's death that started WW1 ( even Kaiser Willy thought the Serbian counter offer was more than enough to satisfy honour and stop a war ).
 
Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and his son Faisal maintained close contacts with the Ottoman government right up to the fall of Damascus whist running the "Arab Revolt'. Autonomy within the Ottoman Empire was still seen as a possible option; for all the rhetoric bandied about independence and an Arab Kingdom.
 
On the other hand, how much were the British, French, and Russians waiting for the opportunity to break away the Ottoman territories? Even in a scenario without a WWI I can see the Great Powers using internal Ottoman unrest as the pretext to grab land and create breakaway states and by 1900 I'm not sure that the British would favor the Ottomans over the Russians in a conflict.

With the trajectory they were on I think they're in real danger to losing territory to independence movements promoted by foreign powers no matter what reforms they make.
 
On the other hand, how much were the British, French, and Russians waiting for the opportunity to break away the Ottoman territories? Even in a scenario without a WWI I can see the Great Powers using internal Ottoman unrest as the pretext to grab land and create breakaway states and by 1900 I'm not sure that the British would favor the Ottomans over the Russians in a conflict.

With the trajectory they were on I think they're in real danger to losing territory to independence movements promoted by foreign powers no matter what reforms they make.
I agree - the Ottomans were mostly doomed, it's just that the European powers could not quite agree on how to fillet and serve the Turkey. The French had granted them lots of loans, the British were unwilling to accept Russian control of the straits, the Greeks and Bulgarians too had designs on the straits but no one trusted them enough to allow it and the Germans were building expensive railways to uncomfortable places (for the UK).

An underindustrialized 20 million nation at that location isnt going to stay around for long when military-industrial giants walk on the earth right next to it.

Austria-Hungary is different though, while it's half German the German empire had no intention to Anschluss it or let anyone else destroy its most powerful and trustworthy ally. And being a christian state also helps.
 

Deleted member 94680

I agree - the Ottomans were mostly doomed, it's just that the European powers could not quite agree on how to fillet and serve the Turkey.

The French had granted them lots of loans,

So... as a method of destroying the Ottoman Empire, they... give them loans to support them financially?

the British were unwilling to accept Russian control of the straits,

So... as a method of destroying the Ottoman Empire, they were... guaranteeing their territorial integrity?

the Greeks and Bulgarians too had designs on the straits but no one trusted them enough to allow it and the Germans were building expensive railways to uncomfortable places (for the UK).

So, their true opponents were barred from pushing for dismemberment by... the Great Powers?


An underindustrialized 20 million nation at that location isnt going to stay around for long when military-industrial giants walk on the earth right next to it.

Sounds like they were doing quite well at staying intact in the run up to WWI and these "military-industrial giants" seemed quite content to expand their business interests by maintaining the OE as a buyer.



Seriously though, neither the OE or the AHs were "doomed" until after WWI and I even have a sneaking suspicion if the Ottomans had offered in say, 1916, to drop out of the War, the British and French would have guaranteed their integrity. The Austrians were (are?) completely viewed through the lens of a post-War perspective and if one reads anything about pre-War (post Ausgleich) AH then there is nothing more than political infighting and a "healthy" dose of parliamentary paralysis - but no push for independence from any mainstream group.
 
So... as a method of destroying the Ottoman Empire, they... give them loans to support them financially?
Dependence on foreign financing is a classical way to lose national sovereignty.

So... as a method of destroying the Ottoman Empire, they were... guaranteeing their territorial integrity?
From other great powers but only for as long as it's necessary.

So, their true opponents were barred from pushing for dismemberment by... the Great Powers?
Because they could not come to terms over who gets what, or even if certain powers should get anything at all.

Sounds like they were doing quite well at staying intact in the run up to WWI and these "military-industrial giants" seemed quite content to expand their business interests by maintaining the OE as a buyer.
It's fortunate for Turkey that other fronts were more important and that the Western powers + Russia bled themselves dry fighting there.
The Russians threatened to invade if the Germans sent a military mission to Constantinople as they thought the Germans were about to set up a protectorate, Africa style, while undermining their long and costly efforts to destabilize and cut it apart, one pieace at a time.
 

Deleted member 94680

The Russians threatened to invade if the Germans sent a military mission to Constantinopler as they thought the Germans were about to set up a protectorate, Africa style, while undermining their long and costly efforts to destabilize and cut it apart, one pieace at a time.

That would be a military mission like the one run by von Moltke? Like von der Goltz (otherwise known as “Goltz Pasha”) spent twelve years working on? Or the one Liman von Sanders was posted to in 1913? At no point in this forty year on and off stretch of German military aid and tutelage did anyone in Berlin even propose setting up an Africa style protectorate in the Ottoman Empire (that I’ve ever seen) unless you have an example?


I can’t quote your responses due to the way you’ve posted it, so forgive the format of my response.

A classic way to lose sovereignty it may be (care to furnish us with an example?) but OTL it merely meant until the Ottomans declared war the WAllies (the British had significant financial investment as well) were interested in maintaining the Sultan’s authority to secure their investments. The Crimean War for example. It was always “going to be necessary” until the Sublime Porte paid off the debts (which was highly unlikely, but who knows further down the line if oil income had become significant?) So by not coming to terms (care to furnish us with an example where they even came close, heck, even discussed it?) they were interested in supporting Constantinople to keep it out of the “opposition camp”. This means, basically, keeping the Ottomans viable. I don’t know what the last part is about as it doesn’t seem to be a reply to what I posted.
 
Yeah, I could see Austria the reforming into a federation (an idea Franz Ferdinand apparently toyed with). They had after all allowed the confederation with Hungarians earlier to save the Empire. But I don't see that happening for the Ottomans. The fundamental question there is Turkic vs Arab power, and the Turks are not gonna give in. But maybe most of the Empire is salvageable without the Turks as an Arab Federation? Both of these would obviously require that the Great War never happens, which in turn I think requires a fundamental settling of the German Question.

Turkish Nationalism/Identitarianism really only took off within the Empire following the final failures of the Tanizmat and the forceful pushing of the Ottomans out of the Balkans by the Great Powers, which shifted the population-commerical balance of power from mere Aegean basin plurarity to an overwhelming majority. Keep a substantial presence in the Balkans with the accompnying continued presence of the local elite in the Ottoman court and economic heights, and there's hardly much of a reason for the state to identify primarily with the Anatolian peasant over the same peasent anywhere else in the Empire. Especially given how naturally fracturious the Arab elite was as opposed to the elites of ethnicities in other Empires (The Poles, Czechs, Indians, ect.) who had pre-existing structures of power and local authority (Diets, legal codes, ect.) on which to build a front by which to attach the "political question" to the "societal questions" that motivated the masses to tie themselves to the cause (Issues such a decline of the artisanal and petty proffesional class with increased industrialization, and the noble impositions on the agricultural class/ privitization of formally common lands in an effort to recover their economic positions from the decline of the importance of agricultural output and lose of forced labor). If anything, I'd say the Ottoman statehas a much better chance of surviving long term than the Habsburg one, given similar models/space for economic reform/levels of outside pressure.
 
Top