IW What Ifs...?

[Flyndaran]

This is a gurps forum, and as such alternate histories don't have to be realistic to be interesting and gamable.

Like imagine a world in which cats were fully domesticated and socialized and dogs never existed.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by lazlo_woodbine

That's true. The position of a neo-ottoman entity by 1939 and 1975 will depend on how well they can command their own technical expertise and develop their own oil reserves - if they hang on to their own oil wealth they'll become as rich as Saudis and comprise a powerful pole of attraction for Islamic and middle eastern countries. Maybe a 'third force' in the Cold War, or similar?

Only to the extent that say, China, is.
Actually, given the problems of a highly polarized multi-ethnic state with no real majority, Turkey by itself might have a better shot at turning itself into a mid range Great Power than a surviving Ottoman Empire would.

Oil is actually less valuable than it looks even lately. It's very nice as natural resources go, but natural resource exploitation isn't all that terrific. Part of the reason it has such a huge impact in the Gulf states is the money is spread over a fairly small population, you'll notice it hasn't done such wonderful things for the economy of Nigeria, created vast prosperity in southern Mexico, saved the Russian economy, or totally transformed Great Britain, all of which have also been major oil producers lately.

[lazlo_woodbine]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Oil is actually less valuable than it looks even lately. It's very nice as natural resources go, but natural resource exploitation isn't all that terrific. Part of the reason it has such a huge impact in the Gulf states is the money is spread over a fairly small population, you'll notice it hasn't done such wonderful things for the economy of Nigeria, created vast prosperity in southern Mexico, saved the Russian economy, or totally transformed Great Britain, all of which have also been major oil producers lately.

I think the key issue here really is governmence - how the oil wealth is spent. Both Mexico and Nigeria are run by extremely corrupt oligarchies, as was Russia until very recently. Since 1999 Russia's oil wealth has gone more towards propping up the economy overall, rather than making a handful billionaires. The recent re-entry of Russia into world power politics is largely on the basis of their role as a supplyier of oil and gas to Western Europe.

Plus Mexico and Nigeria's oil reserves are really very small compared to the entire reserves of the whole Gulf region.

As for Britain, the North Sea oil was used to prop up the Thatcher government's monetarist policies and fill a hige budget hole that otherwise would have appeared. No North Sea oil, maybe no Thatcherism and hence possibly no Reganomics either - a big difference.

So, with governance in the focus, this is another thing that imo makes an early French influence more important. An Ottoman empire that had sucessfully swallowed modernity through a collision with Napoleon could feasibly have set in place the civil service that was needed to administer oil wealth.

Say that the Battle of the Nile was lost by the British, so the French occupy Egypt for longer. Then a people's war in the region (similar to that in Spain and Germany) takes place that kicks the French out over a few years and lays the groundwork for the unification of Egypt and the rest of the empire, along modernistic lines.

I still like the idea of the Ottoman empire, attempting to modernise, being overthrown by some kind of Russian-style revolution. Maybe an islamic-based one, though, as the religious leaders are offended by all this modernisation a la Iran?

[lazlo_woodbine]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

It is important if you actually work out what can and cannot work in an intellectually honest manner. If you don't or can't do that you produce nothing of worth.

I'll suggest again that you visit alternatehistory.com for a peek at how the process should occur.

I'm sure I'll check that forum out, it sounds intersting. But can you first give me an idea of what you mean by intellectuall honesty, since I'm not sure how so many of the posters here have been dishonest?

[lazlo_woodbine]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

That statement completely ignores the de facto independent nature of Egypt viz a viz the Ottomans, ignores the fact that digging the canal was well within the Ottoman's own technical abilities as slaves were used more than steam shovels, and begs the question why the Ottomans didn't see the need for an important and taxable sea route on their own. I guess they were stupid or something, right?

Please don't put words in my mouth, bill - especially not ones that seem to denigrate an entire culture. It seems a bit... intellectually dishonest to me.

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

Churchill's rhetoric aside, that didn't happen at all. Only one class of battleships, the new Queen Elisabeths, were oil-fired. Indeed, when the USN dispatched a battleship squadron to join the Grand Fleet, Britain specifically asked for coal-fired as they could not supply five more thirsty battlewagons with oil. If anything, WW2 was won on a tide of oil.

Hope those little bites of reality help you work out your stuff.

Yes, cheers for that. Good to see that you find this discussion worth participating in, despite your rhetoric.

I think it's still clear that by WW1 oil was a major strategic resource - and it was clear to contemporaries that its value would only increase:

During World War I (1914-18), strategists for all the major powers increasingly perceived oil as a key military asset, due to the adoption of oil-powered naval ships, new horseless army vehicles such as trucks and tanks, and even military airplanes. Use of oil during the war increased so rapidly that a severe shortage developed in 1917-18.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/componen...185/40479.html

This means that any surviving Ottoman entity would have to deal with the prospect of attacks, foremost from the British Empire, due to its cornering of oil supplies.

Of course, there's also the possibility that without early British access to Persian oil fields maybe the Fleet would never have developed oil fired ships, and petroleum automobiles would have been confined to the USA, rather like the way so many cars in Brazil are run on sugar cane ethanol.

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Oil is actually less valuable than it looks even lately. It's very nice as natural resources go, but natural resource exploitation isn't all that terrific. Part of the reason it has such a huge impact in the Gulf states is the money is spread over a fairly small population, you'll notice it hasn't done such wonderful things for the economy of Nigeria, created vast prosperity in southern Mexico, saved the Russian economy, or totally transformed Great Britain, all of which have also been major oil producers lately.

Malloyd,


Shhhh... Don't say that! Don't you know that oil always equals immense wealth and untold power no matter what? And no matter where or when it's found? And no matter who finds it?

How dare you apply actual logic and facts to the shallow, kneejerk, hurr durr, historically, economically, and sociologically illiterate thinking behind over 90% of the What Ifs in this thread.

Shhh... ;)


Bill

[Bill Cameron]

Originally Posted by lazlo_woodbine

Please don't put words in my mouth, bill - especially not ones that seem to denigrate an entire culture. It seems a bit... intellectually dishonest to me.

Lazlo,

Words in your mouth? Perish the thought. I was only showing you the logical consequences of your own ideas.

Yes, cheers for that. Good to see that you find this discussion worth participating in, despite your rhetoric.

Worth participating in? Again, perish the thought. You've asked what intellectual honesty is and I merely showed it to you bu pointing out the huge holes in the "French Dig Suez And Sell It To The Ottomans" idea you believe is so plausible. Holes, I shold add, that you should have been bale to see yourself.

Intellectual honesty involves putting your own ideas through the crucible instead of just simply gushing over how "kewl" they are.

This means that any surviving Ottoman entity would have to deal with the prospect of attacks, foremost from the British Empire, due to its cornering of oil supplies. Of course, there's also the possibility that without early British access to Persian oil fields maybe the Fleet would never have developed oil fired ships, and petroleum automobiles would have been confined to the USA, rather like the way so many cars in Brazil are run on sugar cane ethanol.

Persian oil fields? The oil fields in Persia? The Persia that isn't and never was part of the Ottoman Empire? Britain is going to attack the Ottomans to corner oil supplies in a country that the Ottomans don't control?

You've also got the oil - ships thing backwards. Oil presented so many benefits, such as refueling times and the lack of smoke during combustion, that Britain was moving towards an oil-fired fleet well before gaining economic control of the Persian fields. It was a case of "We Need Oil, So Where Is It?" and not a case of "We Have Oil So What To Do With It?"


Bill

[lazlo_woodbine]

You're still confusing me on the meaning of the term 'honesty'. According to you it's all about performing an anaysis that you agree with. This is not the common English usage, so forgive me if I misunderstood at first.

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

Persian oil fields? The oil fields in Persia? The Persia that isn't and never was part of the Ottoman Empire? Britain is going to attack the Ottomans to corner oil supplies in a country that the Ottomans don't control?

I think I made it clear above that the entity we're discussing, that will pull Pakistan into its sphere of influence, will certainly deny Britain their historical early control over the oil fields in the whole Persian Gulf.

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

You've also got the oil - ships thing backwards. Oil presented so many benefits, such as refueling times and the lack of smoke during combustion, that Britain was moving towards an oil-fired fleet well before gaining economic control of the Persian fields. It was a case of "We Need Oil, So Where Is It?" and not a case of "We Have Oil So What To Do With It?"

That's an interesting point - if it is true, then it would lead to far closer British co-operation with the US, much earlier on. A closely US-allied Britain might then be a deterrant to the eruption of the Great War and it's sequel.

Cheers for your input, even though you seem to be under the somewhat odd delusion that you're actually not discussing stuff.

I think the idea of French engineers digging Suez in partnership with a strengthened Ottoman empire is quite plausible, really, since even a reinvigorated Empire will still take some time to develop all the required expertise - see the occurance of Prussian military advisors in c19th Japan, for example all over the world. But the world could easily be modified so that it was Egyptian or Turkish engineers who created Suez - I think the existence of the canal itself is the important thing for this scenario.

[lazlo_woodbine]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

Shhhh... Don't say that! Don't you know that oil always equals immense wealth and untold power no matter what? And no matter where or when it's found? And no matter who finds it?

How dare you apply actual logic and facts to the shallow, kneejerk, hurr durr, historically, economically, and sociologically illiterate thinking behind over 90% of the What Ifs in this thread.

What an odd thing to say.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

How dare you apply actual logic and facts to the shallow, kneejerk, hurr durr, historically, economically, and sociologically illiterate thinking behind over 90% of the What Ifs in this thread.

Okay, now I'm curious.

What do you think of the "what if" I posted earlier, post #263 in this thead? Feel free to be as merciless as you wish in your analysis.