The Ottoman Empire would have survived and the discovery of oil in the middle east would have helped them alot, the Ottomans were also going through alot of reform.
@@187UmKilla1 okay ill give you france, but Brits historically exploited the empire and made sure they were weak, knowing their vast interest in the middle east its going to happen
I disagree, with the video , it wouldn't brake up. Also, to add and to mention ,that you forgot to talk about oile/gas and industrialization. Which would lead Ottoman to take parts of Persia. Also, Russia would still be weaker and at some point the king would be taken down which results to Ottoman expansion into Muslim areas of Russian Empire and possibly making Moscow a puppet potentially maby. Crimea would be definitely taken. To prevent Ottoman going into WW1 i think is better to prevent 1908 removal of Abd Alhamed II and him continue to rule. Arab nationalism is always a joke. Also they can use Imma nation of Islam or nation of Mohammed. Also you can just give them money and they would shutup. Nationalism without Islamic unity can be cracked down with Islamic law jurisprudence. Arabs can be made into sub-autonomous territory. Then would aile with kingdom of Afghanistan and spend money on supporting and making resistance movements around Africa and Asia especially in Muslim world. Especially India and Egypt. Meanwhile, making all of Arabia under Ottoman control. And take UK out of Kuwait, Yemen and Oman and Beirut while war going on by deals and indirect methods. Perhaps later in 30s ho into a defensive war against Italy to prevent Italy take Somali and crack on Italy in Lybia then take Somalia and Ethiopia for themselves. Which increases pressure on UK Egypt. Then smash Italy near Italy take back Libya and perhaps take Sicily too or land on it and make negotiation. Fortifie the cost line and country. Traine people in combat. Then take rest of Persia especially Arabian-Persian gulf and mountains between Mesopotamia and Persia. Later on the rest of it. By 1937 Ottoman are just as powerful as Japan without Japan weaknesses and with a geopolitical key location and most of the world oile and gas. Not couting other stuff from new territories. Then with a strong navy comparable to Japan would try to saction UK and France as well negotiate to kick them off Cyprus. As pressure increases on India by making a valiant revolution supported directly by kingdom of Afghanistan with Ottoman weaponry. Thus by 1938 UK would lose India and India gets it is independence. Sametime as Japan takes Manchuria Ottoman take Xinjiang. Meanwhile Ottoman and Japan become Ailes before 1929 and by 1932 or 33 build a trade rout between them and the other throw Central Asia, Afghanistan, a bit of Russia and Xinjiang and Mongolia. Where Japan then has no problems with oile or gas and others. Also Great Depression would hit less. Then Ottoman join Axes in WW2, with their Greater India puppet. First thing main Northern Egypt is taken. Ailes would be in a hard spot. Still Uk not going to be invaded and USA too fare away. However, rest of Asia and Africa would be taken. Only UK and Iceland of Europe would remain. Much less USA involvement as Japan would not need to get Philippine. No attack on USA by Japan. UK goes under USA protection as well NZ and Australia. Where UK becomes like Japan sort of speck interms of relationship between the 2 countries. Germany, Ottoman and Japan would close their economy and trade and travel for USA and it is Ailes. Keeping Indian Ocean under their control. Then properly Ottoman would at some point go to war with Nazi Germany. Which ends with a draw. However, Germany would be weakened. Then ......
@@TorontoWire you ignore the fact that before the war the British had previously tried to keep the ottomans alive as a nation that could control the middle east keeping the balance of power stable and without the Ottomans making themselves a huge enemy of the British or French i think the Brits would stay out of any conflict being content with Kuwait
5:17 they did not migrate because they wanted to live in that state but because they were killed and expelled. From 1800 to 1913 in the Balkans etc more than one million muslim were killed from those regions where new nation states were born
@rvtrcr What nonsense. The ottomans mostly tolerated christians and allowed them to practice their religion (millet-system). Of course there were cases where ottomans did massacre christians, especially in the last years of their existence (mostly in eastern anatolia), but if you look at the 16th or 17th century, the ottomans were for their time liberal. In other european countries you need to have the same religion as your overlord. It is unfair to say that they deserved their desplacement, because they themself didn't choose to live their, but their ancestor. Killing and displacing people just because of their ethnicity, religion etc. is not morally acceptable (We live in the 21th century). And that what the ottomans did in world war one was not acceptable either.
@rvtrcr lol what a fricking hypocrite. Do you seriously see the world only in black and white? Have you ever known a turkish man or woman? Obviously the ottomans conquered and tried to convert the people. They were still much more tolerant then most empires. I don't know where you are from, but I will promise you that you are not better. Stop viewing the past with todays morals you stupid rascist.
Ein Mensch your hugely ignorant about Balkan history and the Ottoman Empire, it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows. The Ottoman sultan Mahmoud II had the ecumenical patriarch Gregory V hung by a noose in front of his congregation on Easter Sunday just to spite the Greeks for rebelling, despite the fact the patriarch was himself completely obedient to the sultan.
I don't think ottomans would collapse 1: Massive oil reserves were found in the territory, giving them nearly unlimited amounts of money. And 2: Ataturk was reforming the empire to increase its stability. It would survive
Oil doesn’t otomatically grant the empire oil. Europeans wouldn’t give the knowhow to processing fuel which would decrease the amount of profit gained from it. Secondly Atatürk tried to form a turkish state not a ottoman state. This means that his reformations in the empire would break up the country to a more stable and unified country. In addition, Atatürk gained a lot of prestige during ww1 due to his tactical and strategic genius that he used in battles. This made turks look up to him as a leader and form a protokemalism ideology.
Oil ruins nations I dont see how this will be different, ataturk was certainly great but I doubt his turkification shit would be popular amongst everyone in the empire, finally if the european powers commited to the middle east then ataturk is doomed either way it doesnt matter how smart you are you will lose against a technologically, economically, and organisationally superior foe
@@Cecilia-ky3uw it would as the ottomans main problem at this time was that they were significantly behind technologically compared to europe so having oil in their Middle Eastern territories would solve the problem
İf the Ottomand succeeded doing the Tanzimat reforms and took power out of the feudal landlords,then they could have a survival rate of 100%.(just guessing)
5:19 I don't get that idea defending the Turks migrated from Balkans peacefully while saying Armenians migrated because of the genocide. That's hypocrisy.
Armenians where killed in that your right but there are 3 main things to keep in mind •the number was more likely less then 100,000 •3 million Turks and Kurds where killed •the ottoman killers(most of Armenian descent) where sentenced to death or life in jail while the Armenian killers got of scot free
@MasterOfNothing depends on who you ask but historians are able to grant over a million as the highest estimates I believe its somewhere in the 3 millions in fact
Turks migrated from the balkans much more peacefully I think that conveys it better, ie just population exchange plus a disorganised series of ethnic tensions stuff
Armenians didn't migrate they were systematically exterminated in areas where they constituted a majority. Meanwhile the Turks and Muslims in the Balkans were colonists and slaveowners
@@ЙованДобройевичьAtatürk changed the capital to prevent sea invasion from Europeans. Last ottoman sultan was a moron and an idiot but he never surrendered Istanbul it was still officially under the ottoman state
it was majority muslim and turkish only recently and could be reverted back in a short time also greece could simply do a turko-muslim genocide of some sorts the equivalent of the armenian-greek genocide we see in our world, greece values constantinople as much as it has been the greek capital for a thousand years,
Ottoman population was 1 million while İstanbul greeks were 100.000...barely %10 of population.. The city is definitely turksih if you are not byzantine fanatic.. İf the issue is hagia sophia they could just claim it during lausanne treaty.. Ataturk was agnostic.. He would not care abouit being church again..
@@sktt1488 Before the genocide the population still had a large greek population, the greeks couldve just resettled constantinople from other cities and get a quick greek majority, then slowly hellenise the turks
There was no Armenian Genocide in the history of the Ottoman Empire. The last time Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of the Armenians, announced this to the whole world. And to put it bluntly, he said that this was entirely Russian propaganda, and that this Russian propaganda was very easily adopted by the western states because the Armenian diaspora's leash on the western states and their politicians is very tight. It is not wise to expect western friends who are ignorant on this subject to seek the truth of these lies, because all of them, I mean all the facts, are presented online in the Ottoman archives, but it is a fact that Armenians committed genocide against Turkish and Ottoman subjects.
I love this type of videos great job again. I did made a video about how the egyptian ottoman khedivate destroyed the first saudi state in their war of 1812-1818.
This is problem about time but i think if ottomans didnt go to war probably there is more clever people as Ataturk because they didnt had died in war and they could had changed the Empire for stability and progress
Even after losing ww1 shattered Turkish Army control more land than you have right now. If Ottoman Empire didnt join the ww1 modern Turkey's borders would be much greater than now. After all Ottomans didnt waste their equipments and manpower in Great war.
What if Ottomans had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
Turkey might have had more territory, which would include Turkick people. You might not have had the Palestinian situation that you have now. The holy cities might have remained under their control, hence no Saudi Arabia.
Any scenario in which there is no Russian revolution is a good thing. With Germany and Austria-Hungary having fewer allies, WW1 would have run out of steam much earlier without the great loss of life (no Spanish flu pandemic also) and probably no WW2. With no European meddling in the make up of middle eastern countries the 20th century could have been similar to the 19th century from a lack of devastating wars point of view.
@rvtrcr stfu already petrol dosent effect everything in your life even in the 1700s there wasnt 'tribes" in europe or asia or americas even the internet get power from electricity so no only machinery would be affected and also many vehicles
@rvtrcr the fuck would vehicles effect us with? Life isn't gonna be like it's 4000 BC electricity would still exist without or with petrol Of course factories depending on machinery would suffer but not as severely as ya think Also learn when to use "simp" you edgy 14yo
The one thing you forgot about is the european balance of power.. the more powerful you are, the more enemies you have.. so if the central powers didnt have the ottomans they will probably be more cautious and have other allies
That Greece is far too large. Turks were still a majority across all of that with the exception of Syrmna which was either a slim Greek majority or a Turkish plurality but Christian majority even then that’s just the urban areas. Bursa in particular is overwhelmingly Turkish and despite Christian minorities in Thrace they are still that minorities. Unlike other comments I don’t see the empire lasting areas with oil weren’t Turkish they were Arabic and unless there is a genocide of Arabs which would put the Armenian genocide to shame there isn’t going to be a Turkish majority.
@UydanNiler I said just urban. There were large Christian minorities. Aegean coast isn’t what I’m talking about I’m talking about Syrmna region which did have a Greek majority or Christian majority.
For Eastern Europe Imperial Russia victory means no Independence for smaller nations, that means more tensions, there was terror and revolution prior to Great War in that regard. I wonder how it would impact Jewish emigration form Russia. The Great Game with Britain could lead to a war, that involving Japan. If Russia wins Great War in Europe prior to 1917 and Austria-Hungary callapses into few new states, Russians could put their hands on them, like they did with Bulgaria and Romania for a time. Or there could be a series of small wars between them. And Britain would do that to Arab successor states of the Ottomans. I think there would be less war and suffering in this scenario, but the internal and external tensions would increase. Call it a version of cold war.
Tbf i think if Abdulhamid II stayed nationalism wouldve been heavily suprssed and letting them keep their balkan territorries which lets them focus on north africa and their arabian territories
@@bjarkel.993 After the 1948 Arab Israeli War large amount of Arab Palestinians were forced to flee as refugees, and many descendents still haven't returned home. I'm sure that you know this, however. I do not deny that Palestinians have committed their own war crimes, but any massacres have only had a temporary demographic effect. The Palestinian exodus and Jewish immigration to the Levant has had a major demographic effect that continues to linger to this day.
@@bjarkel.993 Are you referring to the right of Jews to live in Israel or the right of Mizrahi Jews to live in the Arab countries they hail from? I assume you mean the first one. I do believe that Jews have a right to live in Israel, as well as the West Bank. However, this right should extend to Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian (Mizrahi Jews count as Jews, not Arabs), as well. In many cases their ancestors have lived on the land for over a thousand years, and the land firmly is their homeland, in addition to it being the homeland of the Jews.
The Arabs wouldn’t of allied with the Jews, the Greeks wouldn’t be able to defeat the ottomans in the main land, the ottomans not being involved would allow them to reform and the Greeks nor Armenians would be able to claim an independent state
In our timeline, we saw 2 different takes on Arab independence ideologies: Ba'athism & Islamism. Seeing how the fall of the Khalifa sent shock waves throughout the Muslim world, a Conservative twist may save the Ottoman Empire. Besides that, given more time, oil would have given the Empire enough force to quash rebellions. Oh, and people feared Wahhabism back then, they were loyal to the Khalifa & the Turkish softer Islam until there was no Khalifa.
I disagree it wouldn't brake up. Also, to add and to mention ,that you forgot to talk about oile/gas and industrialization. Which would lead Ottoman to take parts of Persia. Also, Russia would still be weaker and at some point the king would be taken down which results to Ottoman expansion into Muslim areas of Russian Empire and possibly making Moscow a puppet potentially maby. Crimea would be definitely taken. To prevent Ottoman going into WW1 i think is better to prevent 1908 removal of Abd Alhamed II and him continue to rule. Arab nationalism is always a joke. Also they can use Imma nation of Islam or nation of Mohammed. Also you can just give them money and they would shutup. Nationalism without Islamic unity can be cracked down with Islamic law jurisprudence. Arabs can be made into sub-autonomous territory. Then would aile with kingdom of Afghanistan and spend money on supporting and making resistance movements around Africa and Asia especially in Muslim world. Especially India and Egypt. Meanwhile, making all of Arabia under Ottoman control. And take UK out of Kuwait, Yemen and Oman and Beirut while war going on by deals and indirect methods. Perhaps later in 30s ho into a defensive war against Italy to prevent Italy take Somali and crack on Italy in Lybia then take Somalia and Ethiopia for themselves. Which increases pressure on UK Egypt. Then smash Italy near Italy take back Libya and perhaps take Sicily too or land on it and make negotiation. Fortifie the cost line and country. Traine people in combat. Then take rest of Persia especially Arabian-Persian gulf and mountains between Mesopotamia and Persia. Later on the rest of it. By 1937 Ottoman are just as powerful as Japan without Japan weaknesses and with a geopolitical key location and most of the world oile and gas. Not couting other stuff from new territories. Then with a strong navy comparable to Japan would try to saction UK and France as well negotiate to kick them off Cyprus. As pressure increases on India by making a valiant revolution supported directly by kingdom of Afghanistan with Ottoman weaponry. Thus by 1938 UK would lose India and India gets it is independence. Sametime as Japan takes Manchuria Ottoman take Xinjiang. Meanwhile Ottoman and Japan become Ailes before 1929 and by 1932 or 33 build a trade rout between them and the other throw Central Asia, Afghanistan, a bit of Russia and Xinjiang and Mongolia. Where Japan then has no problems with oile or gas and others. Also Great Depression would hit less. Then Ottoman join Axes in WW2, with their Greater India puppet. First thing main Northern Egypt is taken. Ailes would be in a hard spot. Still Uk not going to be invaded and USA too fare away. However, rest of Asia and Africa would be taken. Only UK and Iceland of Europe would remain. Much less USA involvement as Japan would not need to get Philippine. No attack on USA by Japan. UK goes under USA protection as well NZ and Australia. Where UK becomes like Japan sort of speck interms of relationship between the 2 countries. Germany, Ottoman and Japan would close their economy and trade and travel for USA and it is Ailes. Keeping Indian Ocean under their control. Then properly Ottoman would at some point go to war with Nazi Germany. Which ends with a draw. However, Germany would be weakened. Then ......
Watch whatifalthist version of alternate version of ottoman empire This guy is way to biased without enough understanding of social norms of middle east ethnic culture and society
I disagree, I think they would've survived. At the time, the Ottomans were reforming and modernizing. They started treating everyone as Ottomans, not as Turks, Arabs, Jews or Armenian. Without WW1, British help from Arabs, and the Armenian genocide, it's most likely they would've been able to control these regions.
Also I think an Ottoman unified territory would've most definitely better for the future. This is because there would be less corruption and conflict. Without corruption and conflict there wouldnt be radical groups like ISIS. Since everyone is under one country there wouldnt be as much conflict like in Israel. And lastly people would have more freedom because Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia wouldnt be countries.
And we wouldn’t have to be so concerned about the shit going on the middle east, not to mention there will be less immigrants going to Europe which reduces mass migration as certain events in middle east in our timeline would never occur that would cause them to seek refuge as the Ottomans continues their development and modernization. 9/11 would never happen neither as certain terrorist groups from the middle east would not exist as they are part of a prospering nation handling its own affairs independently without European intervention. They would’ve also became a 1st world country.
Disagree ataturk might still go on his turkification stuff leading everyone to get mad in fact in this timeline I see a mass revolt by all peoples just angry at the ottomans, and treating everyone as ottomans means well discrimination against the balkans mainly greece
@@Cecilia-ky3uw ataturk will probably ending getting high positions in the empire but wouldn’t be able to crumble it and would make certain reforms in the state
I do not think this would be very likely since the young Turks did not want to joint the french because of the 100 million dollar loan and there was just a distaste towards the British. They joined the Germans because they were the best choice, I think not letting the 2 battleships into their sea space would be more likely
Depends. If the sultan wasn't ousted by the young turks he would have still had power thus possibly preventing the arab rebellion as well as not going into the war. Also the ottomans couod have sold weapons to there German allies I think and got quiet wealthy that way. America sold weapons to its allies during WW1 and became rich because of it
i am from turkey and all I can see this guy has no knowledge about history...:He did not mention about Ataturk and his friends.He mentioned Armenian Genocide which is not historically proven and for years Armenians run away from discussing it saying " It is existed ! No need to discuss" .. A classical non-scientific science fiction video which is implemented our American allies :)))
The WW1 was started to end the Ottoman Empire. They issued New World Orders. Caliphate would have ended even if it didn't participate. Caliphate lost its last valuable Sultan, Hamid.
The Ottoman Empire would have survived and the discovery of oil in the middle east would have helped them alot, the Ottomans were also going through alot of reform.
UK or France would still probably declare on them. They were eyeing that territory ever since the late 1800s.
@@TorontoWire actually the ottomans were becoming good friends with uk and France so that would be unlikely
@@187UmKilla1 okay ill give you france, but Brits historically exploited the empire and made sure they were weak, knowing their vast interest in the middle east its going to happen
I disagree, with the video , it wouldn't brake up. Also, to add and to mention ,that you forgot to talk about oile/gas and industrialization. Which would lead Ottoman to take parts of Persia. Also, Russia would still be weaker and at some point the king would be taken down which results to Ottoman expansion into Muslim areas of Russian Empire and possibly making Moscow a puppet potentially maby. Crimea would be definitely taken.
To prevent Ottoman going into WW1 i think is better to prevent 1908 removal of Abd Alhamed II and him continue to rule. Arab nationalism is always a joke. Also they can use Imma nation of Islam or nation of Mohammed. Also you can just give them money and they would shutup. Nationalism without Islamic unity can be cracked down with Islamic law jurisprudence. Arabs can be made into sub-autonomous territory.
Then would aile with kingdom of Afghanistan and spend money on supporting and making resistance movements around Africa and Asia especially in Muslim world. Especially India and Egypt. Meanwhile, making all of Arabia under Ottoman control. And take UK out of Kuwait, Yemen and Oman and Beirut while war going on by deals and indirect methods. Perhaps later in 30s ho into a defensive war against Italy to prevent Italy take Somali and crack on Italy in Lybia then take Somalia and Ethiopia for themselves. Which increases pressure on UK Egypt. Then smash Italy near Italy take back Libya and perhaps take Sicily too or land on it and make negotiation.
Fortifie the cost line and country. Traine people in combat.
Then take rest of Persia especially Arabian-Persian gulf and mountains between Mesopotamia and Persia. Later on the rest of it.
By 1937 Ottoman are just as powerful as Japan without Japan weaknesses and with a geopolitical key location and most of the world oile and gas. Not couting other stuff from new territories.
Then with a strong navy comparable to Japan would try to saction UK and France as well negotiate to kick them off Cyprus.
As pressure increases on India by making a valiant revolution supported directly by kingdom of Afghanistan with Ottoman weaponry. Thus by 1938 UK would lose India and India gets it is independence.
Sametime as Japan takes Manchuria Ottoman take Xinjiang.
Meanwhile Ottoman and Japan become Ailes before 1929 and by 1932 or 33 build a trade rout between them and the other throw Central Asia, Afghanistan, a bit of Russia and Xinjiang and Mongolia. Where Japan then has no problems with oile or gas and others. Also Great Depression would hit less.
Then Ottoman join Axes in WW2, with their Greater India puppet. First thing main Northern Egypt is taken.
Ailes would be in a hard spot. Still Uk not going to be invaded and USA too fare away. However, rest of Asia and Africa would be taken. Only UK and Iceland of Europe would remain.
Much less USA involvement as Japan would not need to get Philippine. No attack on USA by Japan.
UK goes under USA protection as well NZ and Australia. Where UK becomes like Japan sort of speck interms of relationship between the 2 countries.
Germany, Ottoman and Japan would close their economy and trade and travel for USA and it is Ailes. Keeping Indian Ocean under their control.
Then properly Ottoman would at some point go to war with Nazi Germany. Which ends with a draw. However, Germany would be weakened.
Then ......
@@TorontoWire you ignore the fact that before the war the British had previously tried to keep the ottomans alive as a nation that could control the middle east keeping the balance of power stable and without the Ottomans making themselves a huge enemy of the British or French i think the Brits would stay out of any conflict being content with Kuwait
5:17 they did not migrate because they wanted to live in that state but because they were killed and expelled. From 1800 to 1913 in the Balkans etc more than one million muslim were killed from those regions where new nation states were born
@rvtrcr What nonsense. The ottomans mostly tolerated christians and allowed them to practice their religion (millet-system). Of course there were cases where ottomans did massacre christians, especially in the last years of their existence (mostly in eastern anatolia), but if you look at the 16th or 17th century, the ottomans were for their time liberal. In other european countries you need to have the same religion as your overlord. It is unfair to say that they deserved their desplacement, because they themself didn't choose to live their, but their ancestor. Killing and displacing people just because of their ethnicity, religion etc. is not morally acceptable (We live in the 21th century). And that what the ottomans did in world war one was not acceptable either.
@rvtrcr it weren't the Turks who were killed. It was the peasants who had converted to Islam.
@rvtrcr payback so are you justifying the killings of innocent civilians
@rvtrcr lol what a fricking hypocrite. Do you seriously see the world only in black and white?
Have you ever known a turkish man or woman?
Obviously the ottomans conquered and tried to convert the people. They were still much more tolerant then most empires. I don't know where you are from, but I will promise you that you are not better.
Stop viewing the past with todays morals you stupid rascist.
Ein Mensch your hugely ignorant about Balkan history and the Ottoman Empire, it wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows. The Ottoman sultan Mahmoud II had the ecumenical patriarch Gregory V hung by a noose in front of his congregation on Easter Sunday just to spite the Greeks for rebelling, despite the fact the patriarch was himself completely obedient to the sultan.
I don't think ottomans would collapse
1: Massive oil reserves were found in the territory, giving them nearly unlimited amounts of money.
And 2: Ataturk was reforming the empire to increase its stability. It would survive
Oil doesn’t otomatically grant the empire oil. Europeans wouldn’t give the knowhow to processing fuel which would decrease the amount of profit gained from it. Secondly Atatürk tried to form a turkish state not a ottoman state. This means that his reformations in the empire would break up the country to a more stable and unified country. In addition, Atatürk gained a lot of prestige during ww1 due to his tactical and strategic genius that he used in battles. This made turks look up to him as a leader and form a protokemalism ideology.
@@alithesword2183 Nah, I still think it would survive
Oil ruins nations I dont see how this will be different, ataturk was certainly great but I doubt his turkification shit would be popular amongst everyone in the empire, finally if the european powers commited to the middle east then ataturk is doomed either way it doesnt matter how smart you are you will lose against a technologically, economically, and organisationally superior foe
@@Cecilia-ky3uw it would as the ottomans main problem at this time was that they were significantly behind technologically compared to europe so having oil in their Middle Eastern territories would solve the problem
İf the Ottomand succeeded doing the Tanzimat reforms and took power out of the feudal landlords,then they could have a survival rate of 100%.(just guessing)
5:19 I don't get that idea defending the Turks migrated from Balkans peacefully while saying Armenians migrated because of the genocide.
That's hypocrisy.
Armenians where killed in that your right but there are 3 main things to keep in mind
•the number was more likely less then 100,000
•3 million Turks and Kurds where killed
•the ottoman killers(most of Armenian descent) where sentenced to death or life in jail while the Armenian killers got of scot free
@@WoulfContent That's what I'm said
@MasterOfNothing depends on who you ask but historians are able to grant over a million as the highest estimates I believe its somewhere in the 3 millions in fact
Turks migrated from the balkans much more peacefully I think that conveys it better, ie just population exchange plus a disorganised series of ethnic tensions stuff
Armenians didn't migrate they were systematically exterminated in areas where they constituted a majority. Meanwhile the Turks and Muslims in the Balkans were colonists and slaveowners
I really liked these past two videos, I wouldn't mind you going more in depth on topics like this.
There is no way the Ottomans or any Turkish state would allow their capital, Istanbul to go. It was majority Muslim and Turkish by this time as well.
Sultan was ready to give it
And Kemal also gave away it's position as capital..
@@ЙованДобройевичьAtatürk changed the capital to prevent sea invasion from Europeans. Last ottoman sultan was a moron and an idiot but he never surrendered Istanbul it was still officially under the ottoman state
it was majority muslim and turkish only recently and could be reverted back in a short time also greece could simply do a turko-muslim genocide of some sorts the equivalent of the armenian-greek genocide we see in our world, greece values constantinople as much as it has been the greek capital for a thousand years,
Ottoman population was 1 million while İstanbul greeks were 100.000...barely %10 of population.. The city is definitely turksih if you are not byzantine fanatic.. İf the issue is hagia sophia they could just claim it during lausanne treaty.. Ataturk was agnostic.. He would not care abouit being church again..
@@sktt1488 Before the genocide the population still had a large greek population, the greeks couldve just resettled constantinople from other cities and get a quick greek majority, then slowly hellenise the turks
There was no Armenian Genocide in the history of the Ottoman Empire. The last time Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of the Armenians, announced this to the whole world. And to put it bluntly, he said that this was entirely Russian propaganda, and that this Russian propaganda was very easily adopted by the western states because the Armenian diaspora's leash on the western states and their politicians is very tight. It is not wise to expect western friends who are ignorant on this subject to seek the truth of these lies, because all of them, I mean all the facts, are presented online in the Ottoman archives, but it is a fact that Armenians committed genocide against Turkish and Ottoman subjects.
Very cool 2 part series!
I love this type of videos great job again. I did made a video about how the egyptian ottoman khedivate destroyed the first saudi state in their war of 1812-1818.
too big a subject...requiring too much speculation...
That's why it's fun to think about
This is problem about time but i think if ottomans didnt go to war probably there is more clever people as Ataturk because they didnt had died in war and they could had changed the Empire for stability and progress
Yeah
All the clever people died on the battlefield
XDXDXDXD
@@ЙованДобройевичь Not all clever people, Atatürk survived after all
Even after losing ww1 shattered Turkish Army control more land than you have right now. If Ottoman Empire didnt join the ww1 modern Turkey's borders would be much greater than now. After all Ottomans didnt waste their equipments and manpower in Great war.
What if Ottomans had adopted the cult of Makima, Revy, Cutie Honey, Marin Kitagawa, Trixie Tang, Judy Neutron, Marge Simpson, Wendy Corduroy, Lois Griffin, Sailor Moon and Maddie Fenton instead of Abrahamic shit?
Turkey might have had more territory, which would include Turkick people. You might not have had the Palestinian situation that you have now. The holy cities might have remained under their control, hence no Saudi Arabia.
depends maybe some shenanigans might happen and we will still see israel
Amazing info, love it!
By the way georgia was not part of ottomans at that time
i highly doubt the greeks would ever be able to hold western Anatolia for long
Any scenario in which there is no Russian revolution is a good thing. With Germany and Austria-Hungary having fewer allies, WW1 would have run out of steam much earlier without the great loss of life (no Spanish flu pandemic also) and probably no WW2. With no European meddling in the make up of middle eastern countries the 20th century could have been similar to the 19th century from a lack of devastating wars point of view.
What if petrol didnt exist from start of humanity?
@rvtrcr stfu already
petrol dosent effect everything in your life
even in the 1700s there wasnt 'tribes" in europe or asia or americas
even the internet get power from electricity so no only machinery would be affected and also many vehicles
@rvtrcr the fuck would vehicles effect us with?
Life isn't gonna be like it's 4000 BC electricity would still exist without or with petrol
Of course factories depending on machinery would suffer but not as severely as ya think
Also learn when to use "simp" you edgy 14yo
@rvtrcr false? petrol wasn't vastly utilised until like 200 years ago, and 200 years ago there were states and empires and guns
@@Someone-by6jm electricity is currently usually powered by burning petrol
@rvtrcr when did we use petrol in 1400 AD? look dude even in industrial revolution at the begining coal was used to run factories iirc
What if Austria won the Austria-Sardinian war?
The one thing you forgot about is the european balance of power.. the more powerful you are, the more enemies you have.. so if the central powers didnt have the ottomans they will probably be more cautious and have other allies
I want the ottoman empire back😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔
That Greece is far too large. Turks were still a majority across all of that with the exception of Syrmna which was either a slim Greek majority or a Turkish plurality but Christian majority even then that’s just the urban areas. Bursa in particular is overwhelmingly Turkish and despite Christian minorities in Thrace they are still that minorities. Unlike other comments I don’t see the empire lasting areas with oil weren’t Turkish they were Arabic and unless there is a genocide of Arabs which would put the Armenian genocide to shame there isn’t going to be a Turkish majority.
@UydanNiler I said just urban. There were large Christian minorities. Aegean coast isn’t what I’m talking about I’m talking about Syrmna region which did have a Greek majority or Christian majority.
For Eastern Europe Imperial Russia victory means no Independence for smaller nations, that means more tensions, there was terror and revolution prior to Great War in that regard. I wonder how it would impact Jewish emigration form Russia. The Great Game with Britain could lead to a war, that involving Japan. If Russia wins Great War in Europe prior to 1917 and Austria-Hungary callapses into few new states, Russians could put their hands on them, like they did with Bulgaria and Romania for a time. Or there could be a series of small wars between them. And Britain would do that to Arab successor states of the Ottomans. I think there would be less war and suffering in this scenario, but the internal and external tensions would increase. Call it a version of cold war.
Check Whatifalthist video to check another very different perspective.
Plz do more alternate history
you are right man. your last map is correct except one thing, Moscow ulus ´d collapse anyway as well
that would be good for ottoman, we will survive so long until maybe arabs will get mad at 1940s or later
Tbf i think if Abdulhamid II stayed nationalism wouldve been heavily suprssed and letting them keep their balkan territorries which lets them focus on north africa and their arabian territories
I suppose it would be better off, without the ethnic cleansing of Armenians, Greeks, and Palestinians. It certainly would be a bit odd though
You mean the Arabs massacring the Jews in 1929, yes.
@@bjarkel.993 After the 1948 Arab Israeli War large amount of Arab Palestinians were forced to flee as refugees, and many descendents still haven't returned home. I'm sure that you know this, however. I do not deny that Palestinians have committed their own war crimes, but any massacres have only had a temporary demographic effect. The Palestinian exodus and Jewish immigration to the Levant has had a major demographic effect that continues to linger to this day.
BloodRider 1914 you surely also know, that the majority of Jews in Israel come from Arab countries, they had a right to be there and still have
@@bjarkel.993 Are you referring to the right of Jews to live in Israel or the right of Mizrahi Jews to live in the Arab countries they hail from?
I assume you mean the first one. I do believe that Jews have a right to live in Israel, as well as the West Bank. However, this right should extend to Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian (Mizrahi Jews count as Jews, not Arabs), as well. In many cases their ancestors have lived on the land for over a thousand years, and the land firmly is their homeland, in addition to it being the homeland of the Jews.
The Arabs wouldn’t of allied with the Jews, the Greeks wouldn’t be able to defeat the ottomans in the main land, the ottomans not being involved would allow them to reform and the Greeks nor Armenians would be able to claim an independent state
In our timeline, we saw 2 different takes on Arab independence ideologies: Ba'athism & Islamism. Seeing how the fall of the Khalifa sent shock waves throughout the Muslim world, a Conservative twist may save the Ottoman Empire. Besides that, given more time, oil would have given the Empire enough force to quash rebellions.
Oh, and people feared Wahhabism back then, they were loyal to the Khalifa & the Turkish softer Islam until there was no Khalifa.
This is an A+ timeline for the middle east
Why is This Timeline Never Happend???
Then we would have to fight more British reinforcements on the French border than we normally did.
thanks for this, i was intrested in an alt history about this...although THAT MAP aaaah
I disagree it wouldn't brake up. Also, to add and to mention ,that you forgot to talk about oile/gas and industrialization. Which would lead Ottoman to take parts of Persia. Also, Russia would still be weaker and at some point the king would be taken down which results to Ottoman expansion into Muslim areas of Russian Empire and possibly making Moscow a puppet potentially maby. Crimea would be definitely taken.
To prevent Ottoman going into WW1 i think is better to prevent 1908 removal of Abd Alhamed II and him continue to rule. Arab nationalism is always a joke. Also they can use Imma nation of Islam or nation of Mohammed. Also you can just give them money and they would shutup. Nationalism without Islamic unity can be cracked down with Islamic law jurisprudence. Arabs can be made into sub-autonomous territory.
Then would aile with kingdom of Afghanistan and spend money on supporting and making resistance movements around Africa and Asia especially in Muslim world. Especially India and Egypt. Meanwhile, making all of Arabia under Ottoman control. And take UK out of Kuwait, Yemen and Oman and Beirut while war going on by deals and indirect methods. Perhaps later in 30s ho into a defensive war against Italy to prevent Italy take Somali and crack on Italy in Lybia then take Somalia and Ethiopia for themselves. Which increases pressure on UK Egypt. Then smash Italy near Italy take back Libya and perhaps take Sicily too or land on it and make negotiation.
Fortifie the cost line and country. Traine people in combat.
Then take rest of Persia especially Arabian-Persian gulf and mountains between Mesopotamia and Persia. Later on the rest of it.
By 1937 Ottoman are just as powerful as Japan without Japan weaknesses and with a geopolitical key location and most of the world oile and gas. Not couting other stuff from new territories.
Then with a strong navy comparable to Japan would try to saction UK and France as well negotiate to kick them off Cyprus.
As pressure increases on India by making a valiant revolution supported directly by kingdom of Afghanistan with Ottoman weaponry. Thus by 1938 UK would lose India and India gets it is independence.
Sametime as Japan takes Manchuria Ottoman take Xinjiang.
Meanwhile Ottoman and Japan become Ailes before 1929 and by 1932 or 33 build a trade rout between them and the other throw Central Asia, Afghanistan, a bit of Russia and Xinjiang and Mongolia. Where Japan then has no problems with oile or gas and others. Also Great Depression would hit less.
Then Ottoman join Axes in WW2, with their Greater India puppet. First thing main Northern Egypt is taken.
Ailes would be in a hard spot. Still Uk not going to be invaded and USA too fare away. However, rest of Asia and Africa would be taken. Only UK and Iceland of Europe would remain.
Much less USA involvement as Japan would not need to get Philippine. No attack on USA by Japan.
UK goes under USA protection as well NZ and Australia. Where UK becomes like Japan sort of speck interms of relationship between the 2 countries.
Germany, Ottoman and Japan would close their economy and trade and travel for USA and it is Ailes. Keeping Indian Ocean under their control.
Then properly Ottoman would at some point go to war with Nazi Germany. Which ends with a draw. However, Germany would be weakened.
Then ......
Watch whatifalthist version of alternate version of ottoman empire
This guy is way to biased without enough understanding of social norms of middle east ethnic culture and society
I disagree, I think they would've survived. At the time, the Ottomans were reforming and modernizing. They started treating everyone as Ottomans, not as Turks, Arabs, Jews or Armenian. Without WW1, British help from Arabs, and the Armenian genocide, it's most likely they would've been able to control these regions.
Also I think an Ottoman unified territory would've most definitely better for the future. This is because there would be less corruption and conflict. Without corruption and conflict there wouldnt be radical groups like ISIS. Since everyone is under one country there wouldnt be as much conflict like in Israel. And lastly people would have more freedom because Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia wouldnt be countries.
If Ottomans survived in history it would've made a more westernized middle east.
And we wouldn’t have to be so concerned about the shit going on the middle east, not to mention there will be less immigrants going to Europe which reduces mass migration as certain events in middle east in our timeline would never occur that would cause them to seek refuge as the Ottomans continues their development and modernization.
9/11 would never happen neither as certain terrorist groups from the middle east would not exist as they are part of a prospering nation handling its own affairs independently without European intervention. They would’ve also became a 1st world country.
Disagree ataturk might still go on his turkification stuff leading everyone to get mad in fact in this timeline I see a mass revolt by all peoples just angry at the ottomans, and treating everyone as ottomans means well discrimination against the balkans mainly greece
@@Cecilia-ky3uw ataturk will probably ending getting high positions in the empire but wouldn’t be able to crumble it and would make certain reforms in the state
I think the world would be a lot better off and more stable if the ottoman empire had survived
What's your opinion on "Mehmetcik: Kutul Amare" ?
An Ottoman breakup rather than a curve up.
I do not think this would be very likely since the young Turks did not want to joint the french because of the 100 million dollar loan and there was just a distaste towards the British. They joined the Germans because they were the best choice, I think not letting the 2 battleships into their sea space would be more likely
Depends. If the sultan wasn't ousted by the young turks he would have still had power thus possibly preventing the arab rebellion as well as not going into the war. Also the ottomans couod have sold weapons to there German allies I think and got quiet wealthy that way. America sold weapons to its allies during WW1 and became rich because of it
i am from turkey and all I can see this guy has no knowledge about history...:He did not mention about Ataturk and his friends.He mentioned Armenian Genocide which is not historically proven and for years Armenians run away from discussing it saying " It is existed ! No need to discuss" .. A classical non-scientific science fiction video which is implemented our American allies :)))
Alper Kopuz I’m Turkish the Armenian genocide happened we did something wrong and we own up to it
I am a space man you are not turk
rvtrcr And what has Erdogan done? Stop blaming Erdogan at everything. And it’s not even proofed
rvtrcr - lol. Guys look at this dude. Im not a Erdogan fan. And ignorance? I mean if it’s not proofed stop saying that Turks are ignorant.
Mr EneSwe yes I am how would you know?
there was no greek majority in western anatolia
@Casual Historian What if Ottomans Won World War One?
Can anyone put a link of the first part?
empires wouldve lasted longer
Do you really not even link part 1 anywhere
Part one?
Turkish war of indepence would happen again
The WW1 was started to end the Ottoman Empire. They issued New World Orders. Caliphate would have ended even if it didn't participate. Caliphate lost its last valuable Sultan, Hamid.
We wouldnt have had israel palestine conflict....so world would have been better off
yeah this