What If The Ottoman Empire Survived World War I?

The Actual History

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on October 29, 1914, aligning itself with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) against the Allied Forces (Britain, France, and Russia). This decision, largely driven by Minister of War Enver Pasha and the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), proved catastrophic for the already-weakened empire, often labeled the "sick man of Europe." The Ottomans had lost significant territory in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and faced internal strife from nationalist movements among various ethnic groups within their remaining territories.

The Ottoman military fought on multiple fronts during the war: against the Russians in the Caucasus, the British in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Palestine, and the Allies at Gallipoli. While they achieved some notable successes—particularly at Gallipoli in 1915-16, where they repelled an Allied invasion under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk)—the overall trajectory was one of defeat. By 1918, Ottoman forces had been driven from Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

Concurrent with the military campaigns, the Ottoman government undertook what is now recognized as the Armenian Genocide, systematically deporting and killing an estimated 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923. This atrocity, along with the persecution of other minority groups like Assyrians and Greeks, further undermined the empire's legitimacy and provided moral justification for Allied plans to dismantle Ottoman territories.

On October 30, 1918, the Ottomans signed the Armistice of Mudros, effectively surrendering to the Allies. In the aftermath, Allied forces occupied Constantinople (Istanbul) and various strategic points throughout the empire. The subsequent Treaty of Sèvres (August 10, 1920) imposed harsh terms: the empire would be dismembered, with large portions ceded to Greece, Armenia, and Kurdish autonomy; areas in Anatolia would fall under Italian and French influence; and the Turkish Straits would be internationalized. The Arab territories were already under British and French control through the earlier Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

However, the Treaty of Sèvres was never fully implemented. A Turkish national movement emerged under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who established a rival government in Ankara and led the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923). This successful resistance against both the occupying powers and the Ottoman Sultan's government in Constantinople resulted in the abolition of the sultanate in November 1922. The Ottoman Caliphate, the religious authority that had existed since 1517, was subsequently abolished in March 1924.

The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne replaced Sèvres, recognizing the new Republic of Turkey as a sovereign nation with its present-day borders. The former Arab provinces became British and French mandates, laying the foundations for modern states like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel/Palestine, while creating enduring tensions and conflicts that continue to shape the region today.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. It marked the end of a 600-year-old imperial dynasty and the emergence of the modern Turkish nation-state, alongside an array of new Arab states with boundaries drawn primarily by European colonial powers rather than local historical or demographic realities.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Ottoman Empire had survived World War I? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the "sick man of Europe" recovered rather than perished, fundamentally altering the trajectory of the Middle East and global politics in the 20th century and beyond.

Several plausible divergence points could have led to Ottoman survival. The most dramatic would be the empire remaining neutral in 1914, rather than entering the war on Germany's side. Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha and several cabinet members initially favored neutrality, but were overruled by the pro-German faction led by Enver Pasha. Had the empire stayed neutral, it might have preserved its territories while benefiting economically from trading with both sides, similar to Spain or the Netherlands.

Alternatively, the divergence could come later in the war. The Ottomans might have achieved a more decisive victory at Gallipoli in 1915, potentially knocking Russia out of the war earlier or forcing Britain to divert more resources from the Western Front. Another possibility is that the 1917 Balfour Declaration and revelation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (which exposed Allied plans to divide Ottoman territories) could have prompted the empire to negotiate a separate peace before total defeat, preserving some sovereignty.

The most likely scenario, however, centers on the immediate post-war period. In our timeline, the occupation of Constantinople and harsh terms of the Treaty of Sèvres provoked the Turkish national resistance under Mustafa Kemal. In this alternate history, we envision a scenario where Sultan Mehmed VI and the Ottoman government successfully co-opted this nationalist sentiment rather than opposing it.

This could have occurred if Mehmed VI had taken a more assertive stance against the Allied occupation, perhaps by secretly supporting Kemal's resistance while maintaining a diplomatic facade with the Allies. Alternatively, Kemal himself might have chosen to work within the Ottoman system to reform it rather than overthrowing it, especially if the Sultan had endorsed his efforts to preserve Ottoman territory and sovereignty.

In this divergence, the Ottoman Empire would have leveraged the growing friction between the Allied powers (particularly Britain, France, Italy, and Greece) over the division of Ottoman territories. By playing these rivals against each other and making strategic concessions, the empire could have secured a more favorable peace settlement—one that preserved the core of Ottoman sovereignty while accepting the loss of some peripheral territories.

Immediate Aftermath

A Modified Treaty (1920-1923)

In this alternate timeline, the Treaty of Sèvres would still be proposed, but its implementation would follow a different path. The harsh terms generating fierce resistance both in Constantinople and Anatolia would lead to a modified settlement by 1922-1923, more closely resembling aspects of the historical Treaty of Lausanne, but with the Ottoman state structure intact.

The key provisions of this modified treaty would likely include:

The Ottoman Empire would retain sovereignty over Anatolia and Eastern Thrace (including Constantinople), but surrender most Arab territories
The proposed Greek annexation of Western Anatolia would be reduced or eliminated
International control of the Turkish Straits would be implemented, but with greater Ottoman input
The empire would accept financial oversight similar to the Ottoman Public Debt Administration, but maintain fiscal sovereignty
Provisions for Armenian and Kurdish autonomy would be significantly reduced

Ottoman Constitutional Reform (1921-1925)

With external threats diminished, the internal power struggle between the Sultan's government and nationalists would become paramount. Rather than abolishing the sultanate, a constitutional compromise would emerge. Mustafa Kemal, having gained immense popularity and military credibility, would leverage his position to force constitutional reforms rather than replacement of the imperial system.

This "Neo-Ottoman Constitution" would establish:

A parliamentary system with meaningful legislative powers
Retention of the Sultan as head of state but with constrained authority
Separation of religious and civil authority (though without the complete secularization of Atatürk's Turkey)
Provincial autonomy for areas with significant minority populations
Military reforms led by nationalist officers

Sultan Mehmed VI, pragmatically accepting these changes to preserve the dynasty, would likely abdicate in favor of a more pliable successor—possibly Crown Prince Abdulmejid, who historically became the last Ottoman Caliph. The new Sultan would serve primarily ceremonial functions while a Prime Minister (possibly Kemal himself or a close ally) exercised actual executive power.

Economic and Social Reforms (1923-1930)

The preserved Ottoman state would face profound economic challenges. War reparations, loss of territories, and international debt would strain its finances. However, unlike the complete overhaul implemented by Atatürk's republic, reforms would proceed more gradually:

Selective nationalization of key industries and infrastructure
Renegotiation of the Capitulations (special privileges for foreign businesses and citizens) rather than their abrupt abolition
Introduction of mixed-economy policies blending state direction with private enterprise
Gradual educational reforms expanding access while maintaining religious instruction

Without Atatürk's radical secularization, social reforms would progress more conservatively. The Arabic script would likely be retained rather than replaced with the Latin alphabet. Women's rights would advance more slowly, with progressive implementation in urban areas contrasting with traditional practices in rural regions.

Foreign Relations (1923-1930)

The surviving Ottoman Empire would occupy a precarious position in international affairs. Having preserved core territories against overwhelming odds, the empire would follow a cautious foreign policy:

Balancing between the Western powers and the new Soviet Union
Careful cultivation of relations with other Muslim-majority regions
Maintenance of the Caliphate as a source of soft power and religious influence
Development of diplomatic and economic ties with emerging powers like Japan and the United States

In the Arab territories now under British and French mandate, Ottoman influence would continue informally through religious, cultural, and economic connections. Arab nationalism would develop differently, possibly less intensely anti-Ottoman but still seeking greater autonomy or independence within an evolved imperial framework.

Long-term Impact

The Ottoman Empire in the Interwar Period (1930-1939)

By the 1930s, the surviving Ottoman state would likely have consolidated into what historians might term the "Late Ottoman" or "Neo-Ottoman" phase. With its government structure stabilized and basic sovereignty secured, the empire would face the global challenges of the interwar period:

Political Evolution

The Ottoman political system would have evolved into a hybrid regime combining monarchical, parliamentary, and authoritarian elements. The rise of fascism in Europe might have influenced Ottoman politics, potentially leading to:

A stronger executive authority with nationalist tendencies
Retention of parliamentary institutions with limited powers
Authoritarian modernization programs similar to those in Reza Shah's Iran or Franco's Spain
Balancing of Turkish nationalism with Ottoman multi-ethnicity

Mustafa Kemal, having worked within the system rather than replacing it, would likely have risen to a position of immense influence—perhaps as Grand Vizier or Prime Minister with near-dictatorial powers while maintaining the ceremonial sultanate. His secularizing reforms would still occur but more gradually and with greater accommodation of Islamic institutions.

Economic Development and Modernization

The Great Depression would have severely impacted the Ottoman economy, potentially leading to:

Increased state intervention in industrial development
Nationalization of key resources and infrastructure
Development of import-substitution industrialization
Continued dependence on agricultural exports

While lacking the resources for rapid industrialization, the empire would likely have pursued strategic modernization focusing on military industries, transportation, and energy production. Oil discoveries in the 1920s and 1930s in territories the empire retained (parts of northern Iraq and possibly eastern Arabia) would provide crucial revenue, though probably under concessionary arrangements with Western companies.

Foreign Policy and Military Positioning

As World War II approached, the Ottoman Empire would face critical strategic decisions:

Continuing neutrality to avoid a repeat of the WWI disaster
Modernizing military forces with foreign assistance
Leveraging its control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits
Balancing between Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Western democracies

The empire would likely pursue selective rearmament, focusing on defensive capabilities and internal security while avoiding provocative capabilities that might trigger foreign intervention.

The Ottoman Empire and World War II (1939-1945)

In our actual timeline, Turkey maintained neutrality until February 1945. The Ottoman Empire in this alternate timeline would have even stronger incentives to remain neutral, given its recent near-dissolution. However, its strategic position would make neutrality challenging:

Control of the Turkish Straits would be coveted by both Axis and Allied powers
The Soviet Union would pressure for access to the Mediterranean
Nazi Germany would seek Ottoman resources and transit rights
Britain would work to keep the empire from joining the Axis

The most plausible outcome would be strategic neutrality with pragmatic concessions to both sides, similar to Spain or Turkey in our timeline. However, internal political divisions might have led to pro-Axis or pro-Allied factions gaining influence at different stages of the war.

If the empire maintained effective neutrality until the war's final stages (joining the Allies symbolically in early 1945 like Turkey did), it would emerge relatively unscathed but economically drained.

The Cold War Era (1945-1991)

Geopolitical Positioning

The post-WWII Ottoman Empire would face a transformed global landscape dominated by the US-Soviet rivalry. Its position would be defined by:

Containing Soviet influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East
Leveraging control of the Turkish Straits for strategic importance
Balancing Western alliance membership with regional leadership aspirations
Managing the emergence of Arab nationalist movements

The empire would likely join NATO (or its equivalent in this timeline) and receive significant American military and economic aid as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. However, its imperial structure would create tensions with Western democratic values.

Decolonization and Arab Territories

The global wave of decolonization would affect the Ottoman Empire's relationship with its former Arab territories still under European control:

Former Ottoman provinces would gain independence from Britain and France
The empire might attempt to rebuild influence in these newly independent states
Oil politics would reshape regional relationships and Ottoman economic interests
Pan-Arabism under figures like Nasser would clash with Ottoman aspirations

The creation of Israel would pose a particular challenge. Without the complete Ottoman collapse, the Balfour Declaration might never have been implemented in its historical form. Jewish immigration to Palestine might have continued under Ottoman regulation, potentially leading to a binational arrangement rather than the establishment of Israel as we know it.

Internal Evolution and Modernization

Domestically, the Cold War era would bring profound changes:

Gradual democratization with military oversight of the political system
Industrialization and urbanization changing traditional social structures
Religious reforms balancing modernization with Islamic heritage
Educational expansion creating new professional and middle classes

The oil crises of the 1970s would provide economic opportunities while creating inflationary pressures. The empire might experience a series of military interventions similar to Turkey's coups, with the armed forces seeing themselves as guardians of a secularized Ottoman state against both Islamist and separatist threats.

Post-Cold War to Present (1991-2025)

The collapse of the Soviet Union would remove a major external threat while creating new challenges:

Newly independent Turkic states in Central Asia would offer cultural and economic opportunities
Islamic revival movements would challenge the secularized state structure
Globalization would stress traditional economic arrangements
Digital transformation would accelerate cultural changes

By 2025, the Ottoman Empire might exist as a regional power with:

A constitutional monarchy with democratic institutions but significant authoritarian tendencies
Economic integration with both Europe and the Middle East
Cultural influence extending throughout its former territories
Ongoing tension between Turkish nationalism, Ottoman imperialism, and Islamist currents

The "Arab Spring" equivalent in this timeline might have targeted both local regimes and perceived Ottoman neo-colonial influence, creating complex challenges for imperial diplomacy. The Syrian Civil War might have become a proxy conflict between Ottoman interests and various regional and global powers.

On the world stage, the empire would likely position itself as a bridge between East and West, leveraging its unique geographic and cultural position while managing the competing forces of nationalism, religion, and modernization that have defined its extended existence.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Nabil al-Tikriti, Professor of Ottoman and Middle Eastern History at Harvard University, offers this perspective: "A surviving Ottoman Empire would have fundamentally altered the geopolitical architecture of the Middle East. The artificial borders drawn by colonial powers would never have materialized, potentially averting many of the territorial conflicts that have plagued the region. However, we shouldn't romanticize Ottoman rule—the empire would have faced immense challenges managing nationalism and modernization. Most likely, we would have seen a gradual evolution toward a commonwealth structure rather than the abrupt transition to nation-states. The religious authority of the Caliphate might have provided a counterbalance to the radical Islamist movements that emerged in the political vacuum left by decolonization."

Professor Elizabeth Thompson, author of "Imperial Legacies and Contemporary Politics," provides a different analysis: "The persistence of the Ottoman Empire would have dramatically altered the trajectory of political Islam. Without the shocking abolition of the Caliphate in 1924, which catalyzed movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist politics might have developed within institutional constraints rather than in opposition to secular states. However, the tension between imperial authority and national self-determination would have remained unresolved. I suspect we would have seen a series of negotiated autonomy arrangements rather than clean independence movements. The question of Palestine and Jewish settlement would have played out very differently without British mandatory authority, potentially avoiding the zero-sum conflict that emerged under colonial administration."

Dr. Mustafa Aksakal, Chair of Modern Turkish Studies at Georgetown University, notes: "Economic factors would have shaped this alternate Ottoman trajectory as much as political ones. Without Atatürk's state-directed development model, the Ottoman economy might have modernized more slowly but perhaps more organically. The discovery of oil in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula would have dramatically affected Ottoman finances if they maintained even partial sovereignty over these regions. The empire would have balanced between British economic hegemony and emerging American influence, potentially positioning itself as a regional economic hub integrating European capital with Middle Eastern resources. The Cold War would have accelerated this process, with American investment supporting Ottoman stability against Soviet influence."