Italo-Turkish War and the Balkans

The Italians grabbed Libya during the Italo-Turkish War, alongside the Dodecanese. Ten days before the end of that war, the First Balkan War started--which ended up kicking the Ottomans out of Europe sans Marmara.

Meanwhile, just across the Adriatic, the Highlands Uprising and the 1912 Albanian Revolt threatened Ottoman domination over Rumelia.

Italy certainly had designs on the territory--they occupied Vlore in 1914 and occupied the southern half during WWI.

What POD would be necessary for Italy to realize its Balkan ambitions before/during the Italo-Turkish War? Could they act on them? Would they? If they did, how the hell would the Balkan League react? How would Russia?
 
The Italians grabbed Libya during the Italo-Turkish War, alongside the Dodecanese. Ten days before the end of that war, the First Balkan War started--which ended up kicking the Ottomans out of Europe sans Marmara.

Meanwhile, just across the Adriatic, the Highlands Uprising and the 1912 Albanian Revolt threatened Ottoman domination over Rumelia.

Italy certainly had designs on the territory--they occupied Vlore in 1914 and occupied the southern half during WWI.

What POD would be necessary for Italy to realize its Balkan ambitions before/during the Italo-Turkish War? Could they act on them? Would they? If they did, how the hell would the Balkan League react? How would Russia?
IIRC, their treaty obligations to Austria forbade expansion into the Balkans unless Austria expands too.
 
Last edited:
Yes but there are loophole...as the austrian demonstrated during the Bosnian crisis of 1908.
I guess. The Austrians wouldn't like it though and I'm not sure how the Balkan allies would act. The Serbians wouldn't like it either as it would block them from reaching the sea.
 
Last edited:
I guess. The Austrians wouldn't like it though and I'm not sure how the Balkan allies would act. The Serbians wouldn't like it thougj as it would block them from reaching the sea.

Serbia might still view Italy's expansion as a positive or neutral event, depending on how far it goes and how well Italian diplomacy prepares for it. The main reason Serbia was so hungry for the sea was the need for economic and political emancipation from Austria - before the Balkan wars, it seemed like all roads lead either through Austria itself, the Ottoman Empire, or in the best case Bulgaria; and that caused a great deal of worry in Belgrade. However, Italy was considered a generally friendly country and potential ally, and there were even family ties between the Italian and Serbian courts; so there's a chance Serbia could welcome the Italian expansion even if Italy hogs the whole coastline. It would still open new economic opportunities and paths, and most importantly (from Serbia's perspective) if Italy's somewhere that means Austria isn't there.
Unless Italy is allowing Austria to take advantage as well, in that case the reaction would be pretty negative.

Montenegro's relations with Italy were even friendlier so they should welcome it. And Bulgaria has few interests there either way, so they probably won't oppose it...that leaves Greece's reaction as an uncertainty.
 
Besides, if Italy pulled a stunt in the Balkans, nobody would be obliged or willing to come to its aid should Austria Hungary go to war. Conrad, who was going to come back to his former position at just this time, would gladly have taken the opportunity. If it is alone in a war with Austria Hungary, Italy will eventually lose.
 
Besides, if Italy pulled a stunt in the Balkans, nobody would be obliged or willing to come to its aid should Austria Hungary go to war. Conrad, who was going to come back to his former position at just this time, would gladly have taken the opportunity. If it is alone in a war with Austria Hungary, Italy will eventually lose.
Germany probably would. A war between their two main allies would weaken their position on the continent.
 
Italy didn't have the financial resources though. IIRC the Italians Turkish war was a disaster from a financial point of view. Had the Balkans not revolted, the Ottomans may have outlasted the Italians....
 
Italy didn't have the financial resources though. IIRC the Italians Turkish war was a disaster from a financial point of view. Had the Balkans not revolted, the Ottomans may have outlasted the Italians....
Italy's GDP at the time was 96 billion. Turkey's GDP was 20 billion. I don't think they'd outlast them.
 
In 1912 Italy resorted to naval warfare to force the Ottomans to negotiate: in January at Kunfuda bay the (limited) Ottoman naval forces in the Red sea were sunk and the Yemenite ports were blockaded; in February the port of Beirut was attacked and the Turkish ships there were sunk; in July 5 torpedo boats made a demonstrative attack in the Dardanelles. In all these cases the main Ottoman navy declined to engage. Rhodes and the Dodecanese were occupied in August (with the assent of the Powers, worried by the potential disruption of the commercial traffic in the Straits and in the Red sea. Unsurprisingly the only dissent was voiced by Austria). After the occupation of Rhodes, negotiations were started and the treaty of Ouchy was signed on the same day (8 October) on which the 1st Balkan war started.
Assuming there is no 1st Balkan war breaking out, I'd assume that next Italian move might be against Albania, starting with the occupation of the small island of Saseno in front of Valona (IOTL Saseno was occupied by Italy on 30 October 1914 and annexed after the end of WW1). A more aggressive strategy would include the occupation of Tenedos and Imbros (and possibly even Lemnos), in front of the Dardanelles effectively blockading all Ottoman shipping inside the Straits. At this point it is quite sure that the Ottoman would sue for peace.
 
Top