WI: Romania invades Turkey in 1935

Techathon

Ok, there was no actual threat to invade that I know of or anything, this is just an Idea I had while thinking one day. What if Romania invades Turkey in June 1935? More importantly, what would it take and affect?

I thought that It would start with a bombing and shelling Istanbul and it would fall soon after. I then thought that they could capture some cities around the Aegean Sea by about August, and then Turkey would surrender in December of 1935 and they would still keep about 1/2 of their land.

Would Romania be able to do this? I couldn't find any pre-WWII military numbers with both of these countries. Would they have a powerful enough military to launch an invasion against another nation within a few years? Could they end up making a unified Balkan state? Would they be strong enough to fight WWII? What do yall think?
 

Zajir

civfanatic said:
Oops, ok what if it was a Sea invasion
Click to expand...

Romania didn't have nearly eanough naval capacity to actually land troops in Turkey and has no reason to actually invade, infact in the interwar period relations between Romania and Turkey were pretty good, both were members of the Balkan entente, also Romania had a small fleet with few landing craft, no possibility of supply and the Turkish army was by far larger not to mention that the costal batteries that Turkey had would smash the rather old Romanian fleet.
 

Techathon

Ok, thanks. Did Bulgaria have a large enough army to invade? and how were Romania and Bulgaria's relationship?
 

Slowpoke

IIRC, Turkey was pretty much the only country who didn't say "whatevs' I'm outta here" when the Soviets came a-knockin'.
 

Slowpoke

civfanatic said:
Ok, thanks. Did Bulgaria have a large enough army to invade? and how were Romania and Bulgaria's relationship?
Click to expand...
Bulgaria had a considerably weaker army. And its Danube Navy was pretty bad, too, compared to the Romanian one.

As for the relationship, well, it was rather crappy, but not nearly as bad as the 1913-period. I mean, it was nowhere near as bad as Romania's relationship with Greece.
 

cbr

Slowpoke said:
Why? I mean what for, to what end?
Click to expand...

This.

There really isn't any reason for them to invade Bulgaria, that said you might be able to induce a war by having them in different alliances, possibly Hungary-Bulgaria vs Romania-Yugoslavia.

I'm thinking war starts from Hungarian claims over Vojevodina and Transylvania, you can add the Czech to that also, since Hungary had claims on Slovakia, something like the 1919-1920 Romanian-Hungarian War, but I can't see any non ASB outcome except a Romanian-Yugoslavian victory.

EDIT: Hmm, on second thought, you might also be able to add Italy to the mix, Italy-Hungary-Bulgaria vs Romanian-Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia, it's unclear if Greece will pick a side, but Turkey might invade Bulgaria.
 

Slowpoke

`

Hmm, a rematch might be vaguely plausible reason, but I don't really think it'll work in the end.

For starters, Italy-Hungary is stillborn. The interests of the Italians and the Hungarians in the Dalmatic Coast are strictly opposed. The Italians had pissed themselves with joyous laughter when they saw the Hungarians cut off from the Med (then vomited poison after realising they weren't getting those ports either). I can see them maybe perform a sneak attack on a war tired Yugoslavia after Hungary gets thoroughly beaten, but no more.

Greece and Romania have atrociously bad relations, due to the whole A'rmneash' problem (in fact, the only reason Romania hadn't DoWd Greece was because they simply couldn't get to each others' throats). However, Bulgaria and Greece again have strictly competing interests in the Balkan area, so they'll probably sit this one out (teeth gnashing). I don't really see them teaming up with the Turks to beat up Bulgaria, but, who knows.

Turkey will join Romania and make a move on the Bulgarians. That much is to be expected. What will happen between them and the Greeks is unknown; the variables are too complex. They both want to bruise the Bulgars, but also have major problems with each other.

Czechoslovakia will uphold its end of the treaty and attack Hungary. Theirs is the simplest case.

Looking back over all of this, I'd say it's pretty obvious why there never was a Third Balkan (or Centro-European-Balkan) war. It was simply too much of a headache for most of the would-be involved. It would have made the alliance system that led to the Great War look like NATO.
 

cbr

I'm not so sure an Italian-Hungarian alliance is as DoA as you make it seem. Certainly it would be temporary, but not impossible. My thinking is... the hungarians know they can't win vs Romania-Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia with only Bulgaria as allies, the hungarian army would be fighting a 3 front war and if Turkey attacks Bulgaria they will be fighting a 3 front war also.

Say Horty and Mussolini agree that Hungary would get Transylvania, Vojevodina and Slovakia, but Hungary will give up all claims to the Dalmatian coast in favor of Italy.

That's a lot of territory Hungary would get and without italian help they would almost certainly never even get close to, it's simply a "something is better than nothing".

Even so, I'm pretty sure Italy-Hungary-Bulgaria would lose, or more likely Bulgaria and Hungary would lose and Italy perhaps be given something in Dalmatia and Yugoslavia gets parts of Hungary in return for those, I'm not sure how a peace treaty would look like in a Hungary-Bulgaria defeat and an Italy losing but not defeated situation.
 

Slowpoke

Except, of course, that every promise the Italians make is hollow, and the Hungarians know it. The Italians have no way of touching the Czechoslovaks, who will be focusing their undivided attention on Hungary. They have no means of reaching Romania either, since the Turks will butcher them if they try to force the Straits. They might even attract some undue attention from the Greeks, paranoid as ever of anybody not them playing around in what they perceive as their backyard. The last time Hungary alone exchanged pleasantries with Romania and Czechoslovakia they didn't get off lightly.

Bulgaria doesn't stand much better either. Their Danube Fleet's strength was practically halved after the War (budget constraints), whereas the Romanian Danube Arm doubled in size (IIRC they looted a former Imperial naval base during 1919-1920). Bulgaria had two ironclads and a handful of wooden patrol boats, while the Romanians had seven ironclads, several tens of armoured vedettes (minelaying-capable) and a smattering of auxiliary ships (self-propelled artillery pontoons, et caetera). Magic 8-ball sez: Another Turtukaya Bridgehead - highly improbable.
 
Last edited:

Spatharios

Greece and Romania have atrociously bad relations
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Sure, Greek and Romanian nationalisms have competed over who "owns" the Vlachs/Aromanians (this is the Balkans, after all), but their relations were always rather good, especially given that after the Balkan Wars and WW1 they shared a common desire: keeping Bulgarian revanchism in check.
Regarding the premise of this thread, Romania, Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia had formed the Balkan Pact precisely to preserve the post-WW1 territorial status quo in the Balkans. As for Bulgaria, in 1935 they had barely begun rearming again, and with their army still under the post-war restrictions, they were not in a shape to fight anyone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top