Snake Featherston
Banned
Inspired by Abdul Hadi Pasha, please fell free to speculate on the Ottoman Enpire had it survived past World War I.
LordKalvan said: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
LordKalvan said: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...
Grey Wolf 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
LordKalvan said: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...
God_of_Belac said: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.
God_of_Belac said: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.
God_of_Belac said: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.
Grey Wolf 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
LordKalvan 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 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.
LordKalvan 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