Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by ozantugrul (U1780568) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 2
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?聽
ozantugrul: I don't understand your question? Are you asking who attacked whom first?Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 3
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Hi Oz - I agree with the other posting - I don't quite understand your question.
However, are you asking that if Turkey had not entered the First World War on the side of Germany, would the Allies have attacked Turkey? Is that your question?
If so, I would say no they would not have attacked Turkey.
Kind regards - a kebab loverLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 4
Posted by Landwehr (U1664897) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Merhaba!
I think you are asking whether the UK would have invaded Turkey anyway, even if there had not been a war.
The Ottoman Empire was dying in 1914, and all the European nations, including the UK, were hoping to gain something when it finally came to an end. So I guess a UK invasion of Turkish territory was always possible (after all, in 1914 we already had control of Egypt & Sudan, which used to be Ottoman)Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 5
Posted by ozantugrul (U1780568) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
yes i want to say that if Ottomans didn't enter the war with Germany did UK was also invade Ottoman.
Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 6
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 5th August 2005
IMHO, yes the UK would have intruded on Ottoman sovereignty in the Levant and Mesopotamia region as well as fermenting the Arabic rebellion. British strategic interests in the region would have propelled us to act in some way even if this fell short of outright war and invasion
Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 7
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Friday, 5th August 2005
I think it is unlikely that GB would have attached Turkey. GB had enough problems defeating Germany without bringing in unnecessarily any new enemies. However, once the Ottomon Empire entered the war the British clearly saw an oppertunity for territorial expansion at the Turk's expence.
Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 8
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 5th August 2005
I don't think that the UK would have acted during 1914-18, and I don't think that we would nessecarily have acted through direct military action.
After the war I think that the UK would have started interfering, maybe setting up protectotates (annexing in all but name)Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 9
Posted by ozantugrul (U1780568) on Friday, 5th August 2005
can we ask the question from this way;
could the Ottoman Empire enter the war with UK? i mean they would be ally in the war ?
in my oppinion no because UK coveted the mesopotemia and this land was on the territory of ottomans.Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 10
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Its a difficult thing to start with "what if's" when you start dealing with civil servants and their decisions, however, if the Ottomans indicated that they were prepared to enter the war on the Entente's side then I think that the Allies would have jumped to it.
There would be little to no need for British forces to be present in Egypt and Palestine. The Anzac forces could be all sent to the western front. Bulgaria would have to look to their flanks for a Turkish advance into what was then Bulgar Thrace.
There are numerous problems with an Ottoman Ally however. The Greeks were already uneasy to put it lightly with the Allies, if the Ottomans joined the Entente then the Greeks would almost certainly have joined the Central Powers thus taking out the usefulnes of the Ottomans as a combined Greek/Bulgar front would be too much for the Ottomans without Allied help which would be counter=-productive to having the Turks as allies.
Also having the Ottomans as allies would alienate the Russians who had long had ambitions on Constantinople.
In the end I think that the likelyhood of the Ottomans ever considering joining the Allies was slim to non-existant and that the Central Powers allowed them their only avenue of Imperial Adventure. The Arab Revolt would have brought European involvment whatever happened so the choice of side was more a case of which western devil the sultan wanted to get into bed withLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 11
Posted by ozantugrul (U1780568) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
yes mainly true the conditions certainly take the ottomans to the war with the Germans ..
Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 12
Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Saturday, 6th August 2005
Dear OZan,
I firmly believe that Anwer Pasha who had control over the Ottoman empire at that period made a huge mistake in allying himslef with gERmany, instead of its traditional ally BriTain. Britain got into a war with TUrkey and that has created the entire problem of the MIddle East. TYpically Britain used to defend the TUrkish empire as in the Crimean war. Anwer Pasha was very bad for turkey. It was Mustafa Kemal who saved TUrkey.
TasLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 13
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Tas,
I still feel that Britain would have been intriguing within the Ottoman Empire.
With the rise of oil you only have to look at British mischief in the Persian Empire to see what we would have tried to do in the Mid East.
Couple that with the Arab Revolt and I think that whatever side the Ottomans chose we and the French would have tried to interfere.
Germany was a far safer neutral option as it had no strategic interests in the area as it was such a late colonial power.
The debate as to the wisdom of Pasha's choice is another matter. His choice of Germany accelerated the decline and fall of the Ottomans, but as I state above if he had chosen the Entente then I think a Thracian War would have been the result with possiblly the same conseqences for the state.
RichLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Richie,
the OTT Empire was very weak at that time. when an enitity is weak it does not have the luxury of an indepndent foreign policy. It has to chose which side can provide it better protection.
The Brits had traditionaly defended TUrkey. Anwer Pasha was a disaster for Turkey and if Kemal had not come along Anwer's disasterous policy would have made Turkry a part of GReece.
The WEst's oil interests developed in the Middle-East quite some time after. T.E. Lawrence's mission in Iraq was not to look for oil , rather to distabilse Turkey in its soft underbelly.
TasLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 15
Posted by kuscubasi (U1813601) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
First of all I would like to say that Ottoman Empire was not a weak empire in the war. If we look at the war and the fronts that Ottomon Empire fighted in, there was not a front that Ottoman Empire had been defeated. Ottoman Empire win 脟anakkale Wars against UK and other colonies of UK, and then Ottoman Empire army win arabic fronts against UK and its collaborator Arabic tribes. Intelligence agent of the Ottoman Empire was very succesfull towards to Lawrence.
But when German and others signed peace treaty that mean they accepted defeat, Ottoman Empire become the lonely Empire against UK and others. Therefore Ottoman Empire had to be sign Mondros Treaty. Related to Mondros Treaty Ottoman Empire Army had to be surrender to enemy army. But the fact was that Ottoman Empire fight in 16 fronts and it was not defeat in any fronts. I mean it was not weak.
Secondly; Anwer (Enver)Pasha was not a bad man for the Turks. Maybe he was the first nationalist in Ottoman Empire Army. There were some reason that Ottoman Empire enter the war with German.
1. Anwer Pasha wanted to enter war with German because Ottoman Empire had ordered 2 battle ship whose names are Yavuz and Midilli, 2 years before the war and UK took their cost but UK never gave two battle ship to Ottoman Empire. That was the first reason for Anwer Pasha and Turks.
2. UK was an imperialist empire and of course it was interested in oil especially Musul and Kerkuk. In addition it was interested in Iskendarun harbour that was the most important harbour for energy way from the east to west.
3. Capital of UK was London of the UK but UK wanted Istanbul as a eceonomical capital. On the other hand UK wanted to block Russia from Russia's warm sea strategy.
4. UK wanted to exile Turks from Anatolia.
These were the main reasons why Ottoman Empire enter the war against UK. If Ottoman Empire would not enter the war , nothing was changed. Uk and its allies will come to Ottoman Empire land. It was the only chance entering war with German.Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
HI kucubasi,
The fact that the Turks won at Gallipoi was due to the extraordinary leadership of Mustafa Kemal. He was surely a fantastic leader of Turkey when Turkey really needed him.
Anwer Pasha may have been the first nationalist but he was a disaster for Turkey. He tried to keep Kemal from all action and all important positions. Turkey was definitely weak; it had long been called the sick man of Europe. What the Ottoman Empire needed was a revival in the 17th century like Japan had in the 18th. Then it would have ben able to hold its own. Turkey had no major scientific development or innovation from the 17th century. Because the Sultans kept builidng mosques instead of universities.
TasLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 17
Posted by kuscubasi (U1813601) on Sunday, 7th August 2005
Anwer Pasha was a nationalist and he wanted to assemble Turks. Although he was not sure M.Kemal Atat眉rk will achieve this,but Anwer pasha didn't try to prevent M.Kemal.He didn't try to keep Kemal from all action and all important positions.
I'm repeating Ottoman Empire Army was not weak! And the army didn't defeat.I know Ottoman Empire had no major scientific development or innovation from the 17th century. but its army was not a piece of cake. thinik it in this way if an empire is a weak, how can it fight 4 year in 16 fronts? It could be named in Europa sick man but it was definetley not.
On the other hand Turks won their independence war in 1921. Do you know that which weapons was used by Turkis army?? They used Ottoman Empire weapons that were out forward to anatolia secretely from Istanbul form Ottoman Empire ammunition store..I mean that If ottoman empire was a weak,by its weapons can this independence war win?Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 18
Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Hi Kuscubasi,
I am a well-wisher of Turkey but we have to understand from history why we are ill to affect a cure. We all know that the Turkish soldier is one of the bravest in the World and can take a lot of suffering. Turks showed this in the Korean War and at Gallipoli in World War I. However what makes an Empire strong is not the bravery of its soldiers, if that was so then the Islamic countries would be near the top instead of being at the bottom. If the Ottoman Empire needed the Brits to build battleships for them then they were not strong but weak. If they were going to compete in the big league of Europe, then they should have had a steel industry and an armaments industry and at least a small air force.
The Ottomans had been beaten out of Crimea and out of Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Greece. Even the Arabs that they ruled for such long time were not prepared to fight for them but joined T.E. Lawrence instead. How can you understand all this and say that the Ottoman Empire was strong? You were very lucky to get some one of the caliber of Kemal when all seemed lost. He single-handedly extricated Turkey from a moribund future to the secular democracy it is today. Best wishes,
TasLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 19
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 8th August 2005
Kuscubasi
I would agree with Tas. Turkey was weak in many ways, despite the undoubted bravery of many of its troops and skill of some of its solders. As Tas says the fact Turkey had to purchase BBs abroad shows economic weakness. I would also have to disagree on a number of other points:
a) Yes Britain did take over two BBs it was manufacturing for Turkey. Just as it did 2 Chilean ones. Since it was just entering a conflict with its main naval rival this is a not understandable reaction. Furthermore at least one source I know on the war suggests that Britain had intelligence that Turkey planned to sell the ships to Germany, in which case seizing the ships made perfect sense.
b) I think your suggestion that Turkey was undefeated and only made peace because of the surrender of its allies shows a basic lack of knowledge of the conflict. Long before the armistice British and colonial troops had occupied both Palestine and Baghdad and the complete collapse of the Turkish position was shown by the rapid advance through Syria which meant Damascus was occupied and allied forces were advancing on Aleppo and Mosul when the war ended.
c) I would agree with other commentators that Enhva Pasha made a fatal mistake in joining the central powers. Either joining the allies or simply staying neutral would have been far better for the state and brought the war to a much quicker end. However I think he wanted to make conquests in the Caucasus region and vastly overestimated Turkish strength and the weaknesses of Russia.
d) If the Ottomans had stayed neutral I see no way they would have been attacked. The straits were so vital to Russian trade that they would have not wanted to pick a fight with Turkey, even if their allies would have allowed it. Also Britain was traditionally the empire's supporter and had nothing to gain from its dissolution. It already had virtual protectorates over Egypt and the naval base of Cyprus. Persia/Iran supplied the oil for the navy and with the development of more sources in Mesopotamia Britain would have been glad to trade for it. There would have been no support for the Arab revolt and Turkey, avoiding a major conflict, would have been able to suppress it, at least in the short term, relatively easily.
SteveLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 20
Posted by tashakjoe (U1825149) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005
come on guys,
we all know that it's not about the germany or some other reason. in a world like this, rules are the empires. who has power make the rules. it is not only england which attacks and got the richness of the weak country, but also every single country do the same thing. the same reason brought the crusaders to the east. the same reason made US to go to iraq. richness of the countries always could be a good reason for the war. reasons are always the same. not to bring democrasi, not to make world a more peaceful place. if the reason of the invade of the england to ottoman empire is fighting with germany, then what can you say about india? what war made england to go there and made her act colonist? and what about iraq? do you think that big countries cares about people who are starving and suffering living in the 3th world countries?
i am again telling that it is not only about england or US or the G7 countries. this is the rule of the world. big fish eats the little one. i am sure that some of you play strategy games like age of empires or war craft. maybe these games are designed to fight but even games like cultures or civilizations, the first building to build is about the battle. cause you know there is always a threat from the neighboors. if you have finish the civilization in your country and sure if the neutral country attacks you, you can handle it, then you attack someone.
i know i havent written something historical but first of all, we need to understand that war hasnt began because of Enver (you call Anwer) Paşa or allying with germany or anything else. dont forget; people are not that important(even hitler)(except Mustafa Kemal ATAT脺RK) to start a war, "approaches of countries" starts.Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
if the reason of the invade of the england to ottoman empire is fighting with germany, then what can you say about india? what war made england to go there and made her act colonist? 聽
Hi Tashakjoe,
You say that rich countries always attack poor countries. It is more true that when a country is dysfunctional and cannot take care of itself and its people and its wealth, then more powerful countries come in to fill the vacuum. They often provide the good rule (or at least better rule) and of course they make use of whatever wealth that they can find or create.
This is what happened in India, which was full of small dysfunctional States always fighting with each other and in many cases making the life of the peasantry almost impossible. When Brits imposed their Empire on India the good rule that they provided was accepted with relief by most Indians, until the arrival of Gandhi in early 20ht century, when he energized the masses and by careful propaganda created a mass-independence movement. I as a former Indian regret the departure of the Brits from India because of all that they did for India and yes I realize that they did take immense wealth from India, some of this wealth of their own creation.
The real answer is to not let Empires get as weak as the Ottoman Empire became; to provide good government and to make sure that the people are sufficiently satisfied that they will fight for the Empire; to have a modern armaments industry so that in armaments the Empire is self-sufficient, to acquire any needed resources by trade; to have relations with many countries so that the Empire is not isolated in the crunch.
The Japanese Empire also faced a moribund future in about 1850; they quickly learnt from the West until they became strong enough to beat the Russian Empire in the beginning of the 20th century. China today is facing a similar situation; it is rapidly trying to modernize, to develop its economy to create friendships all over the World. All this is how the ottoman rulers should have proceeded instead of all the debauchery of the sultans with their concubines and just building mosques with the national treasury instead of places of learning. In Britain the Kings endowed colleges, such as King鈥檚 College, Cambridge. But the Ottomans were building mosque after mosque in Istanbul.
TasLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U1753225) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
ON the other hand there are also examples of bad Empires; this was the case with Spannish in South America and to a lesser exent the Portuguese. These Empires were sytematically looted by the Imparialists, like Cortez; all they wanted was Mexican gold; that is why they disappeared un mourned .
TasLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 23
Posted by tashakjoe (U1825149) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
from begining of the 18th century, falling down years has began for ottoman empire. for 400 years ottoman empire was the ruler of the world, i guess we all know that. while she was ruling the world, sultans builded mosques and palaces, like roma builded great buildings. how can you think that the ilness of ottoman empire started when sultans builded mosques? what do you think they are? do you think mosques make people ignorant and thick-headed? british kingdom may have king's collage but they have also churchs or don't they?
if you look the managerial,culturel and educational history of the ottoman empire, you can see that "there are" collages which we call "medrese" in turkish. people, who graduated from that medrese's were started to their education of statesman. also these medreses graduate people to be statesmans for managerial works. not only in social sciences they teach to student in medreses, but also physics, chemistry and maths were the lessons. of course there were collages like that to build that great mosques, don't you think? before talking about ottoman empire, please show some respect and dont talk about what you are "not sure" or you "dont know".Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 24
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005
from begining of the 18th century, falling down years has began for ottoman empire. for 400 years ottoman empire was the ruler of the world, i guess we all know that. while she was ruling the world, sultans builded mosques and palaces, like roma builded great buildings. how can you think that the ilness of ottoman empire started when sultans builded mosques? what do you think they are? do you think mosques make people ignorant and thick-headed? british kingdom may have king's collage but they have also churchs or don't they?
if you look the managerial,culturel and educational history of the ottoman empire, you can see that "there are" collages which we call "medrese" in turkish. people, who graduated from that medrese's were started to their education of statesman. also these medreses graduate people to be statesmans for managerial works. not only in social sciences they teach to student in medreses, but also physics, chemistry and maths were the lessons. of course there were collages like that to build that great mosques, don't you think? before talking about ottoman empire, please show some respect and dont talk about what you are "not sure" or you "dont know".聽
Tashakjoe,
The point really is more about the fact that when the West started building more universities than churches the East (Ottoman Imperium) was still only building Mosques. And while these mosques might well have been places of learning they cannot and quite clearly did not keep pace with the weatern institutions.
Thus did the east stagnate. There was no external pressure to advance. The west was fragmented, divided. These divisions gave a strength of progress. Each nation needed to outdo the other in finding new ways to sail, to pwer machines, to develop machines in the first place.
The east slept.
That is why the Ottomans needed Germany to build its railways, the British to build its ships. That is way the North African territories were lost, the eastern european regions lost, and eventually the middle eastern regions lost. Ottoman's were sleepwalking their way into the modern era.
I don't say this to denigrate the Ottoman Empire, but quite simply, by 1914 it was not equipted to deal with the 20th Century. It had neither the infastructure nor the personel to take it forward and to retain its imperium.
That is why Attaturk started Turkey on its road to modernity, so that what befell the Ottomans would not befall the TurkLink to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 25
Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Thursday, 11th August 2005
To return to the original question:
Would Britain have attacked the Ottoman Empire if it had not become allied with Germany?
NO. No British leader of the period would have been that stupid. Britain's strategic need was for access to Russia for supplies, and access for military purposes to the Danube. Both would have been easier with the Turks neutral, both would have been much easier with the Turks as allies. Why would they want to divert ships, men, and supplies to fight a war which din't serve Britain's vital interests at the time.Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Tas, I do not know if Turkish soldiers were more brave than others, the only thing for sure is that the things they carried out did under command of dubious Kemal (born in Salonika in a non-turkish family 鈥 I leave it to you to search the rest) were pure inspiration for the likes of Hitler and Stalin. In anyway the truth is that Turkish army in the early 20th century was still largely composed of Albanians in the west and Kurds in the east.
The Ottoman empire was created in the eastern Mediterranean only because there was none else to take over the area. It stopped as soon as it found an opponent like Austria (not anything exceptional at 16th century). The Ottomans never managed to have control at sea, and never managed to have complete control over their lands 鈥 there were numerous areas almost-independent while the lands of the empire were ruled in an almost autonomous way by the local pashas (usually ex-christians turned muslims) empowered by Christian-muslim militia groups composed usually of Kurds (east) and Albanian (west). Imagine that this backwards regime was so corrupt that even Turkish tribes in the east had rebelled. Even since 17th century, Europeans (English, French, Austrians and on the other side Russians) were already talking of 'what will happen with the Ottoman empire in future'. Their initial generic plan was to leave things as they were for the time being especially in fear of a unilateral Russian takeover of east Mediterranean. That pro-Ottoman tactic continued well up to 1821 (year of the Greek Revolution 鈥 in fact that was the culmination of the numerous revolts over those dark 400 years). However by 1824 English understood that Greeks were prepared for a long final fight on the one and on the other a Russian army was advancing invincible to Adrianopolis (outside Polis-Istanbul) so they came up with a plan of aiding Greeks to create a new force on the East Mediterranean thus avoiding in future total Russian control of the area. However, under mysterious conditions, Russians decided not to dissolve the ottoman rule by entering Polis-Istanbul (please underline that!!!!!!) when they got their free access to Aegean and retracted (again underline!!!), hence English then were afraid that enforcing their plan of 鈥榮trong Greece鈥 would possibly create a new local power: Greeks at that time were more in numbers and by far the richest element (living all over east Mediterranean and having business fleets etc.) plus the oldest civilisation in the area, plus they were popular among most other local nations (especially the 鈥榦ther merchants鈥, the Armenians 鈥 while being always quite friendly with Arabs) unlike Turks or colonial powers. That could be a backlash for English policies in the area 鈥 for which a powerless Ottoman empire and a powerless little Greece was then much more preferable. The total disintegration of the Ottoman was finalised in first Balkan war in 1912. In the second Balkan war (next year) the alliances were already well stabilised and ready for the WW1: Austia-Germany on the side of Turkey and Bulgaria (their power based on terrestrial armies) and England and France on the side of Greece and Serbia (their power based on naval forces). Italy was just trying to enforce its own policies in the east Mediterranean afraid (like England) of an empowered Greece.
In other words the thing was as this: Ottoman empire had been dying for more than 200 years and the only effort of colonial powers were to make sure that nobody else rises in power (implying Greeks of course) and that the eastern Mediterranean becomes in a way a part of their colonies (e.g. England鈥 bought Cyprus for peanuts from Ottomans!). England was not 100% against Turkey 鈥 it was just that Greeks 鈥 traditionally sea-people 鈥 within a 鈥榮mall Greece鈥 were more compatible to work along with their naval forces than the disorganised Ottoman army. Ottomans had therefore to remain with their traditional allies (Austrians-Germans).
Now lets see why even if Turkey would enter in the side of Britain things would no have changed much. By 1920 the war was already over and things changed dramatically. The discovery of oil in Middle East was of paramount importance for English 鈥 the only country that could do something about it. Its rising importance in international economies meant that English had to take over control of that area. How could they do that without employing large armies against the Turks? On the one hand, help the Arabs rebel against the Turks and on the other give a little push (i.e. sell all WW1 junk to Greece and make surplus money!) to Greeks to start a fight in the Minor Asia 鈥 Turks will be occupied mainly in the west thus English could take easily the east (just read about the capture of Mossul!). When English had already managed to set the basis for their artificial Arab states, ready to give their oil for nothing 鈥 then Greeks had to be eliminated cos a 鈥榣arge Greece鈥 was always out of question. In 1920-21 the Greek army was some kilometres out of Ankara ready for the final hit 鈥 the Kemalian army was still unprepared. Then 鈥 how surprising 鈥 weird political moves from politicians, a party promising to stop the war went into power (something which our Turkish friends here do not know 鈥 they think the Greeks were voting for war against the Turks!!!!) 鈥 complete change in military leaderships (they brought generals that were retired before the WW1!!!!!!), they did not call the army back, they gave no order for 1 year (!!!!), they created no support lines鈥 in fact they just sit down and wait for Kemal to prepare and hit. We are talking about a classic case of treason from the inside 鈥 orchestrated by 鈥渙utside鈥 鈥 guess who! Kemal hit, he won of course, he cleaned out of most ethnic communities in Minor Asia by genocide/deportation/conversion - his final move in Smyrna (the total destruction) was celebrated the same say in english ships!!! The English had completed their plan 鈥榙ivide and conquer鈥.
Kardasi Kuscubasi. Even if Turks were on the side of English and Greeks on the side of English or Germans 鈥 nothing鈥 I could guarantee you 鈥 nothing would have changed 鈥 the oil would go to English and Greeks and Turks would remain two powerless states unable to control the east Mediterranean. You get my point?Link to this forum: if the ottoman empire wouldn't enter the ww1, did UK attack the Ottoman Empire?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.