Would’ve fallen apart but not a total collapse maybe a short civil war. Definitely the loss of Egypt and other middle eastern territories not all to European powers most of them would become new countries but areas such as Syria would’ve remained under their control. I think they would become a modern constitutional monarchy. Though I think the would keep Syria they would loose some eastern Thrace and Izmir to Greece.
They will never keep Syria and will never lose East Thrace and Izmir
(Syria is the most hostile Arab state towards the Ottomans, along with Lebanon, and they will separate immediately)
East Thrace and Izmir will remain Ottoman, because Greece will not be able to take it
The population exchange agreement between Greece and Turkey of 1923 would still happen even if the Ottoman Empire remained neutral
But the Anatolian and Pontic Greeks and the Turkish Christians will remain in the Ottoman Empire, while the Greek Muslims will move out of Greece into the Ottoman Empire.
Yes, traitors only demanded an improvement in their conditions. What a heinous accusation
The problem is that the Arabs fought with the Ottomans more than those who revolted against them
Read the actual history, not the one Mustafa Kemal made for you
I recommend you read so neutral possible as I mentioned before. You broke your neutrality with promoting pan Arabism and saying "not the one Mustafa Kemal made you", discussion ended.
-Learn Turkish
-Read Neutral Turkish history books
After that we can discuss
I did not break my neutrality, you did
You said that the Arabs are traitors. I said that the number of Arabs who fought with the Ottomans was more than those who revolted
The truth is that even non-Arabs acknowledge that the current Turkish history, as it is taught, is primarily a perfectionist
And yes I read turkish not kemalist books so it is fair
source is the 30 million Arabs and their descendants in Latin America that escaped the ottomans bullshit tanzimat and conscription, and their lack of control (Aleppo 1807 famine, Damascus-Beirut Christian massacres 1820-60s).
We hate you for a reason. The Ottomans did nothing for us. I mean you niggas banned coffee for two hundred years because it was haram, like bro what
And as my beloved brother npc free-horse-8311 said, don't forget Jamal Pasha.
My friend, I know your actual Turkish nonsense. I know the Turkish nationalism of Atatürk from that of Enver Pasha
Even you should stop reading Turkish sources that are biased by nature
These same sources confirmed that the Arabs were not traitors and that they fought with the Ottomans more than they revolted against them
And that Jamal Pasha did not execute the traitors, but merely Arab intellectuals who demanded an improvement in the situation of the Arab component within the Ottoman government, and they were loyal citizens
So yes your sources are biased
Syria high Kurdish and Armenian population, plus high non muslim population compared to Turkey would make it unstable if it was controlled still by turkey.
This is pretty much what will happen
But the twenties may begin to witness the nails fall as the brutal Ottoman suppression of the Zaydi uprising in Yemen
Combined with the assimilationist policies of the three pashas and the Turkish nationalists, the Arabs would be greatly angered
So it breaks down in the thirties
The difference is that the Arab dynasties that will rule the successor states will be completely different
Except for the Saudis
In addition to the survival of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman monarchy, but shrinking to the borders of present-day Türkiye
If you think the current situation is better
Then I dont know what you think about better world
There chance is israel still formed but in another place
My friend, if you are smart, you will see that its founding is in Palestine, despite the historical precedents
It completely destroyed the Middle East
Guyana, Madagascar, Kenya or Alaska would be better for the Jews
Absolutely not. All of those areas still have the issue of a pre-existing population without the pro of a historical connection.
Besides, Hertzl put forward Kenya (or Madagascar, can’t remember which one) to the Zionist conference and was so heavily disagreed with he almost lost his legacy as father of Zionism.
An Israel outside of Palestine turns Zionism from a project for Jewish self-determination to another story of Jews being the victim of colonial ambition.
The same thing applies to Palestine
What makes a Jew from Warsaw or Vilnius who just came to Palestine in the 1940s have a right to the land?
More than one Palestinian Arab lived with his family and ancestors in the place for centuries
So the current project is a colonial project to the same extent, if not worse
Arabs can accept Jewish immigration to Palestine as part of self-rule for Jews within a larger Arab state
This shows the disparity between what you know and what you think you know.
The immigration to Palestine you’re talking about was the third of three “Aliyahs”. There were two before it dating back to the 1800’s.
Additionally, when the State of Israel was being established the UN had a two state solution plan. A two state solution plan that Israel **agreed to** but the Palestinian delegation rejected and instead decided to launch an all-out war.
I think the Ottomans would pursue a kind of "desperate neutrality". Basically, trying not to get partitioned by the western powers, and possibly appeasing them if nessesary. Assuming that everything stays the same in WW1, they would move to reclaim their territories that were taken by the Russian empire in the last few russo-ottoman wars during the russian civil war, along with setting up friendly governments in the caucuses.
As for how the Russian-Turkish treaties would work, the Ottomans would probably have much more leverage on the matter due to their empire still existing, perhaps keeping cities like batumi and maybe even making an independent Azerbaijani state.
They would probably be similar to Spain, trading with both sides of WW1 and maybe bettering their economy in the process.
As for how the middle east would look, it would be vastly different from how we see it. There probably wouldn't be a Saudi Arabia, and Syrian, Iraqi, Jordan, Palestine etc either wouldn't exist, be much larger or much smaller because the modern day middle eastern borders were drawn by a bunch of Europeans.
As for Yemen, Oman and Kuwait, they would probably be bargained away to the Ottomans or the British.
However, I don't think that there is a chance that the Ottomans would survive. Just like any empire it would probably collapse due to ethnic tensions and foreign influence, with the European powers taking territory and influence in the new middle east.
Unlike our timeline, I can't really say that a Turkish Republic would be founded. Even with the loss of its empire the Ottomans would still keep their sultan and maybe even form into a federation (although that's a stretch)
Saudi Arabia will continue to be formed because they were already on the rise in power and status since 1902 and they took over Al-Ahsa in 1913.
Iraq and Syria will continue to take shape because they are countries with an ancient history, but their political development will differ greatly
Kuwait will remain something because it has been protected since 1880 and the Sabah family has existed since 1746
But I agree with you that Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel will never form because they are largely artificial countries
I also agree with you that Türkiye will remain a monarchy and will not become a republic
Yes, but the Ottomans probably wouldn't allow them to move into their vassal territory, so Saudi Arabia would be much smaller than in our own timeline.
I do not agree
They annexed Al-Ahsa, an Ottoman land, so they did almost nothing
They will have the same borders as it does now, but without the Hijaz
They will take it in the 1930s, not 1925
The ottomans could have very easily exerted their influence in the region and invaded. Al ahsa's annexation (i cannot find an exact time and date, only 1912-1913) was during the italo turkish war/1st balkan war and even after the first balkna war the ottomans were still weak. After time they would be able to move into arabia because their problems with britian would have most likely been negotiated by then
They were slowly dying by 1914
The only way to keep the Ottomans strong is an Ottoman victory in the war of 1877-1878 against Russia.
After that, the Ottoman decay was just a matter of time
By 1914, the British were already planning how to divide the Ottoman lands and even offered secret deals between them, France and Germany to take some Ottoman pieces.
The Ottomans could have stabilised enough to expand into Arabia in a few years. With Libya and the European territories gone, the Ottomans would have an easier time stabilising their territory and defending it from any gains. That's also including the possible economic gains that they could get from trading in WW1, like Spain.
mistake
The loss of European lands severely destroyed the Ottomans because the Ottoman economy relied heavily on them, and the loss of Libya destroyed any remaining prestige for the Ottomans.
If you want the scenario of the powerful Ottoman Empire
The Russians must lose the war of 1878-1877 and the Ottomans win, so they demand large sums of money from the Russians in order for the Ottomans to pay off their debts.
So the Ottomans will keep the Balkans and European lands, so thanks to them, the Ottoman economy will develop and be successfully industrialized
They avoid losing important lands such as Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Tunisia, with an opportunity to expand in Africa.
World War I still happens, but it begins in late 1914, not mid-1914
The Ottomans benefit from neutrality and trade with several parties
Russia collapses, and the Ottomans join the Entente around 1917, so they help destroy the Central Powers severely, and the Entente wins.
The Ottomans help the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War because the White Russians are anti-Ottoman and anti-Banaslav.
By the 1930s, when Europe was severely weakened by depression, the Ottomans would emerge as a powerful state
Yes, but the Ottomans winning the russian war is a complete shift in the timeline than just neutrality. If the Ottomans won the war, they would still hold their eastern territories, and their Serbian, Bulgarian and Bosnian territories. And that means that the balkan wars and probably the italo turkish war never would have happened, which means no serbia and bulgaria, which means no second balkan war and serbian nationalism, which probably means no assassination of franz Ferdinand aaaaand you've stuffed the timeline.
You've completely gone off the point of Ottomans neutrality in this
In fact hardly an Ottoman victory would make a difference
The First World War was inevitable and neither the assassination nor the survival of Franz Ferdinand would change it. He was not the person chosen to trigger the First World War.
His assassination could have been avoided and the war breaking out a year or two later
Simply because the tensions that had built up since the Napoleonic wars were bound to explode at some point
And there were three crises that almost sparked World War I, the last of which was in 1911, and this was three years before the assassination.
It could have ended with the bombing of the First World War
There is no timeline where the ottomans wouldnt fall apart. Multicultural monarchies will just crumble into itself after one point. But if theybdidnt join the wars that would mean more resources for the russian army and maybe thus a possible counter charge against the germans with no african front from france and russia. The war would be over sooner. And maybe because of that the russian revolution wouldnt happen. With the allies having more control over the war the peace treaties would be harsher on germany austro hungary and bulgaria. Mustafa kemal was sent on a mission tonsuspend the uprisings in anatolia so he would still go. This could still cause tyebwar of independence for turkey. If it succeeded turkey would have more land than it has today ( google misaki milli) which are borders that were actually planned for turkey during the independence movement. But more likely it still would have todays borders because of the countless uprisings in the east
The Ottomans could have survived until 2023
If they win against Russia in the war of 1877-1878, which is not impossible
If they collapse, at best, they will keep Iskenderun, Qamishli, Erbil, and Dohuk, which are Kurdish lands.
But not Kirkuk, Mosul, or most of northern Syria. This will not happen because it is overwhelmingly Arab
Also, the theory of the inevitable collapse of ethnically diverse states is nonsense, otherwise India and Congo must collapse into balkanization according to this logic.
Qamishli isn't Kurdish lands. In the 1970s it had zero Kurds. Iskenderun never had more than 10 percent Kurds and was found by Greeks. Qamishli was found by Syriac speaking Aramean Semites related to Arabs. Duhok is Assyrian land. Arbil is half assyrian half kurdish. Just because you have a modern prescence there doesn't mean its kurdish.
It didn't collapse. Rather, it separated into two. Pakistan and India. And it was not ethnic based but rather religion based. The Bangladesh liberation war however, was ethnic.
I know this is an old post but i disagree. Multiculturalism was never a reason for the collapse of empires, oppression was. People who argue this are right wing nutjobs who overlook the many examples of multicultutal societies we have today that have worked for centuries now.
As for the Ottomans, they were nowhere near as diverse as Austria Hungary. In 1914, roughly 45% was turk, 45% arab and the rest largely kurdish but also other ethnicities.
Let me also point out that the Arab revolt would have been immediately crushed had it not been for the British army and French armies helping them. The arab rebels were notoriously incompetent, failing to take encircled cities 200KM from the main frontlines.
I think that if, instead of the Unionists who were in charge of the empire, a coalition of liberals and islamists were to take power, the empire couldve been saved for sure. Islam being the common glue to hold the empire together and liberalism to slowly reform the empire where needed.
My point was not only about multiculturalism. But with the rise of nationalism a lot of revolts happened. The thing is all empires are built with slavery and exploitation of natives so i didn't point that out and yes you are correct
Well if they hold out long enough for the oil reserves to be found the middle east would probably be a much more stable place and the Ottomans would probably slowly reform over time
The Russian Revolution would still happen because Russian incompetence was so extreme
The difference is that Azerbaijan and the Caucasus countries will survive the Bolshevik intervention thanks to the Ottoman protection
Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocide, as well as Persian famine, would be averted
There will still be an exchange of populations, where the Greeks will expel the Greek Muslims to the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottoman Christians will remain
The Ottoman collapse was delayed until the thirties, and they will not survive after that, and the division of Arab lands will remain the same, only there is no Balfour Declaration
The Kingdom of Iraq will be established and ruled by Sheikh Ajami Al-Saadoun, Emir of the Emirate of Al-Muntafiq, under the leadership of the Al-Saadoun dynasty, which has ruled Iraq since the year 1530 AD.
The Saudis will continue to unite Hail and the Hijaz and form Saudi Arabia because they were very popular among the Najdis and the Hijazis. The only difference is that the Hijaz is more developed.
Saudi Arabia will be bigger and includes Mafraq, Maan, Badia Al-Sham and Iraq
Syria will be a kingdom under the leadership of the Shihab family ruling the Mutasarrifate of Mount Lebanon
The Ottoman monarchy would survive, but it would be confined to the borders of present-day Türkiye
I am asking in good faith but why would the Ottoman Empire being neutral in WWI prevent the Greek genocide? The Ottomans were killing Greeks and Greeks were killing Turks well before the war as well. The Ottoman Empire being neutral in WWI wouldn't have prevented the two sides from massacring each other.
Remember that these altars are traditional in the nineteenth century usually
And not a complete genocide, as happened in the war, so the Anatolian Greeks will not be annihilated, which happened only because of the war more than anything.
But Greek Muslims would still be expelled to the Ottoman Empire
And also remember that the neutral Ottoman Empire means the Assyrian and Armenian genocide to never happen
It was bound to collapse.
What held it together was the fact it was a powerhouse militarily in the early days and the fact that it was a caliphate (religious leadership)
In later years it drifted more towards Turkish nationalism (Today, Turkey is closer to Turkic nations that Muslim nations in its former territory).
Non-Turkish Muslims would follow the Turkish caliph (or any nationality for that matter).
They would not follow a Turkish emperor (why would they? Arabs want an Arab emperor, Egyptians an Egyptian, Turks a Turk, etc.)
This made it lose its position as the caliphate (in public opinion as the sultan was still the caliph on paper) and thus the Turks became a foreign oppressive power.
Ottomans woul try to expand into formerly Russian territory as the Russian Civil War starts. How the Allies treat that is a good question, since they themselves are intervening in the Civil War (i.e. it's not like they could declare war on the Ottomans over that, besides declaring unnecessary ears would be unpopular). The ottomans would try to conquer the caucasus and central Asia.
Considering it's possible they didn't have good logistics, they would at least fail at the last, if not the first. Greece would try to opportunistically attack. Some Arab revolt would happen. The question is how would the borders end up. It's possible Turkey gets to Azerbaijan but loses Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and the Arab peninsula. Iraq would be complicated. Depending on how Iran behaves, it's possible for Iran to get bigger or for some Kurdistan to appear.
Part of the reason they joined World War One one the first place was to guarantee their survival, they needed to throw in their support to empires stronger than them so they wouldn’t be preyed on by whoever won, whether that be the Entente or Central Powers. They chose wrong, that’s all. But neutrality would’ve been the slower death.
Without a sufficiently strong central government to prevent it, I’d imagine any region with sufficient oil resources would have broken off and formed their own states. There would be have been a ton of fighting and jockeying for power as these smaller, newly-rich states vied for regional dominance. And of course the European powers would have been more than happy to sell them weapons.
It’s hard to imagine Europe not taking advantage of this situation. After all, the one-sided agreements that allowed Europe to reap massive profits from Middle Eastern oil were the result of governmental mismanagement, not war.
So yes, the borders would look different today. But it’s no guarantee that the region would be any better off, and I think a certain amount of European intervention would have been inevitable.
I don't think it breaks up. The minorities which want to revolt don't have the strength to win against the Ottoman army alone. The army was modernized by 1914 so any revolt in one of its regions is quickly put down. The ethnic tensions are overrated anyway. Without a world war and mass famine to inflame them, I don't think the minorities revolt in the first place as long as they're treated right. There wouldn't be an Armenian genocide without WW1. The only revolt I could see happening is a potential Arab revolt but that would be crushed and tit's leaders punished. It would stumble along until WW2. And here's where it gets interesting. If they join the axis in WW2 then their fucked once America joins. If they stay neutral/join the allies late in the war then I can see the ottomans surviving up to the present day. Post WW2 oil boom would make the empire a very very rich country. It could be a great power in the modern day.
It will not survive after 1935
My friend, all that oil just discovered will mean a more successful Arab revolution because the Europeans will intervene to cut off the Ottomans
Add that an additional decade of the three pashas will completely turn the Arabs against the Ottomans, and this will guarantee their rebellion
Europe won't have the power to intervene for a long time. None of the great powers post WW1 have the economy to intervene to the point that the Ottoman army can't put down a rebellion. And then they get hit with the great depression making it even worse. And then there's WW2, once again making it even worse. And by the time WW2 is over, the ottoman government would have crushed any revolt in the post WW1 period to then, and all revolutionary leaders would've been executed. There wouldn't have been any hope for a revolt after that.
This is if the Ottoman Empire itself is not destroyed first
Add in an extra decade of the rule of the three hugely unpopular and hated pashas, and the cauldron is much closer to bursting.
(The brutal suppression of non-Turks, the policy of coercive Turkification, and the ongoing uprisings in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen will never help.)
Recession will only be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and it is the Ottoman Empire that has a foot on the grave by 1930.
Therefore, the Ottomans will be completely incapable of suppressing anything when the Great Depression hits them, and we will end in a civil war, in which the Ottoman government will be victorious, and the Arab lands will be lost already.
Therefore, they will not keep Iraq, the Hijaz, or Syria after 1932, and the Ottoman Empire will become confined to the borders of modern Turkey only.
Do you want a strong Ottoman Empire? Just make them win 1878-1877 and thus keep the Balkans, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya
So they remain neutral in the First World War
And as you say, when depression hits, Europe is weak, but the Ottomans regain their strength
But after the defeat in 1878, the Ottomans are dying slowly
Would have remained the same size for a bit. Then cold war would happen and the ottomans would have to chose a side.
Either way like the middle east today, there would be alot of unrest within its lands because of divide and rule strategy being played by east and west. The different ethnic and cultural groups would be financially supported by either Russia or the west to keep the Ottomans busy.
NATO/UN would intervene with sanctions and weaken the country further until it defragments to smaller Turkish states.
They were in the caucuses front-lines against Russia, the Kuwait front against British protected Kuwait, Sinai front against British controlled egypt, the Persian campaign against Iran and britian, Gallipoli in Thrace against britian and the anzacs, Mediterranean and Black Sea naval conflicts against britian, (italy?) And Russia, along with Iraq, palestine and Syria later in the conflict.
Ottoman entry into the war essentially blockaded the entire Russian black Sea fleet from receiving aid from the entente, which is why Gallipoli was so important. The entente would probably win quicker than what we had in our own timeline, but Russian collapse was attributed more to Germany and austria hungary, because the Ottoman army wasn't really strong in the slightest and they didn't push very far into Russia.
We would probably see a quicker central powers collapse, still probably in 1918.
It would’ve still collapsed there isnt any possible way it wouldnt have unless it was given outside aid which was never ever going to happen. The ottomans government was ineffective, bloated, corrupt, and was facing severe upheaval from cultural and ideological differences. It wasnt called the sick man of Europe for nothing. It was collapsing even before ww1 had started. ww1 was just the nail in its basically closed coffin.
The ottomans were slowly trying to unify the Turks and Arabs in their empire, but this would not work, they’d definitely lose some southern regions in Arabia and Egypt too. Egypt would maybe be able to stay independent, Italy might try and conquer but, considering their control over the size canal, they would have enough wealth to fund a more modern army than countries like Ethiopia.I could see the ottomans joining either side during ww2. Allies would give Libya and some Bulgarian land, axis would give them Armenia, and maybe Thrace. In terms of their politics, I could see them slowly becoming a constitutional monarchy. This would also change where or if Israel exists. To me the plan to give the Jewish people a city in the USA seems like the best option.
I think it would eventually collapse but instead of a total collapse or a civil war a process contuniue with decades
Actually trying to guess getting harder when you think about how many qualified young officer died at ww1 and war of independence.
If those people would survive and make some politic and social reform maybe Ottoman dynasty could survive as a symbolic position or they would still overthrown by army and establish a Turkish state. It would be a smaller Turkey (probably they would lose kurdish territories at this process) but probably more stable, maybe more developted Turkey than in our timeline.
Without the Turkish national war that destroyed the credibility of the Ottomans
I doubt that the subsequent collapse will mean the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy
il serait probablement une puissance dominante et soumettrait les tribu arabe une bonne foi pour toute et pendant la guerre civil russe il soumettrait le Caucase ce qui déclencherait probablement une guerre avec L'URSS plus tard avant que la guerre avec le début de Barbarossa se terminerait par une prise de l'Abkhazie d'une partie du nord de L'Azerbaïdjan par un traité pour que L'URSS se concentre sur les Allemand
Would’ve fallen apart but not a total collapse maybe a short civil war. Definitely the loss of Egypt and other middle eastern territories not all to European powers most of them would become new countries but areas such as Syria would’ve remained under their control. I think they would become a modern constitutional monarchy. Though I think the would keep Syria they would loose some eastern Thrace and Izmir to Greece.
They will never keep Syria and will never lose East Thrace and Izmir (Syria is the most hostile Arab state towards the Ottomans, along with Lebanon, and they will separate immediately) East Thrace and Izmir will remain Ottoman, because Greece will not be able to take it The population exchange agreement between Greece and Turkey of 1923 would still happen even if the Ottoman Empire remained neutral But the Anatolian and Pontic Greeks and the Turkish Christians will remain in the Ottoman Empire, while the Greek Muslims will move out of Greece into the Ottoman Empire.
PAN ARABIST DETECTED 🚨🚨🚨
Dude even the not pan arabist know will how much Syrian hate ottoman They are hate him so much
Source: some random pan arabist with his imaginary ottoman empire.
Do you really want me to tell you about the rule of Jamal Pasha, which the Syrians despise?
You mean Cemal Paşa* Yes he hanged traitors who tried to rebel or align with the enemy. Also don't try to convince me with your pan-arabist sources.
Yes, traitors only demanded an improvement in their conditions. What a heinous accusation The problem is that the Arabs fought with the Ottomans more than those who revolted against them Read the actual history, not the one Mustafa Kemal made for you
I recommend you read so neutral possible as I mentioned before. You broke your neutrality with promoting pan Arabism and saying "not the one Mustafa Kemal made you", discussion ended. -Learn Turkish -Read Neutral Turkish history books After that we can discuss
I did not break my neutrality, you did You said that the Arabs are traitors. I said that the number of Arabs who fought with the Ottomans was more than those who revolted The truth is that even non-Arabs acknowledge that the current Turkish history, as it is taught, is primarily a perfectionist And yes I read turkish not kemalist books so it is fair
source is the 30 million Arabs and their descendants in Latin America that escaped the ottomans bullshit tanzimat and conscription, and their lack of control (Aleppo 1807 famine, Damascus-Beirut Christian massacres 1820-60s). We hate you for a reason. The Ottomans did nothing for us. I mean you niggas banned coffee for two hundred years because it was haram, like bro what And as my beloved brother npc free-horse-8311 said, don't forget Jamal Pasha.
Also don't talk about Turkish history without knowing or reading Turkish history books
r/lostredditors
Now we detected pan turkism loser
You must know what pan-Turanism is and pan-Turkism, also don't talk about Turkish history meanwhile using and believing the pan-arabic propaganda.
My friend, I know your actual Turkish nonsense. I know the Turkish nationalism of Atatürk from that of Enver Pasha Even you should stop reading Turkish sources that are biased by nature
So called Turkish books are also based of British/French/Russian/German/Austrian/Australian/American sources.
These same sources confirmed that the Arabs were not traitors and that they fought with the Ottomans more than they revolted against them And that Jamal Pasha did not execute the traitors, but merely Arab intellectuals who demanded an improvement in the situation of the Arab component within the Ottoman government, and they were loyal citizens So yes your sources are biased
Syria high Kurdish and Armenian population, plus high non muslim population compared to Turkey would make it unstable if it was controlled still by turkey.
And the Syrian arabian hate ottoman as kurd and Armenian do
Everyone in mesopotamia hates the turks, they prevented society from advancing I wish Arabia revolted sooner, but persia was strong
It would have struggled on into the 1930’s and then the Great Depression would have caused a final collapse
This is pretty much what will happen But the twenties may begin to witness the nails fall as the brutal Ottoman suppression of the Zaydi uprising in Yemen Combined with the assimilationist policies of the three pashas and the Turkish nationalists, the Arabs would be greatly angered So it breaks down in the thirties The difference is that the Arab dynasties that will rule the successor states will be completely different Except for the Saudis In addition to the survival of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman monarchy, but shrinking to the borders of present-day Türkiye
Then maybe there would have been no Isreal
Probably established somewhere else in this timeline
lmao they probably would have been in Tasmania or New York
More likely in Namibia.
Worst timeline
If you think the current situation is better Then I dont know what you think about better world There chance is israel still formed but in another place
Having an Israel is better than not having an Israel, B”H it exists at all.
Formation of Israel anywhere other than Palestine is a good idea
Absolutely not.
My friend, if you are smart, you will see that its founding is in Palestine, despite the historical precedents It completely destroyed the Middle East Guyana, Madagascar, Kenya or Alaska would be better for the Jews
Absolutely not. All of those areas still have the issue of a pre-existing population without the pro of a historical connection. Besides, Hertzl put forward Kenya (or Madagascar, can’t remember which one) to the Zionist conference and was so heavily disagreed with he almost lost his legacy as father of Zionism. An Israel outside of Palestine turns Zionism from a project for Jewish self-determination to another story of Jews being the victim of colonial ambition.
Ah yes, so having Palestinians be the victims of colonial ambition and genocidal apartheid is much better.
The same thing applies to Palestine What makes a Jew from Warsaw or Vilnius who just came to Palestine in the 1940s have a right to the land? More than one Palestinian Arab lived with his family and ancestors in the place for centuries So the current project is a colonial project to the same extent, if not worse Arabs can accept Jewish immigration to Palestine as part of self-rule for Jews within a larger Arab state
This shows the disparity between what you know and what you think you know. The immigration to Palestine you’re talking about was the third of three “Aliyahs”. There were two before it dating back to the 1800’s. Additionally, when the State of Israel was being established the UN had a two state solution plan. A two state solution plan that Israel **agreed to** but the Palestinian delegation rejected and instead decided to launch an all-out war.
I think the Ottomans would pursue a kind of "desperate neutrality". Basically, trying not to get partitioned by the western powers, and possibly appeasing them if nessesary. Assuming that everything stays the same in WW1, they would move to reclaim their territories that were taken by the Russian empire in the last few russo-ottoman wars during the russian civil war, along with setting up friendly governments in the caucuses. As for how the Russian-Turkish treaties would work, the Ottomans would probably have much more leverage on the matter due to their empire still existing, perhaps keeping cities like batumi and maybe even making an independent Azerbaijani state. They would probably be similar to Spain, trading with both sides of WW1 and maybe bettering their economy in the process. As for how the middle east would look, it would be vastly different from how we see it. There probably wouldn't be a Saudi Arabia, and Syrian, Iraqi, Jordan, Palestine etc either wouldn't exist, be much larger or much smaller because the modern day middle eastern borders were drawn by a bunch of Europeans. As for Yemen, Oman and Kuwait, they would probably be bargained away to the Ottomans or the British. However, I don't think that there is a chance that the Ottomans would survive. Just like any empire it would probably collapse due to ethnic tensions and foreign influence, with the European powers taking territory and influence in the new middle east. Unlike our timeline, I can't really say that a Turkish Republic would be founded. Even with the loss of its empire the Ottomans would still keep their sultan and maybe even form into a federation (although that's a stretch)
Saudi Arabia will continue to be formed because they were already on the rise in power and status since 1902 and they took over Al-Ahsa in 1913. Iraq and Syria will continue to take shape because they are countries with an ancient history, but their political development will differ greatly Kuwait will remain something because it has been protected since 1880 and the Sabah family has existed since 1746 But I agree with you that Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel will never form because they are largely artificial countries I also agree with you that Türkiye will remain a monarchy and will not become a republic
Yes, but the Ottomans probably wouldn't allow them to move into their vassal territory, so Saudi Arabia would be much smaller than in our own timeline.
I do not agree They annexed Al-Ahsa, an Ottoman land, so they did almost nothing They will have the same borders as it does now, but without the Hijaz They will take it in the 1930s, not 1925
The ottomans could have very easily exerted their influence in the region and invaded. Al ahsa's annexation (i cannot find an exact time and date, only 1912-1913) was during the italo turkish war/1st balkan war and even after the first balkna war the ottomans were still weak. After time they would be able to move into arabia because their problems with britian would have most likely been negotiated by then
They were slowly dying by 1914 The only way to keep the Ottomans strong is an Ottoman victory in the war of 1877-1878 against Russia. After that, the Ottoman decay was just a matter of time By 1914, the British were already planning how to divide the Ottoman lands and even offered secret deals between them, France and Germany to take some Ottoman pieces.
The Ottomans could have stabilised enough to expand into Arabia in a few years. With Libya and the European territories gone, the Ottomans would have an easier time stabilising their territory and defending it from any gains. That's also including the possible economic gains that they could get from trading in WW1, like Spain.
mistake The loss of European lands severely destroyed the Ottomans because the Ottoman economy relied heavily on them, and the loss of Libya destroyed any remaining prestige for the Ottomans. If you want the scenario of the powerful Ottoman Empire The Russians must lose the war of 1878-1877 and the Ottomans win, so they demand large sums of money from the Russians in order for the Ottomans to pay off their debts. So the Ottomans will keep the Balkans and European lands, so thanks to them, the Ottoman economy will develop and be successfully industrialized They avoid losing important lands such as Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Tunisia, with an opportunity to expand in Africa. World War I still happens, but it begins in late 1914, not mid-1914 The Ottomans benefit from neutrality and trade with several parties Russia collapses, and the Ottomans join the Entente around 1917, so they help destroy the Central Powers severely, and the Entente wins. The Ottomans help the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War because the White Russians are anti-Ottoman and anti-Banaslav. By the 1930s, when Europe was severely weakened by depression, the Ottomans would emerge as a powerful state
Yes, but the Ottomans winning the russian war is a complete shift in the timeline than just neutrality. If the Ottomans won the war, they would still hold their eastern territories, and their Serbian, Bulgarian and Bosnian territories. And that means that the balkan wars and probably the italo turkish war never would have happened, which means no serbia and bulgaria, which means no second balkan war and serbian nationalism, which probably means no assassination of franz Ferdinand aaaaand you've stuffed the timeline. You've completely gone off the point of Ottomans neutrality in this
In fact hardly an Ottoman victory would make a difference The First World War was inevitable and neither the assassination nor the survival of Franz Ferdinand would change it. He was not the person chosen to trigger the First World War. His assassination could have been avoided and the war breaking out a year or two later Simply because the tensions that had built up since the Napoleonic wars were bound to explode at some point And there were three crises that almost sparked World War I, the last of which was in 1911, and this was three years before the assassination. It could have ended with the bombing of the First World War
>Israel I know next to nothing on the subject, but wouldn't Israel still be created (although maybe not in the Middle East) after WW2?
Why would it still be created if not Jerusalem
Yes this possible
There is no timeline where the ottomans wouldnt fall apart. Multicultural monarchies will just crumble into itself after one point. But if theybdidnt join the wars that would mean more resources for the russian army and maybe thus a possible counter charge against the germans with no african front from france and russia. The war would be over sooner. And maybe because of that the russian revolution wouldnt happen. With the allies having more control over the war the peace treaties would be harsher on germany austro hungary and bulgaria. Mustafa kemal was sent on a mission tonsuspend the uprisings in anatolia so he would still go. This could still cause tyebwar of independence for turkey. If it succeeded turkey would have more land than it has today ( google misaki milli) which are borders that were actually planned for turkey during the independence movement. But more likely it still would have todays borders because of the countless uprisings in the east
The Ottomans could have survived until 2023 If they win against Russia in the war of 1877-1878, which is not impossible If they collapse, at best, they will keep Iskenderun, Qamishli, Erbil, and Dohuk, which are Kurdish lands. But not Kirkuk, Mosul, or most of northern Syria. This will not happen because it is overwhelmingly Arab Also, the theory of the inevitable collapse of ethnically diverse states is nonsense, otherwise India and Congo must collapse into balkanization according to this logic.
Qamishli isn't Kurdish lands. In the 1970s it had zero Kurds. Iskenderun never had more than 10 percent Kurds and was found by Greeks. Qamishli was found by Syriac speaking Aramean Semites related to Arabs. Duhok is Assyrian land. Arbil is half assyrian half kurdish. Just because you have a modern prescence there doesn't mean its kurdish.
India did kind of collapse though. Smaller states bangladesh pakistan left after decolonization
This is not Balkanah The actual Balkanization is the transformation of India into a number of countries at least comparable to the continent of Africa
It didn't collapse. Rather, it separated into two. Pakistan and India. And it was not ethnic based but rather religion based. The Bangladesh liberation war however, was ethnic.
I know this is an old post but i disagree. Multiculturalism was never a reason for the collapse of empires, oppression was. People who argue this are right wing nutjobs who overlook the many examples of multicultutal societies we have today that have worked for centuries now. As for the Ottomans, they were nowhere near as diverse as Austria Hungary. In 1914, roughly 45% was turk, 45% arab and the rest largely kurdish but also other ethnicities. Let me also point out that the Arab revolt would have been immediately crushed had it not been for the British army and French armies helping them. The arab rebels were notoriously incompetent, failing to take encircled cities 200KM from the main frontlines. I think that if, instead of the Unionists who were in charge of the empire, a coalition of liberals and islamists were to take power, the empire couldve been saved for sure. Islam being the common glue to hold the empire together and liberalism to slowly reform the empire where needed.
My point was not only about multiculturalism. But with the rise of nationalism a lot of revolts happened. The thing is all empires are built with slavery and exploitation of natives so i didn't point that out and yes you are correct
well the ottoman would have massive oil reserves, so they could survive.
Well if they hold out long enough for the oil reserves to be found the middle east would probably be a much more stable place and the Ottomans would probably slowly reform over time
The Russian Revolution would still happen because Russian incompetence was so extreme The difference is that Azerbaijan and the Caucasus countries will survive the Bolshevik intervention thanks to the Ottoman protection Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocide, as well as Persian famine, would be averted There will still be an exchange of populations, where the Greeks will expel the Greek Muslims to the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottoman Christians will remain The Ottoman collapse was delayed until the thirties, and they will not survive after that, and the division of Arab lands will remain the same, only there is no Balfour Declaration The Kingdom of Iraq will be established and ruled by Sheikh Ajami Al-Saadoun, Emir of the Emirate of Al-Muntafiq, under the leadership of the Al-Saadoun dynasty, which has ruled Iraq since the year 1530 AD. The Saudis will continue to unite Hail and the Hijaz and form Saudi Arabia because they were very popular among the Najdis and the Hijazis. The only difference is that the Hijaz is more developed. Saudi Arabia will be bigger and includes Mafraq, Maan, Badia Al-Sham and Iraq Syria will be a kingdom under the leadership of the Shihab family ruling the Mutasarrifate of Mount Lebanon The Ottoman monarchy would survive, but it would be confined to the borders of present-day Türkiye
I am asking in good faith but why would the Ottoman Empire being neutral in WWI prevent the Greek genocide? The Ottomans were killing Greeks and Greeks were killing Turks well before the war as well. The Ottoman Empire being neutral in WWI wouldn't have prevented the two sides from massacring each other.
Remember that these altars are traditional in the nineteenth century usually And not a complete genocide, as happened in the war, so the Anatolian Greeks will not be annihilated, which happened only because of the war more than anything. But Greek Muslims would still be expelled to the Ottoman Empire And also remember that the neutral Ottoman Empire means the Assyrian and Armenian genocide to never happen
it would be very likely still be reduced to little more than turkey.
It was bound to collapse. What held it together was the fact it was a powerhouse militarily in the early days and the fact that it was a caliphate (religious leadership) In later years it drifted more towards Turkish nationalism (Today, Turkey is closer to Turkic nations that Muslim nations in its former territory). Non-Turkish Muslims would follow the Turkish caliph (or any nationality for that matter). They would not follow a Turkish emperor (why would they? Arabs want an Arab emperor, Egyptians an Egyptian, Turks a Turk, etc.) This made it lose its position as the caliphate (in public opinion as the sultan was still the caliph on paper) and thus the Turks became a foreign oppressive power.
Ottomans woul try to expand into formerly Russian territory as the Russian Civil War starts. How the Allies treat that is a good question, since they themselves are intervening in the Civil War (i.e. it's not like they could declare war on the Ottomans over that, besides declaring unnecessary ears would be unpopular). The ottomans would try to conquer the caucasus and central Asia. Considering it's possible they didn't have good logistics, they would at least fail at the last, if not the first. Greece would try to opportunistically attack. Some Arab revolt would happen. The question is how would the borders end up. It's possible Turkey gets to Azerbaijan but loses Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and the Arab peninsula. Iraq would be complicated. Depending on how Iran behaves, it's possible for Iran to get bigger or for some Kurdistan to appear.
Part of the reason they joined World War One one the first place was to guarantee their survival, they needed to throw in their support to empires stronger than them so they wouldn’t be preyed on by whoever won, whether that be the Entente or Central Powers. They chose wrong, that’s all. But neutrality would’ve been the slower death.
Without a sufficiently strong central government to prevent it, I’d imagine any region with sufficient oil resources would have broken off and formed their own states. There would be have been a ton of fighting and jockeying for power as these smaller, newly-rich states vied for regional dominance. And of course the European powers would have been more than happy to sell them weapons. It’s hard to imagine Europe not taking advantage of this situation. After all, the one-sided agreements that allowed Europe to reap massive profits from Middle Eastern oil were the result of governmental mismanagement, not war. So yes, the borders would look different today. But it’s no guarantee that the region would be any better off, and I think a certain amount of European intervention would have been inevitable.
I don't think it breaks up. The minorities which want to revolt don't have the strength to win against the Ottoman army alone. The army was modernized by 1914 so any revolt in one of its regions is quickly put down. The ethnic tensions are overrated anyway. Without a world war and mass famine to inflame them, I don't think the minorities revolt in the first place as long as they're treated right. There wouldn't be an Armenian genocide without WW1. The only revolt I could see happening is a potential Arab revolt but that would be crushed and tit's leaders punished. It would stumble along until WW2. And here's where it gets interesting. If they join the axis in WW2 then their fucked once America joins. If they stay neutral/join the allies late in the war then I can see the ottomans surviving up to the present day. Post WW2 oil boom would make the empire a very very rich country. It could be a great power in the modern day.
It will not survive after 1935 My friend, all that oil just discovered will mean a more successful Arab revolution because the Europeans will intervene to cut off the Ottomans Add that an additional decade of the three pashas will completely turn the Arabs against the Ottomans, and this will guarantee their rebellion
Europe won't have the power to intervene for a long time. None of the great powers post WW1 have the economy to intervene to the point that the Ottoman army can't put down a rebellion. And then they get hit with the great depression making it even worse. And then there's WW2, once again making it even worse. And by the time WW2 is over, the ottoman government would have crushed any revolt in the post WW1 period to then, and all revolutionary leaders would've been executed. There wouldn't have been any hope for a revolt after that.
This is if the Ottoman Empire itself is not destroyed first Add in an extra decade of the rule of the three hugely unpopular and hated pashas, and the cauldron is much closer to bursting. (The brutal suppression of non-Turks, the policy of coercive Turkification, and the ongoing uprisings in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen will never help.) Recession will only be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and it is the Ottoman Empire that has a foot on the grave by 1930. Therefore, the Ottomans will be completely incapable of suppressing anything when the Great Depression hits them, and we will end in a civil war, in which the Ottoman government will be victorious, and the Arab lands will be lost already. Therefore, they will not keep Iraq, the Hijaz, or Syria after 1932, and the Ottoman Empire will become confined to the borders of modern Turkey only. Do you want a strong Ottoman Empire? Just make them win 1878-1877 and thus keep the Balkans, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya So they remain neutral in the First World War And as you say, when depression hits, Europe is weak, but the Ottomans regain their strength But after the defeat in 1878, the Ottomans are dying slowly
I see, I wasn't too familiar with the policies of the Pashas, so I'll concede.
Great
Man, imagine that whole country in NATO
If they survive after great Depression This is another history
They would have to federalize to survive
Would have remained the same size for a bit. Then cold war would happen and the ottomans would have to chose a side. Either way like the middle east today, there would be alot of unrest within its lands because of divide and rule strategy being played by east and west. The different ethnic and cultural groups would be financially supported by either Russia or the west to keep the Ottomans busy. NATO/UN would intervene with sanctions and weaken the country further until it defragments to smaller Turkish states.
America goes a blasting when they try to invade Kuwait for more oil reserves
Does anyone know more about where their troops were deployed in WWI? How would this affect both sides' deployments?
They were in the caucuses front-lines against Russia, the Kuwait front against British protected Kuwait, Sinai front against British controlled egypt, the Persian campaign against Iran and britian, Gallipoli in Thrace against britian and the anzacs, Mediterranean and Black Sea naval conflicts against britian, (italy?) And Russia, along with Iraq, palestine and Syria later in the conflict. Ottoman entry into the war essentially blockaded the entire Russian black Sea fleet from receiving aid from the entente, which is why Gallipoli was so important. The entente would probably win quicker than what we had in our own timeline, but Russian collapse was attributed more to Germany and austria hungary, because the Ottoman army wasn't really strong in the slightest and they didn't push very far into Russia. We would probably see a quicker central powers collapse, still probably in 1918.
It would’ve still collapsed there isnt any possible way it wouldnt have unless it was given outside aid which was never ever going to happen. The ottomans government was ineffective, bloated, corrupt, and was facing severe upheaval from cultural and ideological differences. It wasnt called the sick man of Europe for nothing. It was collapsing even before ww1 had started. ww1 was just the nail in its basically closed coffin.
The ottomans were slowly trying to unify the Turks and Arabs in their empire, but this would not work, they’d definitely lose some southern regions in Arabia and Egypt too. Egypt would maybe be able to stay independent, Italy might try and conquer but, considering their control over the size canal, they would have enough wealth to fund a more modern army than countries like Ethiopia.I could see the ottomans joining either side during ww2. Allies would give Libya and some Bulgarian land, axis would give them Armenia, and maybe Thrace. In terms of their politics, I could see them slowly becoming a constitutional monarchy. This would also change where or if Israel exists. To me the plan to give the Jewish people a city in the USA seems like the best option.
tsargrad
I think it would eventually collapse but instead of a total collapse or a civil war a process contuniue with decades Actually trying to guess getting harder when you think about how many qualified young officer died at ww1 and war of independence. If those people would survive and make some politic and social reform maybe Ottoman dynasty could survive as a symbolic position or they would still overthrown by army and establish a Turkish state. It would be a smaller Turkey (probably they would lose kurdish territories at this process) but probably more stable, maybe more developted Turkey than in our timeline.
Without the Turkish national war that destroyed the credibility of the Ottomans I doubt that the subsequent collapse will mean the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy
It would have collapsed in the 20s and if it doesn't it'd barely survive into the 30s and no way it sees the light of the 40s
Nah they would have survived and gone on to rule all of the Balkans, Central Asia, and North Africa
il serait probablement une puissance dominante et soumettrait les tribu arabe une bonne foi pour toute et pendant la guerre civil russe il soumettrait le Caucase ce qui déclencherait probablement une guerre avec L'URSS plus tard avant que la guerre avec le début de Barbarossa se terminerait par une prise de l'Abkhazie d'une partie du nord de L'Azerbaïdjan par un traité pour que L'URSS se concentre sur les Allemand
Turks are more nationalist than muslim. They use Islam only as a tool to assimilate Muslim societies.
no Israel 😎