WW1 - Ottomans hold the line?

Suppose the Ottomans had managed to hold out as good as possible against British attacks, such that at the end of 1918 they would still be in control of Jerusalem and Baghdad, and also manage to take Azerbaijan from Russia (which they did OTL). Gallipoli still happens in 1915 and is an Ottoman victory.

The war however still ends with Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and then Germany collapsing. How might the resulting negotiations take place? According to wiki, the British were willing to give up on most of their demands if pressed hard enough, and this after thoroughly defeating Ottoman forces in the Levant:

Both sides did not know that the other was actually quite eager to sign a deal and willing to give up their objectives to do so. The British delegation had been given a list of 24 demands but were told to concede on any of them except allowing the occupation of the forts on the Dardanelles as well as free passage through the Bosphorus; the British desired access to the Black Sea for the Rumanian front.

Could the Ottomans get out of their whole predicament by giving up Arabia, Palestine south of the Golan heights and the southern, majority-Shia portion of Mesopotamia whilst keeping modern-day Syria, Lebanon, the oil-rich area around Mosul and even central Iraq? Could they maybe even strike a deal with the British by becoming Britain's bastion against communism in the area?



As for how to get there, I figure a couple of things need to happen to the Ottomans:

1. They need to not concentrate so many troops in the Sinai in 1914/15, and certainly not raid the Suez Canal and scare the British into adopting a forward defense, which required the construction of a railway and water pipeline across the Sinai. Delay the start of construction by a year, and the front line will still be south of Jerusalem when the wistle blows in November 1918. Lack of early Ottoman defeats in the area will also certainly delay the start of the Arab Revolt, perhaps by even more than an entire year, improving their position yet further.

2. They need to better prepare in Mesopotamia instead of completely ignoring the theater at the start. As long as every British advance is hard-fought and there are no stunning succeses, such as their early victories in southern Iraq, then it's quite possible the decision to build up the massive logistical infrastructure required to sustain an advance to Baghdad is delayed. The extra troops come from more cooperation with local Arab sheiks (done OTL, but a bit late) and from not concentrating so many men early on in the Sinai

3. Better management of the Caucasus front. First and foremost, this involves not carrying out any offensive bigger than a localized counterattack, as the terrain is horrendous and the logistical infrastructure required to sustain an offensive is absent. There isn't really anything to be lost or gained in the area anyway, so why waste so much effort. But most of all, do not, under any circumstances, do not engage in the Sarikamish Offensive, throwing away 90k KIA, 50k POW and 10k WIA for literally nothing (Russian and Armenian losses were 16-30k in total). Simply avoiding Sarikamish frees up enough men to bolster Mesopotamia and also reduces losses in later defensive battles in the Caucasus, on account of having a stronger defense.

4. Once Russia finally collapses and the Russians in the Caucasus desert en masse (leaving the Armenians to fend for themselves), push into Azerbaijan and occupy Baku (happened OTL), and hopefully use that as a bargaining chip.

Ottoman_Empire_1914_h.png
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
If the Ottoman Empire isn't going to attack, why do they join the Central Powers in the first place?
 
If the Ottoman Empire isn't going to attack, why do they join the Central Powers in the first place?

By closing off the straits, they are already causing immense harm to the Entente war effort. The Turks did not declare war IOTL, it was the Entente who did (justifiably so, since the Turks had closed the straits).

As long as they keep the straits closed and their already over-extended territory reasonably-well defended, they would (in their mind) come out ahead in the peace negotiations once Germany inevitably wins. OTOH, if they get half their Empire occupied, even if the Germans eventually score a victory, having them abandon Ottoman territory would be on hell of an easy decision to make...
 
Bumping this with an additional question - could this Ottoman Empire have been strong enough to keep Azerbaijan from the Soviets?
 

Ian_W

Banned
The more interesting question for me is that with a more successful Ottoman Empire, does Turkey become a thing ?

The oil around Mosul is less useful than you'd think with those borders - without it going south via pipeline, it has to go an awfully long way on rail lines, enough that Im really unsure if it can be profitable with oil at ~$1-3 a barrel.

While these borders wouldnt have anywhere near as many cranky Arabs as the pre-collapse Ottoman Empire, you still would presumably still have cranky Kurds.

Then again, you've got the old Berlin to Bagdad Railway, and if you can run a spur line to Beiruit, then maybe you could do something.
 
The oil around Mosul is less useful than you'd think with those borders - without it going south via pipeline, it has to go an awfully long way on rail lines, enough that Im really unsure if it can be profitable with oil at ~$1-3 a barrel.
Mosul-Latakia is about 80km shorter than Mosul-Basra, and the tanker wouldn't have to go all around the Arabian peninsula to get to Europe, so if anything, it will be more profitable than OTL.


The more interesting question for me is that with a more successful Ottoman Empire, does Turkey become a thing ?

While these borders wouldnt have anywhere near as many cranky Arabs as the pre-collapse Ottoman Empire, you still would presumably still have cranky Kurds.

Then again, you've got the old Berlin to Bagdad Railway, and if you can run a spur line to Beiruit, then maybe you could do something.

I couldn't find any concrete data on demographics in Syria and Iraq at the time, only that there were around 639k people in Aleoppo province, and that overall 75% of the OE's population were Muslim. By losing Arabia, Palestine and southern Iraq, that percentage will decrease. If we butterfly away the Greco-Turkish War, than the Empire is not going to shed a lot of its Greek population (~13,5%). The increased successes will probably also butterfly the Armenian genocide, leaving a lot of Armenians in the Empire as well, and even more if modern-day Armenia and Azerbaijan are take from the Soviets (Azerbaijan of course would add to the total Muslim population, though I'm not convinced it will be enough to balance out all the rest). All in all, probably around a third of the population will end up being non-Muslim when the dust settles, and the Muslim part will have a sizeable portion of Arabs and Kurds from Iraq and Syria in it, enough that i'd be willing to bet ethnic Turks would only make up a plurality (<50%) of all inhabitants.

If the regime encourages and inclusive all-Muslim identity, but with certain protections and rights traditionally awarded to non-Muslims, all of it glued together with oil revenue, then maybe they have a chance to prosper in the long run.
 
Top