The Ottoman Empire remains neutral in World War I

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,247
SoCal
#1
What if the Ottoman Empire would have remained neutral in World War I? Basically, the logic behind this is that after losing Libya to the Italians and most of its remaining Balkan possessions to the Balkan League, it would be foolish for the Ottomans to risk losing even more territory by getting involved in yet another war.

Would Russia avoid revolution in this scenario due to it being able to import and export goods and materials through the Straits? Also, how else would Ottoman neutrality have affected World War I?

Would the Ottoman Empire have been able to keep its non-Turkish territories in the 20th and 21st centuries in this scenario?

Would the Ottoman Empire itself have survived to the present-day in this scenario?

Also, in general, what would the Ottoman Empire have looked like over the last 105 years in this scenario?
 
Apr 2017
762
U.S.A.
#2
Ottoman non-entry into the war probably wouldn't have effected the central powers ultimate defeat or Russia's revolution. Instead of Anzac landings at Gallipoli it might of been at the crimea. As for the ottomans themselves, the empire would have fallen eventually. The arabs would have rebelled, probably after the war and would have been assisted by Britain/France. The Armenians and Kurds may also rebel depending on how things go. The point is Turkey couldn't hold all that territory. Maybe northern Iraq and Syria but doubtful much more.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,247
SoCal
#3
Ottoman non-entry into the war probably wouldn't have effected the central powers ultimate defeat or Russia's revolution. Instead of Anzac landings at Gallipoli it might of been at the crimea. As for the ottomans themselves, the empire would have fallen eventually. The arabs would have rebelled, probably after the war and would have been assisted by Britain/France. The Armenians and Kurds may also rebel depending on how things go. The point is Turkey couldn't hold all that territory. Maybe northern Iraq and Syria but doubtful much more.
Crimea was a part of Russia--which was an Entente member during World War I. No one's going to be invading it unless the Germans have already captured it.

Also, would Britain and France be willing to support an Arab rebellion in a country (the Ottoman Empire) which might be viewed as a bulwark to Bolshevism if the Bolshevik Revolution still occurs in Russia?
 
Apr 2017
762
U.S.A.
#4
Crimea was a part of Russia--which was an Entente member during World War I. No one's going to be invading it unless the Germans have already captured it.

Also, would Britain and France be willing to support an Arab rebellion in a country (the Ottoman Empire) which might be viewed as a bulwark to Bolshevism if the Bolshevik Revolution still occurs in Russia?
That's t I meant, after the Germans overran the crimea and Ukraine.
Support a rotten empire rife with rebellion to contain communism? More likely Britain and France would just take the territory for themselves.
 
Apr 2017
762
U.S.A.
#6
A lot of subject peoples rebelled after the first word war, as they saw Europe as weakened from the war. Even states that weren't in the war would have problems as their large minority areas would be inspired by the other regions gaining independence. The arabs would see Ireland, Poland, Yugoslavia and other gaining independence and would want their own.
 

Similar History Discussions