Ottoman empire 2004

[B_Munro]

Interesting: but this strikes me as one of those TLs where everything has to break just right for it to happen.

[cracks knuckles] I'm actually working on this as we speak.
Sultan Abdul Hamid II was in favor of compromise and accommodation of the powers, but had just assumed the throne, had not consolidated his position, and was unable to override Midhat.
(snip)
Then there would be two powerful opposing ministers that the Sultan could have played against each other and got his way, accepting some of the European interference (which he could have subverted and undermined over time as he did historically), and there would have been no war.

The Russians were spoiling for a fight at the time, and the memory of the Bulgarian atrocities [1] were still fresh, so that even if the Sultan shows some willingness to compromise, the Russians may still go to war in the hopes that nobody will really want to stop them.

(Note in our TL the British were at first somewhat neutral on the war, and only slowly became pro-Turk as the Turks put in a "gallant" performance and Constantinople looked threatened). Thought: could the Russians go to war in the face of some UK dissaproval, which turns into downright military support of the Ottomans as time goes on? And even if war is avoided this time, there may be later revolts giving the Russians an excuse. (Nicholas not interested, you say? See comments below)

BTW, what were the demands being placed on the Turks?

So, there are the Balkans. Nicholas II was much more interested in East Asia, and maintained relatively friendly relations with the Ottomans, so once he's on the throne the Russian danger largely passes.

May be that the reason he was more interested in the east in our TL is that the events of post-1878 showed there were distinct limits on how much Russian influence in the Balkans the other major powers were willing to accept: no Big Bulgaria, fer instance. Without said dissapointments, there will seem to be greater opportunities in the Balkans. Also, if the Ottomans seem to be getting their shit together, this will probably alarm the Russians into thinking a war to weaken them is a Good Thing.

But, let's say the Turks manage to hold onto the Balkans and keep the area from blowing up in their faces. I have more trouble with some of the following..

On to Africa. Tunis was promised to France as a quid pro quo for the British occupation of Cyprus in the Treaty of Berlin (which doesn't happen here). Thus, France can't snatch it without the threat of a general war. When troubles there reach crisis point, the Ottomans move in and restore control (Tunis was also had a huge debt load) and assume responsibilty for the Tunisian debt.

Seriously, are people going to go to war with France if they try to keep Tunisia out of Ottoman hands? Was anyone anywhere outside of Ottoman territory proclaiming the sanctity of Ottoman claims to the area?

Meanwhile the Urabist revolt in Egypt alarms the Porte, which fearing European intervention moves reoccupies Egypt, after negotiations with the Urabists provide for the appointment of Egyptians to the administration and military (prior to this controlled by the Turkish/Circassian/Albanian ruling elite and a large number of extremely highly paid Europeans).

Iffy - will the British be as willing to let the Suez canal go under effective Ottoman control (if not ownership) if they are looking stronger?

Little known to most people, the Balkans were about 45% Muslim in 1876, and the Danube province, which formed the bulk of Bulgaria, actually had a Muslim majority.

Bulgaria, within today's borders? Can we have a cite for that?

In Central Africa, the Ottomans, in control of the Sudan and Libya, are able to enforce their claims to much of the Sahara region encompasing today's Chad and much of Niger (Historically, Bornu, the largest state in the area [around Lake Chad] raised the Ottoman flag in 1891 to try to avoid falling under British & French rule).

At the time the French were attacking them, no? Ottomans have enough problems without clashing with the French over central african semidesert, although I can see them holding Chad.

the collapse of Tsarist Russia allows the Ottomans to move into the Caucasus, Crimea, and Central Asia, liberating the Muslim populations and doubling the number of ethnic Turks in the empire.

Note that since Bosnia is still under Ottoman rule, we don't get _our_ WWI. Princip is trying to assasinate Turkish officials, not Hapsburg ones. [2] If the war is delayed, Russia probably does better, and it indubitably benefits from not having the Black Sea straits in the hands of an enemy power. So in your TL a total Russian collapse is rather less likely. Even if it does somehow, you need post-war Russia to _stay_ weak if you want to avoid a very nasty war over at least northern Kazakistan and the Causcus states by the late 30's.

By 2004 the population of the Ottoman Empire is 400 million, and it controls the vast majority of the world's oil reserves.

Might be a bit lower than that: greater prosperity, earlier demographic transition. And this assumes no more major wars with the Ottomans getting involved.

Extremely low taxation and local autonomy hold together the enormous empire, as well as Muslim solidarity.

Of course, can't count out ethnic nationalism. Increasingly well-educated and secular Arabs may not be happy with Turkish dominance. Not sure how big the Ottomans will be on "regional autonomy": wasn't an _excess_ of regional autonomy one of the things the Ottomans were struggling with in the 19th century?

[1] Exaggerated, to be sure. But the news did make a big impression at the time.

[2] And where will an increasingly powerful and effective Ottoman state fit into the international alliance system? It will not remain ignored as a possible ally as it did in our TL. Can it remain neutral indefinitely, and will it want to, as it grows stronger and more self-confident?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't think he meant to imply the creation of a communist Islam state; rather, I think he meant that the evolution of the Ottoman state could follow (broadly) the same lines as China, ie corrupt (I'm sure John will dispute this) , bankrupt imperial state with many different minorities starting to pull themselves apart, undergoes massive civil war after being invaded by a hostile power (Russia? as China was invaded by Japan...), transformed by some ideology (communism, islam, or rastafarianism, whatever) into a kind of 'rebirth' in the mid 20th century.

The Ottoman Empire's main problem was its lack of money. This led to underpaid bureaucrats which fed corruption, etc. I agree, the Ottoman Emprie was corrupt and bankrupt (well, not bankrupt, but severely lacking in funds). Additional revenue would have allowed for a proper professional bureaucracy, an better educational system to combat missionaries, a stronger military to deflect foreign intervention, the buidling of infrastructure to fuel economic expansion, and the resources to expand, as both the Ottomans and Egypt were during the 1870s before they went bankrupt.

The Ottomans weren't as corrupt as generally thought, though, and the education system was much better than most people are aware.

 

[MerryPrankster]

John,

On the matter of the map, you seemed to have researched the journeys of the various pashas, so perhaps the OE will extend further into Africa than I thought.

What are the odds of a French war with the Ottomans over Bornu and Tunisia? The Fashoda Incident nearly led to a war between France and Britain, even though they'd been allies for some time before (since 1856 at least).

Leo,

It's cool to have you back too. This area seems to be your area of expertise. I have some questions that I meant to ask when you weren't around...

Do you mind if I use the bit about the "Isawis" you supplied me with (WI Islam conquered Europe?) in one of my stories? I asked you that, but it was around the time the board collapsed, so I don't think I ever got an answer.

Also, in another discussion, someone said that there was not an organized religion that worshipped a god called Moloch in the days of the Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom of Israel--it was more of a series of local cults, some of whom practiced human sacrifice and some of whom did not. What's your take?

 

[Rahul]

Faelin, to reach the Indus they would have to secure cooperation from the Afghans and the Shia Iranians. Also, the Indian Army would not have allowed that to happen. Even if many Muslims revolted in favor the of the Ottomans, the combined forces Britain could draw from North Indian Hindus and the Sikhs would be able to overwhelm them (and the British here could appeal to fears of religious violence). I see the Ottomans maybe making it to Pathan country (Pakistan-Afghanistan border region) but doing so would require them to defeat the Shia Iranians who would undoubtedly be backed by the British (in the form of the Indian Army) and perhaps some Shia Afghans too.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Leo,

It's cool to have you back too. This area seems to be your area of expertise. I have some questions that I meant to ask when you weren't around...

Do you mind if I use the bit about the "Isawis" you supplied me with (WI Islam conquered Europe?) in one of my stories? I asked you that, but it was around the time the board collapsed, so I don't think I ever got an answer.

Also, in another discussion, someone said that there was not an organized religion that worshipped a god called Moloch in the days of the Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom of Israel--it was more of a series of local cults, some of whom practiced human sacrifice and some of whom did not. What's your take?

Thanks! It's good to be back.

If you want to take the Isawis and run with them, please do. I'd be very interested in seeing what you do with them.

There are a number of divinities with the MLK root in the region - a Canaanite god named Milk (who appears in some theophoric names), another specifically Tyrian god Melqart (the "Tyrian Heracles"), and the Ammonite god Milcom who is also mentioned in the Bible.

Paul Mosca wrote his thesis, "Child Sacrifice in Israelite and Canaanite Religion: From Molk to Moloch" on this very topic. The word molk originally refered to a class of human or animal sacrifice common in the Levant. According to the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, there were three types - a "blood sacrifice" a "ram sacrifice", and a "human sacrifice."

IIRC, Mosca's thesis was that the OT term Moloch (Hebrew Molech) originally refered to the molk sacrifice, and the being "Moloch" arose through confusion. This is because the passages that deal with this figure can be translated either as "for Moloch" or "as a sacrifice." Once the practice of molk ceased, and this term became unfamiliar, the passages dealing with it were reinterpreted to refer to a new being, Moloch (not to be confused with any older divinities).

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Everything doesn't have to go right, but a lot does at a critical point, 1876. Historically, Abdul Hamid made virtually no mistakes with regard to foreign policy once he gained power. Bismarck himself said "of all the intellingence in Europe, 90% in in Abdul Hamid's head, 5% in mine, and 5% in everyone else's."

To address your points:

Russia was not really spoiling for a war, and in fact the Tsar was against it. There were elements in the Russian government that did want it, and the Ottoman refusal to compromise on any point swung the balance in their favor. The initial demands of the powers were:

a. Christian governor in Bosnia-Herzovina, appointed for life with the advice and consent of the powers, and BH to be autonomous; Bulgaria to have a Christian governor appointed for life and Russian military occupation to reorganize the region.

b. Redistribution of land to favor Christians.

c. A foreign military force to maintain order in the Balkans - it was at some point decided this should be Belgian (!).

d. Broad rights of the powers to intefere on behalf of Ottoman Christians

e. Cession of territory to Serbia and Montenegro

f. Creation of Christian militias for local defense.

Later the Armenians went for autonomy, but the powers investigated and found their population figures grossly exaggerated and so rejected their claims, although reforms were demanded in Eastern Anatolia, although the reforms did not exceed the scope of reforms already occurring. In addition, the powers also demanded reforms that were already implemented or were in the process of being implemented. In general, the Powers' demands were aimed at weakening Ottoman central authority and further increasing the power of the Christians, whose rights already exceeded those of the Muslims.

Obviously this could not be accepted by the Ottomans; it meant giving up control over most of the European territory and would have meant essentially surrendering their sovereignty - it would be better to go to war and take their chances. Rejection of this program was labelled by Salisbury "puerile and incomprehensible". That he would even say such a thing is a clear demonstration of European bigotry an arrogance.

Abdul Hamid came up with a plan, but Midhat decided to treat is as a suggestion, and did not even bring it to the table; it was:

a. An international commission to examine the complaints of the Bulgars to recommend changes and empowered to judge officials responsible for atrocities.

b. Quick implementation of the reforms promised in the recently promulgated constitution, to be guaranteed by the Powers.

The final offer of the powers was scaled down to some reform of the courts and tax systems plus some European participation in selection of governors, but Midhat rejected this too and the conference broke up. This was foolish, as most of the reforms were already planned, and although the agreement would have allowed significant European influence over internal Ottoman affairs, this could have been short-circuited over time. An agreement would have made a declaration of war by Russia impossible, as all the powers including Russia would have been guarantors of the agreement. That's why I think Russia would still turn East, as further aggression in the Balkans would almost certainly lead to a general war.

France snatched Tunis because it was given to them at the Berlin Conference by Britain in exchange for acceptance of the British occupation of Cyprus. That doesn't happen here, and the French were very anti-imperialist at this time. The principal reason for grabbing it when they did was to prevent it from falling into the hands of Italy. In the OTL, the Ottomans are capable of taking on Italy, having a larger navy (yes, it's true!), and nobody in favor of Italian imperialism. At one point, the French sent a BB to Tunis as a demonstation due to internal struggle between pro-Italian and pro-French factions - the British sent a bigger BB in response and the French backed down. The actual French occupation was universally reviled, and was also disastrous, as France had to devote large resources to deal with serious revolts an guerilla warfare.

The historical fact is that the British did not want to invade Egypt and tried to get the Ottomans to do it. The Canal was controlled by the Suez Canal Co, which the British controlled, and so long as the Ottomans didn't interfere with it, there's no problem. The principle impetus for the invasion was to protect the interests of bondholders, not the canal, which was not really threatened.

I have the census figure for Bulgaria at work, I'll post them tomorrow. But a quick summary, of the Danube province, which is the bulk of Bulgaria, but also incuded the Dobruja, had a Muslim majority, partly from conversion in the 15th-16th c, partly from Muslim settlement that pre-dated the Ottoman empire, partly settlement of Turks along the Danube frontier, and lately from a huge influx of Cirassian refugees from the Caucasus. The mountains and the Sofia area had large Bulgarian majorities.

With regard to Africa, the French did not arrive in the area in question until 1900 - European penetration was largely limited to the coast until the 1890s. The Ottomans would have local power bases and be able to move into the Lake Chad region at least a decade ahead of the British or French. By this time, the Ottomans are strong enough to be part of the balance of power equasion, and the French are not going to push too hard for some scraps of desert.

I agree we won't have our WWI - I have a long and involved timeline, but this is not my thread.

With regard to popualtion, I gave it a lot of though and came up with 450 million, but scaled it down to 400. The retreat of the Ottomans from the Balkans and Eastern Anatolia resulted in the massacre of 5-7 million Muslims; WWI and the Russian revolution accounted for a similar number in Anatolia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. As Turkey's population in 1923 was about 12 million, that's a depopulation of about a third. Given the population of Turkey today is over 70 million, I don't think my assumptions are far off, barring a horrendously bloody war. But I concede it could be lower, and it would probably be better for the empire if it was lower.

It's important to remember that the Ottoman Empire was NOT a Turkish state, nor was it Turkish dominated. Especially under Abdul Hamid, Arabs entered both the government and military in large numbers, and Armenians and Greeks continued to serve in the government in large numbers. Ethnic nationalism would always be a problem, but least of all from the Arabs. The empire if anything is likely to be increasingly Arabized with the addition of Egypt. The Russian Empire was able to hold together a much more disparate group of ethnicities until the 1990s - the Ottoman Empire would be overwhelmingly Muslim, and unlike Russia, is truly anational. I think that over time, local autonomy would be inevitable. In the late 18th-early 19th c, it wasn't so much local autonomy as local total independence that was the problem. In any case, the late Ottoman state, although highly centralized, had very extensive local participation in provincial government. Even the most hostile Europeans admitted the Ottomans had a "genius" for local administration, at least when properly funded.

And damned right the Bulgarian atrocities were exaggerated. That would have become clear with European investigation. Historically, Victoria's outrage at the horrific massacres of Muslims by the Russians during the war was an important element in the British government taking a stand. British consular reports indicated 300,000 massacred and 1 million expelled, a large number of whom died.

Abdul Hamid was strictly neutralist. He wanted to avoid conflict at all costs, and succeeded for the 33 years of his reign, with the exception of the war with Greece, which he strenuously tried to avoid, and even then was extremely lenient with the Greeks. Assuming he holds onto the throne, he died in 1918, and I suspect would have lived a bit longer if he had still been on the throne, as he was heartbroken over the destruction of all his hard work (at one point, the Grand Vizier, Talat Pasha, went to him to ask for advice how he could get the empire out of the war, but AH told him it was too late). There is no reason to suppose that the Ottomans would have to align with anyone, but I would assume there would probably be a resumption of the informal alliance with Britain, if colonial conflicts don't poison the waters too badly - and friendship with Germany would continue to develop. A stronger Ottoman Empire would be able to wring concessions out of the Powers to rid itself of the worst excesses of the Capitulations, which were finally abolished in the run-up to WWI.

The Ottomans generally were not fast to jump into situations - the reckless plunge into WWI was largely the work of one man, Enver Pasha, handed in a quirk of fate with the means to force the hand of the government.

As the Ottoman Empire gains strength and confidence, I would expect it to champion the interests of Muslims worldwide. After Abdul Hamid the situation is less predictable.

Interestingly, the Ottomans considered the Germans the easiest to work with. Germans were considered to tend to have a respect for the Ottomans and bothered to learn Ottoman languages, whereas the British and French advisors were condescending and refused to even consider learning anything about the culture in which they were operating. For instance, the French sent a mission to organize the Gendermerie, but all they did was forced all the police to learn French and dressed them in powder-blue jackets. Due to British reform missions, English was used in the navy. The Americans were also highly regarded, as were the Japanese. As I mentioned in another thread, per an American request, Abdul Hamid asked the Phillipine Muslims to accept American administration, and so the Muslim regions were the only areas that did not rebel against us.

Interesting: but this strikes me as one of those TLs where everything has to break just right for it to happen.



The Russians were spoiling for a fight at the time, and the memory of the Bulgarian atrocities [1] were still fresh, so that even if the Sultan shows some willingness to compromise, the Russians may still go to war in the hopes that nobody will really want to stop them.

(Note in our TL the British were at first somewhat neutral on the war, and only slowly became pro-Turk as the Turks put in a "gallant" performance and Constantinople looked threatened). Thought: could the Russians go to war in the face of some UK dissaproval, which turns into downright military support of the Ottomans as time goes on? And even if war is avoided this time, there may be later revolts giving the Russians an excuse. (Nicholas not interested, you say? See comments below)

BTW, what were the demands being placed on the Turks?




May be that the reason he was more interested in the east in our TL is that the events of post-1878 showed there were distinct limits on how much Russian influence in the Balkans the other major powers were willing to accept: no Big Bulgaria, fer instance. Without said dissapointments, there will seem to be greater opportunities in the Balkans. Also, if the Ottomans seem to be getting their shit together, this will probably alarm the Russians into thinking a war to weaken them is a Good Thing.

But, let's say the Turks manage to hold onto the Balkans and keep the area from blowing up in their faces. I have more trouble with some of the following..



Seriously, are people going to go to war with France if they try to keep Tunisia out of Ottoman hands? Was anyone anywhere outside of Ottoman territory proclaiming the sanctity of Ottoman claims to the area?



Iffy - will the British be as willing to let the Suez canal go under effective Ottoman control (if not ownership) if they are looking stronger?



Bulgaria, within today's borders? Can we have a cite for that?



At the time the French were attacking them, no? Ottomans have enough problems without clashing with the French over central african semidesert, although I can see them holding Chad.



Note that since Bosnia is still under Ottoman rule, we don't get _our_ WWI. Princip is trying to assasinate Turkish officials, not Hapsburg ones. [2] If the war is delayed, Russia probably does better, and it indubitably benefits from not having the Black Sea straits in the hands of an enemy power. So in your TL a total Russian collapse is rather less likely. Even if it does somehow, you need post-war Russia to _stay_ weak if you want to avoid a very nasty war over at least northern Kazakistan and the Causcus states by the late 30's.



Might be a bit lower than that: greater prosperity, earlier demographic transition. And this assumes no more major wars with the Ottomans getting involved.



Of course, can't count out ethnic nationalism. Increasingly well-educated and secular Arabs may not be happy with Turkish dominance. Not sure how big the Ottomans will be on "regional autonomy": wasn't an _excess_ of regional autonomy one of the things the Ottomans were struggling with in the 19th century?

[1] Exaggerated, to be sure. But the news did make a big impression at the time.

[2] And where will an increasingly powerful and effective Ottoman state fit into the international alliance system? It will not remain ignored as a possible ally as it did in our TL. Can it remain neutral indefinitely, and will it want to, as it grows stronger and more self-confident?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

John,

On the matter of the map, you seemed to have researched the journeys of the various pashas, so perhaps the OE will extend further into Africa than I thought.

What are the odds of a French war with the Ottomans over Bornu and Tunisia? The Fashoda Incident nearly led to a war between France and Britain, even though they'd been allies for some time before (since 1856 at least).

I would view the chance of war over Tunis medium, but avoidable if the Ottomans are very careful to guarantee French interests. Prior to the French invasion, Italian influence was predominant in the Bey's court due to the a conflict between a French bank and the Bey's favorite and Prime Minister over an attractive coastal estate. An Ottoman restoration would restore the French to their predominant position, and as I mentioned, the French public was very much anti-Imperialist at the time.

The chance of war over Bornu I would say is quite slim, as it wasn't in a French-claimed sphere, and the Ottomans would get there so far ahead of France. The French would likely view Ottoman possession preferable to British. The British would not likely object so long as they have commercial access.

There was never a real chance of war over Fashoda, and British-French rivalry colonial affairs had been rather heated for some time. This was largely due to the informal nature of the British Empire, which gave the French too many opportunities for mischief. One of the principle reasons for British ire towards the French is that the French totally closed their possessions to British trade. The Ottomans were committed to free trade (largely due to the capitulations, which limited import tariffs to 8% and export tariffs to 1%, extremely low by European standards. Europeans also didn't have to pay taxes.)

 

[wkwillis]

POD 1914

The only reason the Turks got involved in the war was that they figured that they were being sized up for partition afterwards and wanted to suck up to the eventual victors.
Actually if they had known that there would be no victors they would have just stayed out. The allies would have been able to keep Russia in the war with the Straits open, and they would have had a million extra troops to bleed to death on the Western Front. Figure on the war lasting till 1920 and killing another ten million people. On the other hand there is no Russian civil war and Stalinist murders. America also stays out.
Turkey picks up the Stans from the exhausted Russians. That also gives them lots of experienced soldiers. They pick up Arabia because the British don't have the funds to garrison it or control it. They don't get the Canal, but they don't want it either. They can just build pipelines to the Med and ship from Jaffa or someplace.
The OPEC cartel is just Iran and Turkey. Turkey has Baku and the Gulf, which means it has most of the easily available oil. Lots of room for price cartels with the British cut in on the deal through BP. Then all they have to do is let the agricultural revolution destroy the value of Algeria as cheap nitrates from Kuwaiti natural gas results in overproduction of grapes and wheat.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The only reason the Turks got involved in the war was that they figured that they were being sized up for partition afterwards and wanted to suck up to the eventual victors.
Actually if they had known that there would be no victors they would have just stayed out. The allies would have been able to keep Russia in the war with the Straits open, and they would have had a million extra troops to bleed to death on the Western Front. Figure on the war lasting till 1920 and killing another ten million people. On the other hand there is no Russian civil war and Stalinist murders. America also stays out.
Turkey picks up the Stans from the exhausted Russians. That also gives them lots of experienced soldiers. They pick up Arabia because the British don't have the funds to garrison it or control it. They don't get the Canal, but they don't want it either. They can just build pipelines to the Med and ship from Jaffa or someplace.
The OPEC cartel is just Iran and Turkey. Turkey has Baku and the Gulf, which means it has most of the easily available oil. Lots of room for price cartels with the British cut in on the deal through BP. Then all they have to do is let the agricultural revolution destroy the value of Algeria as cheap nitrates from Kuwaiti natural gas results in overproduction of grapes and wheat.

I'm not sure your conclusions are logical - if the Russians continue in the fight longer and no British Empire troops are committed to the East, then why does the war last longer ? Also, why is there a logic to the US staying out, especially if every historical event that led to them entering still occurs here, and I can't see why they would not ?

The Ottoman Empire not being in the war seems far more likely to lead to an Entente victory sooner than OTL. If there is an Entente victory, then Russia is not going to lose control of any territory in the Caucasus or Central Asia. Sure, the OE is going to be able to develop the Mesopotamian and later the Arabian oilfields, but it will be in a world where the Entente won in c1916

IMVHO of course

Grey Wolf

 

[MerryPrankster]

Leo,

I had a lengthy response to your comments about the Isawi, but I decided to send it as a personal message rather than posting it here, as it might prove to be a distraction to the dicussion at hand.

Hmm...perhaps I ought to have done that for my Moloch questions.

 

[MerryPrankster]

On the matter of Moloch, so "offering by fire to Moloch" could read as "offering by fire as a Moloch [or MLK]"?

Translational glitch?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm not sure your conclusions are logical - if the Russians continue in the fight longer and no British Empire troops are committed to the East, then why does the war last longer ? Also, why is there a logic to the US staying out, especially if every historical event that led to them entering still occurs here, and I can't see why they would not ?

The Ottoman Empire not being in the war seems far more likely to lead to an Entente victory sooner than OTL. If there is an Entente victory, then Russia is not going to lose control of any territory in the Caucasus or Central Asia. Sure, the OE is going to be able to develop the Mesopotamian and later the Arabian oilfields, but it will be in a world where the Entente won in c1916

IMVHO of course

Grey Wolf

I would agree, no Ottoman entry would likely lead to the Entente winning earlier. Besides the direct military contribution, the closure of the Straits was a crippling blow to the Russian war effort. I can imagine a wide range of reasons the Straits could be closed even if the Ottomans do stay out, but it's hard to envision too many scenarios in which Ottoman neutrality does not greatly benefit the Entente.

It is true, though, that one of the principal calculations that propelled the pro-CP faction was the fear that a victorious Entente would have nothing to stop it from partitioning the Ottoman Empire. I don't believe that would have happened, but there was certainly justification for the fear.