WI Ottoman empire neutral in WW1

We all know due to enver's stupidity the ottomans declared war on the entente. So how can we make it so that ottomans don't declare war on entente and instead remain neutral. How will this affect middleeastern history.
 
The difficult thing is that different sections of the Ottoman government and military supported either the Germans or the Brits (I think the army favored the Germans and the navy preferred the British, but I could be wrong.) So, they are likely to enter the war. With a good POD I could see them becoming an allied power, which would greatly benefit them (they get to be on the winning side) in the short term, as well as benefiting Russia since the Dardanelles and Bosporus are open to trade. If you can make the Ottomans neutral, that means that if there leaders are intelligent, they may manage to keep their nation surviving much longer, potentially even until today. In order to do so, though, they would probably have to make some powerful allies (Britain, most likely) and increase liberalization, which is easier said than done. If they accomplish this, we could end up with a potentially much more stable middle east. Also, if they allow trade to Russia whilst remaining neutral, that means that Russia may not collapse and thus no Soviet Union, which could have massive repercussions. No Gallipoli also helps Britain's reputation in Australia and New Zealand to boot.
 
Faster construction...

If the two battleships being built for the Ottoman Empire are finished BEFORE Archduke Ferdinand is shot, then one of the major reasons for Turkey being ready to be pushed into the Centrtal Powers' camp just went away. Of course, Russia and the Ottoman Empire are NOT friends...
 
If the two battleships being built for the Ottoman Empire are finished BEFORE Archduke Ferdinand is shot, then one of the major reasons for Turkey being ready to be pushed into the Centrtal Powers' camp just went away. Of course, Russia and the Ottoman Empire are NOT friends...
The Ottomans might not want to risk declaring war on the Russians, and the Russians don't want another front to concentrate on, so I doubt any of them would start a war, at least while the war is on (and Russia is still standing, if Russia collapses like OTL, the Ottomans may re-occupy Kars).

And alot would be changed by the Ottomans staying neutral. Islam would be very different today if a Caliph was still around, the Middle East is sure to benefit from being united, and Arab nationalism is unlikely to emerge, at least for the time being after WW1. The big problem would be the Armenians, but if their big brother Russia is taken out of the picture, they will be less combative. Oil money would start flowing to the Ottoman government in the 30's and this could alleviate the key Ottoman weakness in the period, lack of money. Altogether, it could be a better scenario for the Middle East and, by extention, the world.
 
We all know due to enver's stupidity the ottomans declared war on the entente. So how can we make it so that ottomans don't declare war on entente and instead remain neutral. How will this affect middleeastern history.

Britain offered Turkey 4 million pounds to stay neutral but Germany offered 5 million pounds to join the Central Powers.

Makes the Turks less greedy and shallow.
 
Ottoman neutrality, never mind joining the Entente, would have butterflies that would probably mean a quicker Entente victory and all that that entails.

I don't think open straits are a panacea for Russia - Britain and France weren't drowning in materiel themselves - but between that and the lack of a Caucasus front the Russians will be in a stronger position. The Bulgarians will be more cautious - they wanted to make sure they were on the side of the Ottomans - and that means Serbia may not fall when it did, so that Entente supplies and even troops may arrive to bolster them (I believe the armies in Macedonia were originally supposed to have relieved Serbia directly, and then all the troops that were sent to the Middle East and Gallipoli are going spare).

Between them, that puts a lot of strain on Austria-Hungary - and what with Brusilov, the Romanian gambit (speaking of which, no Turks in Galicia or Romania to help the CP), and losing Gorizia the Austrians had a pretty bad 1916 anyway and tried vainly to open up secret channels to negotiate a peace. Perhaps with Serbia holding out and the allies stronger in east and west, it's too much for them?

And that has all sorts of butterflies: no collapse of Russia (just yet) or possibly of Austria either (just yet).
 
Ottoman neutrality, never mind joining the Entente, would have butterflies that would probably mean a quicker Entente victory and all that that entails.

I don't think open straits are a panacea for Russia - Britain and France weren't drowning in materiel themselves - but between that and the lack of a Caucasus front the Russians will be in a stronger position. The Bulgarians will be more cautious - they wanted to make sure they were on the side of the Ottomans - and that means Serbia may not fall when it did, so that Entente supplies and even troops may arrive to bolster them (I believe the armies in Macedonia were originally supposed to have relieved Serbia directly, and then all the troops that were sent to the Middle East and Gallipoli are going spare).

Between them, that puts a lot of strain on Austria-Hungary - and what with Brusilov, the Romanian gambit (speaking of which, no Turks in Galicia or Romania to help the CP), and losing Gorizia the Austrians had a pretty bad 1916 anyway and tried vainly to open up secret channels to negotiate a peace. Perhaps with Serbia holding out and the allies stronger in east and west, it's too much for them?

And that has all sorts of butterflies: no collapse of Russia (just yet) or possibly of Austria either (just yet).

I fully agree with this. The Serbs held out quite long IOTL. Even if Bulgaria joins (and I doubt that as well) the British and French have a far easier life to support Serbia. Not to mention that the Russians might do it as well. This makes the southern frontier a lot more dangerous for AH. This in turn requires German divisions, which lack on other fronts, where the Allies have even more ITTL.
 
I fully agree with this. The Serbs held out quite long IOTL. Even if Bulgaria joins (and I doubt that as well) the British and French have a far easier life to support Serbia. Not to mention that the Russians might do it as well. This makes the southern frontier a lot more dangerous for AH. This in turn requires German divisions, which lack on other fronts, where the Allies have even more ITTL.

Yep. There actually was a small Russian unit in the Macedonian army for political reasons, although they had to be disarmed after the revolution. And the exiled Serbian army formed an extra division out of Yugoslav PoWs taken by the Russians.
 
The Middle East with the surviving Ottos would be a far more important world power than anyone independently from the entire region. That state would easily be in G8, but only with the premises that the revenues from all that oil would be evenly redistributed to their appropriate regions and populations.
And if you can successfully implement the notion of "ottomanism" in practice ( as a mix of secular nasser style pan arabism and kemalist turkishness ) you got yourself a winner.
And I imagine a whole lot simpler Cold War. The victory would be entirely dependent on who would be more successfull in ass kissing for the oil, USA or USSR.
 
I suspect that the Bulgarians would want to get every concession that they could if asked to join the war effort on behalf of the Entente, even if only for the purposesof transporting supplies. Don't underestimate intra-Balkan rivalries in analyzing the prospect of Ottoman neutrality.
 
And I imagine a whole lot simpler Cold War. The victory would be entirely dependent on who would be more successfull in ass kissing for the oil, USA or USSR.

WWII would be effected as well, and if the Ottomans side with the Axis (possible, though by no means certain), they might get carved up the same way they were after WWI OTL.
 
The Ottomans might not want to risk declaring war on the Russians, and the Russians don't want another front to concentrate on, so I doubt any of them would start a war, at least while the war is on (and Russia is still standing, if Russia collapses like OTL, the Ottomans may re-occupy Kars).

And alot would be changed by the Ottomans staying neutral. Islam would be very different today if a Caliph was still around, the Middle East is sure to benefit from being united, and Arab nationalism is unlikely to emerge, at least for the time being after WW1. The big problem would be the Armenians, but if their big brother Russia is taken out of the picture, they will be less combative. Oil money would start flowing to the Ottoman government in the 30's and this could alleviate the key Ottoman weakness in the period, lack of money. Altogether, it could be a better scenario for the Middle East and, by extention, the world.


I don’t know this for sure Didn’t the fact that Britain helped to get rid of the sultan anger a lot of Muslims in British India? (I’m just under half way through the shadow of the great game) if this doesn’t happen would Indian Muslims be a bit more pro British ?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Ottomans remaining neutral will be of great benefit to the Allies. For one thing, Allied war material will be more available to Russia and Russian wheat more available to the Allies. More importantly, the Russians will not have to devote considerable men and material to the Caucasus Front, the French and British to Gallipoli, and the British to Mesopotamia and Palestine. The Allies will avoid the morale-shaking defeats at Gallipoli and Al-Kut. Farther afield, the British will have less trouble dealing with domestic subversion in India in the absence of a proclamation of jihad, and won't be troubled by such things as the Singapore Mutiny in 1915.

If the Ottoman Empire is still standing and in possession of Iraq after the war, they'll strike it rich as the oil industry develops and grows into major importance.
 
Top