I was reading AJP Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe & he asserts that the powers actually came close to partitioning the Ottoman Empire in 1896. The Russians were for it, and the Austrians would have gone along, except the pro-partition PM (or whatever) got booted out of office for an unrelated controversy. So, what if the partition did take place. I can see the goodies being divvied up like this: Constantinople (now Istanbul) and the Straits: Russia. The leaders of the UK, having a formidable military presence in Malta and Egypt, were no longer hysterical about keeping the Russians away from the Med. Egypt (still formally under the Sultan): UK. France would have to swallow their pride and admit that the Battle of the Pyramids was a long time ago. Libya, Syria and Mesopotamia: France. Italy's Tripoli project is frozen out. Arabia: Italy (compensation for not getting Libya & no one knew about the oil, anyway). Palestine/Transjordan: UK, both as a prestige thing and to guard the approaches to the Sinai. Turkey-in-Europe: this is the tricky part. Austria would be afraid of the over-aggrandizement of the smaller Balkan powers & would want some more for themselves. Russia, somewhat eager to placate pan-Slav sentiment, but happy because they are getting what they coveted for many years, takes a middling-hard line, insisting that Austria is not openly given Slav territory. Serbia thus gets nothing but Greece may be able to swing Macedonia. Any ideas on how this changes history? I can still see WW1 breaking out over "some damn thing in the Balkans", given that nobody will be totally happy with the division. With control over the Straights, however, imperial Russia has a much better chance for survival. > >In real history, the Russians occupied the Straits in 1833. This > >posed a direct threat to British maritime supremacy. In 1841 > >the British Prime Minister, Palmerston, obtained the neutralization > >of the Straits (Treaty of London, Convention of the Straits). > >Details of the this period (First and Second Eastern Crisis) are > >complex, and I won't attempt to summarize them here. Point is that > >this is the settlement that limited all future attempts to carve > >up the Ottoman Empire, such as the Congress of Berlin in 1878, > >which created Bulgaria. > > Well I was thinking that discussion is about WHAT IF situation, > and therefore : straits to Russia, > > you could see that I did not > say: palestina to Russia although there was official russia's goal > too. In real history Russia also have had hold of Ottoman empire 1821, > and if I remember correctly even saved Ottoman empire in struggle with > Egypt rebellion around 1840. In real life there were TWO main problems > for partition and then THREE. > > 1. Britain was against Russia on the straits As was, for its own confused reasons, France. > 2. Austria was against Russia controling Danube Austria was against Russia controlling anything south of the Dniester (Dnieper?) and was especially afraid of a restoration of the Orthodox Empire in its ancient Byzantine demesne (i.e. focussed on Constantinople and under Russian control), which would have threatened all of Austria's borders and provinces in the Balkans, as well as eclipsed the Most August Throne in prestige. The political consequences to the conservative order emobidied by Austriam/Habsburg rule of a re-united Orthodox Christendom would have been staggering, including the resurgence of the Serb threat to Hungary and other southern Slav dominions and the loss of Austrian Galicia (western Ukraine). > 3. Britain was for control of Suez As was France, though not in any kind of cooperation with the British, Russians, or anyone else. > > Because of first two almost any partition was not possible. 1878 is > very interesting: Russia almost got east Balkans and was at the gates > of Istanbul ( thru Bulgaria ). Fact is that A-H was not strong enough, > France not viling to participate in the war. Britian was more or less > alone. But Russia 1875 made very strong move against Germany and in > favor of France ( mostly due to inapt russia's prime minister ), so > Germany was against russia on the Danube. An interesting point, but I think there were other reasons for Germany's opposition to Russia's southward expansion, with or without Germany's half-hearted sympathy for the Habsburg position. But was Germany's opposition all that critical - I doubt Germany would have gone to war to distract Russia from the advance on Constantinople when the easier pickings would have been Austrian in the event of a Habsburg collapse subsequent to the extirpation of the Sultanate by Moscow. Of course, this last did not happen - IIRC the real reason that the Russians didn't take the City of Constantine was that they were turned back from what seemed like sure conquest at Adrianople/Edirne by a brilliant Ottoman general (have I got the right crisis?) - and perhaps their own hubris. The diplomatic conventions binding the Straits to neutrality were getting dusty, and de facto conquest of the Straits by the Russians, with the concomitant collapse of the Sultanate and the return of Anatolia to Christian (Orthodox) rule, would have been unstoppable had it been achieved - no matter what was wanted in Paris, Vienna, Berlin, or London. What political justification would the western and central Great Powers have had to stage a war to reverse the liberation of the ancient seat of Christendom? > > Thenafter there were no possibility in real life history of any > partition EXCEPT as a result of great war ELSWHERE. > evtl. partition would be aftermath result of such a war. As was the Russian war-aim built into the Entente's treaty system in 1914. > > >BTW, the multinational states of Russia and Austria-Hungary became > >increasingly outmoded in the age of nation states during the > >latter part of the 19th century, even in their style of colonial > >expansion. > >In real history, the carve up of the Ottomon empire was determined > >by wars fought by many conflicting interests in the Balkans, Arabia, > >the Levant, and Anatolia itself. > > again: it was what if scenario, Ottoman empire and turks were among > strongest states untill 19th century. Certainly stronger than any of their immediate neighbours or subject states. > > >the Powers did not have the capability to do a carve up by fiat, > > yes and no: there is an example of Poland partition. but generally I > do agree with you. What were the creations of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, then, if not by fiat? If they were the product of internal uprisings, then there would have been national states in the region after 1918, rather than League of Nations mandates. > >unless they created a powerful multinational army to defeat dissenters. > >This is something that even the modern UN has been unable to do. > > again: there was what if, and UN were/are not able to do anything > good, until now. it was always: too late too little or nothing. Well > that is perhaps better then nothing. Anything is better than nothing. Well, almost.....Hitler, Mao, Ivan the Terrible, Milosevic >In real life there were TWO main problems >for partition and then THREE. > >1. Britain was against Russia on the straits >2. Austria was against Russia controling Danube >3. Britain was for control of Suez > >Because of first two almost any partition was not possible. [snips] By the 1890s, Britain was so firmly established at Malta and Egypt, that (according to AJP Taylor) they ceased to fear Russian control of the straights. This indifferent attitude did not last long, though, for with the coming of the Anglo/Japanese alliance, the UK saw it as part of her obligation to keep the straights closed to keep the Russian Black Sea Fleet bottled up during any Russo-Japanese war. Interestingly enough, the Russians wanted the straights closed to warships between the Crimean War and the 1890s, since they only even began to rebuild their Black Sea fleet after 1870, when they renounced the treaty which ended the Crimean War that denied them the right to have a fleet there. Their forces in the Sea were negligible, which is why the Russians during the 1878 war with Turkey, moved their forces overland through a narrow corridor which left them at the mercy of the Austrians, should they have intervened. Without a fleet in the Black Sea, the Russians felt that the Ukraine was highly vulnerable to British attack, and favored the ban on warships passing through. >> I was reading AJP Taylor's _The Struggle for Mastery in Europe_ & he >>asserts that the powers actually came close to partitioning the OE in 1896. >>The Russians were for it, and the Austrians would have gone along, except >>the pro-partition PM (or whatever) got booted out of office for an unrelated >>controversy. So, what if the partition did take place. I can see the >>goodies being divvied up like this: > > Let us try something little bit different and perhaps more realistic, > although it is what if ! > > 1. A-H : annex. of Bosnia, Novi Pazar, Macedonia > Serbia was at the time firmly under A-H influence in real > history too. See comment on 4. below. > 2. Britain : Egypt. Cyper, Rodos, Kreta, South Arabia, Kuweit > > 3. Germany : Iraq, Syria, Lebanon > > 4. Russia : Straits, Armenia, North Central Anadolia In real history, the Russians occupied the Straits in 1833. This posed a direct threat to British maritime supremacy. In 1841 the British Prime Minister, Palmerston, obtained the neutralization of the Straits (Treaty of London, Convention of the Straits). Details of the this period (First and Second Eastern Crisis) are complex, and I won't attempt to summarize them here. Point is that this is the settlement that limited all future attempts to carve up the Ottoman Empire, such as the Congress of Berlin in 1878, which created Bulgaria. BTW, the multinational states of Russia and Austria-Hungary became increasingly outmoded in the age of nation states during the latter part of the 19th century, even in their style of colonial expansion. > > 5. France : Libia, South Anatolia ( granted Morocco ) > > 6. Greece : Epir, Thessalia, western coast of Anadolia > > 7. Italy : ( granted Abyssinia ) > > No one satisfied, but much lesser chances of WWI . On the other hand > Russia very strong, A-H weaker but no Serbian danger. In real history, the carve up of the Ottomon empire was determined by wars fought by many conflicting interests in the Balkans, Arabia, the Levant, and Anatolia itself. An AH needs to recognize that the Powers did not have the capability to do a carve up by fiat, unless they created a powerful multinational army to defeat dissenters. This is something that even the modern UN has been unable to do. >By the 1890s, Britain was so firmly established at Malta and Egypt, that >(according to AJP Taylor) they ceased to fear Russian control of the >straights. This indifferent attitude did not last long, though, for with >the coming of the Anglo/Japanese alliance, the UK saw it as part of her >obligation to keep the straights closed to keep the Russian Black Sea Fleet >bottled up during any Russo-Japanese war. well we are moving from what if into real what was, anyway: not untill at least cca 1907 Britain was for Russia controling straits. See: Britain German plans to devide Portugise colonies AND parts of Ottoman empire, plan was WALID 1914 when WWI started >Interestingly enough, the _Russians_ wanted the straights closed to warships >between the Crimean War and the 1890s, since they only even began to rebuild >their Black Sea fleet after 1870, when they renounced the treaty which ended >the Crimean War and denied them the right to have a fleet there. Their >forces in the Sea were negligible, which is why the Russians during the 1878 >war with Turkey, moved their forces overland through a narrow corridor which >left them at the mercy of the Austrians, should they have intervened. W/o a >fleet in the Black Sea, the Russians felt that the Ukraine was highly >vulnerable to British attack, and favored the ban on warships passing >through. again: yes and no . Yes there was a bun for the straits but no, if British choose war 1877-78 as an ally of Turkey , Brtish fleet would be master of the Black sea. result was partly A-H and Germany choice. A-H did not want to support russia at the particular moment, and Bismarck felt that too strong russia would be more dangerous, 1875 Gorchakov stoped war between France and Germany but in favour of France. russia alone against Britain and Ottoman empire, that was not exceptable for russia at 1878, althoguh it is very interesting millitary what if: In Armenia russia would have upper hand, and could defend Danube line. I do have neither time not means to wargame the situaiton. Any ideas ? > I was reading AJP Taylor's _The Struggle for Mastery in Europe_ & he >asserts that the powers actually came close to partitioning the OE in 1896. >The Russians were for it, and the Austrians would have gone along, except >the pro-partition PM (or whatever) got booted out of office for an unrelated >controversy. So, what if the partition did take place. I can see the >goodies being divvied up like this: Let us try something little bit different and perhaps more realistic, although it is what if ! 1. A-H : annexation of Bosnia, Novi Pazar, Macedonia Serbia was at the time firmly under A-H influence in real history too. 2. Britain : Egypt. Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, South Arabia, Kuwait 3. Germany : Iraq, Syria, Lebanon 4. Russia : Straits, Armenia, North Central Anatolia 5. France : Libia, South Anatolia ( granted Morocco ) 6. Greece : Epir, Thessalia, western coast of Anadolia 7. Italy : ( granted Abyssinia ) No one satisfied, but much lesser chances of WWI . On the other hand Russia very strong, A-H weaker but no Serbian danger. >In real history, the Russians occupied the Straits in 1833. This >posed a direct threat to British maritime supremacy. In 1841 >the British Prime Minister, Palmerston, obtained the neutralization >of the Straits (Treaty of London, Convention of the Straits). >Details of the this period (First and Second Eastern Crisis) are >complex, and I won't attempt to summarize them here. Point is that >this is the settlement that limited all future attempts to carve >up the Ottoman Empire, such as the Congress of Berlin in 1878, >which created Bulgaria. Well I was thinking that discussion is about WHAT IF situation, and therefore : straits to Russia, you could see that I did not say: palestina to Russia although there was official russia's goal too. In real history Russia also have had hold of Ottoman empire 1821, and if I remember correctly even saved Ottoman empire in struggle with Egypt rebellion around 1840. In real life there were TWO main problems for partition and then THREE. 1. Britain was against Russia on the straits 2. Austria was against Russia controling Danube 3. Britain was for control of Suez Because of first two almost any partition was not possible. 1878 is very interesting: Russia almost got east Balkans and was at the gates of Istanbul ( thru Bulgaria ). Fact is that A-H was not strong enough, France not viling to participate in the war. Britian was more or less alone. But Russia 1875 made very strong move against Germany and in favor of France ( mostly due to inapt russia's prime minister ), so Germany was against russia on the Danube. Thenafter there were no possibility in real life history of any partition EXCEPT as a result of great war ELSWHERE. evtl. partition would be aftermath result of such a war. >BTW, the multinational states of Russia and Austria-Hungary became >increasingly outmoded in the age of nation states during the >latter part of the 19th century, even in their style of colonial >expansion. well, Russia was strong enough, and even A-H was stronger than geenraly beleived. WWI heppend more then 20 years after and A-H drafted army and internal structure hold good four years. Was even victorious against Italy. snip >In real history, the carve up of the Ottomon empire was determined >by wars fought by many conflicting interests in the Balkans, Arabia, >the Levant, and Anatolia itself. again: it was what if scenario, Ottoman empire and turks were among strongest states untill 19th century. >the Powers did not have the capability to do a carve up by fiat, yes and no: there is an example of Poland partition. but generally I do agree with you. >unless they created a powerful multinational army to defeat dissenters. >This is something that even the modern UN has been unable to do. again: there was what if, and UN were/are not able to do anything good, until now. it was always: too late too little or nothing. Well that is perhaps better then nothing.