If the Ottoman Empire survives WWI, is it going to see significant unrest during the age of decolonization later on?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,235
SoCal
#1
If the Ottoman Empire survives WWI (as a result of remaining neutral during this entire war--which in itself could have had a major effect if this would have resulted in Russia avoiding one or both of its revolutions), is it going to see significant unrest among its ethnic minorities during the age of decolonization later on?

By 1914, a lot of the Arab and Muslim worlds was already ruled by Europeans. Now, the question is this--once Europeans will no longer have the willpower to maintain control over their colonies (including in the Arab and Muslim worlds), are the Ottoman Empire's ethnic minorities likewise going to demand independence and perhaps rebel against Ottoman rule?

Also, if so, how are the other Great Powers going to react to this? (In addition, as a side question, do you think that a surviving Ottoman Empire will ever successfully acquire nuclear weapons? If so, what effects would this have?)

Any thoughts on this?
 
Likes: Black Horse
Mar 2016
1,210
Australia
#2
Now, the question is this--once Europeans will no longer have the willpower to maintain control over their colonies (including in the Arab and Muslim worlds), are the Ottoman Empire's ethnic minorities likewise going to demand independence and perhaps rebel against Ottoman rule?
Possibly. The Ottomans had, during World War I, tried to create a pan-Islamic identity among all Muslims in the world in an attempt to stir up rebellion in the British Raj, but it mostly failed because even other MuslimS saw the Ottoman Empire as a Turkish empire first and foremost, rather than a Muslim empire, and ethnic dislike and a lack of relatability meant that the Turks were never seen as much more than that. This was especially apparent with the Arabs. But whether there'd be large-scale rebellions against their rule is more uncertain. The Ottoman army and their industrial output was relatively small compared to other great powers, but they were capable of putting down rebellions when they popped up - that's how they maintained their empire for centuries. The Kurds, Arabs, etc. would not pose any real threat during peace-time. The Ottomans would just send in their army, crush them and then leave enough soldiers there to discourage any further revolts. I mean, if they were able to wipe out a significant proportion of Armenians during the middle of World War I, near the border of their greatest enemy the Russian Empire, I'd say they could do it easily in peace-time. Generally revolts were only successful if they were backed by a major power, e.g. Britain and France supporting the Greeks, and assuming that the Young Turks remained the dominant power in the empire, their ardent nationalism would probably push them to be even harsher against non-Turkish rebels (as they were against the Armenians). Assuming WWII still occurs in this alternate timeline, and the Ottomans remain neutral from that as well, it's likely that the dominant influences/interested parties for the Ottomans would be the US and the USSR, as opposed to the earlier set-up of it being Britain and France (who all but controlled Ottoman trade and financing before WWI). It's likely that either the US, USSR or both would incite minority revolts in the empire as they did all over the world during the Cold War. The effectiveness of these revolts, and the Ottoman response to them, is completely unknown because we're so far into the future at this point, and answering would be pure guesswork.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,235
SoCal
#3
Possibly. The Ottomans had, during World War I, tried to create a pan-Islamic identity among all Muslims in the world in an attempt to stir up rebellion in the British Raj, but it mostly failed because even other MuslimS saw the Ottoman Empire as a Turkish empire first and foremost, rather than a Muslim empire, and ethnic dislike and a lack of relatability meant that the Turks were never seen as much more than that. This was especially apparent with the Arabs. But whether there'd be large-scale rebellions against their rule is more uncertain. The Ottoman army and their industrial output was relatively small compared to other great powers, but they were capable of putting down rebellions when they popped up - that's how they maintained their empire for centuries. The Kurds, Arabs, etc. would not pose any real threat during peace-time. The Ottomans would just send in their army, crush them and then leave enough soldiers there to discourage any further revolts. I mean, if they were able to wipe out a significant proportion of Armenians during the middle of World War I, near the border of their greatest enemy the Russian Empire, I'd say they could do it easily in peace-time. Generally revolts were only successful if they were backed by a major power, e.g. Britain and France supporting the Greeks, and assuming that the Young Turks remained the dominant power in the empire, their ardent nationalism would probably push them to be even harsher against non-Turkish rebels (as they were against the Armenians).
Agreed with all of this.

Assuming WWII still occurs in this alternate timeline,
This is far from guaranteed if Russia avoids Bolshevism in this scenario, though.

However, Yes, if WWII still occurs, then the Ottomans would have obviously remained neutral.

and the Ottomans remain neutral from that as well, it's likely that the dominant influences/interested parties for the Ottomans would be the US and the USSR, as opposed to the earlier set-up of it being Britain and France (who all but controlled Ottoman trade and financing before WWI). It's likely that either the US, USSR or both would incite minority revolts in the empire as they did all over the world during the Cold War. The effectiveness of these revolts, and the Ottoman response to them, is completely unknown because we're so far into the future at this point, and answering would be pure guesswork.
Wouldn't the US have tried to prop up the Ottomans in this scenario in an attempt to prevent Soviet encroachment into the Middle East, though?
 
Likes: Black Horse
Mar 2016
1,210
Australia
#4
Wouldn't the US have tried to prop up the Ottomans in this scenario in an attempt to prevent Soviet encroachment into the Middle East, though?
I suppose it depends on who gets to them first. If the Soviets had already firmly established their influence over the empire, then the US would probably try to break it apart by supporting rebels, although you're correct that a more ideal scenario would be for them to get the foot in the door first with the Ottomans and essentially act as their protector similar to what Britain did in the mid-to-late 19th century to oppose Russian imperialism in the region.