WI No Italo-Turkish War?

From what I've read the Italian decision to go to war with the Ottoman Empire in 1911 was a pretty near run thing. Suppose they hadn't?

I've also read that the Italo-Turkish War of 1911 was a major factor in setting off the First Balkan War. Without the initial conflict, how long could the First Balkan War be delayed? What would set it off in TTL? How would this affect WWI?

Any thoughts?
 
From what I've read the Italian decision to go to war with the Ottoman Empire in 1911 was a pretty near run thing. Suppose they hadn't?

I've also read that the Italo-Turkish War of 1911 was a major factor in setting off the First Balkan War. Without the initial conflict, how long could the First Balkan War be delayed? What would set it off in TTL? How would this affect WWI?

Any thoughts?

No Italo-Turkish War would have a pretty large impact. If the Ottoman general staff hadn't been preoccupied with this conflict, not to mention that many of the best Ottoman officers were in Libya, the Balkan states, if they had still gone to war (which seems unlikely), would have had a much harder time. The Ottomans really should have defeated the Balkan states - it was inadequate planning and a stupid war plan (tactical offense, strategic defense, when it should have been the opposite) that led to the defeat.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Yeah, the Ottoman weakness in the war with Italy was what triggered the Balkan wars. And the Balkan wars pretty much triggered WW1 (Serbian expansionism turned against Austria instead of Ottomans).
 
What Pasha says. The Balkan War, being pure opportunism, is less likely to even happen and more likely to result in Ottoman victory if it does. None of the Great Powers, if I recall rightly, actually wanted the war, so without the Italian war to open a window of opportunity, there certainly won't be a war in 1912.

Looking at the effects elsewhere, Libya was pretty devestated by the Italian conquest, I believe. More Libyans? And Italy, for her part, lost a great deal of money.
 
I think eventually Italy's going after Libya. They saw it as their "right" since at least the Congress of Berlin and made secret agreements to such with France (if Wiki's accurate). There's also an Italian strategic desire for Aegean bases. Perhaps we see Italo-Turkic war over Libya and the Dodec's during WW1, assuming it's not butterflied, or assuming when its (I feel inevitable) equivalent arises that Italy doesn't side with the CP.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I think eventually Italy's going after Libya. They saw it as their "right" since at least the Congress of Berlin and made secret agreements to such with France (if Wiki's accurate). There's also an Italian strategic desire for Aegean bases. Perhaps we see Italo-Turkic war over Libya and the Dodec's during WW1, assuming it's not butterflied, or assuming when its (I feel inevitable) equivalent arises that Italy doesn't side with the CP.

WW1 would be very different. We can assume there is no assassination of Franz Ferdinand since Serbian expansionism would not have shifted towards Austria.
 
I think eventually Italy's going after Libya. They saw it as their "right" since at least the Congress of Berlin and made secret agreements to such with France (if Wiki's accurate). There's also an Italian strategic desire for Aegean bases. Perhaps we see Italo-Turkic war over Libya and the Dodec's during WW1, assuming it's not butterflied, or assuming when its (I feel inevitable) equivalent arises that Italy doesn't side with the CP.

As YWN says, WW1 may be "inevitable" (God I hate that word, but it is more or less acurate here), but it will be drastically changed without a preceding Balkan war. The thing that made it inevitable was Germany's belief that they had to fight Russia before 1916. Possibly Germany will attempt to pick a fight with Russia over some issue concerning the Ottomans?

And on behalf of Susano:

Ottoman is best.

Turkish is acceptable.

Turkic is just wrong, unless the soldiers of Azerbaijan, Kazahkstan, and Tanu Tuva intend to rush to Libya to relieve their linguistic brethren.
 
As YWN says, WW1 may be "inevitable" (God I hate that word, but it is more or less acurate here), but it will be drastically changed without a preceding Balkan war. The thing that made it inevitable was Germany's belief that they had to fight Russia before 1916. Possibly Germany will attempt to pick a fight with Russia over some issue concerning the Ottomans?

That pretty much sums up the way I see it too...

By the time of the POD you already had all the ultimate factors in place. Ferd getting whacked or not, something was coming, though we may see slightly different alliances. Maybe Italy goes CP, maybe OE or UK stays neutral, etc. A lot depends on the proximate cause(s)...

By this point, though, the Franco-Russian alliance is in place, as is the Entente Cordiale, and Germany's "tied to the Corpse", so I think France+Russia (+ maybe UK assuming von Schliefen plan) vs. Germany+Austria is likely at some point before 1920.

And on behalf of Susano:

Ottoman is best.

Turkish is acceptable.

Turkic is just wrong, unless the soldiers of Azerbaijan, Kazahkstan, and Tanu Tuva intend to rush to Libya to relieve their linguistic brethren.

Duly noted, thanks...
 
That pretty much sums up the way I see it too...

By the time of the POD you already had all the ultimate factors in place. Ferd getting whacked or not, something was coming, though we may see slightly different alliances. Maybe Italy goes CP, maybe OE or UK stays neutral, etc. A lot depends on the proximate cause(s)...

By this point, though, the Franco-Russian alliance is in place, as is the Entente Cordiale, and Germany's "tied to the Corpse", so I think France+Russia (+ maybe UK assuming von Schliefen plan) vs. Germany+Austria is likely at some point before 1920.

That's it.

Duly noted, thanks...

Yeah. As a Unionist Scotsman I feel sympathy for all the peoples of our world throughout history who have been called by the name of their country's dominant element rather than the name of their country, hence why I prefer "Ottoman". But "Turkish", though widespread, isn't strictly correct and can be (mis)used politically. "Turkish rule" in the Mashriq before WW1 implies imperialism rather than the reality of active Arab participation in the state, and at the risk of flamebait the Armenian Whatsit is often pinned on "the Turks" which is presumably an attempt to pile guilt on modern Turkey when of course the massacres, such as they were, were carried out against orders by mostly Kurdish militiamen and nowadays the Kurds are another potential source of sympathy for the genocide agenda.

Leaving that swiftly behind, Turkic is indeed something differant altogether and stretches to the mountains of the Altai.
 
Top