Plausibility Check: Second Balkan War escalates into world war

Chris Oakley

Chris Oakley

Banned
Last night I was perusing Wikipedia and I came across an article about Romania being a participant in the Second Balkan War(June-August 1913). After a while I got to thinking: could the conflict have escalated into a world war, and if so what would it have taken to bring that about?

So now I'd like to broach the question to my fellow AH'ers and get their take on the plausibility or implausibility of the Second Balkan War mushrooming into a global conflict(or at least one that involves a non-Balkan European country as a major combatant).
 

cpip

Polemarchos said:
If James Blunt hadn't been a voice of reason, we might have had WW3 in our lifetimeshttp://fabulousbuzz.com/2010/11/17/james-blunt-stopped-world-war-3/
Click to expand...

That's quite fascinating (presuming the facts are entirely as Blunt would have us believe) but what does that have to do with the events of 1913?
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
At this point, the Balkans were a powder-keg waiting for a spark, as happened in 1914.

Just pick one option from each list:

"The unspeakable [Serbs / Croats / Slovenes / Bosnians / Bulgars / Roumanians / Turks / Albanians / Macedonians / Greeks] have killed our beloved [Emperor / King / Prince / Princess / President / Prime Minister / Ambassador]. The patient and peace-loving people of [Britain / France / Germany / Austria-Hungary / Russia / Italy] have most reluctantly been forced to mobilize our armed forces against this intolerable threat to the peace of Europe."

The 1914 options were: Serbs, Prince, Austria-Hungary
 

Halagaz

It's not very likely. At the time, Germany supported Romania and considered it quite important, and also had little to nothing against Serbia. Meanwhile Austria's relations with Serbia were frosty and relations with Romania slowly going the same way. Vienna considered joining the war on Bulgaria's side, but even if it manages to overcome internal opposition to that idea (Franz Ferdinand), Germany won't allow it to happen, because of her interest in Romania among other things. Faced with Germany's refusal even the most staunchly pro-war Austrian statesman won't have much of a choice.
 

Falecius

Halagaz said:
It's not very likely. At the time, Germany supported Romania and considered it quite important, and also had little to nothing against Serbia. Meanwhile Austria's relations with Serbia were frosty and relations with Romania slowly going the same way. Vienna considered joining the war on Bulgaria's side, but even if it manages to overcome internal opposition to that idea (Franz Ferdinand), Germany won't allow it to happen, because of her interest in Romania among other things. Faced with Germany's refusal even the most staunchly pro-war Austrian statesman won't have much of a choice.
Click to expand...

Germany, however, supported Austria over Albania (as did Italy, more or less). It is possible for something to go wrong there (Montenegro not backing down over Scutari, for example).
Interestingly, in case a general war emerges for this, it would probably have Italy (Romania is interesting here; might go either way I guess) against the Entente form the start. That would make for a fairly different war.
 

Halagaz

Falecius said:
Germany, however, supported Austria over Albania (as did Italy, more or less). It is possible for something to go wrong there (Montenegro not backing down over Scutari, for example).
Click to expand...

The Scutari crisis does have a better chance of starting a huge conflict than the Second Balkan War. Of course, it was resolved before the start of the war and not a part of the war itself, so it's a slightly different kettle of fish.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Its unlikely- the Great powers had very little interest in going to war over what spoils went to which Balkan power. They all had interests but they aren't the ones likely to go to the mat on

The First Balkan War is more likely- the threat to the Straits is not something the Russians would tolerate. Italy and Austria might object to a Russian seizure of them

The alliance system generally served to keep things in check and most of the leaders were very much opposed to war- unfortunately, Franz Joseph was an exception
 
Chris Oakley

Chris Oakley

Banned
J.D.Ward said:
At this point, the Balkans were a powder-keg waiting for a spark, as happened in 1914.

Just pick one option from each list:

"The unspeakable [Serbs / Croats / Slovenes / Bosnians / Bulgars / Roumanians / Turks / Albanians / Macedonians / Greeks] have killed our beloved [Emperor / King / Prince / Princess / President / Prime Minister / Ambassador]. The patient and peace-loving people of [Britain / France / Germany / Austria-Hungary / Russia / Italy] have most reluctantly been forced to mobilize our armed forces against this intolerable threat to the peace of Europe."
Click to expand...

Powder keg waiting for a spark, indeed. :eek:
 

nbcman

Donor
The Second Balkan war featured Bulgaria trying to gain more territory than it was granted after the First Balkan War which resulted in all adjacent countries fighting Bulgaria. Bulgaria's actions alienated Russia leading to their breaking their alliance. It is more likely that Bulgaria would be dismembered fully than a major power (AH) to enter / broaden the war.
 
Chris Oakley

Chris Oakley

Banned
And if Bulgaria isn't dismembered but chooses instead to put up a fierce resistance to the division of its territory, what then?
 

nbcman

Donor
Chris Oakley said:
And if Bulgaria isn't dismembered but chooses instead to put up a fierce resistance to the division of its territory, what then?
Click to expand...

As virtually all of Bulgaria's army was facing the Serbs & Greeks, there was nothing to fiercely resist with.

They didn't have much of a fierce resistance after the Romanians and Ottomans invaded. The Romanians suffered no combat casualties and almost entered the Bulgarian capital by the time an armistice was declared. The Ottomans also took no combat casualties against no Bulgarian resistance.

If the Bulgarians tried to hold out longer, I think Ferdinand would have been deposed for leading Bulgaria to ruin and some other Bulgarian monarch would agree to terms.
 

ghappy1000

Has anybody considered the Ottoman stance? Then, the Russian and British Empires have more profitable gains and significance than Edirne, Greek islands, Italian Africa, Albania and Bosnia [the last going to be sent to new Balkan states anyway].

In the event the scenario [Second Balkan War turns into World War I] occurs, what would be the Ottoman stance? Russia and Britain are bigger imperial threats to the Ottomans with more profitable gains from than the Italian Empire, Greece and Bulgaria [with Bosnia being too far away and inevitably going to Serbia anyway].
 
Chris Oakley

Chris Oakley

Banned
ghappy1000 said:
Has anybody considered the Ottoman stance? Then, the Russian and British Empires have more profitable gains and significance than Edirne, Greek islands, Italian Africa, Albania and Bosnia [the last going to be sent to new Balkan states anyway].
Click to expand...

The Ottomans would likely have fought Russia. Don't forget the Ottoman and Russian empires went to war at least once in the 18th century, and OTL Turkey was opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
 

zert

Lots of more blood will be spilled.

In this case might the UK and Empire stay out of the mayhem?
 

Tallil2long

Sure.
Start with an early POD, which results in secret commitments between Bulgaria and Russia (secret agreements were not uncommon).

When Bulgaria starts getting clobbered and Sofia is threatened by Romania, the terms activate. Russia mobilizes against Romania.

Austria-Hungary realizes that Russian influence is about to grow much stronger in their neighborhood. Germany fears for her ally. Serbia, Greece and the Ottomans feel threatened. Great Britain smells a Russian advance to the Strait, and has chronic fears for India. France has obligations to Russia under some circumstances. The Anglo-French relationship is not yet of the strongest. The conviction that late mobilization means defeat, while mobilization itself means war, is current.

I think one could construct a plausible course of events that would result in a Great War under these conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top