What if the Taba Affair, aka Akaba Crisis of 1906 escalated into an Anglo-Ottoman War?

[raharris1973]

What if the Anglo-Ottoman Aqaba Crisis or Taba Affair of 1906, over the placement of the Sinai border, resulted in an actual, declared shooting war betweenthe United Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire in that year? What would that warlike intrusion do the do the Liberal Campbell-Bannerman government's domestic program? I imagine it would be distracting. On the other hand, Liberal Party stalwarts, *in principle* disliking wars and armaments, typically hated *the Turk*, and none more than Sultan Abdulhamid. How does Abdulhamid go about trying to defend himself and his empire. What do the other interest powers, major (Germany, France), medium (Russia-solely because of R-J War exhaustion, Austria, Italy), and minor (the Balkan states, and Egyptian natives) do in reaction to this outbreak of fighting in the Sinai-Palestine border?

 

[Jackson Lennock]

The British OTL pushed for a line from just north of Rafah (Wadi El Arish?) to the southernmost point of the Dead Sea as the border. At a minimum, I suspect they'd grab that.

The Ottomans set up modern Beersheva in ~1901 as a Garrison to keep the British out. It had about 1,000 people by the start of WW1. Hebron by contrast had perhaps 10,000 people.

If the British tried to take Jerusalem, that might cause a kind of crisis with other European nations.

This is before the Young Turk Revolution whose instability ushered in the opportunity for Greek Unification with Crete, Austrian annexation of Bosnia, or Bulgarian Independence. It might accelerate those things a bit.

 

[raharris1973]

@Jackson Lennock - if the British go for the minimum land grab, and that alone, it would be a rather short and small war.

I could easily imagine the Brits having some interest in other peripheral Ottoman territories- confirming the independence of Kuwait for example, occupying Al-Hass province on the Persian Gulf shore- if that was indeed even Otttoman rather than under the Saud of the Najd at this point, or possibly even occupying Basra city or vilayet to cut the OE off from the Persian Gulf entirely.

British land-grabbing at any level might inspire precocious Italian land-grabbing in Italy, or Balkan land-grabbing. Russia, just walloped by the R—J War and Revolution, sill facing rural aftershocks in fact, does not seem well positioned to do major grab moves.

Now you say a British move to grab *Jerusalem* may cause some kind of crisis with other European powers. Well it would certainly get more noticed, make for bigger headlines, and engage more countries’ interests. How would you see such a great power crisis playing out and what would the non British powers be demanding and doing, and what would everybody settle for in the end?

 

[Jackson Lennock]

@Jackson Lennock - if the British go for the minimum land grab, and that alone, it would be a rather short and small war.

I could easily imagine the Brits having some interest in other peripheral Ottoman territories- confirming the independence of Kuwait for example, occupying Al-Hass province on the Persian Gulf shore- if that was indeed even Otttoman rather than under the Saud of the Najd at this point, or possibly even occupying Basra city or vilayet to cut the OE off from the Persian Gulf entirely.

British land-grabbing at any level might inspire precocious Italian land-grabbing in Italy, or Balkan land-grabbing. Russia, just walloped by the R—J War and Revolution, sill facing rural aftershocks in fact, does not seem well positioned to do major grab moves.

Now you say a British move to grab *jerusalem* may cause some kind of crisis with other European powers. Well it would certainly get more noticed, make for bigger headlines, and engage more countries’ interests. How would you see such a great power crisis playing out and what would the non British powers be demanding and doing, and what would everybody settle for in the end?

Much of what kept the Ottoman Empire together was nobody in Europe agreeing on who should get what slice of it.

As Salisbury put it about the Treaty of Berlin:

Salisbury wrote at the end of 1878: 'We shall set up a rickety sort of Turkish rule again south of the Balkans. But it is a mere respite. There is no vitality left in them. The treaty also calls on the parties involved to attack the nation that violates the treaty.'"

Jews in Palestine were under the protection of France or Austria traditionally. France and Russia disputed over who had the right to protect Christians in the Holy Land (Israel/Palestine, but France took an interest in all of "Syria - i.e. Bilad Al-Sham or Levant - historically). Britain doesn't want the French too close to the Canal. France views (and is recognized in law sort of) the Maronite Christians as "their people." Meanwhile this is prior to the Anglo-Russian Convention and just after the Second Boer War, so Britain (1) cannot be too aggressive along the borders of Iran and (2) has some international diplomatic headaches still.

In light of the Entente Cordiale, methinks an Anglo-French Jerusalem Protectorate would be tenable. Britain gets Acre and Haifa for itself, and the area from Gaza to the Dead Sea. France gets Lebanon for itself. Kuwait is recognized as independent and (no matter the truth in reality) on paper is entitled to the Persian Gulf shore of Arabia.

I don't think the Balkan States were built up enough yet to drive out the Turks. Austria might get Sandzak along with Bosnia though. Earlier Russian proposals in the Bosnia Crisis involved a Russian Straits for a Turkish Sandzak. The 1909 Russo-Turkish agreement was a Russian recognition of Italy's right to Libya for an Italian recognition of Russia's right to the straits. Britain and France recognized Italy's interests in Libya starting in 1902. Methinks that whatever reduced Ottoman Empire exists might have its boundaries guaranteed by Russia in order to secure the Straits for itself.

I don't think the Balkan Pact had the strength to push the Ottomans as far as they did historically yet.

Germany is the country least poised to get anything in the Ottoman Empire. Their price may be France staying out of Morocco. Or limiting itself only to part of Morocco. Oujda and the Chaouia were the first tidbits to be occupied historically. The Oum Er-Rbia River could be border of "French Morocco" as opposed to "German Morocco" or "Free Morocco."

 

[raharris1973]

Jews in Palestine were under the protection of France or Austria traditionally.

Had never heard that actually - that is interesting. The only connection I had heard about was some of the French cultural ties to Jewry in the east, through the Alliance Israelite.

In light of the Entente Cordiale, methinks an Anglo-French Jerusalem Protectorate would be tenable. Britain gets Acre and Haifa for itself, and the area from Gaza to the Dead Sea. France gets Lebanon for itself.

This sounds like horizontal "stripes" then, in the coastal Levant. Britain gets Palestine from Gaza to Beersheeba to Dead Sea and Negev as an add on to Sinai. The middle strip from Jaffa to Jerusalem is an Anglo-French Condominium protectorate. Britain get the next "stripe" of Palestine, going from Acre and Haifa to the Jordan and Sea of Galilee, and France gets Lebanon. Unless you are thinking that ultimately Britain ends up with unilateral control of that Jaffa-Jerusalem strip sandwiched between its north and south Palestine areas, so that France's 'Jerusalem' is really just Lebanon. And oh - Kuwait gets title to Al-Hasa/Al-Aahsa shore of eastern Arabia.

Interesting how the Austrians might be getting something, around this time, and probably the Italians. But the Balkans (the Greeks honestly probably would not be too weak to occupy an island like Crete), Russians, and Germans are all too weak, or poorly geographically positioned, to get actual handovers of land at this time.

Also interesting how Abdulhamid II might be left in power, mighty PO'ed at the British and other thieving infidel powers, but still in total control over the Armenians, who had been the Christian minority humanitarian concern du jour for Europeans in the middle-late 1890s. Of course, there is a live possibility that Abdulhamid II could be overthrown for failing and being victimized at war.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Had never heard that actually - that is interesting. The only connection I had heard about was some of the French cultural ties to Jewry in the east, through the Alliance Israelite.

My understanding is it was mainly to do with the largest number of Ashkenazim in the area being Austrian citizens. The British also kind of sort of extended protections to Ashkenazim from Russia, as it isn't as if the Russians were going to do it.

This sounds like horizontal "stripes" then, in the coastal Levant. Britain gets Palestine from Gaza to Beersheeba to Dead Sea and Negev as an add on to Sinai. The middle strip from Jaffa to Jerusalem is an Anglo-French Condominium protectorate. Britain get the next "stripe" of Palestine, going from Acre and Haifa to the Jordan and Sea of Galilee, and France gets Lebanon. Unless you are thinking that ultimately Britain ends up with unilateral control of that Jaffa-Jerusalem strip sandwiched between its north and south Palestine areas, so that France's 'Jerusalem' is really just Lebanon. And oh - Kuwait gets title to Al-Hasa/Al-Aahsa shore of eastern Arabia.

I just had the jointly administered zone from Sykes-Picot in mind for the area between British Egypt (including Negev/South Palestine) and French Lebanon. Under Sykes-Picot, Acre and Haifa were a little British Hong Kong type of outpost.

Interesting how the Austrians might be getting something, around this time, and probably the Italians. But the Balkans (the Greeks honestly probably would not be too weak to occupy an island like Crete), Russians, and Germans are all too weak, or poorly geographically positioned, to get actual handovers of land at this time.

The Greeks wouldn't need to occupy Crete. Crete was a separate country which paid suzerainty to Constantinople since 1898.

Also interesting how Abdulhamid II might be left in power, mighty PO'ed at the British and other thieving infidel powers, but still in total control over the Armenians, who had been the Christian minority humanitarian concern du jour for Europeans in the middle-late 1890s. Of course, there is a live possibility that Abdulhamid II could be overthrown for failing and being victimized at war.

My guess is he'd be ousted and the rump Ottoman Empire is a giant protectorate of the Russians, who demand special protections for Armenians and Assyrians and so forth.

Maybe this.

 

[raharris1973]

The British also kind of sort of extended protections to Ashkenazim from Russia, as it isn't as if the Russians were going to do it.

Actually, it is interesting, some of the Ashkenazi settlers, like David Ben-Gurion, born in Russian Poland, advocated for naturalizing to Ottoman citizenship, and performing Ottoman military service, but I think most Russian and Romanian Jewish immigrants didn't actually take the plunge, and they kept their home country papers/status. Ultimately, I think Ben-Gurion even did naturalization, and IIRC he left during WWI for British Egypt. The advantages of having a foreign passport on Ottoman soil, and thus being able to wave about 'capitulations' and the chance of consular protection in front of the face of any native, official or otherwise, who was messing with you, seemed too great to give up, even for Russian and Romanian origin Jews with antisemitic home governments! And sometimes the setting changes the relationship of government to subject. A Jew, unwanted by Tsarist officialdom at home, may be alright in the Ottoman Empire as a colonial asset needing Russian imperial diplomatic protection, and thus in turn providing an excuse to meddle, should St. Pete ever so desire.

I just had the jointly administered zone from Sykes-Picot in mind for the area between British Egypt (including Negev/South Palestine) and French Lebanon. Under Sykes-Picot, Acre and Haifa were a little British Hong Kong type of outpost.

I see what you are saying, and you make it even clearer with your map! So, not the way I interpreted it. Do you think that orange zone would just be an Anglo-French condominium, or a real, great power, "Concert of Europe" free for all, "international zone" like what Sykes-Picot was describing. Sykes-Picot was having it as an 'international zone', so while we could be confident it would have excluded the defeated powers if implemented, it seems it would have been common administration of *all* Entente powers or whatever international or League-like organization the victors would have ended up establishing, rather than a simple Anglo-French duo.

My guess is he'd be ousted and the rump Ottoman Empire is a giant protectorate of the Russians, who demand special protections for Armenians and Assyrians and so forth.

Hmm, I wonder if they'd put in the Young Turks as replacements, of it those reformers and revitalizers would turn up their noses at working as puppets for the Russians, giving special dispensations to Russia's favored clients and to Russia strategically. Eventually couldn't the Ottomans shop around for German relationship/alliance?

 

[Wendell]

The possibility of Russian entry into the war leads me to believe that the fighting would end as quickly as it starts. Fighting may linger in the European part of the Empire as opportunists do their thing. Britain gets the border it sought before the war and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem is demilitarized by the Ottomans but patrolled by an international security force.