WWI breaks out in Near East, consequences?

[Zealot]

WI the spark which started WWI had been produced at a different place than OTL? Considering the options, there were plenty of potential conflicts involving the Great Powers, hence the Balkan powder wasn´t predestinated to ignite the Great War.

I´ve read some threads regarding different causes for WWI, where the members suggest several possibilities such as colonial clashes in Africa or Far East, etc. , but I want to consider the option of the outbreak taking place in Ottoman Armenia.
IOTL Eastern Anatolia remained a secondary issue for Russian diplomacy, although several attempts were made for penetration in the area, always checked by the rival powers, mainly Britain. But the growing influence of German Empire in Ottoman affairs, with the building of the Baghdad Railways alarmed the British up to the point to force the rapprochement with their former Russian opponents. This convergence of interests made possible the formulation of the Armenian Reform package, just prior the outbreak of WWI.

Consequently, WI an Armenian insurrection breaks out around the time of the implementation of the Reform Package, i.e. 1914 (assuming that there is no Assassination in Sarajevo)? IMO the subsequent succession of events would be:


1. The Ottomans ( who have recently lost Balkan Wars and have been compelled to shelter many Muslim refugees in their territory), move their army to crush the rebellion, fearing another episode of territorial dismemberment, now at the hands of Russia.

2. Before this move, the Sultan consults the German Kaiser, requesting guarantees from German Empire in case of War with “another Power”.

3. Mad Willy, viewing the chance of putting the Anglo Russian Entente to the test and even destroying it, gives a blank cheque to his Turkish ally.

4. Russia begins to mobilize her troops in Caucasus, the same goes for Germany…….

 

[Zealot]

What would be the differences between TTL WWI and OTL? Regarding British involvement, would the fact that the first hostilities take place in Near East mean that British military presence in that battlefront will be stronger?

I imagine the cascade of mobilizations and mutual declarations of war in Europe (Western and Eastern front) would occur like OTL, with the exception of Balkan front: Considering that there’s no motivation for a war between Serbia and A-H in the first moment…..will the area remain calm for the first stages of the war?

Will the earlier Ottoman participation in the war imply that Gallipoli plan is pushed earlier?

 

[Wendell]

What would be the differences between TTL WWI and OTL? Regarding British involvement, would the fact that the first hostilities take place in Near East mean that British military presence in that battlefront will be stronger?

I imagine the cascade of mobilizations and mutual declarations of war in Europe (Western and Eastern front) would occur like OTL, with the exception of Balkan front: Considering that there’s no motivation for a war between Serbia and A-H in the first moment…..will the area remain calm for the first stages of the war?

Will the earlier Ottoman participation in the war imply that Gallipoli plan is pushed earlier?

This assumes, perhaps wrongly, that Britain would be willing to put the very existence of the Ottoman Empire on the line.

 

[Tallil2long]

This assumes, perhaps wrongly, that Britain would be willing to put the very existence of the Ottoman Empire on the line.

Well, they were arguably willing to give up on preserving A-H. The relevant questions are:


1) how strong do the Russians seem, and thus how likely their victory?
2) does GB expect to get more out of placating the Russians, than out of opposing them or sitting it out?


In any event, I would be very, very surprised if GB acquiesced in a probable Russian seizure of Istanbul without a truly compelling reason. Keeping Russia away from the Straits was the real reason behind GB supporting the Ottomans' survival.

My guess is, GB sits it out, but is ready to apply pressure to halt the Russians if they come too close to the Staits.

The real issue is France -- IOTL, Russia and France had agreed to join each other in war against Germany regardless of what started the war (specifically in the case of a Balkan trigger). Would France stick to this agreement in the case of the Mideast? I figure it would, as long as the chance to catch Germany between two fronts presented itself.

 

[Wendell]

Well, they were arguably willing to give up on preserving A-H. The relevant questions are:


1) how strong do the Russians seem, and thus how likely their victory?
2) does GB expect to get more out of placating the Russians, than out of opposing them or sitting it out?


In any event, I would be very, very surprised if GB acquiesced in a probable Russian seizure of Istanbul without a truly compelling reason. Keeping Russia away from the Straits was the real reason behind GB supporting the Ottomans' survival.

My guess is, GB sits it out, but is ready to apply pressure to halt the Russians if they come too close to the Staits.

The real issue is France -- IOTL, Russia and France had agreed to join each other in war against Germany regardless of what started the war (specifically in the case of a Balkan trigger). Would France stick to this agreement in the case of the Mideast? I figure it would, as long as the chance to catch Germany between two fronts presented itself.

Austria-Hungary is irrelevant. However, by 1914, 200 years of British policy was built around keeping the Straits as far away from Russian control as possible.

 

[Kung Fucious]

Austria-Hungary is irrelevant. However, by 1914, 200 years of British policy was built around keeping the Straits as far away from Russian control as possible.

Would that be enough to get the UK onto the Central Powers side, or at the very least adopt a German-postive stance of neutrality?

 

[TRH]

Would that be enough to get the UK onto the Central Powers side, or at the very least adopt a German-postive stance of neutrality?

No. Didn't IOTL, and London had basically sacrificed the OE on the altar of their rapprochement with Russia some years beforehand. They'll do what they can to keep Russia off the Straits, but they won't do anything else to save the Turks. And honestly, they may not go even that far; the Anglo-Russian alliance was also going against 100 (I don't think 200 is particularly applicable, or where Wendell got that number from) years of policy. There were a lot of changes going on at the time, and old foreign policy imperatives shouldn't be assumed to be applicable, especially when they fly in the face of what went on in the OTL war.

 

[Wendell]

No. Didn't IOTL, and London had basically sacrificed the OE on the altar of their rapprochement with Russia some years beforehand. They'll do what they can to keep Russia off the Straits, but they won't do anything else to save the Turks. And honestly, they may not go even that far; the Anglo-Russian alliance was also going against 100 (I don't think 200 is particularly applicable, or where Wendell got that number from) years of policy. There were a lot of changes going on at the time, and old foreign policy imperatives shouldn't be assumed to be applicable, especially when they fly in the face of what went on in the OTL war.

If Britain felt that could have achieved Ottoman neutrality in 1914, they likely would have. You're taking an unlikely set of specific circumstances and using them to justify even less likely circumstances.

 

[TRH]

If Britain felt that could have achieved Ottoman neutrality in 1914, they likely would have. You're taking an unlikely set of specific circumstances and using them to justify even less likely circumstances.

I'd re-read what I was responding to. I didn't say that the British would necessarily attack the Turks themselves, they probably wouldn't, but to say that they'd switch sides and abandon their more recent foreign policy work makes little sense. Especially since Germany's still Germany in this scenario, so Belgium's liable to get invaded.

 

[Wendell]

I'd re-read what I was responding to. I didn't say that the British would necessarily attack the Turks themselves, they probably wouldn't, but to say that they'd switch sides and abandon their more recent foreign policy work makes little sense. Especially since Germany's still Germany in this scenario, so Belgium's liable to get invaded.

But Britain would still be suspicious of any Russian project in "Western Armenia", and you're not going to get a world war to result from some crisis in the Ottoman Empire with Britain absent from the theatre. Remember, a German railroad from Chalcedon to Baghdad is a check on Russian expansion, and one which this scenario sees Russia threatening to upend.

 

[Zealot]

This assumes, perhaps wrongly, that Britain would be willing to put the very existence of the Ottoman Empire on the line.

I didn’t mean that Britain could support such a bold invasion of Ottoman territory……in fact OTL Russian response for Sarajevo incident was only the mobilization along their western border, which in the end, and among many other causes would trigger the German blank cheque to Vienna and the activation Schlieffen plan.

ITTL I could expect a Franco-British effort for the celebration of a new international conference to solve the matter, but the Ottomans, deeply suspicious and unwilling to accept any compromise after many years of defeats and territorial losses (in the precedent 5 years Libya and the remaining European possessions), would voice an adamant opposition to any further concession to the rebellious Armenians, seeking support from Germany , who in the previous negotiations regarding the Armenian Reform Package had supported The Sublime Porte in mitigating the effects of foreign intervention in their internal affairs. German Government would in turn hold an intransigent position too, putting pressure on the Anglo-Russian Entente aiming at destroying it…..and consequently British Empire would have to choose between abandoning an ally that was becoming more and more indispensable in the then existing balance of forces and backing Russia no matter the consequences….another Moroccan Crisis, but in this case with Russia instead of France in the role of dancing partner

 

[Deckhand]

But Britain would still be suspicious of any Russian project in "Western Armenia", and you're not going to get a world war to result from some crisis in the Ottoman Empire with Britain absent from the theatre. Remember, a German railroad from Chalcedon to Baghdad is a check on Russian expansion, and one which this scenario sees Russia threatening to upend.

The Railroad to Baghdad was actually seen as a German dagger pointed at India by the British, not so much a check on the Russians.

Pre-war OTL, the British were running military reconnaissance into the Levant and Iraq, under the pretense of cataloging "antiquities", and had compiled the only accurate modern maps of the region. better than the ottomans had themselves, in preparation for a war they were pretty sure was coming.

If a war starts over the Armenians, expect British policy to be informed and driven by Cairo, and Cairo was totally pissed at Germany, as German diplomats in the period were fairly infamous for trying to stir up muslim revolt trouble in Egypt and theoretically India. Zimmerman was not an isolated guy, that sort of behaviour was pretty much par for the course for the German diplomatic corps.

After the Balkan wars, the Ottomans were pretty much written off by most of the Great powers, and the dominant opinion in Britain was becoming, "well if they are going down anyway, we had best make sure the important bits go to us, or people we like". Certainly there were turcophiles left, but if it is over another massacre of christian Armenians by Muslim Turks, it will be a hard slog to get support for the Turks.

 

[Zealot]

In addition, the Near East was indeed an area of vital importance for British interests, (and the main threat in 1914 were the Germans), unlike that annoying Balkan mess the Britons had long time tried to move away from….. Hence, IMHO there are more arguments TTL in favor of military escalation than OTL.

By the way….who’s talking here about the fall of Constantinople? OTL Caucasus Front only reached Trebizond, and TTL Great War would be neither a two-rivals match, nor the 1878 War repetition

 

[Wendell]

I didn’t mean that Britain could support such a bold invasion of Ottoman territory……in fact OTL Russian response for Sarajevo incident was only the mobilization along their western border, which in the end, and among many other causes would trigger the German blank cheque to Vienna and the activation Schlieffen plan.

ITTL I could expect a Franco-British effort for the celebration of a new international conference to solve the matter, but the Ottomans, deeply suspicious and unwilling to accept any compromise after many years of defeats and territorial losses (in the precedent 5 years Libya and the remaining European possessions), would voice an adamant opposition to any further concession to the rebellious Armenians, seeking support from Germany , who in the previous negotiations regarding the Armenian Reform Package had supported The Sublime Porte in mitigating the effects of foreign intervention in their internal affairs. German Government would in turn hold an intransigent position too, putting pressure on the Anglo-Russian Entente aiming at destroying it…..and consequently British Empire would have to choose between abandoning an ally that was becoming more and more indispensable in the then existing balance of forces and backing Russia no matter the consequences….another Moroccan Crisis, but in this case with Russia instead of France in the role of dancing partner

Which would still likely resolve itself well short of being a world war.

 

[Tallil2long]

No. Didn't IOTL, and London had basically sacrificed the OE on the altar of their rapprochement with Russia some years beforehand. They'll do what they can to keep Russia off the Straits, but they won't do anything else to save the Turks. And honestly, they may not go even that far; the Anglo-Russian alliance was also going against 100 (I don't think 200 is particularly applicable, or where Wendell got that number from) years of policy. There were a lot of changes going on at the time, and old foreign policy imperatives shouldn't be assumed to be applicable, especially when they fly in the face of what went on in the OTL war.

As late as 1908, Britain still was unwilling to allow Russia to change the Straits Settlement. This happened when Izvolsky tried to get Austria's support for such a change, in exchange for Russian approval of the Bosnia annexation. Britain said No Way.

So as late as 1908, that particular "old foreign policy imperative" still held true.

It took the truly enormous pressures of WW1 to convince Britain to make that concession. A decision taken in desperation.