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 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).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...
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.
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.
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.
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.