What if the British concluded an Ottoman alliance before World War I ?

[raharris1973]

What if the British concluded an Ottoman alliance before World War I ?

According to David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" the Young Turks proposed an alliance with Britain in 1911 and Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, favored it but the Cabinet as a whole did not.



What if the cabinet supported it? Does this deter the Italian Turkish Wars and then Balkan Wars?



Whether it does or not, how does it alter relations within the Triple Entente, the Triple Alliance, and between the two power blocs through the following 5 to 10 years?


All things being equal, if WWI breaks out like it did with the same line-up except the Ottomans going along with the British and thus the Alliance, well, at least Britain, under Churchill's impetus, have inoculated themselves against Churchill's greatest blunder. Hopefully he doesn't work with Jacky Fisher to replace it with a worse Baltic Sea or North Sea peripheral blunder.

....of course it is most likely, all things *won't* be equal by 1914 and any Sarajevo crisis.

[raharris1973]

The difficulty with when the Ottoman approach to Britain was made, in October 1911, was that it was right after Italian attack on the Ottomans in Libya had begun.

So at least a full-fledged alliance at that moment would have required Britain to side with Turkey against Italy.

Churchill judged Ottoman friendship more valuable than Italian, and told the Foreign Secretary so, saying that Ottoman land power was most relevant to British imperial positions (probably having Egypt, Suez, the Arabian Rim, and India in mind) and the Turks were worse to have as an enemy. From the point of view strictly of British imperial lines of communications and relations with its imperial subjects, he may have had a point, but from the point of view of where he stood in the Admiralty, weighing the two as naval powers and trying to assure British supremacy in the world and tranquility in distant waters to permit concentration in home waters, this made no sense at all, since the Italians were clearly the superior naval power to the Turks. The Italians were also more weighty in the European balance, affecting the fate of France, Austria-Hungary and Germany should a war break out and be decided on the continent.

All that said, unlikely as it would have been, if scenario #1 happened, and Britain aligned with the Turks and began aiding them immediately, it is hard to see how the Italians would find it possible to defeat the Turks. Italian troop transports to Libya would be at risk, and the Turks would be free to reinforce Libya. The Balkan League, and especially the Greeks with their Navy would be deterred from entering into a fight against the Ottomans.

The Italians would have to back off, sulk away. They would be quite angry with Britain, and with the other members of the Triple Entente, France and Russia, simply by association. The Italians would walk back to loyalty to the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria, not out of great love for them but for lack of alternatives.

The Ottomans meanwhile, would be able to preserve their pre-war territorial status quo in North Africa, the Aegean, and the Balkans, dealing with simmering Albanian and Macedonian insurgencies while the Balkan States are deterred from attack.

Now some may object that alliance with the Turks would be anathema to a British Liberal government, because of the Liberals Gladstonian anti-Turkish tradition, but I think it is safe to say after the Young Turk revolt of 1908, the British were hopeful about the Young Turks and constitutional restoration, happy to see the back of bloody Abdul Hamid, and ready to give a reforming Turkey a chance.

Nevertheless, it may be more productive to look at a somewhat modified scenario, since a British intervention midstream against the Italians is so unlikely.

In scenario 1a - the start of the Tripolitania war is delayed by at least two months, but tension is building, and the Turkish search for allies is on. With no war having started, Churchill's arguments in favor of an Ottoman alliance are more persuasive to his Cabinet peers. It is still a vigorous debate and not an *easy* case because for years most European powers, including Britain, Triple Entente and Triple Alliance alike, have been winking at Italy and saying Libya is theirs to take.

However, the establishment of the alliance and private communication to the Italians that Britain is now obligated to it, compels the Italian government to back off from its course of escalating rhetoric and demands leading to planned war. Italy is blocked and frustrated, and feels Britain is responsible. For the moment, it is recommitted to the Triple Alliance. It must either forget about colonial expansion for now, or look elsewhere, like towards Abyssinia again, for engaging in such things.

Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire does not have weaknesses exposed by Italian attack, so the Balkan League should remain quiescent.

In OTL, even Britain's naval mission to Constantinople was irritating to the Russians. An outright Ottoman-British alliance is likely to be even more irritating. The British will of course counter with similar arguments - would you like the Turks to buy German ships? To ally with Germany?

Britain will stick with the Ottoman tie it believes to be in its interest, and is happy to deepen its Entente with France and keep its Entente with Russia. But it won't disavow the Turkish treaty to appease Russia. The Russians can like it or lump it.

......another alternative scenario, scenario #2, is that Churchill loses the argument in Cabinet in 1911 as per historical, mainly because of a desire to avoid complications with Italy, but Churchill repeatedly comes back to the idea.

He brings it up again after the Italo-Turkish Treaty of Ouchy in October 1912. Unfortunately, by this point, the Balkan League powers have already attacked the Ottomans, so aligning with the Ottomans at the moment would put Britain in a hostile position relative to those countries, most notably, the Greeks.

Churchill again is put off and drops it.

However, once more, after the end of the 2nd Balkan War, which sees the Ottoman Empire finally at peace, and demonstrated that Britain's Entente partner Russia was not at the moment ready to immediately partition Turkey nor ready to see any other country, like Bulgaria, seize Constantinople, Churchill brings it up again. This time, adding strength to his argument, and actually within his remit as Lord of the Admiralty, is the growing British dependence on Persian Gulf Oil from Persia's Abadan refinery. Having the strongest local power in Mesopotamia be an ally is considered desirable, alongside the speculative geologists reports that Mesopotamia itself, especially around Mosul, is likely to be a rich source of oil for future Royal Navy requirements. Finally in early 1914, Asquith, Grey, and the Cabinet majority come to support an alliance with the Ottomans and over the winter and spring months come to a mutually agreeable deal.

At the end of June, the Sarajevo crisis happens.

[stevep]

   Interesting ideas although the big problem I see is that with Germany as the primary threat and the entente with Russia after 1907 its difficult seeing Britain choosing Turkey and hence alienating Russia. Although at the time the prime threat to Russia was from Germany and hence that was getting the main attention the desire to control the straits and also expand its  power in the Balkans is still present and its going to strain relations with Russia and hence cause problems with France who won't want the two at odds.  True the Balkan wars backfired for Russia as with Bulgaria not getting support that was alienated and the change of monarch in Greece, plus that countries own desires for Constantinople meant that Russia was left with only really Serbia and Montenegro in close relations with it.

  Plus as you say while a friendly Ottoman empire has bonuses for Britain an alienated Italy has some big negatives as well.  Both in terms of it would distract naval strength away from the crucial North Sea conflict in the event of war with both Italy and Germany and also because Italy was also seen as a problem for either France or Austria depending on which side it took.

  Possibly the best option, assuming that tensions with Russia could be sorted out is some deal after the Italian war, as that doesn't alienate Rome which would have gotten its primary desires from Turkey.  Although this still leaves the question of the Balkan powers and how they and Russia which had diplomatically supported them would have reacted if this was seen as preventing their war with Turkey.  Mind you this does mean that if the crisis occurred as OTL Russia and Bulgaria are still close so it might be willing to allow Serbia to be crushed.  Which would deny Germany the route for a general war it desired.

  Definitely an interesting what if that I hadn't considered before and wasn't aware of the Young Turk approach.