Questions on the Italian-Ottoman and Balkan Wars

To me the Italian-Ottoman and Balkan Wars are one of the most confusing series of conflicts. The first two wars were interconnected in that the First Balkan basically forced Ottoman to end the Italian-

Part of my confusion comes from the Italian-Ottoman War itself. Aside from the fact that this was a rather "tame" war where the Italians only had a few beachheads with Ottoman unable to fully use its strength, what were the positions of the European countries on Italy going to war? What did the Triple Alliance, British and French think about the conflict? Also, how might that war have been changed to allow Ottoman to gain "victory" or an honorable settlement before the Balkan War fires?

In the case of the Balkan Wars, I have to admit I have no idea what the whole area was like, even after reading Wiki and other sources. Anyone willing to help this poor soul out on that? What were the interests of the Balkan Alliances, and how did that result in the Second Balkan War? Could the wars have a different outcome favorable to Ottoman or Bulgaria? What might the Great Powers, particularly Russia, AH, and Germany think of any alternate outcomes?


Thank you for your help.

I can procure some books regarding the Balkan wars that might be of help.

I don't know most of what you're asking, but I can say with fair confidence that the best way the Ottomans could have done better in the First Balkan War would be to remove Greek superiority at sea. This prevented the Ottomans from dispatching planned reinforcements to the Balkans, resulting in gaping corps-sized holes in the order of battle.

Of course, given Ottoman mobilization inefficiencies, even this might not have made much difference. Those troops still might have arrived just in time to be swept up in defeat.

It would have helped somewhat if the Ottomans had remained on the tactical defensive, too. They wanted to fight envelopment battles in the German-theory style, but never appreciated that they lacked the troop-to-task ratios to carry it off. This resulted in inferior numbers of Ottoman troops attacking superior Bulgarian and Serbian forces, with a predictable outcome. The troops they squandered in their ill-considered attacks might have made some difference if they were used defensively, dug in and properly supported by artillery.

But if you want any real chance of an Ottoman win, you'd have to go back at least a decade and have the Ottomans initiating sweeping changes in manning, training, organization and logistics.

Italy in the decade before the war made some agreement with much of the powers that Libya was on her sphere of influence so they will agree in italian action.
During the war, well A-H or at least Conrad proposed to attack Italy to teach the italian a lesson (they don't like our meddling in their turf and frankly the man was pathological anti-italian) but was rebuffed due to the previous agreement still she basically acted as an Ottoman ally.
Germany, give some help at the Ottoman as their were cultivated as an client /ally.
An honorable settlement can be obtained with Giolitti accepting the Ottoman answer at the italian ultimatum who led to the war; basically the Porte offered at the italian goverment a Bosnia-like deal for Libya, formally she remain in the Ottoman Empire but it will be administrated by Italy, but Giolitti feel the need to avenge Adua and refused.
If he accept the war is averted and all are happy.

It was pretty easy to avoid the war. There was a pressing fear over whether the war will worth it. Had Italy sided with better judgement then it is avoided. This will save Ottomans quite a lot, from its already fragile position. It will saves them from financial lost, physical lost, more political troubles and, most importantly, Balkans guts, at least for the time being. Without the defeat the Balkan countries won't be encouraged to attack the empire immediately and will have to wait until the wind blows towards their favor. Perhaps TTL's WW1's Balkan issue will be about that. The entire Balkans will gang up on the empire, but without yet another push on the reset button on the empire's military build up and organization reform then she'll be more prepared to face it. Besides the Great War will most likely be delayed, too.

Tallil2long said:

But if you want any real chance of an Ottoman win, you'd have to go back at least a decade and have the Ottomans initiating sweeping changes in manning, training, organization and logistics.

Click to expand...

They have tried to do exactly this almost since the beginning of the 19th century, but it just wasn't that easy to do...

The only thing that failed Ottomans in Italo-Ottoman war was their inability to ship reinforcement to Libya, and the two things that failed them in the First Balkans war were the previous defeat and that the war came too early by several years. We can't say for certain the Balkan countries could've won had the war been delayed for at least 7-10 years.

The main obstacles to reform was money, breathing time, and occasional disasters at the worst times possible, in the reversed order. 1878 pushed restart button for military and economic modernization, and 1912 sent the empire into near bankruptcy and rendered her vulnerable to predation by opportunistic Balkan nations and ambitions of the great powers. Basically, just give her better luck to avoid her reform process getting setback all over again.

Shaby said:

They have tried to do exactly this almost since the beginning of the 19th century, but it just wasn't that easy to do...

Click to expand...

True. I suppose I should've said "succeed in sweeping reforms..."

But that would require other changes, since there were very potent factors working against successful reform OTL.

Tallil2long said:

It would have helped somewhat if the Ottomans had remained on the tactical defensive, too. They wanted to fight envelopment battles in the German-theory style, but never appreciated that they lacked the troop-to-task ratios to carry it off. This resulted in inferior numbers of Ottoman troops attacking superior Bulgarian and Serbian forces, with a predictable outcome. The troops they squandered in their ill-considered attacks might have made some difference if they were used defensively, dug in and properly supported by artillery.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty interesting thing I didn't know. Thanks.

Ridwan Asher said:

The only thing that failed Ottomans in Italo-Ottoman war was their inability to ship reinforcement to Libya,

Click to expand...

well yes, but this should have been obvious to the Ottomans prior to the outbrake of hostilities- it was a mistake not to settle a agreement with Italy (lets say the Ottomans sell Lybia and save face)

Ridwan Asher said:

and the two things that failed them in the First Balkans war were the previous defeat and that the war came too early by several years.
We can't say for certain the Balkan countries could've won had the war been delayed for at least 7-10 years.

The main obstacles to reform was money, breathing time, and occasional disasters at the worst times possible, in the reversed order. 1878 pushed restart button for military and economic modernization, and 1912 sent the empire into near bankruptcy and rendered her vulnerable to predation by opportunistic Balkan nations and ambitions of the great powers. Basically, just give her better luck to avoid her reform process getting setback all over again.

Click to expand...

The Balkans were far more important for the Ottomans than Lybia - so focussing on the Balkans would have been smarter.

well yes, but this should have been obvious to the Ottomans prior to the outbrake of hostilities- it was a mistake not to settle a agreement with Italy (lets say the Ottomans sell Lybia and save face)

Click to expand...

In fairness the Porte tried a last minute diplomatic move to do that, giving the administration to the italians but keeping the diplopatic fiction that Libya was still under Ottoman possession.
Unfortunely it was too late and Giolitti needed to avenge the humiliation of Adua (plus the faulty intelligence give him a wrong assestment of the military situation and the possible local support).
If the Ottoman had proposed to sell Libya before the utlimatum the entire will be averted, frankly the italian interest for the place was a very open secret as the diplomatic attempt to obtain the other great power ok for the conquest.

Kou Gakei said:

That's a pretty interesting thing I didn't know. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Remember though, victory wouldn't necessarily mean Ottomans would gain more then they would lost during this time of history. Previously in Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, Greece embarked on aggressive war and got utterly smashed, betraying the expectation of the great powers. The reward Ottomans received was having Crete taken from them and handed over to Greece due to the powers' intervention. Then again, this could make a precedent to look upon in a case of victory, which can potentially raise Ottoman credibility somewhat in the eyes of some of the powers, especially Germany, thus influencing the peace settlement.

Ridwan Asher said:

Remember though, victory wouldn't necessarily mean Ottomans would gain more then they would lost during this time of history.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You mean Ottoman will not necessarily lose less than in OTL?

Kou Gakei said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You mean Ottoman will not necessarily lose less than in OTL?

Click to expand...

While easy to avoid, that can be very well the case. Anti-islamic Christian fervor was a very potent factor upon European foreign policy and diplomacy during this period, and the whole "sickman" rhetoric served as a comfortable argument to either push for the dismantling of the empire or simply dismiss her credibility. Frankly, short of a universal chaos on the scale of WW1, Ottomans will sure to lose something once they get into a war, whether winning or losing, especially against Balkan Christian pet states, foremost of them Greece. Ottomans bitchslapped an unprovoked invasion by Greece in 1897 and then losing Crete as the result. European powers will not ignore any Christian Balkan desire for a slice of Ottoman meat as long as they can afford to grant them. Doing otherwise will be a bad PR at the very least.

An impressive performance against Balkan league after previous lost in Libya will perhaps attract some of the powers, most likely Germany and A-H, to intervene in Ottoman favor, thus minimizing the loss. But Ottomans will lose something or another the slightest moment they get exposed. Europe as whole, progressively moved towards dismantling the empire, and that was a fact of life. That's why today's Turkey is so paranoid about secession and territorial lost in general, which was always followed by ethnic cleansing and adding more refugees into Ottoman/Turkish territory.

I am reading two books published in 1912 (before the war was over) and 1913.

Some Problems of the Ottoman-Italian War, which was written by a British international lawyer...

...and...

With the Italians in Tripoli, written by a British newspaper war correspondent.

Both had a heavily anti-Italian, pro-Ottoman slant, both about jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

I do not know if this was indicative of general British opinion.

If it was, it is kind of ironic considering that in 1895 Britain was the most anti-Ottoman power and it was urging Italy to join it in an attack on the Ottomans.

From the limited sample of what I've read on it, it seems to me that even if the foreign offices of the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance powers accepted the idea of Italian-controlled Tripoli, their public opinions thought actually going to war with such braggadocio and cruelty was "very bad form" at the least.

The main problem for the Ottoman's is that her once great fleet had been allowed to rot to nothing.

This was the result of Sultan Abdul Hamid's decision to disarm his navy after it had revolted against him.

As for the positions of the powers, no one liked Italy but no one saw a fight with Italy in their interests. Everyone had pretty much told Italy that they wouldn't resist an Italian attack on Tripoli

In regards to the Balkan states- pay close attention to Romania's position. Unlike the other Balkan states, she had no real territorial ambitions towards the Ottomans and the agreements among the Balkan states have clauses about what to do if Romania sides with the Ottomans.

In OTL, Romania stays neutral in the First Balkan War but intervenes against Bulgaria in the Second. It appears that Romania feared a growing Bulgaria as much as the Ottomans

I recall reading that the whole siege of Tripoli part was not very popular in Italy, and I think it was referred to as a 'black hole' like Calcutta.

Italy won the war but still had to win the peace against the Senussi in Cyrenaica

In the Balkans, there was a race between Bulgaria and Greece to get to Salonika first, with the assumption that whoever did would get to keep it. Greece did and did, but Bulgaria could have and thus would have come out of the war better than OTL

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The French had some gripes, and the seizure of two French mail steamers which had some Turks aboard did not endear Italy to France; in fact, some in the French press called for outright war over the seizures. Nothing came of it, and the French government was hardly enthusiastic about the idea, but I suppose it might serve as a POD.

cpip

The French had some gripes, and the seizure of two French mail steamers which had some Turks aboard did not endear Italy to France; in fact, some in the French press called for outright war over the seizures. Nothing came of it, and the French government was hardly enthusiastic about the idea, but I suppose it might serve as a POD.

Click to expand...

The Germans had some gripes too. One of their native consulate employees was arrested and executed by the Italians, in trial that all the war correspondents agreed was a kangaroo court.

Ridwan Asher points to an interesting possible future:

It was pretty easy to avoid the war. There was a pressing fear over whether the war will worth it. Had Italy sided with better judgement then it is avoided. This will save Ottomans quite a lot, from its already fragile position. It will saves them from financial lost, physical lost, more political troubles and, most importantly, Balkans guts, at least for the time being. Without the defeat the Balkan countries won't be encouraged to attack the empire immediately and will have to wait until the wind blows towards their favor. Perhaps TTL's WW1's Balkan issue will be about that. The entire Balkans will gang up on the empire, but without yet another push on the reset button on the empire's military build up and organization reform then she'll be more prepared to face it. Besides the Great War will most likely be delayed, too.

Click to expand...

So, if this is settled by an Italo-Ottoman peaceful transfer deal, the most probable result is the Balkan League does not attack the Ottomans for several years (at least two years).

This changes the last few crises which in OTL preceded the Great War.

Odds then favor the Great War not starting in 1914 as in OTL. However, it does not guarantee it. The Bosnian crisis of 1908-1909 has left scars in Austro-German vs. Serbo-Russian relations. A touring Archduke being assassinated by a Serb nationalist, even perhaps in 1914, is not an implausible event.

In the even of an ATL assassination, Austria-Hungary could well have more patience with the Serbs as Serbia has not just been seen on a winning streak in two wars doubling its territory and population.

On the other hand, Austria-Hungary could well decide to smash Serbia, and Germany could endorse that course of action.

A 1914 WWI (and probably even a 1915 one) starting with the Balkan borders as they were in early 1912, would seem advantageous for the Central Powers. The Austro-Hungarians don't have the same distance to cover to occupy Serbia, the Serbs have less battle experience, and once defeated the Serbs do not have an escape route, because it is barred by the Ottomans.

The Ottomans can still join the Central Powers (although the proximate motives and excuses would be different from OTL) and that would make this all very bad for the Entente strategically. On the one hand, the Ottomans, not having fought three wars in succession, will be less desperate for an alliance. On the other hand, the Germans and Austro-Hungarians will have more military respect for them, and pursue them more diligently.

Also, an Italy that occupies Tripoli without an Ottoman War will have one less occasion to build up bad blood with the Austro-Hungarians, leaving them a little more favorable to the Central Powers. On the other hand, who knows what happens to Giolitti and Italian nationalism if he does not satiate belligerent opinion with a successful war? Perhaps Italian focus on Austrian occupied irredenta would intensify earlier without the Italian people confronting any real costs of war in 1911-1912. Italy would be budgetarily in a better position to choose sides and join the war in its first year. Odds would still favor them joining the Entente even in the ATL.

Italy cried foul over the Bosnia annexation as a violation of article 7 of the Triple Alliance, arguing that they did not receive due compensation. What did they see as due compensation for the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia, the Italia Irredenta, or their own slice of the Balkans, like Albania?

ARTICLE 7. Austria-Hungary and Italy, having in mind only the maintenance, so far as possible, of the territorial status quo in the Orient, engage to use their influence to forestall any territorial modification which might be injurious to one or the other of the Powers signatory to the present Treaty.

To this end, they shall communicate to one another all information of a nature to enlighten each other mutually concerning their own dispositions, as well as those of other Powers. However, if, in the course of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the regions of the Balkans or of the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic and in the Aegean Sea should become impossible, and if, whether in consequence of the action of a third Power or otherwise, Austria-Hungary or Italy should find themselves under the necessity of modifying it by a temporary or permanent occupation on their part, this occupation shall take place only after a previous agreement between the two Powers, based upon the principle of a reciprocal compensation for every advantage, territorial or other, which each of them might obtain beyond the present status quo, and giving satisfaction to the interests and well founded claims of the two Parties.

Click to expand...