Ottoman Entry into WWI: Politics, Nationalism and Diplomacy - Lisa Adeli

Lisa Adeli, the National Council for Social Studies 2012 Global Education award recipient, develops programs for the University of Arizona Center for Middle Eastern Studies, primarily for K-12 students and for educators. Adeli specializes in Ottoman and Balkan history with a special interest in World War I, with academic degrees from Georgetown, Indiana University and the University of Arizona.
When the Great War erupted, the Ottoman Empire was already depleted from years of conflict in the Balkans and elsewhere. Why, then, were the Ottomans so quick to join the Central Powers in early November 1914? The immediate answers involve internal Ottoman politics and a struggle for dominance within the Young Turk ruling elite. This presentation examines the Ottoman decision within the broader context of European relations and the challenges caused by the rise of competing forms of nationalism within the Empire, issues which shape the history of the Middle East throughout the war and the century that followed.
Presented November 7, 2014 as part of the National World War I Museum and United States World War I Centennial Commission 2014 Symposium, "1914: Global War & American Neutrality."
The Symposium was held in association with The Western Front Association East Coast Branch and the World War I Historical Association. Sponsored by Colonel J's, the Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund and Verlag Militaria.
For more information about the National WWI Museum and Memorial visit theworldwar.org

[@lake1963]

Amid the virus, I had the chance to google the question answered by Dr. Adeli. I have to say she provides a convincing answer to an interesting question. I benefit from her three insights. First, the Ottoman empire was a multi-national entity in an age of nationalism. Second, the empire tried to defend its sovereignty in the age of imperialism. Finally, like others, the Ottoman thought this would be a short war, and dreamed about being on the winning side. Looking back, they should regret the fatal decision. The Ottoman was a dying empire. It had been beaten repeatedly by Russia, and there seemed to be no end of it. Britain, France and Sardinia sided with Turkey against Russia in the Crimean War for their own self-interests. Later, they took advantage of the Ottoman. Britain controlled Egypt and Cyprus; France annexed Algeria; Italy occupied Libya. On the other hand, Germany was a rising empire. There lacked historical conflicts and geographical proximity between the two different empires. If there was one thing in common, both were kind of put down by the world's three dominant empires, which happened to form the entente. Kaiser visited the Ottoman empire twice before the war and once at the beginning. Such personal connections might play a role. The analysis of the Ottoman decision does not seem to be sympathetic, but is rather empathetic. Great in both substance and style. Thanks!

[@PMMagro]

Germany can not reach the Ottomans apart from Constantinople. Austria neither. Once Italy did not join the tripple alliance (as France did not declare war on Germany to start this war) the Ottomans should have joined with the Entente if anyone. Italy, UK and France all could reach them a lot, Russia partly... Quite a lot easier to only fight for the European small bit & Constantinople need be.

[@yukikaze3436]

Note: the ships the British took over from the Ottomans were battleships not cruisers.

[@alganhar1]

They were, and they were not the only ones, Brazil had one seized as well, other countries as well. However, that only tells part of the story, the rest is a little more complex. Another part of this story is that those clauses were written into the build contracts and were standard for any nations yards building warships for a foreign nation. In other words, those who ordered ships from British, US or german yards would have all faced the same type of clause in the contracts. It was never hidden, no one made any secret of it. A second part of the story is that the delivery of those ships was garuanteed in one way or another after the emergency was over, the emergency being WWI in this case. Either the ships as ordered would be delivered after being refit and refurbished to new condition, or replacements in kind would be delivered if for some reason the delivery of the contracted ship was impossible (it was sunk say). It was, at the time (and possibly still is), standard procedure for nations building warships for other nations to place a seizure clause in case of a major emergency, and you have to admit, WWI *was* something that fit that bill....

[@kingersulur]

very objective. Ottoman history became a tool of propoganda these days.

[@Ulas_Aldag]

Come on guys she talks about 50 minutes and gives us a very good insight on the ottoman entry, but the only thing you guys talks about is the downplay of the genocide. I think enough people pointed that out, so why dont you try talking about other parts of the presentation too.

[@battleburger]

"The ottomans had an air force so they had a modern technology"

[@alexanderaghayan117]

Read the UK Parliament's transcripts concerning the Ottomans after their defeat. Accurate description and not complimentary to say the least

[@yukikaze3436]

Note the Ottomans used few if any armored cars. There is a fall of 1918 account of a combat between British and one German armored car which was knocked out and captured. go to the landships forum

[@PMMagro]

I thought Germnay also, in 1914 either lended the Ottomans badly needed money/paid some Ottoman debts or gave them debt relief. The quick modernisation the young turks wanted and started sure was not cheap?

[@koksalceylan9032]

It was the age of Nationalism" the Arabs thouth" hey why do we do what the Ottomans commands'" and started to do what the British commands to do,obey there Queen Mother in London.

[@lscreagle7022]

That is most certainly not what the Arabs were aiming for in their revolt and the resulting history shows their dissatisfaction with just gaining new management.

[@edwardstaats4935]

Her topic was 1914 and the Armenian genocide was later.

[@hafismi]

It was less than a year later, it's fine. Besides, she only spent two minutes on it. You really didn't need to bring that up unless you're a genocide denialist.

[@mahsubas]

Capitulations and britsh economic imperialism has been crashing ottoman economy, so it was a very İmportant issue, prof know it wrong, people who are interested in, can look at "Balta Limanı Treaty" as a reference

[@tiggergolah]

At around 26:00 where she describes the Armenian genocide as a result of Russian aggression against the Ottomans she seems to minimize Turkish culpability in war crimes. Academia cannot point their fingers at America and decry the deaths that resulted from the forced dislocation of the Trail of Tears ( a dark stain on our country's history) , and then turn around and play down the active, intentional starvation of Armenian women and children by the Ottoman Empire.

[@mikehike596]

As far as your uneducated comment regarding _"...Where she describes the Armenian genocide as a result of Russian aggression against the Ottomans,"_ the Armenians' temporary relocation would have never taken place if not for the treacherous Armenians' collusion with the Entente. Armenian leaders are on record for fully admitting this inconvenient fact, such as Boghos Nubar, First prime minister of Armenian Hovhannes Katchaznouni, and especially Dashnak terrorist and mass-murderer, Garo Pasdermadjian. Ever read this 1918 booklet of propaganda, _Why Armenia Must Be Free?_ It's online.

[@abdullahireland1172]

Mike Hike, good old collective punishment. "Temporary relocation" ... Is that newspeak for genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians? In my experience of talking to Turks about this, their line tends to be "there was no Armenian genocide, and if there was, they bloody well deserved it!"

[@richardschenk4058]

It was clear that somebody had to vine about this

[@logicalconceptofficial]

tiggergolah the whole thing is nonsense! The typical leftist revisionism that tries to blame right wing nationalism for the world wars (usually ww2 not ww1 though...interestingly ignorant take she has the the German empire fought with the Austro Hungarian Empire against the Russian Empire and the British empire was about nationalism rather than imperialism) and let's leftism and Islamism (which is odd because it's as far right as religious conservatism gets but I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend) go free...I can't take a think this chick says seriously as she stumbled over the word Islamism like it was the first time she ever said it while nationalism rolls off her tongue like a brainwashed lemming...shes so incorrect to say the ottomans were multicultural. The tax paid by non-Muslims is called the jizya and its a punishment meant to repress non-Muslims. It was not about military service, its Islamic law! She failed to talk about the fact that it was a caliphate that like other caliphates is always trying to spread Islam even more aggressively than the spaniards she talked about! This is the problem with education these days!

[@logicalconceptofficial]

tiggergolah btw the trail of tears was nothing compared to the Armenian Genocide...the first was several thousand people, the later over a million! This idea that there was like a hundred million natives in North America and we killed em all is crap! In all the various battles and conflicts between US forces and natives only about 50,000 natives died and that's a high end estimate...still quite a few people but about as many people died in one day at gettysburg and 50,000 is way less than the people accusing the US of genocide think! The majority of natives in the Americas lived in central and South America as anyone who's studied the inca, Aztec or Mayan civilizations would know...that's where you get these very asiatic/Native looking Guatemalans and such that look nothing like a Spaniard! The truth and the narrative that would be most helpful would be to point out that the vast majority of natives not only survived but far more had kids with Europeans than fought Europeans! It's time to end this idea that North America had anything but a sparse population of nomadic tribes that fought as much with each other as they did with us! You had a population the size of Cedar Rapids Iowa bogarting an entire continent and picking fights with settlers who had guns and horses...they deserved to lose!

[@nonebusiness2023]

she is a turkish apologist.

[@koksalceylan1088]

aisaacs2008 :and you must be a armenian layer.

[@PMMagro]

She is talking about why the Ottomans joined WW1 on the German side 1914. Not about 2015 onwards...

[@mikehike596]

Once this social studies teacher uttered the "Armenian genocide" phrase, she lost all credibility as a historian. A historian's duty lies with examining the entire record, not only what one side has to say. There is no evidence that the Ottomans conducted a systematic extermination campaign against the Armenians. There is, however, evidence the Armenians conducted such a campaign, liquidating over one half million Turks, Muslims and Jews. See, for example, the 1919 report of two Americans, Niles and Sutherland.

[@hyethga]

Please crawl back under a rock - no one asked for your crackpot theories.

[@tigranzakaryan8621]

Seriously, I can add other "authoritative" sources to support your argument. But wait!! If history is based on testimonies from two obscure Americans, whose testimonials are not first-hand and not at all an eye-witness account and it should overweigh thousands upon thousands of documents (including Ottoman), eyewitness accounts and first-hand sources, then why bothering to research it? It simply can be invented. I would personally invent an outlandish one, like for instance the Armenian-Martian plot to enslave the planet Earth, rather than follow others' well-trodden path of worn-out and tasteless inventions like "a campaign of liquidating over one and a half million Turks, Muslims and Jews".

[@kingersulur]

@@tigranzakaryan8621 ıt is sad it all happened. But It was an outcry of a nation. Who felt like losing everything. Look at treatry of sevres etc and how humiliating it was for turks to understand the mentality of that time. I am from amasya my parents used to tell me the strories about their armenian neighbours. and their co operation with them. There is still a church next to local mosque. İt was prosperous times. as for genocide. Both sides comitted serious atrocities. As a Turk I am sorry for What we have done. But I understand what made people act that way. There were armenians killing turks tolstoy s daughter worked on that front look for her diaries. There were arabs revolting. İmperialist powers destroying once mighty empire. People went hysterical. They were afraid they will cede provinces to armenians etc. I wish ıt never happened. But it did. As a contemporary turk ı dont have to apologize to you. Or you shoudnt hate me. but i am sorry that this happened. Armenians were very notable people in empire and they were famous architects and composers. and even called loyal and noble nation (millet-i sıdıka). we should have been friend nations now we are enemies.

[@PMMagro]

Send my regards to you Turkish cananbis donors.

[@sparky8574]

Lol. The Armenian genocide is well documented & internationally recognized.

[@battleburger]

Very generous appraisal of Ottoman cringe. She should do the third reich next.