WI: the Ottoman avoided entry into WWI or exited early?

Yes. Supplies from Britain (through Constantinople, which got closed after the Ottomans joined), troops not used in the Caucusus. Tsar Nicholas had to abdicate. He is way too unpopular to pull the Tsardom. Alexei's still young, so maybe a regent steps, say, Grand Duke Michael.
Or the Tsars are overthrown like they were in OTL.
 
Or the Tsars are overthrown like they were in OTL.

Why? In addition to more supplies, the divisions that were used at Galipoli IOTL will instead be used on the Western Front, in all likelihood. Gorlice-Tarnow would be either butterflied or significantly scaled back to deal with that. Without that, there's no Great Retreat, which gutted the Russian army for good. That significantly reduces the radicalization of the army, so Bolsheviks are out of the question.
 
Why? In addition to more supplies, the divisions that were used at Galipoli IOTL will instead be used on the Western Front, in all likelihood. Gorlice-Tarnow would be either butterflied or significantly scaled back to deal with that. Without that, there's no Great Retreat, which gutted the Russian army for good. That significantly reduces the radicalization of the army, so Bolsheviks are out of the question.
Because the Russians were upset with the Tsar long before the Great War.
 

Germaniac

Donor
The supplies being shipped in through the black sea so need to get to the front and the Russian rail system was a mess... Most of those supplies are going to sit in the Ukraine while the army is throwing rocks.
 
The supplies being shipped in through the black sea so need to get to the front and the Russian rail system was a mess... Most of those supplies are going to sit in the Ukraine while the army is throwing rocks.

How would a Black Sea open to Allied shipping be worse than with it closed off, as OTL?
The Russians were kicking all kinds of A-H ass till they got to the Carpathians as it was
 
Because the Russians were upset with the Tsar long before the Great War.

And yet the only got rid of him because they thought he was an obstacle to winning the war. TTL's war probably ends before the OTL October Revolution, and possibly even before the February one. Once it's over, there's not that same impetus. He can maybe make some half-hearted promises to give the Duma more power and later go back on them, like had been done more than once in the past. Russia isn't the same as France, revolutions are rare and there's a strong security apparatus in place. Without the war eroding those foundations and making people desperate, those forces probably win out.
 
And yet the only got rid of him because they thought he was an obstacle to winning the war. TTL's war probably ends before the OTL October Revolution, and possibly even before the February one. Once it's over, there's not that same impetus. He can maybe make some half-hearted promises to give the Duma more power and later go back on them, like had been done more than once in the past. Russia isn't the same as France, revolutions are rare and there's a strong security apparatus in place. Without the war eroding those foundations and making people desperate, those forces probably win out.
The revolution wasn't about winning the war. It was about getting out of thw war. That's why they didn't win it. There's no way to know for sure how long this war will last, but there is a very good chance of Czar Nicholas losing his throne.
 
The revolution wasn't about winning the war. It was about getting out of thw war. That's why they didn't win it. There's no way to know for sure how long this war will last, but there is a very good chance of Czar Nicholas losing his throne.

Actually, it depends on who you ask, since the February Revolution had both the Petrograd Soviet and the Lvov-Kerensky Provisional Government. The latter was very much committed to winning the war, which is why you didn't see peace overtures until after the Bolsheviks took over. At any rate, if it seems remotely weird that Nicholas would be gotten rid of to try and win the war as opposed to quitting it, keep in mind that Germanophobia in Russia during the war had an easy target in the Queen, who was German. That fact, along with Ratsputin's influence (and he also opposed the war, oddly enough), made it seem like the country was being, well, stabbed in the back by the monarchy. As such, the best way to ensure the war was being conducted properly was to get rid of the Czar. So the Revolution had elements that opposed the war as well as supporters of it, but it doesn't really matter in the scenario we're discussing because the military situation wouldn't be remotely as bad. Even if the war isn't over by the time revolts broke out IOTL, it will still be going well enough that the public wouldn't need to use the Czar as a scapegoat for its failures.
 
They only wanted to topple (and kill) the Tsar after unprecedented disasters in Western Russia (esp. After Poland and Riga). Without the supply routes cut and more troops available in the West, Tannenburg might be a stalemate, and Brusilov's offensive might be more of a success than OTL. Brusilov, with more success, might get his plans to the top command, thereby ensuring that the Russian Army will not get shredded to pieces like OTL. Yes, Tsar Nicholas was seen as an incompetent leader (militarily, economically a lot has changed since the 1880s) so I am really expecting him to abdicate, but the Monarchy will not be overthrown. Like I've said Alexei's too young, so a regent takes power. It might be Grand Duke Michael. There had been railroad construction in the years before the war, so transportation will not be such a mess. Thinking it would be like johnboy's "The Consequences of An Errant Shell" with a Japanese Victory in the Russo-Japanese War.
 
Last edited:
I think a neutral Ottomans would still face trouble from inside and out until they can find the oil in the 30s or so. They can use that to gain cash and leverage needed to survive, reform and do well

Yes, this is my point.

The Ottoman Empire was archaic politically. Technically, even Turks weren't guaranteed votes or power anymore than Armenians or Greeks.

The Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides were among the worst examples but hardly stood alone. See Lawrence of Arabia for evidence that Arabs were oppressed by Turks. Even Alevi and Kurd minorities within Anatolia went through their bad patches.

When I said "Arab Genocide", I was mainly referring to the beduians of the eastern Arabian peninsula. Modern day Iraq and oil-less western Arabia (with the holy cities) would not be touched (necessarily).

But I have to wonder if the Ottoman, a repressive state, would allow a couple hundred thousand desert nomads to get in their way of an economic bonanza that would help them back to the top of World Powers.

I doubt it, same nominal religion or not.

Killing a few hundred thousand would not be beyond them. At best the beduians would be pushed aside by mass immigration of Turks to Eastern Arabia, maybe Oman, perhaps even large-scale immigration into Iraq.
 
Top