Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 Bulgaria takes Constantinople, Russia DoWs Bulgaria, what next?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
During the Balkan Wars when it appeared the Bulgarians might take Constantinople, the Russians mobilized and warned them not to do it. What if the Bulgarians ignored the warning or the city fell into their hands, and Russia ended up declaring war on Bulgaria. How does Russia go about coercing Bulgaria? How do things escalate in general and what coalitions form on the side of Bulgaria and Russia respectively and why?
 

Deleted member 94680

What were Russo-Romanian relations like at the time?

Would Romania (who invaded Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War) be a proxy for Russia, or would they allow a Russian army through their territory into Bulgaria’s flank?
 
What were Russo-Romanian relations like at the time?

Would Romania (who invaded Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War) be a proxy for Russia, or would they allow a Russian army through their territory into Bulgaria’s flank?
That's a very tricky question as Romania was moving to better relations with Russia but the king was still very much in austreas camp and it would still take years be for they would join Russia in ww1, either way most likely Russia would send troops throe the black sea, I have a hard time seeing Romania alowing a Russian army thoe there land.
 

Deleted member 94680

That's a very tricky question as Romania was moving to better relations with Russia but the king was still very much in austreas camp and it would still take years be for they would join Russia in ww1, either way most likely Russia would send troops throe the black sea, I have a hard time seeing Romania alowing a Russian army thoe there land.

Seeing as the PoD seems to sit at the end of the 1st Balkan War (30th May 1913) it didn’t take long from there for the Romanians to intervene in the 2nd Balkan War (DoW 10th July 1913) OTL. That’s a month and a half, give or take, where Bulgaria was the most successful Balkan power (although the Greco-Serbian counterattack is occurring by then) and seemingly stronger than her opponents.

How much quicker could Romanian intervention come where the Great Power of Russia is in their corner, passive enmity between them or not? There are the Bulgarian-Romanian disputes over Southern Dobruja as a casus belli and whatever Russia could chose to offer as incentives.

OTL in the 2BW the Bulgarian rear was completely exposed to the Romanian attack, that’s with less Ottoman territory taken than ATL. Here the Bulgarians are occupying Constantinople? Where are those troops going to come from? Where can’t they be that they were OTL?
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
That's a very tricky question as Romania was moving to better relations with Russia but the king was still very much in austreas camp and it would still take years be for they would join Russia in ww1, either way most likely Russia would send troops throe the black sea, I have a hard time seeing Romania alowing a Russian army thoe there land.

I believe the Russians didn't have the troop transports for a descent upon Constantinople in 1914, so Bulgaria may be spared an amphibious assault. I don't see a friendly shore for the Russians to land on contiguous with Bulgarian soil.
 
This basically starts World War One, or at least an Austro-Russian war (which drags in Germany and France probably). Does Germany still go west when the Balkans are even more ablaze than OTL and Bulgaria is screeching for assistance? My guess is that Italy and Britain stay out, the former due to war weariness the latter due to not wanting to back Russian expansionism, and possibly get a negotiated settlement sometime within a year.

Romania probably sides with Russia; tensions are one thing, but Dobruja and Transylvania are something else. Serbia and Greece are also part of the alliance since they want Balkan clay. Alternately I could plausibly see the Tsar trying to invade Romania for the same military grounds as happened with Belgium- which of course triggers the Triple Alliance...
Perhaps the Turks wash their hands of the Balkans (to Bulgaria) in return for German support against the Russians? The empire quite possibly falls apart and you may even see an earlier Armenian Genocide- the loss of Constantinople, on top of all the other territorial losses, would IMHO be fatal to the regime.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This basically starts World War One, or at least an Austro-Russian war (which drags in Germany and France probably). Does Germany still go west when the Balkans are even more ablaze than OTL and Bulgaria is screeching for assistance? My guess is that Italy and Britain stay out, the former due to war weariness the latter due to not wanting to back Russian expansionism, and possibly get a negotiated settlement sometime within a year.

Romania probably sides with Russia; tensions are one thing, but Dobruja and Transylvania are something else. Serbia and Greece are also part of the alliance since they want Balkan clay. Alternately I could plausibly see the Tsar trying to invade Romania for the same military grounds as happened with Belgium- which of course triggers the Triple Alliance...
Perhaps the Turks wash their hands of the Balkans (to Bulgaria) in return for German support against the Russians? The empire quite possibly falls apart and you may even see an earlier Armenian Genocide- the loss of Constantinople, on top of all the other territorial losses, would IMHO be fatal to the regime.

A lot of great points in here but let’s not jump right into WWI.

The first thing the Russian DoW on Bulgaria does is ironically place Russia on the same side as the Ottoman Empire.

How will Russia affect the situation on the ground? Would they offer and get permission from the Ottomans to land troops in Constantinople and Thrace?

That is taking the newfound cooperation really far and risks giving the capital to one set of foreigners to protect it from another set.

If Turkey gave permission, would Austria DoW Russia? Why?

Option 2 for the Russians is to land troops directly on the Bulgarian coast to directly attack their rear and force to protect their homeland. Do the Russians have the technical capabilities to descend on a Bulgarian port and hold it, or support an invasion over the beach?

If the Russians can do this, would Austria DoW Russia? Why?

The third option for the Russians is to gain Rumanian permission to march through Rumanian territory to attack Bulgaria’s northeast border?

Since Rumania soon was to decide to go to war to take territory from Bulgaria, I don’t think Rumania would have any hesitance about attacking Bulgaria on its own. If the Romanians are seizing southern Dobruja for themselves and the Russians ask to stage their own attack through Romania that only makes defeat of Bulgaria more swift and certain. If Russia reassures it supports bucharest’s Territorial objectives while seeking transit for itself, Rumania is probably getting on board for it.

Why in this case, would Austria declare war on Russia, on behalf of Bulgaria?

On the other hand, regardless of their own ant Bulgarian objectives, Bucharest May fear letting Russian troops in means the may never leave and are in a position to break any Russian diplomatic promises.

In that case Rumania may refuse Russian transit demands and call for Triple Alliance support to protect against Russia. In that case, Austria (and Germany) have a very valid casual belli and logical incentive to DoW Russia.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What do y'all think the Austro-Hungarians are going to do in reaction to Russian moves, even just the initial mobilization and ultimatum to Bulgaria. Would Austria-Hungary have an automatic sense of sympathy for Bulgaria, or not?
 

Deleted member 1487

What do y'all think the Austro-Hungarians are going to do in reaction to Russian moves, even just the initial mobilization and ultimatum to Bulgaria. Would Austria-Hungary have an automatic sense of sympathy for Bulgaria, or not?
Austrian interests beings and ends with wanting to keep the Russians out of their backyard. Britain meanwhile wants to keep the Russians out of the Mediterranean, so had interests in getting them to back down as well. I think that Russia would ultimately have to use proxies in the Balkans, because they couldn't afford to get Britain pissed at them while also brining Austria and with them Germany out against them. France might well even bow out to maintain relations with Britain.
 

Deleted member 94680

France might well even bow out to maintain relations with Britain.

That’s a tough call for Paris. They really need Russia to balance the German threat and up until August ‘14 the British looked like the Entente was merely a colonial rearrangement for them. Grey’s promises aside (I don’t know how they fall with the dates here) no-one in London really looked like they were keen to go to war on France’s behalf, so leaping in with the Bear may be Marianne’s best option...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That’s a tough call for Paris. They really need Russia to balance the German threat and up until August ‘14 the British looked like the Entente was merely a colonial rearrangement for them. Grey’s promises aside (I don’t know how they fall with the dates here) no-one in London really looked like they were keen to go to war on France’s behalf, so leaping in with the Bear may be Marianne’s best option...

It may be pretty close to all of Grey's promises. The Entente with France was in place from 1904, and survived or thrived in two Moroccan crises. The Russian Entente with Britain had happened by 1908. By 1912-1913 there had definitely been Anglo-French Army Staff Talks and probably a discussion of the continental commitment. There may have even been Anglo-Russian staff talks.
 

Deleted member 94680

It may be pretty close to all of Grey's promises. The Entente with France was in place from 1904, and survived or thrived in two Moroccan crises. The Russian Entente with Britain had happened by 1908. By 1912-1913 there had definitely been Anglo-French Army Staff Talks and probably a discussion of the continental commitment. There may have even been Anglo-Russian staff talks.

None of which matter as the cabinet didn’t believe there was a military commitment.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
It may be pretty close to all of Grey's promises. The Entente with France was in place from 1904, and survived or thrived in two Moroccan crises. The Russian Entente with Britain had happened by 1908. By 1912-1913 there had definitely been Anglo-French Army Staff Talks and probably a discussion of the continental commitment. There may have even been Anglo-Russian staff talks.
None of which matter as the cabinet didn’t believe there was a military commitment.
... as there actually wasn't at all - at least within the treaties.

The "entente cordiale" was in fact a package of declarations dealing with the clearing of colonial spheres of interest to be observed by the declarations partners :
  • the first about the acknowledgement of Morocco being of french interest and Egypt of british interest with the official (re-)establishing and acknowledging by the two partners of the Convention of Constantinople regarding passgae-rights through the Suez-channnel. ... and ofc there was a 'secret addendum' (somewhat typical in that era of diplomacy ;-D)
  • the second about unclear international (esp. fishing) rights around Newfoundland for the Brits compensated by acknowledgement of french rights at Senegal, Gambia and the common border along the river Niger
  • the third about Madagascar, the New Hebrides and the spheres of interest in Siam
Nothing at all about some kind of further especially military cooperation of any kind.
Sir Eyre Crowe - far from being a 'central powers' fan, maybe even the farest - said about it during the 2. Morocco-crisis in 1911 - kinda 'high-point' of the Entente before WW 1 :
"The fundamental fact of course is that the Entente is not an alliance. For purposes of ultimate emergencies it may be found to have no substance at all. For the Entente is nothing more than a frame of mind, a view of general policy which is shared by the governments of two countries, but which may be, or become, so vague as to lose all content."
And even the rather informal 'exchange of letters' of 1912 between Grey and Cambon regarding the distribution of the french respectivly the british fleet contained nothing but hint of possible contingencies in maybe occuring situations their demand would then have to be politcally (i.e. diplomatically) bedetermined before any decision to be taken.
Much words for saying (by the brits) :
don't ever count on us​

But :
Yes there were anglo-french 'staff talks'. ... AFTER the exchange of letters of December 1912 and after the francophil ... rather francomaniac Henry Wilson became Director of Military Operations in Britain resulting in minutly planned railway timetables for the only option of deploying the BEF at Maubeuge(left flank of the french (and no other option/offer for the politician during the July-crisis).

However, the british politician tried their very best to not know anything about neither the exchange of letters (only to become known to the parlaiment on Grey's speech on 3rd August 1914) nor what the DMO was planning for with the new BEF (pls don't forget : the Haldane reforms of the british army are just comming to full effect).


Oh, and the "Russian Entente" ...
Sry mate but there nerver was such aside some wishfull thinking rather hoping within the contemporary russian political estabishment and (much more) after the war-time propaganda kicked in (wich is still beleived by so many even today).

The Anglo-Russian convention of 1907 was - once again - a purely global politics(colonial affais thing esp. from the british PoV. It did nothing but define interest spheres in Persia while promising not to mingle with persian internal affairs with the russians 'promising' not to further touch Afghanistan.
However it was not long before the british - AFAIK from reading the accessable british diplomatic records - began to regret this agreement as the russians somewhat simply ingnored it with constant (and at some points rather massivly even with regular troops)intervening in innerpersian matters.

For the thought of an "entente" or even alliance with the russians it might be telling, that Grey fought of any attempt of the russian since 1907 when the first time an according 'request' was made by the russians to conclude some kind of naval agreement.
Such a last 'fight-of' happened in spring to summer 1914. ...

And : No
There never ever were any anglo-russian staff talk. ... before WW 1.



Might be helpfull to have a look at the actual treaty-texts the ... narrative of "Entente" is built upon.
 

Germaniac

Donor
I'm not certain this will lead to the outbreak of war. Firstly, taking Constantinople will CRIPPLE the Bulgarian Army. It's already suffering from Cholera and shortages, while the Ottoman have rectified most of their issues on defense at least. Bulgaria without the few month breathing space between the wars would be hard pressed to fight ANYONE.

Secondly, if Bulgaria takes Constantinople the Great Power will absolutely step in as they did in 1878. In the End the Ottomans will continue to hold at least the line agreed to in the London Conference. If Bulgaria refuses expect British battleships in the Bosphorus invited by ths Ottomans.
 

Germaniac

Donor
For the sale of argument, a Russian declaration of war would likely be in coordination with Romania, Serbia, and the Ottomans. A Bulgaria unwilling to give up Constantinople will certainly be unwilling to accept limitations in Macedonia. Russia could force the Turks into another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hünkâr_İskelesi treaty binding it to Russia, and then forming a Balkan coalition to take down Bulgaria quickly.

This will probably set off a very dangerous situation between Austria and Russia with the Austrians southern flank totally exposed.
 
King Carol of Romania had just been declared an honorary Russian Field Marshal. I have little doubt transit rights would have been agreed - same thing happened in 1877-78
 
Top