Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In WW1 the Central powers consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. I know that German and Austrian troops fought in the trench lines in in the Western and Eastern fronts, but did the Ottoman empire ever send troops to reinforce the lines? Or did they do something else in WW1? Were they more of an economic ally or military ally?
Are you familiar with the Gallipoli campaign? With Lawrence of Arabia? The Turks were the opponents.
The Empire was already in **** poor state before WW I began. They had just lost major chunks of their territory in the Balkans Wars of 1912 and 1913. For years before that they had been propped up by the British as a check against the Russians. Then the Germans took over the same task as WW I approached.
The Turks did win a few early battles, the previously mentioned Gallipoli was a severe defeat for Great Britain. There was also the siege of Kut (in what is today Iraq) where they forced the surrender of a 13,000 man Allied army. They did less well when they attempted to invade Russia via the Caucasus Mountains route. There were a great many casualties and nothing of consequence accomplished in three years of bloodletting. The Turks were losing their part of this war until the Russians knocked themselves out of the conflict via the Bolshevik revolution. The Turks also were pounded and driven out of Arabia and Palestine by British forces and the Arab revolt.
Unable to hold their own in their own sector, the Ottomans were never in a position to send any troops to the western front. They required more help from their allies than they provided. Turkey was to Germany in WW I, what Italy was to the Nazis in WW II.
In WW1 the Central powers consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. I know that German and Austrian troops fought in the trench lines in in the Western and Eastern fronts, but did the Ottoman empire ever send troops to reinforce the lines? Or did they do something else in WW1? Were they more of an economic ally or military ally?
The Ottoman Empire was on the verge of collapse in 1914. Ottoman forces were engaged in battle with the British Empire which had bases in Egypt, Cyprus and Persian Gulf and Persia. Britain tried to force open the Dardanelles and Bosphorus Straits to open sea lanes to Russia and to take Constantinople. They landed Imperial Forces mainly Anzacs at Gallipolli in 1916 this landing advocated by the First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill was a bloody fiasco which cost Churchill his government post and put him in the political wilderness until the start of the 2nd World War. Britain had more sucess in Arabia and the Levant including victorious campaigns by Gen Allenby who captured Palestine, Maj T.E. Lawernce who organized the Arab revolt which captured Aqaba and Damascus (Syria). Britain invaded Mesopotamia and created the Emirate of Kuwait and the Kingdom of Iraq. Britains advance into the Middle East finished off the Ottomans who were overthrown by one of their military commanders, Kemel Attaturk who created the secular republic called Turkey.
It's funny this thread came up just now.. I ordered a copy of TE Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" from the library last week..and picked it up today...Think it is going to be a great book. WWI is, to me, much more interesting than WWII, which was just the conclusion to the First. As has been mentioned, the Ottoman Empire was in very bad shape at that time, and probably would not have lasted much longer.
It's funny this thread came up just now.. I ordered a copy of TE Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" from the library last week..and picked it up today...Think it is going to be a great book. r.
You will love it. It is on my very very short list of the greatest books Ive ever read.
The incredible story of that book is that he wrote it, and left the manuscript on a train, and never saw it again. He had to start over again from scratch and rewrite it. Which might account for why it is such a great book--- how many editors have ever persuaded a writer to do the whole thing over again, which allows for unlimited improvements. That MS likely exists somewhere today---imagine what it is worth.
It's funny this thread came up just now.. I ordered a copy of TE Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" from the library last week..and picked it up today...Think it is going to be a great book. WWI is, to me, much more interesting than WWII, which was just the conclusion to the First. As has been mentioned, the Ottoman Empire was in very bad shape at that time, and probably would not have lasted much longer.
I would agree, i think that in America WW2 is so popularized because we fought in it almost from the beginning (or at least sooner then we did in WW1) even though WW1 was bloodier, and probably more important.
I would agree, i think that in America WW2 is so popularized because we fought in it almost from the beginning (or at least sooner then we did in WW1) even though WW1 was bloodier, and probably more important.
Very true. I'm guessing in Europe they teach history quite differently (and I'm sure the different countries teach it quite differently from each other) in that by putting much more emphasis on WW1 and before (France lost over a milliont soldiers in WW1, more than the total number of American casualties in all wars combined) they more more fully understand the causes of World War II.
In the U.S., they kind of teach WW2 like Nazi Germany just came out of nowhere. This is unfortunate, because it may give Americans a wrong impression of Germany. Whereas there were very specific circumstances to the rise of Nazi Germany during that time and place, and is not at all reflective of German culture in general.
Very true. I'm guessing in Europe they teach history quite differently (and I'm sure the different countries teach it quite differently from each other) in that by putting much more emphasis on WW1 and before (France lost over a milliont soldiers in WW1, more than the total number of American casualties in all wars combined) they more more fully understand the causes of World War II.
In the U.S., they kind of teach WW2 like Nazi Germany just came out of nowhere. This is unfortunate, because it may give Americans a wrong impression of Germany. Whereas there were very specific circumstances to the rise of Nazi Germany during that time and place, and is not at all reflective of German culture in general.
Exactly right If more people took the time to understand what led up to WW2, attitudes about it would be different..Thanks
Exactly right If more people took the time to understand what led up to WW2, attitudes about it would be different..Thanks
If attitudes were different, then more people might take the time to understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If more people took the time to understand what led up to WW2, attitudes about it would be different..Thanks
