The role of the ottoman "empire" was negligible in WW I.
thoughts?
So was Britain's
WW1 was basically Germany vs France and Russia
redpill me on the Ottoman Empire, what happened and why was it so successful?
>>2134475
>So was Britain's
Horseshit.
>>2134478
it wasnt during the last 20 years most of their soldiers became sick from eating cattle feed
>>2134492
dont ask me for source i read that in a reprint of an 80 year old arabic newspaper
I don't thinks so. Surely they fought badly, but without Turkey UK and Russia would have a lot more resources to fight Germany with on the main fronts. Imagine ANZAC landing in Italy, Greece or Romania to strike into soft Austrian underbelly, only this time with popper provision and local support.
>>2134465
Tsar Ferdinand of Bulgaria was better than the roaches. Sadly the good guys lost and Bulgaria got cucked.
Idk about that they beat off the brits quite a few times and made them sink a fair portion of resources into the Middle East instead of Europe. They played their part
>>2134465
>The Ottomans didn't thinks so
Or why fight?
>The Germans didn't think so
Or why support them?
>The British didn't think so
Or why Gallipoli?
>>2134478
Because they were the earliest multilevel bureaucracy outside of the far East
Google "Tanzimat Reforms." Basically otto failed to modernize. It can be argued that it was coming to em long before that though.
>>2134465
what was even the point of gallipoli? what would it even have actually accomplished for the war even if they won?
>>2135301
...capturing Constantinople, possibly driving the Ottomans out of the war, and forcing the Bosporus open so Britain and France could supply Russia and keep them in the war?
>>2134475
>So was Britain's
Anglophobia on this board is ridiculous
Britain is responsible for the devastating blockade on Germany, basically held the western front in 1917, and brought in the tank.