How did the Ottomans enter WW1?

Actually it was something sudden.

German Mittelmeersquadron,consisting of Battlecruiser SMS Goeben and Cruiser SMS Breslau moved from Austrian port of Pola to Mediterranean. It is said that they came to Istanbul because they were chased by English fleet,but I believe it was done on purpose by German high command to draw the neutral Ottoman Empire to war. Ottoman minister of war Enver Pasha was an admirer of Germany.As a neutral country, Ottoman Empire could only hold the ships in its ports for 24 hours. Germans wouldn't like to lose their ships and Ottomans needed a navy then,as the dreadnoughts she ordered to England and paid for it,was hold by Churchill's English navy.These ships were "bought" by Ottoman Empire and German crew of it wore fez to seem like the Ottoman crew.And with Enver Pasha's authority and knowledge(Later, it had also been rumored that he swore that he didn't also know anything about the attack),these ships had attacked to Sevastopol  suddenly and bombed Russian ships and ports.Neither Ottoman government or sultan or prime minister, nor any other officials knew about that before.

Then Russia declared war and Germany achieved her aim.The Allied side did not want Ottomans in their side as their aim was to share it after dealing with the Central Powers, but they didn't want Ottoman in the other side either, so a neutral Ottoman was ideal for them.But Ottomans had to get into the war anyway, but it had happened too early when the empire was unready.

So about the other stuff.

Unfortunately the real aims of English-French were seen after the war with their new colony-mandates.So, the betrayal of the Arab nation to the Ottomans resulted in terrible returns later.

After the Ottoman presence erased from the area and the European Imperialists came, Israel had been founded,puppet dictators had been formed in Arab countries, Middle East became the market and intervention area of the whole of the great powers and the harmony in the Middle East had been destroyed maybe till the end of the world.

Gallipoli was made to destroy the Ottoman Empire and stop her war effort by advancing to Istanbul and also help Russians in this way.The ANZACs or colonial soldiers were mostly used in that war, not mainly English or French.          ;           ;           ;           ;           ;           ;           ;

By "Arab nations" what I meant was the Arab folk generally. It is known that it was not only Sharif Hussein of Mecca who revolted against the Ottoman Empire. Among them, Marsh Arabs in Iraq,some around Jordan and Palestine and also future king, Abdulaziz ibn Saud of Nejd, also revolted against or supported the English side or caused logistic hardnesses and didn't help in Ottoman war cause and effort.Of course no need to mention the money's and Lawrence's effect on those.

First, the loss of Cyprus was actually in 1878, Britain just made the official annexation at the beginning of the war, so I didn't understand why you had put that here.

I agree with you about the Sharif of Mecca.It is claimed that he is from prophet's family line, but his character was not really reflecting such a honor.

Beyond it is an Ottoman excuse or not, there is a fact out there:

Arabs betrayed to the people they called as "brothers" in accordance to Islamic way of thinking, by cooperating with the opposite Christian side(Remember the effect of the conquest of Jerusalem in Christian world, even the happiness in Germany). And what they get was; being the mandate of Western powers.

Another thing to remember was that Arab representatives requesting diplomatic help from Turkey for themselves while Turkey was signing the Treaty of Lausanne.Last regret doesn't really work though.

Hah, classical theories of extermination about the Ottoman Empire one more time.

First, please be careful to stay in terms of respect by using a respectful language(saving ass of Ottomans!!!).

I meant today's world by intervention.Today it seems like there are independent states out there but they are all intervened

I don't reject that Ottomans were also in those conditions at that time, but at least those soils weren't under total domination of West.The land belonged to the state.

Puppets are a result of the mandate era, but mandate era is the result of the war.So we can connect them to each other, I believe.

You didn't talk about who had recognized Jewish presence in the area and gave them the right to found a new state.I believe that's because you can't find an anti-thesis about it.

I will discuss the other issues later but, if your understanding of history discussion is like that, underestimating the other side who doesn't think the same way as you are and giving the people you think the similar way as examples, I really can't find much to say about your level in history discussion.

There is a proverb in Turkish "Blinds and deafs entertain each other". That's the thing you do here, commending similar ideas and ignoring the other side just by a vulgar run down to other's ideas.

Who are you to evaluate my knowledge of history? Who are you to talk about my intellectual level without even knowing me?

OK, I wrote one, but let's not make it lengthy, so please don't reply to this �ok ge�, and if you want we can continue discussing about the history issues here.

I don't defend the Young Turk policies here, as I don't sympathize with them either. But there is a real fact to be accepted, Arabs had done something to Ottomans, and their reward was seen after WW I.

I beg you please not to underestimate what the Arabs had done, they had sabotaged every single supply line with sabotages and have a good share in collapse of logistics in the Southern fronts.You always try to take the discussion to " would the result change", Ottomans were still gonna lose but the borders of the Middle East would surely change then.We can't surely know and comment about if... would... questions. I am looking at what has been done and what hasn't been.

Iraq was a place where some revolt activity took place by Marsh Arabs, my nearby reference is Cambridge's Encyclopedia of WW I

Have you ever read about the Balfour Declaration in 1917, if not so, please learn about that.

At that time, some people considered Arabs as their brothers, but then that's why they became so-called brothers. That "brother" idea is not personally mine, but what the folk in Anatolia or the Ottoman Turkish soldiers thought about it.

I haven't seen any true Kemalist ideolizing Britain and France for that time period.

In treatment, there wasn't such treatment before the Young Turks time. And you talk like Young Turks exterminated all the Arabs around..The stuff you mentioned was mostly for the people who worked against the benefits of the state.

The title of caliph wasn't been using by the Ottoman Sultan at all. The idea of Jihad was a German idea to activate Muslims all over the Franco-English colonies and Russian lands.

I didn't know that praising Kotumeyil is an insult to you. Do you even read? His praise came after talking about Ultra-Kemalist. How do you fit yourself here to be the one criticized?

"I really cannot find much to say about your level in history discussion"

That is a clear impolite statement regarding me. Do you understand the difference now?

Keep the respect between us and try not to direct your criticism to a personal level.

Just to clear things and just in case, my example of Young Turks banning Arabic in schools, state-education, and government offices was not a way to excuse the Sherrief move rather than an explaination of Sherrief successful campaign. True many Syrians, Palestinians and Iraqis joined Sherrief forces, but as I always say, the Sherrief would have not found that supportive ground without the atrocities and arrogance of Young Turks and their extreme measures before and during WWI.

For instance, after the Young Turks promised lifting the ban on Albanian language use, many Albanians jonined the Young Turks first as to what many Arabs did too. However,  the Young Turks later legalized the bastinado, or beating with a stick, even for misdemeanors and denied the existence of an Albanian nationality. The new government also appealed for Islamic solidarity and used the Muslim clergy to try to impose the Arabic alphabet, thus turning more Albanians against the Ottoman Empire.

Nothing worse to the Ottomans than Young Turks. They were just a group of nationalist Turks (which is obvious by their title duh!) and obviously the hope that many ethnicities hold on them has evaporated as soon as their policies uncovered their hidden agenda. What is more stupid than losing friends?

Is this the way you try to escape from reality?I had been lectured about this in my ethics class.

Anyways,when The Ottoman entered the war,they went into battle with France as well...

and at the french consulate of Damascus,they got the documents which were proving the spies...You should face up to history if you wanna discuss it.

Jamal Pasha spent a lot of  goldens for getting the Arab syehs on our  side .He had roads,hospitals built in Syria which brough him the name ''Jamal Pasha The Great''....I have already read his memoirs.have u?Otherwise,If I were you ,I would not allegate such stuff

It is true that in the beginning Young Turks were positive force. They brough down the tyranny of Abdulhamid II, and allowed free press and elections. But the CUP ('Comitee of Union and Progress') of 1908 is not the same as the one in 1914. A lot has happened in between.

It has been said that the in the Ottoman Empire the subject peoples have taken nationalism from the West while the Turks have taken democracy. This is what CUP did, they promoted democracy and a pan-Ottoman identity, instead of national identities. They thought that when people were free they would have been happy to be a part of the Ottoman Empire and the empire would not face any more loss of territory due to nationalist uprisings.

They were quickly proven wrong in the Balkan wars. This was a traumatic experience for the Ottoman state and the Young Turks, most of whom were from those Balkan areas which were lost. After this they changed their tactics from Pan-Ottomanism to Turkish nationalism, and later to Pan-Turkism. And they decided to hold on to the rest of the Empire at all costs, including death of a million Armenians or any other ethnicity who stood in their way. The Balkan wars convinced them that the only way they could hold on to the rest of the Empire was to Turkify it. Thus they forced the Arabs to learn Turkish in schools, and violently oppressed anyone who opposed them. Jemal was indeed a butcher, whom the Syrians despised. Young Turk revolution had degraded to tyranny, worse than Abdulhamid's.

Although I would blame the defeats in the Balkan war to Abdulhamid, even though they took place under CUP rule, mistakes during the World War, including Armenian ethnic cleansing, and eventually, the collapse of the Empire were the fault of the CUP. Especially the Enver-Jemal-Talat triumvirate. So I agree with Cok Gec, in the end, CUP rule was a disaster for the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. Many problems we have today, both in Turkey and neighbouring countries, have their roots in the CUP. 

And 'Arab betrayal' is a Turkish nationalist spin on history. Although the British fooled the gullible Arab sheikhs, there were Arabs who fought on the Turkish side as well. It was the Young Turks who betrayed the Arabs. Young Arab graduates were told in the military academy that everyone in the Empire have to be 'Turks', just as the Turkish Republic told the Kurds that they were 'Turks', a decade later. See the continuity? 

There are points that I disagree with Cok Gec, too. Turkey didn't lose the war on the Eastern front, to the contrary. Russia collapsed after the revolution and Turkish armies were marching to Baku when OE surrendered. Compare the eastern border of Turkey today with that of Ottoman Empire in 1914 and you'll see that Turkey gained lots of territory there. And OE didn't lose the war in the West either. OE won the battle in Gallipoli, and was reasonably secure there. Southern front was the main danger, as towards the end the Allied forces were approaching Anatolia with Arab help.  

Originally posted by TheDiplomat  I have jamal pasha's memoirs in hand.The man in first placewhich source do you have ?Book that bears the title Justification of the revolt written by the syrian nationalists?

Im not sure that you are aware of your advice. Are you asking me to read the memories of Jamal Pasha himself? What do you expect him to say in his memory? I butchered Arabs and prosecuted them because Im evil?

Anyhow, you told us three times about his book, Im glad you are reading his memories. But this information is not useful in our discussion.

What evidance I have? So Im suppose to believe Jamal Pasha memories and ignore the witness memories and bibliographies? what makes Jamal Pasha memories more valued? Also, it is not a nuclear science we are discussing here. The man claims every person he executed is a spy. Show me this is true! Show me that banning Arabic in schools is good? Show me that closing Arabic press and newspapers is good for the Arabs!

You have a lot of work to do before you convince any of us.

Originally posted by TheDiplomat If you really want to get to know them,I would strongly recommend the book Ittihad ve Terakki 1908-1914 by FEROZ AHMAD,a historian who is at Harvard Uni I guess.

Actually Feroz Ahmed is not teaching in Harvard University. He teaches in Massachusetts University in Boston. Anyhow, Thank you.

And I recommend to you too to read : The Memory of Catastrophe, Peter Gray, Kendrick Oliver, Manchester University Press, Sep 1, 2004.