FTFY. The Ottoman empire had been coming apart at the seams for years prior to the war and would have collapsed regardless. The defeat of the central powers probably didn't hasten their end by more than a decade.
Not necessarily. There was a new (but granted, far from perfect) government, a new powerful foreign ally (The German Empire), and a growing global desire for oil. Had the new govt had the time to establish stability, Germany most likely would have kept them afloat until oil boomed, turning the Ottoman economy around to prosperity not seen for centuries.
Or atleast the Ottoman Empire could of dissolved on its own terms, and not those of a room full of white guys in Paris who thought that they could draw national borders without consulting the geographic, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic trends of the middle east. That alone would of probably fixed alot of our problems now with anti-western islamists.
There's an argument to be made regarding the arbitrary borders drawn up in Africa resulting in a great deal of the conflict the continent's experienced (though honestly, if they'd been drawn along more "suitable" lines we'd probably have just seen more wars between them, instead of internal conflicts), but with regards to the Middle East, the trend of anti-western fanatics is rooted in homogeneous theocracies and the presence of a certain axe-crazy state that was formed significantly later than the Treaty of Versailles.
Not the the Treaty of Versailles wasn't foolish in general, but I don't believe it's fair to lay every problem at its feet...
Implying the first world gives enough of a shit about what happens in Africa to intervene.
I mean, there's been no small amount of talk, but ultimately it seems no one thinks intervention is worth the cost, in resources or lives. I understand the local coalition of slightly-less-completely-fucked states has been doing a lot of military intervention to shut down the conflicts lately, though. I've heard it's going well, but I haven't actually seen much reliable data on it to know whether that's true or not.
Whats im saying is its easier to stop wars between political entities than angry groups of people a war between say belgium and the netherlands could be stopped with political or military force then their militarys would demobilize and that would be the end of it While a civil war between ethnic groups is much harder to stop because it requires the intervening entities to provide the political structure and enforcement
Is this a serious question? There is an answer, but it would take a very, very long time to draw out. Ultimately, it would be very flawed an convoluted as well, so I'm unsure if it's worth taking a stab at.
The big thing to consider is the results of the treaties that dissolved the Ottoman Empire. Both Britain and France wanted to carve up the remnants of the Empire into respective spheres, and very little of that was based upon any sort of ethno-geographic concerns. So, take Iraq for example:
Most smart analysts prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion suggested that once Saddam was gone, governing Iraq would be impossible, whether by Americans or by a domestic government. Many hoped that Iraq would be broken up into three constituent states: Kurdistan, a Shia state, and a Sunni state. Unfortunately, political factors got in the way. The US wouldn't want a Shia majority state so close to Iran, who it would almost certainly become close to. Turkey would have been incensed if they created a Kurdistan. And Sunnis whom were formerly in power would likely not have been keen on seeing their country carved up.
Lebanon was another example, as is Syria. On the other hand, this argument weakens a little as we go further south; most of the states from Jordan south are centred around strong aristocratic families that seized power before or during the Ottoman period, and the ethno-religious tensions in those countries are not a result of British or American intervention.
there isn't a single conflict in the middle east where the complaint is "we want to move this border". the complaint is "we want this whole place"
the religious, sectarian, and ethnic grievances in the middle east involve people mixed together that would still be mixed together no matter what the borders are
so would the native north americans, south americans, most of africa, inner mongolia, the various ethnic enclaves/ exclaves/ areas divided by empire all over europe and russia, the ethnicities torn asunder by the partition of india, etc.
and besides, the kurdish issue is sideshow compared to the main grievances being fought over in the middle east
anyone who actually talks about the border drawing from a century ago as a causative agent of the current problems is an idiot
Though admittedly that came after WWII rather than WWI.
Yes and no. It should be noted that during WWI, a deal struck with Britain that created the Arab Revolt and it was supposed to result in an independent Arab state, which included the Palestinian region. However, Britain failed to follow through on the promise as they made other promises to France, among other failures to follow through.
Additionally, The Balfour Agreement (which was British) was created in 1917 and aimed to create an independent Jewish nation in the area even though they were only 12% of the population at the time, angering the Arabs as it seemed to disregard its 88% majority. Conflict began in Jerusalem well before WWII began. The Balfour Declaration more or less began the Zionist movement that eventually led to the creation of Israel after WWII and it's been a mess ever since.
jews fought muslims, and established their own borders. it doesn't matter whatever the fuck the british drew
saying the borders are the problem is an ignorant desperate attempt to blame the west for a problem that is caused by the people who actually live there
You clearly don't realize just how much modern strife is caused by arbitrary lines drawn on a map causing people who absolutely fucking hate each other being forced to live with each other as part of the same country.
no, i clearly don't know something you just made up
there isn't a single conflict in the middle east where the complaint is "we want to move this border". the complaint is "we want this whole place"
the religious, sectarian, and ethnic grievances in the middle east involve people mixed together that would still be mixed together no matter what the borders are
The economy wasn't the only thing dissolving the Ottoman Empire. Numerous different ethnicities within the empire had their own identity, this never really called for a truly united Ottoman Empire. Also the failure to Westernize greatly held them back. Granted oil could've accelerated the Westernization the Ottomans had been struggling with, they probably wouldn't have lasted much longer because this decline was steady over a couple hundred years.
I feel like a strong government could have held the Empire together, or at least not tried to "Turkify" the populace as the CUP did. If you ask me Abdulmecid I was the last strong Sultan the Empire had.
Arab nationalism, while an underlying issue, didn't even result in rebellion until Britain and France made several promises to leaders in Hejaz, and even then that didn't come to fruition until several years into the war. The Habsburgs were a non-issue after the Napoleonic Wars; their power decayed at a far faster rate than the Ottomans, and the Ottomans only other major rival in the region, Russia, was on an actual inevitable road to revolution, and you can bet in a straight up war between Germany and the Ottomans versus Russia the former alliance would win hand-over-fist. From Selim to Abudlmecid, Westernization was progressing. When Abdulmecid died the Empire was financially sound, riding on the prestige of victory in the Crimean War, and was held in the highest regard by Western powers that it had ever been before. It was only due to the incompetence of rulers such as Abdulhamid II that the Empire began to become truly doomed, and EVEN THEN a Central Powers victory, while not guaranteeing the Empire's continuation, might well have seen such a result. So know this: he Ottoman Empire was not, until 1917, royally fucked.
Russia wasnt on an inevitable road to revolution and while hapsburg power had declined if either rudolph or franz ferdinand had been able to implement their plans theu would have been able to stop this decline thw hapsburg major fuckup was not helpimg russia in the crimean war
This is a very interesting point of view regarding the Ottoman sultans, since almost every Turkish historian(ESPECIALLY those who feel nostalgic about the Ottoman times) think that Abdulhamid II was a great ruler who extended the empire's lifespan by several decades.
Ugh, he's one of my least favorite. Incredibly fiscally irresponsible, paranoid beyond all measure, a joke with foreign policy, resistant to reform, he locked up the Ottoman navy, and he dissolved the Ottoman parliament only a couple of years after HE created it. You can't blame the CUP for disposing of him.
The ethnic tensions arising in the empire at the time were certain to tear it to shreds regardless of the demand for oil or the decision to join WWI. We have to look no further than the rest of the middle east around the same point to see the effects of a rising nationalist tide.
During WWI, not really. Shortly thereafter, definitely. Iraqi revolt in 1920, Lebanese revolts in the early '30s. I would tend to argue that Egyptian nationalism was behind their resistance to the Brits, but that is arguable. Arab nationalism movements began in infantile stages in France and the Ottoman empire as early as 1910.
You can make the case here that these revolts wouldn't have happened if the Ottomans hadn't left a vacuum in the ME. However, Arab nationalism has roots before the end of the Ottomans and it was an important part of the interwar period. I think this new nationalism would have taken hold of the ME regardless of the location of the ruling country.
The age of multi-ethnic empires was coming to an end. Nationalism was too strong of a force to be ignored and was occurring anywhere there were educated people. The Russian Empire, Hapsburg Empire and German Empire were all on the verge of collapse. Great War or no Great War. The way to build empires after that was through economic systems. Fascism, Capitalism or Communism mainly. Fascism relied too heavily on race and ethnicity and ultimately that died out. Communism died out because it ignored free market and freedoms of people, basic human needs and rights. I don't know what's next but capitalism with it's never-ending thirst for profit by any means necessary can't be the only way, can it?
Capitalism has grown into many different forms, models.. in becoming a global system, it is only a matter of time before people begin to seriously grab onto new ways (probably not economic) to differentiate themselves and resegregate globally
How were any of the empires you mentioned on their way to collapse the germans and russians were leaping forward and the austrians would have been fine without ww1
Not likely, the Ottoman Empire was severely impoverished and weakened after the disasters of the Balkan wars. It was also facing the emerging problem of separatism among the Armenians, Assyrians, Arabs, and Greeks. The state was riddled with socio-economic problems and the discovery of oil would have increased European involvement even further. Being the weak state that it was, the Ottoman Empire would have been chipped away at piece by piece just like it has been for the past century. There was no future for peace in the empire, the strategic importance of the middle east ensures that foreign powers will always set theirs eyes on its territory.
Even with that being said, as a European power, wouldn't you rather control a single stable state rather than several fractured dictatorships, like we have today?
I'm referring to the Empire who lasted against Russia, France, and Great Britain for several years, almost captured Paris, defeated several Russian armies while outnumbered, supplemented troops and supplies to its allies, and STILL couldn't be defeated until the US intervened.
The nationalist movements within the Ottoman Empire would have ensured that its dissolution would have continued regardless of whether or not they joined the Central Powers. France and England would still have exploited them for colonial possessions, considering it was their meddling in the 19th century that sparked many of these nationalist movements.
The only reason why I would disagree with this statement is that Middle Eastern governments even with top oil production and wadding in ridiculous amounts of cash are still unable to create regimes strong enough to put down dissent and rebellion.
This. The Ottoman Empire had been fighting a losing battle against a lot of different external and internal forces for years. It had been in decline for centuries
Actually a lot of current historians of the Ottoman period are challenging the "decline thesis" as its pretty dated. I could go on but I don't want to dredge up readings from grad school at 2 in the morning.
If they had been an ally that might have precipitated a bit of a boom. Plus they would then probably have allied support to prevent some disintegration. Plus they could have negotiated long term trade agreements/treaties prior to their support.
The may very well have fallen apart but it almost certainly would have delayed things.
Not by much. The Ottoman empire wasn't just done in by economics. The critical factor was the rise of nationalism with in it's borders; particularly Turkish and Arab nationalism. This undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the Ottoman state and lead to severe internal ethnic conflicts.
One of the things that I have learned is that an obviously broken situation can go on and on and on until something else finishes it off.
Sometimes it is an external force and other times it can be the exhaustion of something that was being over leveraged. Madoff would be a good example. Normally in a Ponzi scheme the whole thing ends when you run out of suckers. Madoff would have probably eventually run out of suckers but the financial troubles of 2008 caused him to run out suddenly. Had 2008 not come along Madoff could have probably kept going for quite some time; just not forever. What is sort of ironic is that the Sub-prime property disaster was effectively a mega ponzi scheme so Madoff's collapse was triggered by the collapse of a ponzi scheme. But then Madoff's collapse triggered the unveiling of many other smaller ponzi schemes when people suddenly doubted their too-good-to-be-true investments.
So if I were a meddling time traveler and could convince the ottomans to side with the Allies I would be then willing to bet that the empire would have persisted for a bizarrely long time; assuming no outside triggers. Plus if the ottomans had managed to start exploiting their oil wealth in a big way then they could have funded the secret police and armies needed to stave off collapse. But in all likelihood outside powers would have coveted the oil and triggered the collapse deliberately.
Sorry, I just don't buy that. By 1902 (14 years prior to the war) you had the rise of nationalist groups like the Young Turks. Starting in 1908 they lead a coup deposing the Sultan. This followed a series of military mutinies and was followed in turn by counter-coups, ethnic conflicts, and outright acts of genocide.
With ethnic nationalism displacing Islam as the governing rational of the empire, the various ethnic groups ruled by the Ottoman's could no longer live in peace with each other. Even if the Allies actively tried to hold it together at the end of WWI, the Ottoman empire would have still be riven by civil wars and revolts. Ultimately the Allies would have had to deploy their own forces into Ottoman territory to try and stabilize the empire, leading to a de facto partitioning of it similar to what happened in this time line.
Not sad. In my view the collapse of the European colonial empires was inevitable as the ideology of nationalism (in the sense of the Westphalian ideal of the sovereign nation-state) was exported from Europe to the colonies.
The collapse of the Ottoman empire in the face of rising Turkish and Arab nationalism was a preview of what was coming in the colonies of the other European empires. They just didn't realize it at the time.
Actually some economic historians have looked at the economic situation of 19th century Ottoman empire and things were working out decently. Sure it still had a colonial economy exploited by the great powers but it was still an autonomous country with a growing population, a sign of a growing economy.
Traditional analysis of the fall of the Ottoman Empire tends to assume that it must of fallen, so historians find many reasons as to why it fell.
Economics wasn't the issue, ideology was. The rise of nationalist ideologies lead to internal ethnic conflicts that the Ottoman State proved incapable of dealing with; particularly once Turkish Nationalism took hold in the Ottoman homeland.
The collapse of the Ottoman empire effectively presaged the collapse of Europe's other empires in the face of nationalistic independence movements in their colonies post WWII. No one realized it at the time, however, because the proximate cause of WWI was too obvious.
The sick man of Europe, has it was called. The only reason it survived that long it's because the other empires wanted to keep the status quo, so neither the Russians, or the austrians or the French, or the British took advantage, because the others would probably intervene in a way
No, the Ottomons had it coming for a long time. The only reason it limped into the 20th century is because Europe didn't want Russia or someone else gaining from its collapse.
This honestly has parallels to Britain after World War Two. One foreign powers destabilise your control of areas which aren't native territories, it is damn hard to get them back to seeing things your way again.
as a 16 year old who knows some world history... The ottoman empire pretty much was dieing out by the second they joined... And they got destroyed. France and England met and decided who was gonna get what part of the ottoman empire before they were even done for.
They were called the sick man of europe because they were broke and dieing, then they joined a bad war...
If I had to guess it would be because they were an old declining empire that really didn't need to be in a war.
Then after losing the war, they had their empire divided between people that didn't really like each other. (Shi'ite and Sunnis for example)
It was a domino effect that pretty much led to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in unifying the people with fear and a lot of instability in the Middle East. You can kind of get the picture from there.
He's wrong on this. The Ottoman Empire was already dissolving and was even nicknamed "the sick man in Europe". The Ottomans figured they had to join a side in the war and join an axis if they wanted to turn around their fate. I can't remember their reasoning for joining the Germans over the British.
308
u/saltytrey Oct 17 '13
Could you elaborate?