Too small of an empire and too poor of a country with too weak of a military and too unstable of a political system.
Survivality of the Empires
- Thread starter Joseph Solis in Australia
- Start date
Too small of an empire and too poor of a country with too weak of a military and too unstable of a political system.
Well, the problem with a no World War 1 as we know it scenario is that we have nearly 100 years in which anything can happen. Assuming however that there isn't a world war but dozens of small conflicts (rather like the cold war OTL), it's still possible that some of the colonial empires can survive in some way or another.
Austro-Hungarian Empire:IMO, the age of big european land empires ruled by emperors is over, the age of ethnic nationalism is in. All that was really keeping all of the minorities together in 1914 was a shared loyalty to Franz Joseph. AH can probably survive into the 30's, but the whole "United States of Greater Austria" thing would never have worked. Not only would most of the minorities oppose it on the grounds that it would grant them enough autonomy, the Hungarians were opposed to it because it would mean that they would loose most of their land and most of their power. In short, AH is doomed and people now may think of and refer to the "Former AH" as people think and refer to the Former Yugoslavia OTL.
Russian Empire: Sans above, but not as bad. Sure you have the Poles, but with a bit of reform they can probably be placated. The Finns were happy enough, they were even the first country in the world to have elections with complete and full universal suffrage
(not kidding!). Aside from the above and the Baltic's, the other, mostly non-european minorities are probably going to be easy to hold down in the long run. The real problem is staying competitive with the other powers economically and militarily. This can be done, but it's harder with out some sort of democracy, which the Romanovs won't easily concede, although that might be easier when most of the advisors and courtiers from Alexander III's time die off. So, i'd give Russia a 50/50 chance of survival or at least staying a world power.
Ottoman Empire: As the Byzantine Empire shows us, empires can survive or a hell of a long time, but they must all die. The Ottomans in that sense were about in the same position that the Byzantines were in about 1400, on the way out fast. Although it probably won't be as drastic as OTL's and there will probably be some sort of surviving Turkish state in anatolia, something similar to OTL's partition will probably happen, particularly after the European states become interested in their oil, the result being that by 2010, the Middle east of this TL might look a lot like the Middle east now. There even, with anger over the european powers overthrow of the caplih, something a lot like OTL's Radical Islam. Oh yeah, and there is a good chance the some form of Israel might still come about, but really depends on who ends up with Palestine in this ATL partition and what the state of anti-semiteism is in this worlds.
British Empire: Probably has the best chance of survival out of all of these, although, as above, it's not that straightforward. Now it's almost certain that the white Dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (i'll touch on South Africa later) will maintain ties to the mother country if not much more than OTL. WW1 really changed the way the Dominions thought about them selves. In Australia where i come from, before the war, most Australians really did think of themselves as British overseas and were probably some of the most patriotic of imperial patriots. The myth of aristocratic British officers sending bronzed young Aussies off to die in the trenches of Gallipoli and the western front really bought about a different Australian identity from the one that was developing before the war, although we were still for the most part the most loyal of the Dominions. The same goes for New Zealand, although i'm not to sure about Canada. The result being, that in a no World War 1 scenario, the White Dominions are most likely to keep ties to the mother country.
India is in a rather similar position. Before the war, most so called indian "Nationalism" revolved around mystics and poets. The movement to at least make India a Dominion only really got started after the war, when Indians, who had fought with the same tenacity and loyalty as white Empire troops wanted the same level of autonomy as their white imperial brothers. So without World War 1, it's very possible that the Raj will last a lot longer than OTL, i'd be willing to bet up until the 60's. But, inevitably, the Indians would discover ethnic nationalism and, in that case, things could go in three directions. Firstly, you could have a situation similar to OTL, with a violent partition and ethnic violence. Secondly, you could have the British granting India Dominion status, but IMO, a large state with dozens of religions and races held together only by a supposed loyalty to the British crown is doomed to failure. Either it goes republican or implodes. Thirdly, i remember reading somewhere that some thought of a compromise situation for preserving Britain's empire in India by basically elevating the Raj to the status of a kingdom in personal union with GB, IE, an actual Indian Empire, where the British monarch would still be emperor but the state would have more autonomy than the dominions. However, it was intended that most of the power would still lie in the Anglo Indian officials and the Maharajas.
As for Africa, things could get complicated. In South Africa, one of the reasons that extreme Afrikaner nationalism emerged was the world wars and the depression and the economic poverty that resulted from those. With all those butterflied away, Britain might have a better chance of cultivating a loyalty amongst the Afrikaners and therefore creating a loyal Dominion. Another way this could be done is if that South Africa has similar amounts of British immigration as say Australia did, although that may have the effect of creating another version of extreme Afrikaner nationalism. As far as the Blacks go, things will probably be over all better than OTL, but by 2010, whites will probably still dominate, even if it's more of an economic than official apartheid. In Rhodesia, if there is sufficient economic progress and white immigration, the South (but possibly not the north) has a good chance of becoming a very successful Dominion in the long run, that is if it's not incorporated into South Africa. It may even gain a coast line depending on how Portugal's empire collapses. Not to sure about East Africa, but Kenya also has a good chance if it's handled right. As for west Africa, once again, Nigeria has a good chance of turning into a good dominion, while the other smaller colonies can probably be made into smaller ones or may even end up having a similar status to British Overseas Territories OTL. To the north, Britain will loose Egypt in the long run, but will probably keep the suez canal in some way or another.
As for the rest of the Empire, all the islands and what not will probably be turned into something like British Overseas Territories and the West Indies will probably end up falling into the American Sphere in the end, although once tourism and gambling kicks off, they would still be very profitable, rather like Bermuda or the Bahamas and what not in OTL. In short, yes, a large uber British Commonwealth thing that people may or may not still call "The Empire" because they can can survive with probably slightly less military power and influence than the United States OTL.
German Empire: In Europe, yes. Overseas, probably not. If we accept what seams to be a truism here in AH.com that a surviving Kaisereich turns lefty and social democratic, then they can probably survive in Europe, but their rather small colonial empire will be disposed off. However, it's not that simple, assuming that the Germans get rid of their Empire willingly, there could be conflict in places where there are lots of Germans already living, and maybe, say South West Africa might end up being a German "Rhodesia" of sorts. But because Germanies colonial empire didn't last for long IOTL, it's hard to say.
France: Hard to say, Mainly due to the inevitability that Frances political scene will be unstable and unpredictable throughout this 20th century. If it moves to the left, some sort of republican federation based on "equal economic development" or something could arise. if it moves to the right, it could very end up looking like a cross between OTL Algeria and the Portuguese Empire. If the middle road is taken, it might simply end up mostly independent like OTL but with much more closer ties to France.
Italy: Doomed. Full Stop, with the result being probably some nasty ethnic violence over Italian settlers in Libya.
Austro-Hungarian Empire:IMO, the age of big european land empires ruled by emperors is over, the age of ethnic nationalism is in. All that was really keeping all of the minorities together in 1914 was a shared loyalty to Franz Joseph. AH can probably survive into the 30's, but the whole "United States of Greater Austria" thing would never have worked. Not only would most of the minorities oppose it on the grounds that it would grant them enough autonomy, the Hungarians were opposed to it because it would mean that they would loose most of their land and most of their power. In short, AH is doomed and people now may think of and refer to the "Former AH" as people think and refer to the Former Yugoslavia OTL.
Russian Empire: Sans above, but not as bad. Sure you have the Poles, but with a bit of reform they can probably be placated. The Finns were happy enough, they were even the first country in the world to have elections with complete and full universal suffrage
(not kidding!). Aside from the above and the Baltic's, the other, mostly non-european minorities are probably going to be easy to hold down in the long run. The real problem is staying competitive with the other powers economically and militarily. This can be done, but it's harder with out some sort of democracy, which the Romanovs won't easily concede, although that might be easier when most of the advisors and courtiers from Alexander III's time die off. So, i'd give Russia a 50/50 chance of survival or at least staying a world power. Ottoman Empire: As the Byzantine Empire shows us, empires can survive or a hell of a long time, but they must all die. The Ottomans in that sense were about in the same position that the Byzantines were in about 1400, on the way out fast. Although it probably won't be as drastic as OTL's and there will probably be some sort of surviving Turkish state in anatolia, something similar to OTL's partition will probably happen, particularly after the European states become interested in their oil, the result being that by 2010, the Middle east of this TL might look a lot like the Middle east now. There even, with anger over the european powers overthrow of the caplih, something a lot like OTL's Radical Islam. Oh yeah, and there is a good chance the some form of Israel might still come about, but really depends on who ends up with Palestine in this ATL partition and what the state of anti-semiteism is in this worlds.
British Empire: Probably has the best chance of survival out of all of these, although, as above, it's not that straightforward. Now it's almost certain that the white Dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (i'll touch on South Africa later) will maintain ties to the mother country if not much more than OTL. WW1 really changed the way the Dominions thought about them selves. In Australia where i come from, before the war, most Australians really did think of themselves as British overseas and were probably some of the most patriotic of imperial patriots. The myth of aristocratic British officers sending bronzed young Aussies off to die in the trenches of Gallipoli and the western front really bought about a different Australian identity from the one that was developing before the war, although we were still for the most part the most loyal of the Dominions. The same goes for New Zealand, although i'm not to sure about Canada. The result being, that in a no World War 1 scenario, the White Dominions are most likely to keep ties to the mother country.
India is in a rather similar position. Before the war, most so called indian "Nationalism" revolved around mystics and poets. The movement to at least make India a Dominion only really got started after the war, when Indians, who had fought with the same tenacity and loyalty as white Empire troops wanted the same level of autonomy as their white imperial brothers. So without World War 1, it's very possible that the Raj will last a lot longer than OTL, i'd be willing to bet up until the 60's. But, inevitably, the Indians would discover ethnic nationalism and, in that case, things could go in three directions. Firstly, you could have a situation similar to OTL, with a violent partition and ethnic violence. Secondly, you could have the British granting India Dominion status, but IMO, a large state with dozens of religions and races held together only by a supposed loyalty to the British crown is doomed to failure. Either it goes republican or implodes. Thirdly, i remember reading somewhere that some thought of a compromise situation for preserving Britain's empire in India by basically elevating the Raj to the status of a kingdom in personal union with GB, IE, an actual Indian Empire, where the British monarch would still be emperor but the state would have more autonomy than the dominions. However, it was intended that most of the power would still lie in the Anglo Indian officials and the Maharajas.
As for Africa, things could get complicated. In South Africa, one of the reasons that extreme Afrikaner nationalism emerged was the world wars and the depression and the economic poverty that resulted from those. With all those butterflied away, Britain might have a better chance of cultivating a loyalty amongst the Afrikaners and therefore creating a loyal Dominion. Another way this could be done is if that South Africa has similar amounts of British immigration as say Australia did, although that may have the effect of creating another version of extreme Afrikaner nationalism. As far as the Blacks go, things will probably be over all better than OTL, but by 2010, whites will probably still dominate, even if it's more of an economic than official apartheid. In Rhodesia, if there is sufficient economic progress and white immigration, the South (but possibly not the north) has a good chance of becoming a very successful Dominion in the long run, that is if it's not incorporated into South Africa. It may even gain a coast line depending on how Portugal's empire collapses. Not to sure about East Africa, but Kenya also has a good chance if it's handled right. As for west Africa, once again, Nigeria has a good chance of turning into a good dominion, while the other smaller colonies can probably be made into smaller ones or may even end up having a similar status to British Overseas Territories OTL. To the north, Britain will loose Egypt in the long run, but will probably keep the suez canal in some way or another.
As for the rest of the Empire, all the islands and what not will probably be turned into something like British Overseas Territories and the West Indies will probably end up falling into the American Sphere in the end, although once tourism and gambling kicks off, they would still be very profitable, rather like Bermuda or the Bahamas and what not in OTL. In short, yes, a large uber British Commonwealth thing that people may or may not still call "The Empire" because they can can survive with probably slightly less military power and influence than the United States OTL.
German Empire: In Europe, yes. Overseas, probably not. If we accept what seams to be a truism here in AH.com that a surviving Kaisereich turns lefty and social democratic, then they can probably survive in Europe, but their rather small colonial empire will be disposed off. However, it's not that simple, assuming that the Germans get rid of their Empire willingly, there could be conflict in places where there are lots of Germans already living, and maybe, say South West Africa might end up being a German "Rhodesia" of sorts. But because Germanies colonial empire didn't last for long IOTL, it's hard to say.
France: Hard to say, Mainly due to the inevitability that Frances political scene will be unstable and unpredictable throughout this 20th century. If it moves to the left, some sort of republican federation based on "equal economic development" or something could arise. if it moves to the right, it could very end up looking like a cross between OTL Algeria and the Portuguese Empire. If the middle road is taken, it might simply end up mostly independent like OTL but with much more closer ties to France.
Italy: Doomed. Full Stop, with the result being probably some nasty ethnic violence over Italian settlers in Libya.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Too small to do what? I'll remind you that a small empire (Portugal in Africa) was one of the longest-lived.
I Blame Communism
Banned
I take a different view. Ethnic nationalism has never succeeded everywhere. Iran and India work perfectly well. Austria-Hungary is neither Iran nor India, but my point is that ethnic nationalism is not a magical force, it's a political movement like any other - in Austria circa 1914, a political movement which could only outnumber the socialist and Catholic forces loyalty to the integrity of the Empire is every nation - Pole and Ukrainian, Czech and German - co-operated, which is of course absurd.
Does it have to work? Austria need only be better than the alternatives, and it already was for many: Ukrainian nationalists, for instance, or the Czechs, who had a choice between being Austrians or being vassals of Germany, as Palacky knew: "If Austria did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it". And then there's the socialists and Catholics...
They oppose it because it grants them enough autonomy? I know the Poles can be unreasonable and intractable sometimes, but they're not that unreasonable.
The rule of the Magyar landlords was on the way out. You'll recall that two countries had communist revolutions at the end of WW1 and one of them was Russia. Now obviosly nothing quite so drastic will happen without the war, but the land-owning elite were running out of bluff, which was why the death of Franz Ferdinand relieved them so much. They can go quietly (putting the state on a basis of, at the very least, ethnic democracy) or they can go loudly and be squished.
Remember also that Slovak nationalism at this time was very week and would without Czechoslovakia take longer to develop.
Russian Empire: Sans above, but not as bad. Sure you have the Poles, but with a bit of reform they can probably be placated. The Finns were happy enough, they were even the first country in the world to have elections with complete and full universal suffrage
I'm really not following. So, IOTL, Russia...
- Flung millions of young men into a pointless meatgrinder, causing hardship and discontent at home and getting itself into ginormous debt (which it cancelled, and so had very little access to foreign investment).
- Collapsed into civil war, massacres, pogroms, famines, and terror for some years.
- Took years to even regain its standing from before the war.
- Underwent shock industrialisation that caused more famines.
- And to crown everything fought the most destructive war in history, losing more men at a single city than Britain and America lost altogether, saw further famine and devastation and millions of its citizens exterminated.
...And then they beat us to space.
Obviously trying to be a superpower rival to America was a huge overstretch, but Russia is still a "world power" by most people's reckoning today - and, I would note, it hasn't been democratic at all in this whole period. If Russia didn't undergo all this punishment (a revolution and civil war are certainly still on the cards, but they're unlikely to be as bad, and one can hardly expect another 1941-45), how could it avoid being a world power, under whatever form of government?
"A city state kept alive because it had really big walls and there were other things to worry about?" It wasn't, really.
Why? Nobody had any interest in partition for its own sake: Russia and Germany rivalled one-another to control the Ottomans. A partition would require those two, with Britain and France, to work together. In fact, the one thing that could but anybody off the idea of a partition was the suggestion of one from another power: see the Crimean War.
Russia has Oil Galore of its own, Britain had oil interests in Iran and Arabia, the Germans are friendly to the Ottomans... oil is nice, but it's not something that can overcome their jealousy and rivalry.
Actually said overthrow led to a movement of peaceful non-sectarian protest in British India and the rise of Arab and Turkish nationalism.
It's not impossible, but we do seem to keep arriving at OTL outcomes.
Charming snakes, no doubt.
The INC was founded in 1885 by a Scottish civil servant, a Bengali lawyer, and a Bengali English professor, and it struggled for a time with a perception of being too European. Smaller organisations and newspapers subsumed into it then had existed for longer. The first big victory of the nationalist movement was before WW1, over the partition of Bengal. Radical nationalism had already emerged in 1907 (led by a journalist and mathematics teacher).
During WW1, British intelligence took seriously reports of nationalist agitation and mutineering, which hardly accords with this view.
If Indian (or Pakistani) nationalism was primarily ethnic there would be no Republic of India (or Pakistan).
The violence was not ethnic, it was sectarian. Bengali killed Bengali and Punjabi killed Punjabi.
Now I do agree that a compromise settlement - probably leaving unpopular princes enthroned, containing lots of awkward compromises, and not cracking down on sectarian radicalism - has the potential to go tits up.
That's rather what I was suggesting: an India which is run to a considerable extent by Indians but aligned closely with Britain - and which happens to be a ruthless dictatorship of the the established interests, landowning, business, religious.
Doomed why? Why is Libya so much more vulnerable than South Africa or Kenya?
Last edited:
I have said it before and will say it again: Italy and Germany had a much better chance to keep their empire than Britain.
Nationalism will rise in the colonies (later without WWI & WWII but it will) and there is no way in hell 60 million Britons could keep 1 000 000 000 Indians under controll forever. And India staying part of the Empire voluntarilly? Have you ever heard about Seypo mutiny, salt tax, colonial explotaition, racism,... there will just be too much bad blood. Same holds for most of Africa. India keeping a monarch on the other side of the world with whom they have nothing in common? After you dissmissed A-H staying together under a monarch that was of the same race and religion as all major nationalities, spoke severall of their languages and could travel the relam regulary?
And once the important colonies have achieved independence the desire to mantain good economic relations with them will presure the UK to relase the remaining colonies (this is was doomed Rhodesia OTL).
On the other hand German and Italian population outnumbered that of the colonies.
German colonies were somewhat similar to the Portugese. Only that Germany is many times as prosperous and popoulus than portugal and would never crush from the strain of keeping the colonies down.
And German and italian colonies were backward and would develop a educated native middle&upperclass that could realy drive an independence movement not before ~1970.
Yes Germany might go left without a war. But that doesn't mean decolonisation. France, Spain and the UK had left goverments between the wars and AFAIK they didn#t make any major move toward it.
Anticolonialism became a major thing for the non-communist left and political middle only after wwii and IMO was more a moral fasade for an economic necissity.
Before the view was more like: colonies are ruled by europeans for their own best until one distant day they will be developed enough to become partners.
I read your post completely, rest assured. I only commented because that particular statement was left hanging and seemed open to misinterpretation. No offense intended.
Agreed. But I'd argue that you only have to decide once to rid yourself of a colony, where keeping it is the repeated decision of decades. Unless you alter the whole 20th century, anti-imperialist sentiment will be rising both in colonizing powers and their colonies. The trend would always be toward dissolution, though as you say some states may indeed keep throwing sixes when they have the right size disparity.
For the upteenth time all you need for Russia to survive is Pyotr Stolypin surviving..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstolypin.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/petr-stolypin
just have this man survive and pass his reforms, that will let you get a surviving Russian monarchy!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstolypin.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/petr-stolypin
just have this man survive and pass his reforms, that will let you get a surviving Russian monarchy!!!!!
Agreed. Decolonialisation could happen, but it is not as bound to happen as many people on this thread seem to belive.
What happend historically?
German colonial empire: Dismantled after world war.
Italian colonial empire: Dismantled after world war.
Japanes colonial empire: Dismantled after world war.
Austrian Empire: Dismantled after world war.
Ottoman Empire: Dismantled after world war.
Netherlands colonial empire: Given up after a bloody 4 years war with world opinion blowing into their face heavily.
Portugese colonial empire: Given up after a bloody 16 years war with world opinion blowing into their face heavily, with subsequent internal collapse
French colonial empire: Given up after two bloody wars in an allready strained politcal and economic situation caused by a previous world war and one military coup.
Ethopian colonial empire: Given up after a bloody ~20 years war with world opinion blowing into their face heavily.
1st Spanish colonial empire: Given up after a bloody 15 years war with world opinion blowing into their face heavily in an allready strained politcal and economic situation caused by a previous world war
Russian/Soviet Empire: Given up as result of an internal collapse, reconquered, held till the next collapse.
South African Empire: Given up as result of an internal collapse
2nd Spanish colonial empire: Given up voluntarily to improve international standing.
Belgian colonial empire: Given up voluntarily after uprising and subsequent realisation of inability to hold it in the long term.
British colonial empire: Given up voluntarily, partially as a result of a deal with the US during WWII (India), partially after uprising, lengthy bloody wars (Eire, Kenia, Malaya) and subsequent realisation of inability to hold it in the long term (rest).
Morrocan Empire: Still alive
Most nations fought heavily to keep their colonies.
Even if the disolution of the Empire was not directly caused by an World War, the weakening effect of these wars contributed heavily to it.
The only ones more or less disolved on a politcal whim were those of Belgium and Spain.
And don’t you start either!
I have an awful temper, truly awful. The other day a guy looked at me funny and I gave him a him a rather stern talking to. Suffice to say I think he shall think twice about funny looks in the future
Most of the Colonial Empires are doomed in the long run once nationalism spreads to the non-Western World and the ball gets rolling on decolonization.
The British Empire is going to lose India eventually: it's simply too big for them to hold. Most of the African colonies were huge resource sinks with debatable strategic value. However, if the World Wars are butterflied away or happen differently, there's no reason that a smaller Empire consisting of the White Commonwealths, a few islands, the trucial states, and a few places in Africa and Southeast Asia couldn't hold on until the present.
The French Empire is doomed once agitation in Algeria reaches the boiling point.
Italy can't be a major colonial power in the long run (it never was) but Italy holding Libya is more plausible, and actually makes a lot more sense than France holding Algeria. Libya had a very small population, and more investment and settlement by Italians could eventually tilt the demographic balance in the Italians' favor. Once oil is discovered in the 1950s, Italy will have strong incentive to keep Libya and incorporate it into Italy.
The Russian Empire as it existed in 1914 was unsustainable and already starting to come apart, but remember that the Soviet Union (which had basically the same borders as the Russian Empire with the exception of Poland and Finland) held together until 1991, making it the last of the Empires to collapse. Even today, the collapse of the USSR is regretted by majorities in almost all the former Republics except for the Baltics and Georgia. The Czarist absolute monarchy can't hold on forever, but if political developments follow a different track, it's possible that the Czar could stay on as a figurehead constitutional monarch.
The Ottoman Empire, despite being "the Sick Man of Europe" was actually probably one of the most survivable of these empires for a simple reason: they're sitting on a HUGE amount of oil, and once the revenue starts rolling in, the Ottomans are going to be around for a LONG time. All they had to do was avoid being drawn into World War I, wait a few years, and wait for the oil money to start coming in. They blew it.
The British Empire is going to lose India eventually: it's simply too big for them to hold. Most of the African colonies were huge resource sinks with debatable strategic value. However, if the World Wars are butterflied away or happen differently, there's no reason that a smaller Empire consisting of the White Commonwealths, a few islands, the trucial states, and a few places in Africa and Southeast Asia couldn't hold on until the present.
The French Empire is doomed once agitation in Algeria reaches the boiling point.
Italy can't be a major colonial power in the long run (it never was) but Italy holding Libya is more plausible, and actually makes a lot more sense than France holding Algeria. Libya had a very small population, and more investment and settlement by Italians could eventually tilt the demographic balance in the Italians' favor. Once oil is discovered in the 1950s, Italy will have strong incentive to keep Libya and incorporate it into Italy.
The Russian Empire as it existed in 1914 was unsustainable and already starting to come apart, but remember that the Soviet Union (which had basically the same borders as the Russian Empire with the exception of Poland and Finland) held together until 1991, making it the last of the Empires to collapse. Even today, the collapse of the USSR is regretted by majorities in almost all the former Republics except for the Baltics and Georgia. The Czarist absolute monarchy can't hold on forever, but if political developments follow a different track, it's possible that the Czar could stay on as a figurehead constitutional monarch.
The Ottoman Empire, despite being "the Sick Man of Europe" was actually probably one of the most survivable of these empires for a simple reason: they're sitting on a HUGE amount of oil, and once the revenue starts rolling in, the Ottomans are going to be around for a LONG time. All they had to do was avoid being drawn into World War I, wait a few years, and wait for the oil money to start coming in. They blew it.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Do remember that the ottomans had a potential axe hovering over their heads, the Armenian reform package, and the caputulations stiffling their economic growth and calling their sovereignty into question. They went to war to dismantle that system. In retrospect, of course, they'd have done better to take it apart peacefully while everyone was distracted by the fighting, but at the time they didn't know for sure it was going to be a long war.
And anyway, "they" didn't actually choose to go to war. The ruling clique couldn't agree, so a couple of them sent the German ships they'd interned to bombard Russia, forcing the issue.
Portugal was on the periphery of Europe, and enjoyed the status of an informal British vassal from time to time. This is not true of Italy.