Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
karajoz
Janissary
Suspended
Joined: 29-Mar-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Topic: WW 1(Ottoman fronts) Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 02:41 |
on the first war day, im sure important decissions was felt, the sultan back then was the opinion trough the help of the germans he could hold the power in the middle east.
i think turkey would rule the world by now if the ottomans would join the war.. with all the oil reserves (dont forget turkey was the size of greece and all over irak israel,down to saudiarabia)
im interested to hear your opinion about the ottoman history,what do you know about it?
|
 |
Giannis
Baron
Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 493
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 09:52 |
Originally posted by karajoz
i think turkey would rule the world by now if the ottomans would join the war.. with all the oil reserves (dont forget turkey was the size of greece and all over irak israel,down to saudiarabia)
im interested to hear your opinion about the ottoman history,what do you know about it?
|
I'm pretty sure, that Turkey (Ottoman empire) did join the the war, but apparently somewhere in the road failed to rule the world, propably because she allied with the wrong ''patron''.
|
 Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
 |
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:34 |
Yes indeed. The ottoman empire did join the war. They lost. Perhaps not so wise a decision then? They were not even defeated by the allies as such, they were simply kicked out of their empire by the Arabs (with a little support from the English). Perhaps they were not so overly happy about the prospects of a world ruled by the Ottomans. I can imagine many others shared that idea.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
 |
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 10:53 |
Besides, the oil field in the Middle East were seldom discovered and used before the 1930s. So much for the Ottoman Empire as an oil power.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
 |
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:12 |
The Ottoman empire was somewhat involved in the war. There was a fairly significant war between the Ottomans and Russia around the Caucasus, plus the fighting with the British and ANZAC at Gallipolli (where the Turks did quite well actually). On top of this, there was the war on the Middle-Eastern front, in Palestine, where the Arab insurrection made famous by T.E. Lawrence was initally just a sideshow to the main war fought by the British and the Turks.
As for the oil fields, the Mosul fields were already in use by 1914, as opposed to the Iranian and Saudi ones which were in use in the 1930s. In fact, there are some who believe that oil was one of the major factors in starting the war. The main issue in the Middle East at the start of the war was the proposed Berlin-Baghdad railway, which was to give Germany access to the Mosul oilfields. While oil was not crucial yet for fighting a land war, it had become crucial for domination of the seas ever since the appearance of the Dreadnought-class battleships. Germany needed the oil if it was to challenge Britain's naval domination (and it certainly attempted to do so). With the railway in place, Germany would have had the oil fields of Mosul; coupled with Germany quickly catching up with Britain in dreadnought numbers, this could have conceivably led to a very serious challenge to Britains' naval domination by 1920. It was fortunate for the British that the war started when it did, otherwise they conceivably could have lost their status as a major world power, to Germany.
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
 |
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 06:44 |
Originally posted by Giannis
propably because she allied with the wrong ''patron''. |
Patron-had-to-be.
Originally posted by Aelfgifu
Perhaps not so wise a decision then? They were not even defeated by the allies as such, they were simply kicked out of their empire by the Arabs (with a little support from the English). Perhaps they were not so overly happy about the prospects of a world ruled by the Ottomans. I can imagine many others shared that idea.
|
One thing people does not seem to know is that the Ottoman Empire "had to" take part in the war on the side of the Central Powers.
The Three Entente Forces, has been carving up the empire for more than several decades, nearly a century...Russia, was the empire's enemy to the death, Britain, after 1870s, joined Russia in partition procedure, by getting Egypt, Cyprus,Kuwait.. France already took his share by Algeria(1830),Tunisia(1881)...And all was seeking for more soil and influence. These concerns were made clear in Reval(Talinn) Conference between Entente Leaders in 1908..
So, all the Entente powers were already seeking for "Sick Man"s death, and was working on it for decades.Ottoman Empire was to try it chance on the Central Powers' side, or wait for a painful death in any case.
Aelfgifu, sorry, but your theses about the Ottoman side of the WW I warfare is absolutely wrong and is in a over-degrading manner regarding the Ottoman Empire..
Edited by Kapikulu - 01-Apr-2007 at 07:50
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
 |
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:06 |
Cyprus was assigned to the British specifically because of Britain's role supporting the Ottoman Empire against the Russians. Egypt was brought under British influence (it nominally remained part of the Ottoman Empire while it lasted) mostly to secure the Suez Canal and the route to India, which was also why the British had been extending their 'protection' to the Gulf sheikhdoms for some time. But as of 1913, the position in the Gulf was agreed between the two Empires, and e.g., the Sabah rulers of Kuwait were recognised by both parties not as independent but as Ottoman sub-governors ('qaimmaqams').
It is also very wrong to talk as though the 'Entente' powers were allies through the 19th century. The Franco-British Entente was only signed in 1904, and up until then the British had been more suspicious of French aims globally than German ones. And of course in Asia Russia was Britain's great enemy.
The Ottomans' best bet in 1914 would have been to stay out of it entirely.
|
 |
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:14 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
Cyprus was assigned to the British specifically because of Britain's role supporting the Ottoman Empire against the Russians.
|
Well, Ottomans didn't go offer Cyprus to British themselves. Furthermore, it was under British control for 36 years by the time war had begun.
Originally posted by gcle2003
It is also very wrong to talk as though the 'Entente' powers were allies through the 19th century. The Franco-British Entente was only signed in 1904, and up until then the British had been more suspicious of French aims globally than German ones. And of course in Asia Russia was Britain's great enemy.
|
Indeed so, but even though they weren't allied with each other, they were individually the enemies to the presence of Ottoman Empire, contrary to the Central Powers.
Originally posted by gcle2003
The Ottomans' best bet in 1914 would have been to stay out of it entirely. |
Yes, that is the widely-accepted idea. I agree to this idea as well...But, the problem is; Ottomans were to enter to the war at some point. I mean, Ottoman Empire couldn't keep neutral all war long. But 1914 was too early. The Ottoman Empire should have at least waited till the end of 1915 to set up logistics, prepare the army to the war, and achieve complete and effective mobilization at the maximum level the already weak empire could muster.
Edited by Kapikulu - 01-Apr-2007 at 10:14
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
 |
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 11:24 |
The Middle East wars on WW1 and that of today are eerily similar and somewhere along the line that black gold or in my opinion "death" is again heavily involved in the decision' for war.
The Ottomans sucessfully defended Iraq, Baghdad didn't fall, the Brittish forces were pulled back. The Brittish actually took Iraq later, after the treaty of Sevres the troops were pulled out and the Brittish occupied the region without force.
Gallipoli was ultimately key, as Churchill put it, they had grabbed the Turks by the kneck, if they had suceeded there would be no Turkey today, maybe some small land-locked state somewhere in Central Anatolia if they were lucky.
The Egyption front was a disaster.
It would have probobly been a better idea to stay out of the war, disband rebellious areas of the empire, re-coup and build up again keeping todays Turkey, Syria, the Levant, Iraqi provinces.
The war was an almost impossible one to fight for the Ottomans.
They had the Western front against the Brittish and French, North Eastern front from Russia, Eastern front fighting Russia and Russian backed Armenian regiments, Southern front against Itallians (although they never actually arrived), the South Eastern front against French and French backed Armenian regiments and the Brittish again.
The carving up of Ottoman land in such an awfull way as if was done after the war have caused so many wars to this day. The problems of the Balkans and Middle East are the result of this. If the treaty of Sevres was carried out there would have been even more bloodshed and endless wars.
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
 |
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 22:26 |
Originally posted by Bulldog
Southern front against Itallians (although they never actually arrived) |
I know the Italians had siezed
territory in southwestern Turkey, but do you mean to say that their
army never arrived? How did they claim the land in the first place?
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
 |
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 04:50 |
Italians landed after the war was over. Their forces went there not to conquer the land, instead to occupy it.
Edited by Yiannis - 02-Apr-2007 at 04:50
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
 |
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 05:13 |
Originally posted by Yiannis
Italians landed after the war was over. |
After the Turkish war of independence? Why did
they land after the war, and how did the Turks react to that?
Originally posted by Yiannis
Their forces went there not to conquer the land, instead to occupy it |
I guess that implies that they weren't
planning on being there in the long-run... so what was their purpose
then?
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
 |
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 05:35 |
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival
Originally posted by Yiannis
Italians landed after the war was over. |
After the Turkish war of independence? Why did they land after the war, and how did the Turks react to that?
|
I mean after the end of WW1.
Turks were defeated, so they didn't have much to say to the decision. In anyway the italians let soon and letf all their equipment behind.
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
 |
Leonardo
General
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 08:06 |
What are you talking about?
|
 |
DayI
Sultan
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 08:33 |
Italians occupied todays Antalya, knew that last year when i was at vacation some Italian soldiers had planted olive tree's.
|
|
 |
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 09:40 |
Originally posted by Bulldog
The Ottomans sucessfully defended Iraq, Baghdad didn't fall, the Brittish forces were pulled back. The Brittish actually took Iraq later, after the treaty of Sevres the troops were pulled out and the Brittish occupied the region without force.
Gallipoli was ultimately key, as Churchill put it, they had grabbed the Turks by the kneck, if they had suceeded there would be no Turkey today, maybe some small land-locked state somewhere in Central Anatolia if they were lucky.
The Egyption front was a disaster.
|
Bulldog a small correction the English under Stanley Maude captured Baghdad in 1917,before that the Ottoman gain their victory near Baghdad at the Battle of Salman Pak in 1915 and besieged the English army under Charles Townshend near Kut in the same year, the surrender of the Britishs came in the next year that was the only retreat for the British army in the Mesopotamin front.
when the truce signed the Ottomans were only hold Mousel in the North by the Armistice of Mudrosand 1918 later by the treaty of Sever 1920 they forced to abandon it.
I think Gallipoli was the biggest achievment for the Ottoman in the war but the allied gain an advantage from it, the Ottomans forced to use their best trained troops in this front, as a result weakened the other fronts and made the Britishs task easier.
the Egyption front was the same scenario of mesopotamian front.
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
 |
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 17:10 |
Originally posted by Yiannis
In anyway the italians let soon and letf all their equipment behind |
This was ultimately going to be my question:
Why did they leave in the first place, and why on earth did they leave
their equipment behind? Was it not in the best interest of Italians to
put pressure on the Turkish revolutionaries in order for them and their
allies to carve up the territories?
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
 |
Mordoth
Pretorian
Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 192
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 16:09 |
Patron were they who had to be .
England - Russia - France were the tripod , the enemy to the death, that is or sure . Because all of those three invaded and desecrated the lands of sultanate .
Turkiye is able to rule whole Middle East by equipartition Turkish Federation .
But the larger the territory , the difficultier the problems.
|
If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :|
|
 |