Bulgaria Neutral WW2

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

First thing, we're talking about 1942, not 1943; it was mid-1942 when a small US bomber force attacked Ploesti the first time.

The HALPRO raid was almost completely ineffective (more bombs landed in the Black Sea than at Ploiesti). The Allies did not bomb Ploiesti again until TIDAL WAVE on 1 August 1943.

So - if there was similar operation ITTL, Germany would push Bulgaria to protest, which they probably would anyway. Would Germany really force Bulgaria to declare war because of the pinprick of HALPRO? Would the Allies risk forcing Bulgaria into the Axis in order to repeat the HALPRO fiasco?

In both cases, I doubt it.

Or the Bulgarians could indeed try and tackle the Allied bombers - which would bring the Bulgarians on the Allies' black list anyway.

The Allies would have no right to complain about Bulgarian planes defending their own country's airspace. They would be clearly and unmistakably in the wrong by all the laws of war.

Maybe they would take this course. But it would not be until they had the strength to inflict a major blow - which means mid-1943 at the earliest. I'll further note that TIDAL WAVE was flown by day, beyond fighter range; while it inflicted substantial damage, the losses were horrific. The Allies did not attack Ploiesti again tlll 5 April 1944.

Given all the difficulties of attacking Ploiesti, the limited effects of the attacks, and the diplomatic headaches entailed, I find it implausible that the Allies would commit to a sustained air campaign against Ploiesti while Bulgaria, Greece, and Yugoslavia are neutral.

 

[Dementor]

Yugoslavia in OTL had rapidly 3 main events:
1-joins axis under pressure( also fearing invasion, because Benny desired Slovenia and Dalmatia)
2-instantly after joining the axis, people insurrection, and the cabinet deposes prince Paul, put peter 2 as king(27 march)
3- April 6 Yugoslavia invaded and Belgrade bombed, partition of Yugoslavia.

1 thing @Michele said right is that Hitler cared a little about the Balkans, but until Benito did not start the Greek war he ignored it as less important

I think in this scenario he would still put pressure on Yugoslavia and focus on make them join just to be sure of having the strongest and most populated nations of the Balkans( Romania and Yugo) on his side leaving 2 semi pro axis nation neutral( Bulgaria grateful for dobruja and Greece semi fascist with Metaxas).

I don't see why Hitler would do this. He had no such demands until Greece was invaded and the decision was made to send German troops through Bulgaria, which made it necessary (in German eyes) to secure the flank of their advance by getting Yugoslavia in the Axis. Without this necessity, Yugoslavia's pro-German neutrality was sufficient. In addition, Yugoslavia's position was far too exposed with Greece being neutral, so being neutral and friendly to Germany was in their own interests as well.

p.s. happy to see a fellow Bulgarian here

Likewise

 

[gurgu]

I don't see why Hitler would do this. He had no such demands until Greece was invaded and the decision was made to send German troops through Bulgaria, which made it necessary (in German eyes) to secure the flank of their advance by getting Yugoslavia in the Axis. Without this necessity, Yugoslavia's pro-German neutrality was sufficient. In addition, Yugoslavia's position was far too exposed with Greece being neutral, so being neutral and friendly to Germany was in their own interests as well.

Ok, now the difficult part.
does bulgaria suffer the 50 years of communism or is saved by beeing neutral or join allies in the last moment hoping to take something from romania?( some dobruja coast?)

 

[Michele]

The HALPRO raid was almost completely ineffective (more bombs landed in the Black Sea than at Ploiesti). The Allies did not bomb Ploiesti again until TIDAL WAVE on 1 August 1943.

So - if there was similar operation ITTL, Germany would push Bulgaria to protest, which they probably would anyway. Would Germany really force Bulgaria to declare war because of the pinprick of HALPRO? Would the Allies risk forcing Bulgaria into the Axis in order to repeat the HALPRO fiasco?

Halpro was a pinprick - yet it brought Germany to multiply the Ploesti air defenses tenfold. Note how the Germans, who were already selling second-line fighters to the Romanians, also decided to grant IAR a license for building Bf 109s. In OTL, BUlgaria, too, was equipped by Germany both when it was neutral and, later, when it was an Axis member. Tidal wave was, in OTL, engaged by Bulgarian fighters, too. This goes to show that an in-depth air defense of the main oil source of the Axis was a good thing for the Axis, and I suspect the clues are there that the Germans knew that and wanted that.

On top of that, the changes in this TL are momentous. Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria neutral - while the interest of the OP is on the Balkans, this goes way beyond that region. It means the British have too much time on their hands and too many idle bombers. They are not fighting to keep Egypt and then to boot the Axis from North Africa, they are not losing a campaign in Greece.
And, in OTL, they are the ones who came up with the planned Operation Pike, the ones who had plans for attacking Ploesti even before Halpro.

The British, most importantly, were the ones who pushed the envelope with neutrals when they thought it would help their side. The Germans beat them to the landings in Norway by a few hours. They were behind the Yugoslavian coup. They landed in Iceland not so much because the Germans were in Denmark but because they needed it as a base. They disabused the Iraqis of the notion that they could do what they wanted, and they collaborated with the Soviets in occupying Iran. And they were in Syria because they did not think much of the technical neutrality of Vichy France. Oh, and they bombed Finland while not being at war with the Finns. They carried out a thinly veiled military operation in neutral Goa. They repeatedly violated Swiss airspace. I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

The British also are the guys who always like peripheral strategies and supply war strategies.

In short, they would have no qualms about violating a neutral country's rights, and they would be willing to meddle with it. Destabilize it, if there's a pro-Allied party inside it and it seems the country veers to the Axis. Support it, including with money and with questionable promises, if it seems it turns down Axis demands. And, possibly, play some dirty trick.

On the other hand, you have the Germans. I don't think I need to recap their track record with neutrals who displeased them or who just happened to be astride their course.

 

[gurgu]

On top of that, the changes in this TL are momentous. Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria neutral - while the interest of the OP is on the Balkans, this goes way beyond that region. It means the British have too much time on their hands and too many idle bombers. They are not fighting to keep Egypt and then to boot the Axis from North Africa, they are not losing a campaign in Greece.
And, in OTL, they are the ones who came up with the planned Operation Pike, the ones who had plans for attacking Ploesti even before Halpro.

Actually if italy doesn't engaged Greece could send more supplies and forces in Africa, so they might be able to hold on even longer while Adolf is busy in Russia.

 

[Snowstalker]

Bulgaria could survive IMO as a neutral who obeyed Germany when asked, like Sweden. After the end of the war they would almost certainly join NATO and form an important bulwark for the West, probably getting a couple American bases.

E: rethinking the second part of this. Bulgaria had rather cordial relations with the USSR despite being a right-wing autocracy, and probably also wouldn't want to be on the front lines of World War III. Perhaps a Finlandized neutral?

 

[Dementor]

Ok, now the difficult part.
does bulgaria suffer the 50 years of communism or is saved by beeing neutral or join allies in the last moment hoping to take something from romania?( some dobruja coast?)

As I wrote in an earlier thread, the Soviets would almost certainly not invade a neutral Bulgaria, so no Communist rule. As for gaining any territory from Romania, this is very unlikely. Romania would still be a Soviet satellite state in this scenario and so would not permit loss of territory to a country not also allied with the Soviets.

 

[gurgu]

As I wrote in an earlier thread, the Soviets would almost certainly not invade a neutral Bulgaria, so no Communist rule. As for gaining any territory from Romania, this is very unlikely. Romania would still be a Soviet satellite state in this scenario and so would not permit loss of territory to a country not also allied with the Soviets.

hoped for a full Danube northern border.

 

[Dementor]

hoped for a full Danube northern border.

By that time Northern Dobruja was overwhelmingly Romanian and after the 1940 population the Romanians were close to 400 thousand. Not a very good idea.

 

[Nick P]

The Allies would have no right to complain about Bulgarian planes defending their own country's airspace. They would be clearly and unmistakably in the wrong by all the laws of war.

It's the same as Switzerland. The Swiss Air Force and Army shot down around 10 Allied bombers over Swiss territory during WW2 and warned off many more during the raids. 137 Allied planes made emergency landings there rather than risk flying while damaged back the the UK.
The most the Allied diplomats could do was explain the possibility of "further navigational errors" if the prison warden continued to mistreat the captured aircrew. After the war the US paid out compensation for the damage caused by their bombs dropped on Switzerland.

The situation would be different from OTL if Bulgaria remained neutral and had POW camps. I still think the Red Army would find a reason for invading in 1945 or at least parking an army at the border and loudly demanding a new government.

 

[gurgu]

By that time Northern Dobruja was overwhelmingly Romanian and after the 1940 population the Romanians were close to 400 thousand. Not a very good idea.

I've read the thread you linked, in my opinion Boris 3 would certainly live at least few years more, Hitler would not have any reason to kill him, so Simeon 2 might be less jerk as OTL. The monarchy would certainly survive but after Boris death it would start going toward a British model were the king is basically a figure head( maybe veto powers? and possibility to force prime minister leave).

About the Yugoslavian collapse: in TTL no Tito, means that Yugoslavia as well would be a monarchy; it will explode anyway but there might be a problem about seizing macedonia: if bulgaria is having a better economy, what does it stop from joining the EU in the 80's? if that happens they have to gain support from EU and USA to enforce the annexation of Macedonia( if there are some rare resources no problem but i don't think so)

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria neutral...

Wrong TL...

pod: Benito listens to Hitler and doesn't act like a envious child so he just avoids engaging Greece...

So Italy is not neutral. Yes, Britain has less to do: no Greece/Crete campaign.

And yes, there may be no Iraq or Syria campaigns.

The Iraqi move against British forces began on 30 April, after the Axis had just overrun Yugoslavia and Greece, and the Golden Square faction expected direct Axis support. OTOH the conflict between the Golden Square and Britain had been festering for weeks. The GS regime seized power on 1 April, but Britain refused to recognize it. The Iraqis moved against the British expecting them to give up and withdraw, and before the fall of Crete. OYAH, the news from Greece (and Libya) may have led them to think that the British position in the whole region was collapsing.

As to Syria: the British moved in after the Vichy French in Syria violated neutrality by assisting Axis planes en route to Iraq. Even if the Iraqi rebellion happens, would the Axis still send those aircraft? It's a much longer reach out than OTL, ISTM. Also, without the Axis victory in Greece, would the French in Syria be as willing to help?

However, the Iraq/Syria campaign lasted only 2 1/2 months and didn't involve any major commitment of heavy bombers. So I can't see the British bombing Ploiesti to make work for idle planes just because that campaign doesn't happen.