Why could Britain and Russia not agree to partition the Ottomans prior to Sykes-Picot-Sazanov?

Why could Britain and Russia not agree to partition the Ottomans prior to Sykes-Picot-Sazanov?

  • a) Britain was always committed to preserving a substantial OE

    Votes: 20 44.4%
  • b) Russia was always committed to preserving a substantial OE

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • c) Whenever one thought it was a good idea, the other opposed it out of suspicion

    Votes: 24 53.3%

  • Total voters
    45

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why could Britain and Russia not agree to partition the Ottoman Empire prior to Sykes-Picot-Sazanov in 1915?

a) Britain was always committed to preserving a substantial OE

b) Russia was always committed to preserving a substantial OE

c) Each supported significant partition at times, but whenever one thought it was a good idea, the other automatically opposed it out of suspicion the other would benefit more.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not Before 1900

I thought this question belonged in the pre-1900 forum because the partition of the Ottoman Empire was discussed at points from the late 1700s up to 1900, as well as in the much briefer portion of the 20th century, 1900-1914, before Sykes-Picot Sazanov was agreed in 1915.
 

Russia was always committed to preserving a substantial OE”

Haha.

(No offense intended to the OP)

There is some sense in this. Even in 1913, Russia threatened Bulgaria not to attack Constantinople. Russia had an "If I can't have it, nobody can't" approach with the Ottomans.

Of all wars since 1683, I can only think about one war that Russia declared and to take Ottoman land as an objective. And that was 1877-1878.
 
Prior to WW1, Britain was committed to preserving the Ottoman Empire as a buffer to her Indian possessions. It was only when it became apparent that the Porte was about to join the Central Powers that partition became a serious British policy - and even at Sèvres, the UK didn’t press for a complete destruction of the Ottoman state.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Of all wars since 1683, I can only think about one war that Russia declared and to take Ottoman land as an objective. And that was 1877-1878.

So it was usually the Ottomans declaring war? What were they thinking of - expanding Ottoman territory?
Or was the OE heavily provoked most of the times it declared war, by Russian demands infringing on sovereignty, or Russian support for rebels?

Prior to WW1, Britain was committed to preserving the Ottoman Empire as a buffer to her Indian possessions. It was only when it became apparent that the Porte was about to join the Central Powers that partition became a serious British policy - and even at Sèvres, the UK didn’t press for a complete destruction of the Ottoman state.

Except at least in the 1890s, when Lord Salisbury was proposing partition in response to outrage at the Armenian massacres. Luckily for Abdul Hamid, nobody else in Europe at the time wanted that.
 
Last edited:
Why could Britain and Russia not agree to partition the Ottoman Empire prior to Sykes-Picot-Sazanov in 1915?

a) Britain was always committed to preserving a substantial OE

b) Russia was always committed to preserving a substantial OE

c) Each supported significant partition at times, but whenever one thought it was a good idea, the other automatically opposed it out of suspicion the other would benefit more.

Of course "b" is a funny joke but as for "a" British policy over the XIX century was mostly along the lines of "maintaining balance of power" which meant (as far as I can tell) trying to preserve status quo in the places which Britain at that time did not want to grab for herself (and genuine attempts to screw Russia as a way of preventing its march to India :)). OE was one of such places but of course in the process of defending the Ottoman interests Britain managed to get "compensated" (like getting Cyprus for the diplomatic support in the war of 1877/78). Taking into an account that most of the XIX century oil was not a subject of anybody's interest, there was no serious reason for wishing any piece of the Ottoman territory but by the time of WWI situation changed dramatically and, AFAIK, the borders of the Iraq had been defined with the explicit purpose to keep all oil in and the French out.
 
So it was usually the Ottomans declaring war?

AFAIK, wars of 1672 - 81, 1686 - 1700, 1710 - 11, 1735 - 39 and 1828 - 29 were started by the Russian side.

Or was the OE heavily provoked most of the times it declared war, by Russian demands infringing on sovereignty, or Russian support for rebels?

Or by the Ottoman support of the rebels (war of 1768 - 1774). It was quite simple, just keep trace of who was rebelling against whom: the "haidamaks" (Cossacks of the Western Ukraine who, while living on the PLC territory, considered themselves Russian subjects because they viewed Catherine II as their protector from the Catholic Poles against whom they rebelled) had been chasing the members of the Bar Confederation (who rebelled against their king to defend both independence of the PLC and their traditional "liberties") all the way to the Ottoman territory and did some looting of the town Balta in which the confederates tried to hide. The Ottomans had been supporting Bar Confederation (which probably made them true defenders of the Polish independence, at least in this specific case) so the Sultan declared war on Russia with a resulting loss of the Crimea (both Khanate and the Ottoman-held places), Kabarda, and territory between Dnieper and Southern Bug Rivers. ;)

In 1787 it was an ill-timed desire to return what was lost in the previous war.

In 1806 the Ottomans dismissed the rulers of Moldavia and Walachia without Russian consent required by Peace of Jassi (1791). BTW, not sure who started this war officially.
 
So it was usually the Ottomans declaring war? What were they thinking of - expanding Ottoman territory?
Or was the OE heavily provoked most of the times it declared war, by Russian demands infringing on sovereignty, or Russian support for rebels?



Except at least in the 1890s, when Lord Salisbury was proposing partition in response to outrage at the Armenian massacres. Luckily for Abdul Hamid, nobody else in Europe at the time wanted that.

Most of the times it was due to Russian provocation.

Salisbury suggested it at the time of the Boer Wars. Britain was diplomatically isolated. Making such offers was to ease the situation. Knowingly Russia would not accept a partition other than on their own terms.
 
Top