Snake Featherston
Banned
Inspired by Abdul Hadi Pasha, please fell free to speculate on the Ottoman Enpire had it survived past World War I.
WI: Ottoman Empire doesn't enter World War I
- Thread starter Snake Featherston
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
IMHO no OE involvement would mean a quicker Entente victory, no American involvement and a more stable Ottoman regime in the short run
Oil revenues from Mesopotamia would start to flow in the 1920s and these could well serve to provide for a new round of reforms. With Yusef Izzedin becoming sultan in 1918 (no suiciding as in OTL because no involvement in the war), the prospect for longer-term political stability becomes greater
Grey Wolf
Oil revenues from Mesopotamia would start to flow in the 1920s and these could well serve to provide for a new round of reforms. With Yusef Izzedin becoming sultan in 1918 (no suiciding as in OTL because no involvement in the war), the prospect for longer-term political stability becomes greater
Grey Wolf
The wolves would still be out
Even an Ottoman Empire who stays out of the Great War is not assured of peace and prosperity.
Just to raise a few issues:
- Arab nationalism
- spill-overs from the Russian civil war
- Greek irredentism
- the appetites of the Powers
I doubt that the Ottomans could survive another 10 years
Even an Ottoman Empire who stays out of the Great War is not assured of peace and prosperity.
Just to raise a few issues:
- Arab nationalism
- spill-overs from the Russian civil war
- Greek irredentism
- the appetites of the Powers
I doubt that the Ottomans could survive another 10 years
A quicker Entente victory will leave the Powers with more appetite for foreign adventures.
Costantinople (and the Ionian Greeks) will give Greece (did Greece particpate in WW1? Probably not) a strong motivation to look for adventures in the Aegean.
Thw arab nationalism will come to surface when the English will be tired to pay royalties for Mosul oil.
There is a hornet nest of Armenians, Greeks, Pontians and Kurds agitating
I assume that the "enduring" Ottoman Empire will be stretched by the political contention between the modernists, and the traditionalists. It would be interesting to see what are going to do men like Kemal Pasha and Enver Pasha
The 1917 revolution would be likely to be delayed by the Entente capacity of feeding Russia through the Straits. I would expect also that the Dardanelles expedition would be diverted to support Serbia, either through Thessaloniki (Greece sympathetic to Entente, if not co-belligerant) or through Albania: this would threaten the soft belly of the Central Powers, and lighten the pressure on the Russian Front. However, the absence of a Communist revolution in 1917 does not mean that Russia has solved its problems. If any, a victory in the war could intensify the problems (Nicholas is not the prototype of the "good tyrant"). So, I would expect a civil war, maybe in conjunction with the post-war economical crisis...
Costantinople (and the Ionian Greeks) will give Greece (did Greece particpate in WW1? Probably not) a strong motivation to look for adventures in the Aegean.
Thw arab nationalism will come to surface when the English will be tired to pay royalties for Mosul oil.
There is a hornet nest of Armenians, Greeks, Pontians and Kurds agitating
I assume that the "enduring" Ottoman Empire will be stretched by the political contention between the modernists, and the traditionalists. It would be interesting to see what are going to do men like Kemal Pasha and Enver Pasha
The 1917 revolution would be likely to be delayed by the Entente capacity of feeding Russia through the Straits. I would expect also that the Dardanelles expedition would be diverted to support Serbia, either through Thessaloniki (Greece sympathetic to Entente, if not co-belligerant) or through Albania: this would threaten the soft belly of the Central Powers, and lighten the pressure on the Russian Front. However, the absence of a Communist revolution in 1917 does not mean that Russia has solved its problems. If any, a victory in the war could intensify the problems (Nicholas is not the prototype of the "good tyrant"). So, I would expect a civil war, maybe in conjunction with the post-war economical crisis...
Grey Wolf
Donor
LordKalvan said:
Um do you KNOW much about the Balkans in the First World War ? You first say you don't think the Greeks were involved, then suggest Salonika as an ATL option where it was in OTL...
As for problems within the Ottoman Empire, the fronts and conflicts that emerged after defeat do not give a proper indication of where the tensions would be without such an event. The Greeks of the Pontus coast are certainly not going to revolt in a vacuum for example
Grey Wolf
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Grey Wolf said:
I think he meant the Greeks would be unlikely to become involved in an ATL where the Ottomans stay out - but see my response above.
I just posted one where they came in as Allies...
I'd see them having to give in to some League of Nations supervision, probably have their Black Sea coast used as anti-Bolshevik bases, and be economically colonized for oil, but not break up. In the interests of efficiency, Britain would want an easily dominated government ruling from Constantinople, under its guns, rather than a bunch of smaller fry requiring vaster expenditures to keep in line. Especially with the Americans likely to encourage Arab rebels for the purpose of gaining control of Arabian oil, I think it's likely that matters would revert to the 1841-1876 stage.
I'd see them having to give in to some League of Nations supervision, probably have their Black Sea coast used as anti-Bolshevik bases, and be economically colonized for oil, but not break up. In the interests of efficiency, Britain would want an easily dominated government ruling from Constantinople, under its guns, rather than a bunch of smaller fry requiring vaster expenditures to keep in line. Especially with the Americans likely to encourage Arab rebels for the purpose of gaining control of Arabian oil, I think it's likely that matters would revert to the 1841-1876 stage.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The British had negotiated oil concessions in Mesopotamia in 1913; they seemed quite happy with the arrangements, I see no advantage to them to try to provoke Arab revolts, since they would be likely to backfire.
I don't see an Entente victory emboldening Greece to Aegean adventures against the Ottomans. First of all, they share no common border. Second, they already have all the Aegean islands. Third, they would get their asses handed to them on a platter. After the Ottomans had been at war for twelve years, fought several great powers simultaneously, demobilized their entire army and had their capital occupied, they still kicked the Greeks' asses handily even though they had British support. And that was while simultaneously chasing off the Italians, French, British, Soviets, and Armenians. Against the Ottoman Empire at full strength they wouldn't even get off the landing beach.
As for the hornet's nest, the 19th & 20th c are notable for the total lack of Greek rebellion after the independence war in 1830. The Greeks held a cushy place in the Ottoman polity, and after the Balkan Wars there were no longer any territories where they formed a majority. The Arabs displayed no nationalism whatsoever, although if the Young Turks stayed in power (which I think is highly unlikely if the Ottomans stay out of the war) their policies would alienate the Arabs. Even the Arab revolt had few adherents - what everyone refuses to understand is that the Ottoman Empire was NOT a Turkish state. The Grand Vizier (Premier) during WWI was an Arab, as were a proportionate number of military officers, officials, and parliamentarians. Nobody was interested in trading a Muslim state in which they had a stake for some European power, and certainly not under rapacious beduin chieftains who were Britian's patsies.
The Kurds displayed even less separatism - in fact they were still supporting the Ottoman Empire after it was gone.
That leaves the Armenians, which would likely continue to be an issue, but their numbers were too small to accomplish anything without some disaster for the Ottomans, and as time passed, their terrorist tactics would be increasingly unappealing, especially given the way WWI started. The Armenian situation would depend greatly upon what happened to Russia - without Russian sponsorship, the Armenians would likely come to terms with the Ottoman administration and continue to press for concessions within the system.
There was no contention between Modernists and Traditionalists; that is all nationalist dogma and European misunderstanding of the situation. The struggle was between Constitutionalists and absolutists - one group felt that representative government was the best avenue to progress, and the other felt that only through a strong autocoracy could reform be pushed on the empire. I won't get into the nature of Islamism at this time as it is too confusing and complicated to explain in this thread. Suffice to say that everyone was in favor of modernization.
I don't see an Entente victory emboldening Greece to Aegean adventures against the Ottomans. First of all, they share no common border. Second, they already have all the Aegean islands. Third, they would get their asses handed to them on a platter. After the Ottomans had been at war for twelve years, fought several great powers simultaneously, demobilized their entire army and had their capital occupied, they still kicked the Greeks' asses handily even though they had British support. And that was while simultaneously chasing off the Italians, French, British, Soviets, and Armenians. Against the Ottoman Empire at full strength they wouldn't even get off the landing beach.
As for the hornet's nest, the 19th & 20th c are notable for the total lack of Greek rebellion after the independence war in 1830. The Greeks held a cushy place in the Ottoman polity, and after the Balkan Wars there were no longer any territories where they formed a majority. The Arabs displayed no nationalism whatsoever, although if the Young Turks stayed in power (which I think is highly unlikely if the Ottomans stay out of the war) their policies would alienate the Arabs. Even the Arab revolt had few adherents - what everyone refuses to understand is that the Ottoman Empire was NOT a Turkish state. The Grand Vizier (Premier) during WWI was an Arab, as were a proportionate number of military officers, officials, and parliamentarians. Nobody was interested in trading a Muslim state in which they had a stake for some European power, and certainly not under rapacious beduin chieftains who were Britian's patsies.
The Kurds displayed even less separatism - in fact they were still supporting the Ottoman Empire after it was gone.
That leaves the Armenians, which would likely continue to be an issue, but their numbers were too small to accomplish anything without some disaster for the Ottomans, and as time passed, their terrorist tactics would be increasingly unappealing, especially given the way WWI started. The Armenian situation would depend greatly upon what happened to Russia - without Russian sponsorship, the Armenians would likely come to terms with the Ottoman administration and continue to press for concessions within the system.
There was no contention between Modernists and Traditionalists; that is all nationalist dogma and European misunderstanding of the situation. The struggle was between Constitutionalists and absolutists - one group felt that representative government was the best avenue to progress, and the other felt that only through a strong autocoracy could reform be pushed on the empire. I won't get into the nature of Islamism at this time as it is too confusing and complicated to explain in this thread. Suffice to say that everyone was in favor of modernization.
LordKalvan said:
Grey Wolf
Donor
God_of_Belac said:
Why do people assume the empire is going to break up when its not fighting anybody ??? This is nuts
And why the hell are the Americans going to encourage Arabs who are NOT rebels to become rebels ???
I think people need to go away and read some history and not of what happened after the war, but of what was happening before it. Maybe these threads would have some more reality to them then
Grey Wolf
narky
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
God_of_Belac said:
How would you think this would come about? An easily dominated government under its guns? Do you remember that little sideshow called "Gallipoli" where they tried that? Not going to happen. By 1914 there was no question of imposing anything on the Ottomans without full-scale war, and that would not be politically possible, nor desirable, as it would likely start a new European war.
The British already had negotiated concessions for the development of oil in Mesopotamia - they would likely be altered to reflect German non-participation, but fear not, the Ottomans were very, very skillful at playing the powers off against each other.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I'm approaching this from the perspective of staying out of the war entirely. If that happened, there are two main directions that things could go:
1) The Young Turks stay in power. Their emerging Turkish nationalism makes Arab participation in the Ottoman Empire pointless. The Arabs push for autonomy, and eventually some sort of federated empire emerges. Another option that was considered (as early as the 1870s by the constitutionalist reform party) was the separation of the Sultanate and Caliphate, and transferring the latter to the Sherif of Mecca. I doubt this would have much chance by 1914.
2) The Young Turks lose power. This seems more likely; without the war, they will not have the leverage to hold on. The empire will have time to recover from the Balkan Wars, the economy will boom due tothe abolition of the capitulations and soaring prices for grains and natural resources (and bribes from the powers), and the Ottomans will be positioned to take advantage of whatever situation emerges. If Russia still collapses (less likely than historical), then the Ottomans move into the Caucasus and perhaps Central Asia. If not, Russia will be drained for a long, long time. Oil revenues allow huge investment in industry and infrastructure, and the improvement of Ottoman administration, which was historically cash-strapped. Taxes are very low, everyone's (relatively) happy. The Ottomans eventually develop into the locus for anti-colonialism and Muslim unity.
1) The Young Turks stay in power. Their emerging Turkish nationalism makes Arab participation in the Ottoman Empire pointless. The Arabs push for autonomy, and eventually some sort of federated empire emerges. Another option that was considered (as early as the 1870s by the constitutionalist reform party) was the separation of the Sultanate and Caliphate, and transferring the latter to the Sherif of Mecca. I doubt this would have much chance by 1914.
2) The Young Turks lose power. This seems more likely; without the war, they will not have the leverage to hold on. The empire will have time to recover from the Balkan Wars, the economy will boom due tothe abolition of the capitulations and soaring prices for grains and natural resources (and bribes from the powers), and the Ottomans will be positioned to take advantage of whatever situation emerges. If Russia still collapses (less likely than historical), then the Ottomans move into the Caucasus and perhaps Central Asia. If not, Russia will be drained for a long, long time. Oil revenues allow huge investment in industry and infrastructure, and the improvement of Ottoman administration, which was historically cash-strapped. Taxes are very low, everyone's (relatively) happy. The Ottomans eventually develop into the locus for anti-colonialism and Muslim unity.
Re: The Americans fomenting rebellion
The Arabs were willing to revolt in 1916, they could be made so again especially if it's the Saudis (Wahhabi, hate the Ottomans anyhow). The Americans would want that so they could make their own oil arrangements without having to go through Constantinople.
Re: Gallipoli
In this ITL Gallipoli hasn't happened, so all the people on both sides who figure it'd be easy haven't been disabused of the notion. Plus, Gallipoli was handled incredibly poorly and could have been won by the British, so if push came to shove they might succeed, especially in a world where their rivals were America and possibly Russia. Turkey was a submissive semi-ally of England for much of the 1800s, and with British economic power restored to the fore after WWI those days could easily return.
The reason why Turkey stood up to Britain in 1913 was because Germany had significant investments there. With Germany removed, Turkey would have had no protector against England and would have been forced to go along with it, as any minor Power would.
The Arabs were willing to revolt in 1916, they could be made so again especially if it's the Saudis (Wahhabi, hate the Ottomans anyhow). The Americans would want that so they could make their own oil arrangements without having to go through Constantinople.
Re: Gallipoli
In this ITL Gallipoli hasn't happened, so all the people on both sides who figure it'd be easy haven't been disabused of the notion. Plus, Gallipoli was handled incredibly poorly and could have been won by the British, so if push came to shove they might succeed, especially in a world where their rivals were America and possibly Russia. Turkey was a submissive semi-ally of England for much of the 1800s, and with British economic power restored to the fore after WWI those days could easily return.
The reason why Turkey stood up to Britain in 1913 was because Germany had significant investments there. With Germany removed, Turkey would have had no protector against England and would have been forced to go along with it, as any minor Power would.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Hmm don't you think that victory would bring its own impetus for Russia - just as economies are run on the basis of trust, so too is international great power politics. If people believe a power is still vital and viable, then it will have influence greater than its real raw-data strength.
I see Yusef Izzedin as somewhat key in the Ottoman attitude from 1918
btw was the demise of the harems in 1908-9 responsible in some way for freeing the other Imperial Princes to be used politically ? They suddenly seem to pop up everywhere as emissaries of the government when previously I know of very few cases where a non-heir has so obvious and wide-ranging a role
Grey Wolf
I see Yusef Izzedin as somewhat key in the Ottoman attitude from 1918
btw was the demise of the harems in 1908-9 responsible in some way for freeing the other Imperial Princes to be used politically ? They suddenly seem to pop up everywhere as emissaries of the government when previously I know of very few cases where a non-heir has so obvious and wide-ranging a role
Grey Wolf
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
About 20,000 out of 7 million Arabs revolted in 1916. They would never have done so if the empire was not fully engaged on 5 fronts elswhere. If they did, they would be utterly crushed.
Gallipoli was not incompetently handled; it was an incredibly difficult operation that never really had a chance for success, and even if it did, then what? The British would control the Gallipoli peninsula. So what? How do you supply and protect from mines a fleet in the enclosed waters of the Marmara, and what does that gain you? Mustafa Kemal defeated the Entente even though they were in occupation of Istanbul.
If the Ottomans stayed out of the war, you would be asking the British public to wage a war against a fully rested empire for what reason? Improved oil concessions? And the British and Americans had to make arrangements with the locals for oil anyway, even though the British were in physical control of the oil regions.
The Ottomans were not submisive allies of the British for much of the 19th c, they were actually considered threat #1 from 1882 on. The British were friendly for about 20 years due to the Crimean War, which the Ottomans couldn't help but notice they had seriously bled for with little return.
Turkey didn't stand up to Britain in 1913 because Turkey DIDN'T EXIST YET. IT'S CALLED THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Do you also call Italy the Roman Empire? One was a multinational Islamic empire, the other was a secularist ethnic nationalist republic. The Ottomans had no interest in entering a European war; it was the unique set of circumstances of 1) a recent revoluation (CUP), 2) British appropriation of the Ottoman BBs (damaged the pro-Entente faction), and 3) the arrival of Goeben which allowed the pro-CP War Minister, Enver Pasha, to force the Ottomans into the war.
The Wahhabis did not hate the Ottomans, nor vice versa. In fact, the Saudis resolutely resisted falling under British influence and long acknowledged Ottoman suzerainty. The Saudis also refrained from helping the Entente during the War.
Why would the Americans want to avoid working with the Ottoman government? They had a long history of amicable relations. Even post-war oil arrangements followed the lines negotiated with the Ottomans prior to the war.
Gallipoli was not incompetently handled; it was an incredibly difficult operation that never really had a chance for success, and even if it did, then what? The British would control the Gallipoli peninsula. So what? How do you supply and protect from mines a fleet in the enclosed waters of the Marmara, and what does that gain you? Mustafa Kemal defeated the Entente even though they were in occupation of Istanbul.
If the Ottomans stayed out of the war, you would be asking the British public to wage a war against a fully rested empire for what reason? Improved oil concessions? And the British and Americans had to make arrangements with the locals for oil anyway, even though the British were in physical control of the oil regions.
The Ottomans were not submisive allies of the British for much of the 19th c, they were actually considered threat #1 from 1882 on. The British were friendly for about 20 years due to the Crimean War, which the Ottomans couldn't help but notice they had seriously bled for with little return.
Turkey didn't stand up to Britain in 1913 because Turkey DIDN'T EXIST YET. IT'S CALLED THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Do you also call Italy the Roman Empire? One was a multinational Islamic empire, the other was a secularist ethnic nationalist republic. The Ottomans had no interest in entering a European war; it was the unique set of circumstances of 1) a recent revoluation (CUP), 2) British appropriation of the Ottoman BBs (damaged the pro-Entente faction), and 3) the arrival of Goeben which allowed the pro-CP War Minister, Enver Pasha, to force the Ottomans into the war.
The Wahhabis did not hate the Ottomans, nor vice versa. In fact, the Saudis resolutely resisted falling under British influence and long acknowledged Ottoman suzerainty. The Saudis also refrained from helping the Entente during the War.
Why would the Americans want to avoid working with the Ottoman government? They had a long history of amicable relations. Even post-war oil arrangements followed the lines negotiated with the Ottomans prior to the war.
God_of_Belac said:
Grey Wolf said:
Sometimes I doubt that people really listen.
yes, i do know about the Balkans (and Turkey, and the Middle East) during WW1 (and even now, btw: I've been travelling and living in the area for 20 years, which I doubt a lot of you guys have done).
What I said about Greece was:
1. Probably Greece will avoid a direct intervention in the war, since the Ottomans stay out;
2. Even in such a case, the most likely scenario is for a Greece favoring the Entente, so a Thessaloniki front would not be out of the question (I also believe that Greece would support Serbia, the ally of the Balkan Wars)
I remain quite sceptic about the real chances for the ottomans to reform. What do you expect, a mediterranean Japan?
Modernization would in any case be limited to the Ionian coast, and Costantinople. The interior of anatolia would remain the same, and I somehow doubt that the Levant and Mesopotamia would be greatly modernised.
The pan-Turk ideology is absolutely at cross purposes with the tenets of the empire. You may have one or the other, not both.
As for the rest, it is true that the empire did put up a reasonable performance during the war, but it came after a long string of defeats, and was limited to peripherical theatres (Eastern Anatolia and the Levant): the Russian were somehow more concentrated on the German front, I feel. And the English were also a bit stretched.
I see no one has made a guess about the career of Kemal or Enver pasha. These two guys were a bit too reluctant to fade into mediocrity, and I am sure that they would be drawn to politics (or to a coup?)
Tipically, when something happens in the area it stems from Russia: what about a Russia bolstered by the victory, but without having solved its problems? Usually the Russian answer to internal unrest is to go for some "short, victorious war". The excuse could be either the Armenians, or Pontus. Or maybe some pan-Turk meddling in Central Asia. It would be interesting to know what would be the situation in Iran. If there is a Reza Shah (who was strongly influenced by Kemal, and could have been butterflied away), there could be some play in Mesopotamia..
Of course, you may be convinced that there would have been an Ottoman Renaissance, and the Caliph would still dazzle everyone with his splendour. Just what happened to the Russian Empire, and to the Chinese Empire, isn't it?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
LordKalvan said:
The Ottomans HAD reformed, that's how they did so well in WWI. They built a RR network, including the well-conceived Hejaz RR, built entirely with Ottoma/Muslim resources, had established a parliamentary regime, established and empire-wide system of primary and secondary schools, created a secular court system, and their military was organizationally ahead of even Germany's (albeit due to the work of von der Goltz). Reforms were abolutely NOT limited to Istanbul and the Aegean coast, I have no idea what you even mean by that. You may have been infected with Turkish nationalist propaganda if you've spend too much time there.
As for the war, the Russians had their best generals on the Ottoman front (very often the most innovative commanders are banished by the general staffs to secondary fronts), and the British were certainly not as strectched thin as the Ottomans, who had to fight on five major fronts simultaneously (Gallipoli, Caucasus, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Persia) as well as subsidiary campaigns like Salonika, Galicia, and Rumania.
Pan-Turkism is not fatal to the empire, but the Turkish Nationalism (there's a difference) would have made the Arabs lose interest. However, as I said, there is no reason to assume that the Young Turks (CUP) would remain in power if the Ottomans stayed out of the war. When Yusuf Izzeddin assumed the throne, they would certainly be out.
There is a huge difference between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire by 1914. After the Balkan Wars, the overwhelming majority of the Ottoman population was Muslim and loyal to the empire, and there were only two significant ethnic groups. The Russian Empire was a much more unstable conglomeration of politically developed (key point) ethnicities ruled by a single ethnicity.
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I've been reading books on Ataturk, and even nowadays Turkey is still permeated by the myth of the Great Man (I'm reasonably convinced he had something more than others).
And, as usual, history books are written by the winners.
However, the survival of the Ottoman Empire is still not convincing me, since everything would have to go right, and probably it would not be enough.
The minorities issues is not just limited to Armenia, Pontus, Smyrna and Lebanon. There are quite a number of issues with Moslem "eretics" (Shia, Alawii, Wahabits should be the most significant ones).
Then the modernisation of the empire requires a lot of investment. Who is going to pour in the money? Europeans, Americans, Russians? and what would they demand in exchange?
In a way, the more it modernises, the more it becomes difficult to run. There is nothing more dangerous for an empire than increased chances for social mobility. It would be really funny if with the Red revolution stemmed in russia by the victory in WW1, the first communist revolution would happen in Costantinople! The real issue confronting the empire is its secularization: it succeeded (almost completely) in Kemal's Turkey, but only after 2 wars and because it was promoted by the "Saviour of the Country". I cannot expect it can be masterminded and executed by the bureaucracy, and applied to an empire that goes from Erzurum to Costantinople and to Baghdad (including Arabia and the Holy cities). Have a look at what's happening these days in the Shia part of Iraq.
In conclusion, if the empire does not modernise it will be carved like a roast. If it modernises, it creates unrest and maximises centrifugal forces. All of this from the interior, assuming a favourable international ambience and no colonial adventures. And assuming also that people like Kemal and Enver soldier on, without rising up or staging a coup.
In my view, the Ottoman Empire, like the Absburg Empire, the Russian Empire and the Chinese Empire had survived beyond its vital span. To make it survive longer you need to concoct a very unlikely and artificial set of conditions which could not last for long
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
LordKalvan said:
You are unlikely to get a balanced view of the Ottoman Empire from a biography of Mustafa Kemal, especially one written by a Brit.
The more the empire modernized, the EASIER it was to run, as improved transportation and communication made central control and coordination much easier and more efficient, as well as the movement of troops.
On the issue of modernization, if you don't think the Ottomans were capable of it, how did Mustafa Kemal? Turkey had far fewer resources than the Ottoman Empire, which would also have had oil revenue. MK didn't just pull his reforms out of a hat, he just continued existing Ottoman reforms. Where did he get his ideas? From the Ottoman schools he was educated in.
As for secularization, there is very little difference between Ottoman secularization programs and Mustafa Kemal's. The difference is that he replaced "Islamic nationalism" with narrow Turkish nationalism. Just because the Ottoman Empire was ruled by a Sultan/Caliph (by 1914 just a figurehead) does not make the empire a backward theocracy. The King of England was also head of the Church of England. The Ottomans had established secular court and education systems. All MK did was try to totally purge Islam from daily life, and he succeeded in creating a crisis of identity that left the Mid East vulnerable to the radical movements we are plagued with today. As is typical, you totally exaggerate the power of the Wahhabis. They were a minor nuisance to the Ottomans, and their movement held little appeal to anyone until after the Ottoman Empire was gone and the Mid East ruled by non-Muslims.
Communism would have been utterly impossible in the Ottoman Empire. It is totally incompatible with a Muslim society.
I don't understand why you assume everything has to go right for the Ottoman Empire to survive. If anything, everything had to go wrong for it to disappear, and that's basically what happened.
You may be underestimating the strength of nationalism.
MK succeeded because he had won the survival war against the Greeks: after the victory, his charisma was large enough to enable him to force Turkey to reform.
The other situation is different: you do not have a "victorious imperator" changing the empire. You would have a bureaucracy, a committee reforming the empire. This is not a s easy as it looks: it requires a lot of compromises, and overall compromises never work completely well.
A point in case is Reza Shah in Iran: he took a lot of leafs from MK book, and if you want he had ousted the russians from Northern Iran. At the same time he was never able to change Iran as MK changed Turkey. As soon as he went, the Shia clerics started to raise their head (and you know how it ended in 1978).
Staying in Iran (just to be in an Islamic country) there was a strong Communist party in the 60s and 70s. I do not believe that Communism cannot happen in Islamic countries. Or could you tell me that it was more believable in ortodox Russia?
Anyway, I think that I am the guilty party. In a way, I hijacked the thread, to demonstrate that Ottoman Empire could not survive, while the aim was exactly the opposite one
MK succeeded because he had won the survival war against the Greeks: after the victory, his charisma was large enough to enable him to force Turkey to reform.
The other situation is different: you do not have a "victorious imperator" changing the empire. You would have a bureaucracy, a committee reforming the empire. This is not a s easy as it looks: it requires a lot of compromises, and overall compromises never work completely well.
A point in case is Reza Shah in Iran: he took a lot of leafs from MK book, and if you want he had ousted the russians from Northern Iran. At the same time he was never able to change Iran as MK changed Turkey. As soon as he went, the Shia clerics started to raise their head (and you know how it ended in 1978).
Staying in Iran (just to be in an Islamic country) there was a strong Communist party in the 60s and 70s. I do not believe that Communism cannot happen in Islamic countries. Or could you tell me that it was more believable in ortodox Russia?
Anyway, I think that I am the guilty party. In a way, I hijacked the thread, to demonstrate that Ottoman Empire could not survive, while the aim was exactly the opposite one