3rd Balkan War: Alternative Balkan Alignments in WWI

As we all no, the years leading up to The Great War saw the Balkans no stranger to conflict: having seen the 1st and 2nd Balkan wars in quick succession which lead to a great deal of resentment between governments, territorial disputes, ethnic terrorism, and a well out of proportion militerization of the region. Given all these tensions, its no surprise that despite their initial neutrality every country in the area ended up being brought/bribed into joining the war on one side or another. However, the alliances we ended up with weren't the only possibilities, and a different arrangement of players could have some rather big knock-on effects to the broader war... or at the very least the division of spoils in the following peace.

Here's a quick run-down of our protagonists, at least as far as I understand them.

Serbia & Montenegro: Well, they're kind of part of the Entente by nessecity. No amount of butterflies can produce a CP Serbia in a Great War that's even vaguely recognizable as our own.

Bulgaria: The most resentful and generally surely of the bunch. Had claims on Serbia, Romania, Greece, and the OE and a huge refugee population pushing for Revachism so they could have their homes back. However, relationships with the OE were mended he quickest and Greece and Romania considered the "Thieving Allies", meaning they're more likely to align alongside the former than against her and more likely to join against the later two if they join the war first. Considered "The Prussia of the Balkans", she has one of the better-quality regional armies.

Romania: Secretly part of the Triple Alliance, the Romanian Monarchy is at least intially pro-CP though the opinion of the government is more nuanced. Has claims on both A-H and Russia, but is more emotionally attached to the former. Army is large, but poorly equip.

Greece: Government and population are deeply split: The Monarchy, General Staff, Orthodox Church, and "Old Greece" in general are more pro-CP or at least pro-neutrality, while more liberal factions favor the Entente. Has large claims on OE and reason to worry about Bulgaria, as well as some issues they want settled in their favor in Albania. Army is also highly politicized, and might not be dependable

Ottoman Empire: Still recovering from a long string of coups and losing wars. The largest of all the Balkan powers, but also the least focused on the Balkans in general in the event of joining the CP. Government is generally Pro-German, but not irreconcilably so depending on what the Entente is willing to offer (Accepting an abolition of Capulations or at least some debt forgiveness? Guarantee of security?). Controls the Bosporus, which is of major strategic importance to keeping commerce flowing between Russia and the Western Entente. Concerned about too much Russian power and has claims on the UK and (viably) in the Balkans.


So, my fellow AH afficinados, what kinds of scenarios/matchups could we see here? How do you believe a shift in the dynamics of the Balkan front will affect the wider war?
 
A few potential combinations for your consideration:

1. "Hail Germania", or the best case scenario for the CP: Bulgaria, The Ottomans, and Romania all willingly join the CP. Most likely, I'd say a CP Romania is more likely the earlier on into the conflict we get: the greater the strain on A-H and the more time the Entente has to ply them with promises, and the longer they've broken off from King Carol I's policies, the harder it is to get a Romanian entry which has any real impact for the CP. Greece is also a co-belligerent, based on a botched execution of the Salonika intervention or a failed Entente-backed coup that turns the wider populace and Greek Nationalists against them.

2. As above, but Greece either remains neutral or is brow-beaten into joining the Entente

3. "San Stefano", or the Entente Bulgaria option. Bulgaria manages to be bribed by offers to Turkish Thrace, Dobruja, Greek Macedonia, or some combination thereof (Presumably, those other nations are part of the CP), as they're seen as having the best army in the area on offer. For the sake of simplicity, nations holding territory they aren't going to be bribed with are presumed neutral.

4. "Old Britsh Priorities", or an Entente Ottomans option. Somehow, the Turks are brought into the war on the Entente's side, probably due to promise of territory in the Balkans or financial recompense/ loan forgiveness. Presumably only likely in the event that Greece or Bulgaria has already joined the CP.

5. As above, but the Turks merely stay neutral rather than joining the Entente. Shipping between Russia and GB/France is allowed to pass through the straits, though, and Turkey guards her waters jealously to what extent she can from raider activity. For the sake of simplicity, Germany and A-H accept this so as not to draw the Turks into the Entente camp.

6. The "Hail Britannia", or the best case scenario for the Entente: The OE, Greece, and Romania all join the Entente (Bulgaria is at best neutral, at worst attacked on multiple sides and quickly overtake in a similarly crushing defeat as Romania IOTL).

Other combinations are of course possible.
 
The war begins with Russian pre-mobilization as A-H pursues the ultimatum versus Serbia. Franco-Russian support for Serbia emboldens them and prior diplomacy has shifted Germany away from any consideration of violating Belgian neutrality. The war begins with Germany defending West with half its forces, preemptively attacking East with the remainder. Serbia is invaded as A-H seeks to defend East versus Russia. The Russians are dealt a severe set back in East Prussia by two German armies and a third German army strikes into Congress Poland, the Russian offensive versus A-H is a false start.

Now it is choose your own adventure. One, the UK goes to war on the side of the Entente. Or two, they remain neutral.

In one the war expands and the Balkans becomes the best alternative to a stalemated Western Front and to give Russia the support it needs. Now we need to consider option three, Italy goes neutral and opts out of the Triple Alliance. This looks like OTL, but with the war more obviously unwinnable in the West yet going well for the CP in the East it might open Romania to joining against Russia. Thus the variations would be Greece or Romania joining the CP rather than going Entente. Perhaps better chances for a neutral OE too. I think Bulgaria stays neutral unless Greece and Romania join the CP and OE goes neutral, then you open them to joining the Entente.

In two the wildcard is again Italy, option four it stays with the Triple Alliance or option five it supports its partners but wiggles out of belligerency. This should keep the war more circumscribed. It will be France making the bribes. Romania was culturally in favor of France and Greece was strongly tied too, the OE seems to have the least affinity for the French and should be wary of a Russian victory. But here the OE has its own choices. Does the UK release its completed battleship? Do the Greeks intercept it? If so then Greece is by default an Entente power and drives the OE into the CP camp, at least as another belligerent. This puts the UK into a genuine bind as a neutral. I think Bulgaria is still a wildcard but it might use this to take more Macedonia from Greece. Here the Balkans might become a sort of separate war in the war.

So yes, I think you can reshuffle these actors. One can argue that obvious German victory or impending Russian defeat will sway the lesser powers one way or the other. I think they followed their selfish interests OTL and some bet better than others, but like OTL the winnings might not be worth the wager.
 
Depends on how the fighting goes. The major consideration in picking an alliance is who will win. A German victory on the Marne and all of them are joining the CPs. A Russian victory at Tannenberg and most will join the Entente. Assuming the fighting goes Otl until a change in intervention

Going in order- the Ottomans. They are rather easy to get on the Entente side or at least neutral which serves the Entente. Simply offer them more money and agree to end the captiulations. A million pounds a month plus forgiveness of all debt at the end of the war (it would come from the indemnity) would be a very tempting offer

With the Ottomans out, the Russians are going to do a lot better. No Caucus front, the Black Sea open and therefore no Great Retreat

Romania- barring a major CP victory wave, nothing will get them to the CP. King Carol is the only real link and he's dead in October. If the Russians avoid the Gorlice-Tarnow disaster, Romania is joining about the same time Italy does. This pretty much ends the CP. Bulgaria and Greece never get a chance to intervene
 
The war begins with Russian pre-mobilization as A-H pursues the ultimatum versus Serbia. Franco-Russian support for Serbia emboldens them and prior diplomacy has shifted Germany away from any consideration of violating Belgian neutrality. The war begins with Germany defending West with half its forces, preemptively attacking East with the remainder. Serbia is invaded as A-H seeks to defend East versus Russia. The Russians are dealt a severe set back in East Prussia by two German armies and a third German army strikes into Congress Poland, the Russian offensive versus A-H is a false start.

Now it is choose your own adventure. One, the UK goes to war on the side of the Entente. Or two, they remain neutral.

In one the war expands and the Balkans becomes the best alternative to a stalemated Western Front and to give Russia the support it needs. Now we need to consider option three, Italy goes neutral and opts out of the Triple Alliance. This looks like OTL, but with the war more obviously unwinnable in the West yet going well for the CP in the East it might open Romania to joining against Russia. Thus the variations would be Greece or Romania joining the CP rather than going Entente. Perhaps better chances for a neutral OE too. I think Bulgaria stays neutral unless Greece and Romania join the CP and OE goes neutral, then you open them to joining the Entente.

In two the wildcard is again Italy, option four it stays with the Triple Alliance or option five it supports its partners but wiggles out of belligerency. This should keep the war more circumscribed. It will be France making the bribes. Romania was culturally in favor of France and Greece was strongly tied too, the OE seems to have the least affinity for the French and should be wary of a Russian victory. But here the OE has its own choices. Does the UK release its completed battleship? Do the Greeks intercept it? If so then Greece is by default an Entente power and drives the OE into the CP camp, at least as another belligerent. This puts the UK into a genuine bind as a neutral. I think Bulgaria is still a wildcard but it might use this to take more Macedonia from Greece. Here the Balkans might become a sort of separate war in the war.

So yes, I think you can reshuffle these actors. One can argue that obvious German victory or impending Russian defeat will sway the lesser powers one way or the other. I think they followed their selfish interests OTL and some bet better than others, but like OTL the winnings might not be worth the wager.

1. This scenario seems plausible save for one detail: it implies the Germans are going to start the war on the strategic defensive. Changing the military culture of the Great Powers at the time so that seems like a remotely viable option creates a few too many butterflies for my tastes. Germany and France bashing their armies together along their border in cramped, mutual attacks for a few weeks/1-2 months until they get fully dug in gets you a pretty similar result though... if a bit bloodier for the Germans (Germany still has the better artillery component and command and control though, meaning she's still preforming better).

2. I personally don't think Greece would be joining the CP unless either Bulgaria or the OE had joined the Entente, or the Germans were staring them down from Macedonia with an offer of aid in one hand and "intervention" in another. Even the King thought it would be better for Greece to stay neutral, and she's pretty isolated from the rest of the CP with little in the way of potential war spoils. I personally think an Entente Ottomans is the best way to accomplish this, but would still depend on Germany being able to provide support to prevent British forces from landing in force and seizing the country alongside their Turkish allies. The war would be decided in both Western Thrace and the Aegean Sea... and I think the Entente can easily overpower an isolated Greece in both.

I'm also curious as to how high Bulgaria's value might grow the longer the war goes on. If there's sufficent shift in the Balkans, the Fall of Serbia might be delayed somewhat (If for no other reason that a Russia able to continue trading through the Straits can put greater pressure on A-H and Germany, limiting their ability to shift forces south), and Bulgaria could be poised at the rear and near the hearts of members of both alliances with a large, surely army and a nation hankering for a war in general.

Depends on how the fighting goes. The major consideration in picking an alliance is who will win. A German victory on the Marne and all of them are joining the CPs. A Russian victory at Tannenberg and most will join the Entente. Assuming the fighting goes Otl until a change in intervention

Going in order- the Ottomans. They are rather easy to get on the Entente side or at least neutral which serves the Entente. Simply offer them more money and agree to end the captiulations. A million pounds a month plus forgiveness of all debt at the end of the war (it would come from the indemnity) would be a very tempting offer

With the Ottomans out, the Russians are going to do a lot better. No Caucus front, the Black Sea open and therefore no Great Retreat

Romania- barring a major CP victory wave, nothing will get them to the CP. King Carol is the only real link and he's dead in October. If the Russians avoid the Gorlice-Tarnow disaster, Romania is joining about the same time Italy does. This pretty much ends the CP. Bulgaria and Greece never get a chance to intervene

Actually, I'll edit the OP to include this, but let's stick with the assumption the first few months of the war go largely as OTL. A curbstomp from either side is obviously going to cause everybody to jump on the bandwagon of self-interests, but there aren't any butterflies here saying the Germans, French, or Russians do any better or any worse.

An Entente Ottomans would be in an... interesting military position if Bulgaria or Greece haden't joined the CP. Obviously, it frees up the British and Russian troops who engaged them IOTL, but the disapperance of those fronts also removes every area in which the Empire historical fought. If they're fighting on the Balkan front against a CP Bulgaria or Greece, I wonder how well they'd be able to preform (They'll have lost alot of good German officers... and the British aren't exactly perfect replacements. Then again, their front is going to be close to a major munitions shipping lane between the Western Entente and Russia, so I doubt they'll be short of material). Add in the fact that there's no Arab Revolt to crush, and the Ottomans can also focus all their military power on one front. If the Balkans isen't open though... then what? Sure, if Italy joins the CP they could attack Rhodes, but that won't keep them occupied for long.

2. Romania could decide to remain neutral though; if for no other reason than not being confident in their ability to overpower A-H based on the alternate strategic position. An Entente Ottomans does definitely speed up a Romanian move towards the Entente as well though, as Western military aid can actually be delivered upon.
 
The chance of Bulgaria or Greece attacking an Entente Ottoman Empire are, well near zero. Greece simply cannot fight the Entente. France and Italy could bombard Athens at will as could the Russian Black Sea fleet. Its just not in the cards. Greece must be either neutral or pro Entente

Bulgaria is a little more promising but there's the Black Sea coast, the lack of major objectives against the Turks and that the Russians would be supplying the Turks. No way Russia is letting Bulgaria have the straits and Sofia knows it.

The real problem though is that if you flip the Ottomans, the Russians are going to do a lot better. If the Russians are doing better, the Bulgarians are staying out. Bulgaria only joins late 1915 when Russia is on the ropes.

The alternatives really arent that many. You can flip the Ottomans, delay the entry of Bulgaria, Romania or Greece but short of a major wank for the CPs only Bulgaria is going to join the Austro-Germans

You can flip Bulgaria as well- if the Serbs are willing to trade their territory , Bulgaria is listening. The offer OTL failed because the Serbs would agree to turn over the territory after the war. A Russia bluntly telling the Serbs to make the offer or lose any hope of gaining territory after the war might do the trick
 
The chance of Bulgaria or Greece attacking an Entente Ottoman Empire are, well near zero. Greece simply cannot fight the Entente. France and Italy could bombard Athens at will as could the Russian Black Sea fleet. Its just not in the cards. Greece must be either neutral or pro Entente

Bulgaria is a little more promising but there's the Black Sea coast, the lack of major objectives against the Turks and that the Russians would be supplying the Turks. No way Russia is letting Bulgaria have the straits and Sofia knows it.

The real problem though is that if you flip the Ottomans, the Russians are going to do a lot better. If the Russians are doing better, the Bulgarians are staying out. Bulgaria only joins late 1915 when Russia is on the ropes.

The alternatives really arent that many. You can flip the Ottomans, delay the entry of Bulgaria, Romania or Greece but short of a major wank for the CPs only Bulgaria is going to join the Austro-Germans

You can flip Bulgaria as well- if the Serbs are willing to trade their territory , Bulgaria is listening. The offer OTL failed because the Serbs would agree to turn over the territory after the war. A Russia bluntly telling the Serbs to make the offer or lose any hope of gaining territory after the war might do the trick

Yah, the Russia doing better part is the key advantage an Entente OE would provide... though I doubt you'll see Turkish troops fighting on the Eastern Front. The question is: is it enough that Russia can manage to make it through the war with its old government intact? Because the second the Czarist regeime falls, internal divisions really limit her ability to keep a co-ordinated war effort going and she's likely going to have to seek terms at some point.
 
Public opinion in Greece and Romania was strongly in favor of the pro-Entente factions; pushing those two into the CP camp would be more or less impossible. The closest you could get is a CP victory scenario: there Romania might join the CP - but only at the very last minute, once the Entente is clearly and irreparably doomed.

Even in Bulgaria, the pro-CP regime had to resort to a great deal of election fraud, strong-arming and intimidation to push through its policy. A government that has a little more respect towards the constitution and parliament would find it extremely difficult - if not impossible - to throw in with the Central Powers. The "natural" path for Bulgaria would be neutrality (or allowing the Entente to purchase its help at a moderately high price).
 
If you get the Ottomans in the entente, and Serbia negotiate a deal with the Bulgarians, then Romania is in an interesting place.

Do they join in (possibly losing what they gained in 1913) in the hope of taking Transylvania? That would present a united front from the Baltic to Serbia, and remove the Caucasus front, freeing up serious numbers of Russian and Ottoman troops. Whether they can be successfully used elsewhere is a different question, of course.

Can the Central Powers persuade them to muck in on their side? What will it cost Austria-Hungary?

Can the king and parliament cone to a decision, or are they divided?

Whither Greece in such a scenario? Do they sit out, and demand compensation in the form of Albanian Epirus? Do they go all-in, hoping to stab Serbia from behind before wheeling on Thrace? That's probably a bit too ambitious, even for a Greece that isn't hopelessly divided...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

The chance of Bulgaria or Greece attacking an Entente Ottoman Empire are, well near zero. Greece simply cannot fight the Entente. France and Italy could bombard Athens at will as could the Russian Black Sea fleet. Its just not in the cards. Greece must be either neutral or pro Entente

I take it for the Franco-Italian fleet to be so dominant as to terrify Bulgaria into neutrality, that Britain is neutral as well? The RN was dominant in the Med OTL, the threat of it kept the A-H navy in port pretty much for the duration. And if there's no belligerent RN, doesn't the A-H Navy have a say in the Franco-Italian operations? Also, for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to bombard Greece, are the Bulgarians neutral or do the RBSF sweep past any opposition they can muster?

Bulgaria is a little more promising but there's the Black Sea coast, the lack of major objectives against the Turks and that the Russians would be supplying the Turks. No way Russia is letting Bulgaria have the straits and Sofia knows it.

Adrianople. The Bulgarians captured it in the First Balkan War at no small cost and lost it again in the Second. Easily utilised as a propaganda cause for Ottoman-Bulgarian emnity.
 
A note on Montenegro - they were very close to Italy, which pre-war was Triple Alliance not Entente. The King also maintained one of his sons in Vienna throughout the war, as a sort of insurance in case the Central Powers won. He was all for Montenegro, was Nicholas. He certainly isn't all for Serbia.
 
1. This scenario seems plausible save for one detail: it implies the Germans are going to start the war on the strategic defensive. Changing the military culture of the Great Powers at the time so that seems like a remotely viable option creates a few too many butterflies for my tastes. Germany and France bashing their armies together along their border in cramped, mutual attacks for a few weeks/1-2 months until they get fully dug in gets you a pretty similar result though... if a bit bloodier for the Germans (Germany still has the better artillery component and command and control though, meaning she's still preforming better).

2. I personally don't think Greece would be joining the CP unless either Bulgaria or the OE had joined the Entente, or the Germans were staring them down from Macedonia with an offer of aid in one hand and "intervention" in another. Even the King thought it would be better for Greece to stay neutral, and she's pretty isolated from the rest of the CP with little in the way of potential war spoils. I personally think an Entente Ottomans is the best way to accomplish this, but would still depend on Germany being able to provide support to prevent British forces from landing in force and seizing the country alongside their Turkish allies. The war would be decided in both Western Thrace and the Aegean Sea... and I think the Entente can easily overpower an isolated Greece in both.

I'm also curious as to how high Bulgaria's value might grow the longer the war goes on. If there's sufficent shift in the Balkans, the Fall of Serbia might be delayed somewhat (If for no other reason that a Russia able to continue trading through the Straits can put greater pressure on A-H and Germany, limiting their ability to shift forces south), and Bulgaria could be poised at the rear and near the hearts of members of both alliances with a large, surely army and a nation hankering for a war in general.



Actually, I'll edit the OP to include this, but let's stick with the assumption the first few months of the war go largely as OTL. A curbstomp from either side is obviously going to cause everybody to jump on the bandwagon of self-interests, but there aren't any butterflies here saying the Germans, French, or Russians do any better or any worse.

An Entente Ottomans would be in an... interesting military position if Bulgaria or Greece haden't joined the CP. Obviously, it frees up the British and Russian troops who engaged them IOTL, but the disapperance of those fronts also removes every area in which the Empire historical fought. If they're fighting on the Balkan front against a CP Bulgaria or Greece, I wonder how well they'd be able to preform (They'll have lost alot of good German officers... and the British aren't exactly perfect replacements. Then again, their front is going to be close to a major munitions shipping lane between the Western Entente and Russia, so I doubt they'll be short of material). Add in the fact that there's no Arab Revolt to crush, and the Ottomans can also focus all their military power on one front. If the Balkans isen't open though... then what? Sure, if Italy joins the CP they could attack Rhodes, but that won't keep them occupied for long.

2. Romania could decide to remain neutral though; if for no other reason than not being confident in their ability to overpower A-H based on the alternate strategic position. An Entente Ottomans does definitely speed up a Romanian move towards the Entente as well though, as Western military aid can actually be delivered upon.

Fair enough, but if you want to truly mix things up I think it is more interesting to alter the landscape rather than trim the trees here and there.

I would agree that putting the Greeks into the CPs is a long stretch. My point would be that if the OE is Entente then Greece must be neutral or side with the CPs if the Ottomans move into the Balkans. These two are straight up enemies and I see little to reconcile things without unlocking a lot of butterflies.

My opinion is that Bulgaria is the Queen of the Balkans, she possesses a strong strategic position that plays well to either side. Given the right aid she can dominate the Balkans, threaten the Straights or contain a second front. She is the landline link between the CPs and the OE. In your proposition for an Entente OE then I would argue Bulgaria sides CP and goes on to bedevil the Entente. The strategic goal would be to secure the Thrace and close the Straights while threatening both Romania and Greece sufficient that they hold neutral if not lean CP.

The hardest trick would be to move the OE full Entente, both Britain and France were threatening her, the French held the debts and Britain was snipping off pieces, Russia is her natural enemy and the Germans had offered better support. It is not impossible but the hurdle is high. My thoughts is that a neutral OE is better for the CPs, especially in the scenario I offered, it might allow for better supply and trade with Russia but it also does not drain resources. the CPs can focus on defeating Russia and better supplies might not save her. And if Italy has joined the CPs then a blockade of the Straights is going to get the CPs closer to victory then supporting yet another ground front.

I think Romania made a rash jump rather than a thought out decision, for her neutrality was ultimately best, she is trapped between two Great powers and a significant regional power, only with your much friendlier OE scenario does Romania get the Entente aid she needs to realistically fight, like Greece, Romania was a pawn that get tossed into the game to benefit the Entente, both likely get the same spoils, so long as they are neutrals, without the price.
 
Greece was basically split by a civil war in OTL because the king and court favoured the CPs or neutrality and the PM was pro-Entente

It would not take huge amounts to flip them to the CPs in the right geopolitical situation
 
Greece was basically split by a civil war in OTL because the king and court favoured the CPs or neutrality and the PM was pro-Entente

It would not take huge amounts to flip them to the CPs in the right geopolitical situation

I think the most likely scenario for a CP-Greece is a botched Salonika operation: Have the landing Entente forces clash with Greek military forces, fall victim to the francs-tireurs perception that bedeviled a good number of other armies (The Germans in Belgium and the Austrians in Serbia most well known among them) and start shooting up Greek civilians in notable numbers, use the navy to impose 'rations' on imports/shipping, ect.. Basically, the Entente treats Greece so badly that they just can't possibly ignore it anymore. Granted, this is kind of a chicken or the egg scenario, as the Entente is most likely to adopt such behaviors in the event Greece is showing more CP-sympathies... but that just creates a self-feeding cycle. In any event, it'd be because practical neutrality has been rendered impossible: either they submit to the Entente demands become a virtual protectorate, thereby drawing in any CP militaries in the area against her, or she resists and gets a DoW from the French and British.

Fair enough, but if you want to truly mix things up I think it is more interesting to alter the landscape rather than trim the trees here and there.

I would agree that putting the Greeks into the CPs is a long stretch. My point would be that if the OE is Entente then Greece must be neutral or side with the CPs if the Ottomans move into the Balkans. These two are straight up enemies and I see little to reconcile things without unlocking a lot of butterflies.

My opinion is that Bulgaria is the Queen of the Balkans, she possesses a strong strategic position that plays well to either side. Given the right aid she can dominate the Balkans, threaten the Straights or contain a second front. She is the landline link between the CPs and the OE. In your proposition for an Entente OE then I would argue Bulgaria sides CP and goes on to bedevil the Entente. The strategic goal would be to secure the Thrace and close the Straights while threatening both Romania and Greece sufficient that they hold neutral if not lean CP.

The hardest trick would be to move the OE full Entente, both Britain and France were threatening her, the French held the debts and Britain was snipping off pieces, Russia is her natural enemy and the Germans had offered better support. It is not impossible but the hurdle is high. My thoughts is that a neutral OE is better for the CPs, especially in the scenario I offered, it might allow for better supply and trade with Russia but it also does not drain resources. the CPs can focus on defeating Russia and better supplies might not save her. And if Italy has joined the CPs then a blockade of the Straights is going to get the CPs closer to victory then supporting yet another ground front.

I think Romania made a rash jump rather than a thought out decision, for her neutrality was ultimately best, she is trapped between two Great powers and a significant regional power, only with your much friendlier OE scenario does Romania get the Entente aid she needs to realistically fight, like Greece, Romania was a pawn that get tossed into the game to benefit the Entente, both likely get the same spoils, so long as they are neutrals, without the price.

While I agree its more interesting (And trust me, I love big WW I shifts), I do want to keep the discussion focused on the Balkans and its unique position/motiviations/concentration of small nations who have a viable option of being in the war. Allowing for such major changes so early in the war would change this from being a "War in the Balkans" thread to more of a "What do the Balkans do in an early Cp/Entete curbstomp scenario" thread. I'd be more than happy to have a more detailed discussion on those elsewhere.

As for my position on CP Greece, see above. I think in the event of an Entente OE they're set to be neutral though: The Western Allies have less of a reason to meddle directly in Greece if they have the Turks on their side, and in the event of Bulgaria joining the CP could deploy any intervention force right out of Ḳosṭanṭīnīye. Though, a CP Greece and Entente Ottomans, especially if Italy is part of the CP too, makes me wonder if we might see a name-change to the Ottoman capital similar to what the Russians did to Petrograd.

Bulgaria is a tricky little beast: while her strategic situation is enviable and she has potential highly valuable war spoils in every direction, she also has to worry about biting off more than she can chew and getting squeezed out from multiple sides by too many enemies. I'd argue that Romania has a natural problem with Bulgaria getting too powerful, lest they make a lunge at Dobruja in the near future (It is, after all, Bulgaria's main source of grain production... and home to alot of the refugee population that's swelling Sofia, as well as most of and the best of Romania's shoreline). An Entente OE and Central Powers Bulgaria scenario, with Russia preforming better on the Eastern Front, likely means Romania can weigh in and decide to back the Entente. Sure, if the Entente wins anyways she'll get her spoils without fighting... but if the Straits have taken on such major geopolitical importance and it looks like their fall might royally hamstring the Russian war effort, they could very well determine that taking Bulgaria from the rear before she can get too powerful is a smart move.

For a neutral OE... that makes the Straits tricky. After all, they're likely to try to guard the sovereignty of their territorial waters, so German submarines sinking shipping too close to Ottoman shores is going to be a big no-no if they don't want to drive them into Britain's hands by default. If their neutrality is strict, I think its going to have to be respected by both sides unless you want to see them drift into the war later: an Italian CP scenario seems to be the most likely situation for that, since it allows the CP to us the central Med as a potential theature for commerce warfare. Otherwise, I can easily see Germany eventually getting so frustrated that she organizes a joint expedition with Bulgaria to try to close the Straits by force in an effort to cut off Russia's lifeline, turning the Turks into an Entente Co-Belligerent.
 
Yah, the Russia doing better part is the key advantage an Entente OE would provide... though I doubt you'll see Turkish troops fighting on the Eastern Front. The question is: is it enough that Russia can manage to make it through the war with its old government intact? Because the second the Czarist regeime falls, internal divisions really limit her ability to keep a co-ordinated war effort going and she's likely going to have to seek terms at some point.


The February Revolution is one of the biggest anti-wanks in history. Its a fluke beyond all measure that requires a huge number of things to go just right.

If the Russians don't have to fight the Turks and their Black Sea ports are open for two years, there's little chance of the Revolution. There's little chance the war is still going on

I take it for the Franco-Italian fleet to be so dominant as to terrify Bulgaria into neutrality, that Britain is neutral as well? The RN was dominant in the Med OTL, the threat of it kept the A-H navy in port pretty much for the duration. And if there's no belligerent RN, doesn't the A-H Navy have a say in the Franco-Italian operations? Also, for the Russian Black Sea Fleet to bombard Greece, are the Bulgarians neutral or do the RBSF sweep past any opposition they can muster?



Adrianople. The Bulgarians captured it in the First Balkan War at no small cost and lost it again in the Second. Easily utilised as a propaganda cause for Ottoman-Bulgarian emnity.

The British are concentrated in the North Sea fighting the Germans, the French and Italians are dominant in the Mediterranean. The Austrians really are bottled up in the Adriatic.

Just what fleet do the Bulgarians have that's keeping the Russians from sailing through the straits (its a Entente Turkey scenario) and bombarding Athens?

Adrianople and the straits might be on the Bulgarians wish list but there's no way to get them against Russia and the Turks. If the Turks are on the Entente side, the sealanes are open to them and they would destroy the Bulgarians and the Greeks. The Turks lost the Balkan war because they couldn't move their troops now they can.

There's a reason the Bulgarians join the war pretty late. They wait until the Ottomans have joined, the Russians pushed back and only then do they agree in a joint operation to take out the Serbs. They just aren't in a very strong position. If the Ottomans are in the Entente, the Bulgarians aren't likely to join even in 1915
 

Deleted member 94680

The February Revolution is one of the biggest anti-wanks in history. Its a fluke beyond all measure that requires a huge number of things to go just right.

If the Russians don't have to fight the Turks and their Black Sea ports are open for two years, there's little chance of the Revolution. There's little chance the war is still going on

It wasn't just a lack of supplies that led to the February Revolution you know.

The British are concentrated in the North Sea fighting the Germans, the French and Italians are dominant in the Mediterranean. The Austrians really are bottled up in the Adriatic.

They weren't OTL, why are they ATL?

Just what fleet do the Bulgarians have that's keeping the Russians from sailing through the straits (its a Entente Turkey scenario) and bombarding Athens?

Probably nothing, I was just checking that was your assertion.

Adrianople and the straits might be on the Bulgarians wish list but there's no way to get them against Russia and the Turks. If the Turks are on the Entente side, the sealanes are open to them and they would destroy the Bulgarians and the Greeks. The Turks lost the Balkan war because they couldn't move their troops now they can.

They'd be fighting the Ottomans and the Ottomans only. The Russians, even absent fighting the Ottomans in the Caucasus, will be too dedicated to fighting the Germans and the Austrians to send any Expeditionary Force to Adrianople.

There's a reason the Bulgarians join the war pretty late. They wait until the Ottomans have joined, the Russians pushed back and only then do they agree in a joint operation to take out the Serbs. They just aren't in a very strong position. If the Ottomans are in the Entente, the Bulgarians aren't likely to join even in 1915

Fair point, but many nations joined the war after miscalculating the situation - look at Romania OTL. Would the Bulgarians look at securing their Romanian flank with an agreement before attacking the Turks whilst defending against the Serbs? Would the Serbs be able to launch an offensive with their situation (being largely similar to OTL I imagine)?
 
It wasn't just a lack of supplies that led to the February Revolution you know.

I'm well verse in Russian history. The Revolution is just a street riot that gets out of control There are so many things that have to go its way (Nicholas running into Generals who wouldn't put it down while those willing where nearby, the breaking of locomotive engines, the lack of supplies)


They weren't OTL, why are they ATL?

The forcs he British have in the Mediterranean are much smaller than the combined Franco-Italian fleet. Its more than enough to bombard the Greeks if you can keep the Austrians bottled up in the Adriatic



They'd be fighting the Ottomans and the Ottomans only. The Russians, even absent fighting the Ottomans in the Caucasus, will be too dedicated to fighting the Germans and the Austrians to send any Expeditionary Force to Adrianople.

Not in a million billion years. The Russians are never going to allow Constantinople or the straits to fall. They have more than enough to spare to deal with the Bulgarians if the Turks get in trouble

Fair point, but many nations joined the war after miscalculating the situation - look at Romania OTL. Would the Bulgarians look at securing their Romanian flank with an agreement before attacking the Turks whilst defending against the Serbs? Would the Serbs be able to launch an offensive with their situation (being largely similar to OTL I imagine)?

The Bulgarians don't have the firepower to deal with the Turks let alone anyone else. If the Turks are in the Entente camp, there is little chance the Russians get in as bad shape 1915. WWI is a very closely fought affair and it doesn't take much to really tilt it one way or the other. Ottoman neutrality or pro-Entente is a lot and its tilting it way towards the Entente
 
It wasn't just a lack of supplies that led to the February Revolution you know.



They weren't OTL, why are they ATL?



Probably nothing, I was just checking that was your assertion.



They'd be fighting the Ottomans and the Ottomans only. The Russians, even absent fighting the Ottomans in the Caucasus, will be too dedicated to fighting the Germans and the Austrians to send any Expeditionary Force to Adrianople.



Fair point, but many nations joined the war after miscalculating the situation - look at Romania OTL. Would the Bulgarians look at securing their Romanian flank with an agreement before attacking the Turks whilst defending against the Serbs? Would the Serbs be able to launch an offensive with their situation (being largely similar to OTL I imagine)?

1. I'm closer to Stenz's camp than Aphrodite's on this issue. Russia's autocracy wasn't exactly enjoying its period of greatest stability Pre-Great War, and while it saw a huge boost in popularity during the early stages of the conflict the underlying tensions were still there. Now, the additional supplies DO mean Russia preforms better on the front, which is good for morale and results in fewer body bags, and there's a real possibility Nickoli doesn't leave Petrograd to take personal command of the army. In that case, the Imperial government isn't being run on autopilot by Rasputin's creatures and the Czarina and has a much better chance at responding to the changes on the ground, and blame can still to a certain extent be deflected via reshuffling of command.

The infrastructure strain/availability of food in urban centers is still going to be an issue though. Perhaps more so if its known that grain is being exported en-mass to feed the war machine. If the Imperials can make it through the war (To a victory) without being toppled, though, they'll have bought time to make the needed changes to Russian society and for the economic reforms/development to bare fruit.

4. Wouldn't the British be able to deploy an expeditionary force to assist their Ottoman allies in blunting the Bulgarian attack and then making a push to link up with Serbia? They aren't going to want to see the Straits fall and have been looking for an "elsewhere" where their smaller army can have a disproportionate impact. Bulgaria is just the enemy they need in that case, and it might even allow them to shake/impress Greece or Romania into joining the cause. While I doubt the Ottoman government is going to allow Russian troops to be deployed on their territory even if they're available, the Brits could, in the worst case, provide Muslim troops from the Army of India and and their protectorate in Egypt (Who are technically Ottoman troops anyway, in the heady domain of pure legality.)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

I'm well verse in Russian history. The Revolution is just a street riot that gets out of control There are so many things that have to go its way (Nicholas running into Generals who wouldn't put it down while those willing where nearby, the breaking of locomotive engines, the lack of supplies)

So more than just supply of materials through the Black Sea then? Absent the closure of the Straights (which the Russian Black Sea Fleet was completely unable to do anything about) there are plenty of the other factors contributing to the February Revolution that would still be in play.

The forces he British have in the Mediterranean are much smaller than the combined Franco-Italian fleet. Its more than enough to bombard the Greeks if you can keep the Austrians bottled up in the Adriatic

The forces the British had OTL, maybe. But remember the Mediterranean Fleet was gutted to build up the Grand Fleet, so reassignments could be made depending on the situation. I wouldn't place too much faith in the French Fleet personally, not exactly a model of effectiveness.

Not in a million billion years. The Russians are never going to allow Constantinople or the straits to fall. They have more than enough to spare to deal with the Bulgarians if the Turks get in trouble

Who said anything about Constantinople? The Bulgarians are going for Adrianople and anyway, allies or no, I'm not sure the Ottomans would be keen on Russians in Constantinople. It's one step too close to the Tsar ending up on the Bosporus for the Sultan, IMO.
Also, given OTL, "more than enough to spare" seems to be giving Stavka far too much credit. I honestly think given extra men 'available' (i.e. what OTL would have been used in the Caucasus Campaign) would be used against the Austrians and the Germans rather than on an Imperial dream of "Third Rome". But maybe a collapse on the European front blamed on adventuring in the Bosporus could be a cause for a Revolution?

The Bulgarians don't have the firepower to deal with the Turks let alone anyone else. If the Turks are in the Entente camp, there is little chance the Russians get in as bad shape 1915. WWI is a very closely fought affair and it doesn't take much to really tilt it one way or the other. Ottoman neutrality or pro-Entente is a lot and its tilting it way towards the Entente

Why have the Bulgarians suddenly become militarily incapable? They managed quite well in the First Balkan War and the Second was more of a case of overstretch than incompetence.
Honestly? I believe the Entente would prefer Ottoman neutrality to (allied) belligerence, it would allow them to concentrate on Europe.
 
As for my position on CP Greece, see above. I think in the event of an Entente OE they're set to be neutral though: The Western Allies have less of a reason to meddle directly in Greece if they have the Turks on their side, and in the event of Bulgaria joining the CP could deploy any intervention force right out of Ḳosṭanṭīnīye. Though, a CP Greece and Entente Ottomans, especially if Italy is part of the CP too, makes me wonder if we might see a name-change to the Ottoman capital similar to what the Russians did to Petrograd.

Bulgaria is a tricky little beast: while her strategic situation is enviable and she has potential highly valuable war spoils in every direction, she also has to worry about biting off more than she can chew and getting squeezed out from multiple sides by too many enemies. I'd argue that Romania has a natural problem with Bulgaria getting too powerful, lest they make a lunge at Dobruja in the near future (It is, after all, Bulgaria's main source of grain production... and home to alot of the refugee population that's swelling Sofia, as well as most of and the best of Romania's shoreline). An Entente OE and Central Powers Bulgaria scenario, with Russia preforming better on the Eastern Front, likely means Romania can weigh in and decide to back the Entente. Sure, if the Entente wins anyways she'll get her spoils without fighting... but if the Straits have taken on such major geopolitical importance and it looks like their fall might royally hamstring the Russian war effort, they could very well determine that taking Bulgaria from the rear before she can get too powerful is a smart move.

For a neutral OE... that makes the Straits tricky. After all, they're likely to try to guard the sovereignty of their territorial waters, so German submarines sinking shipping too close to Ottoman shores is going to be a big no-no if they don't want to drive them into Britain's hands by default. If their neutrality is strict, I think its going to have to be respected by both sides unless you want to see them drift into the war later: an Italian CP scenario seems to be the most likely situation for that, since it allows the CP to us the central Med as a potential theature for commerce warfare. Otherwise, I can easily see Germany eventually getting so frustrated that she organizes a joint expedition with Bulgaria to try to close the Straits by force in an effort to cut off Russia's lifeline, turning the Turks into an Entente Co-Belligerent.

Then perhaps the hat trick is to see neutrality sweep the lower tier, Italy falls out of the Triple Alliance, Greece holds neutral and the OE is not goaded to join the CP. That puts the spotlight on Bulgaria and Romania who should be able to wait and see. The hard question is whether OE refuses to let munitions pass the Straights or merely warships. Frankly even if Russia can only export grain and import necessities that is a strategic victory, but alas I think that will provoke the Entente. And you may be correct, if OE lets more pass then the CP need to intervene. Here you get a slower drift to the CPs by both OE and Bulgaria with Romania only joining if they see weakness enough in the CP. To get Italy neutral I think you need the opening of the war more ambiguous so they can wiggle out of their Alliance and Britain must not be a belligerent. Otherwise Italy joins a side with dominos falling into the Balkans. To get OE neutrality you need a sweeter deal, more respect from Britain and likely the delivery of her two Battleships, again these seem to be premised on a neutral UK. Greece is easier, it has little to gain from joining any but the winning side, so if we let the war stay a toss-up then Greece sits it out so long as no neighbor or outsider threatens her. I think this tips things in favor of the CP. No Italy is a big plus, a non-belligerent UK is a winner, and having OE neutral also lets the CP trade with and through her. Here the Entente may attempt blockade but the CP now have many more open ports and borders to bring in what she needs and export what she can to earn money. If I were betting the odds for a stalemate are now better than even and a CP victory is far less a long shot bet.
 
Top