Bulgaria declares war on Greece in 1915

Let say Bulgaria declares war on Greece as soon as Serbia is overrun demanding and getting help from A-H, Germany and later the Ottoman Empire.

1. How successful will it be? Can Greece be crushed before 1917?

2. Will the allies send help to Greece? More than additional 200k men?

3. Will Greece peace out if the Bulgarian/A-H Armies crush the Greeks immediately during the war?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
As far as I can tell, much of Bulgaria army was idle or defending border fortresses after the fall of Serbia. Adding another nation to the Entente helps the Entente, not the CP. Hard to see Greece being crushed with UK control of sea and so much of the land battle area is easily influence by sea power.
 
As far as I can tell, much of Bulgaria army was idle or defending border fortresses after the fall of Serbia. Adding another nation to the Entente helps the Entente, not the CP. Hard to see Greece being crushed with UK control of sea and so much of the land battle area is easily influence by sea power.

Because of the massive (ultimately 20 divisions) of French and British troops that where landed at Salonika (where they did nothing except contract malaria) the central powers would have been more than justified declaring war on Greece

Given that they were able to cold-cock Romania in a couple of months; I don't see Greece as being particularly different if the same sort of mountain troopers and the artillery battering ram were sent there (assuming they did this upon the first wave of troops coming to Salonika and not letting them build up to two field armies obviously)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Because of the massive (ultimately 20 divisions) of French and British troops that where landed at Salonika (where they did nothing except contract malaria) the central powers would have been more than justified declaring war on Greece

Given that they were able to cold-cock Romania in a couple of months; I don't see Greece as being particularly different if the same sort of mountain troopers and the artillery battering ram were sent there (assuming they did this upon the first wave of troops coming to Salonika and not letting them build up to two field armies obviously)

Geography
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The topography of Greece and Romania are not that different; and Romania is significantly larger as well

Yes, it is. Romania is missing the Ocean in the middle of the country. Break through the Mountains to the north, and you are in open terrain. Greece is a bunch of mountain and water isolated cities where logistics is easiest done by water. Royal Navy will own the surface waters.
 
Based on the results of th
Yes, it is. Romania is missing the Ocean in the middle of the country. Break through the Mountains to the north, and you are in open terrain. Greece is a bunch of mountain and water isolated cities where logistics is easiest done by water. Royal Navy will own the surface waters.

Based on the results of the second world war (also with British aid and naval superiority) I had always assumed that it could be taken in a WW1 campaign; but I've never studied the WW1 potential order of battle enough to be an expert on how a hypotethetical campaign like that could go.

I am also admittedly jaded to the fact that the Salonika garrison was labeled the world's largest POW camp by the Germans
 
Bulgaria did have a serious grudge and territorial claims against Greece after 1912/1913. presumably the idea would have occurred to someone.
Presumably they could not get support from their Allies for this, or were dissuaded by the garrison at Salonika.
 

formion

Banned
The terrain of the Greco-Bulgarian border is completely different than the one in Dobruja. Mackensen attacked through flat terrain and the Danube. A simple wikipedia map can attest to that. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Romania-WW1-2.jpg. The invading Bulgarian army would have to attack via the river valleys of Vardar and Struma and a number of mountain ranges. The Struma Valley was protected by the Rupel fort. have in mind also, that they would be attacking an already entrenched Greek army in that terrain.

There are more noticeable differences and omissions as well:

a) The Greek army was a veteran army from the Balkan wars. It had the same experience as the Serbian one in August 1914. The Bulgarian army had been defeated by the Serbian-Greek Alliance in that war. In contrast, Romania's participation in the 2nd Balkan war involved only at best skirmishes - illness and not battle was the reason of Romanian casualties. Thus, in quality speaking, the Greek army of 1915 had experience in fighting the Bulgarians and high morale due to the recent (summer 1913) victory over them.

b) Between 1913 and 1915 there was a considerable expansion of the Greek Army. In fall 1915 15 divsions were mobilized in Greece and were sent to the northern border. The Greek army was mobilized right after the Bulgarian mobilization. So, by the end of the Serbian campaign the Greeks would have been fully mobilized and manning trenches in pre-determined defensive positions.

c) Strategically it would be a boon for the Entente. Entente would have gained not just the 15 aforementioned greek divisions but also: i) the considerable greek merchant fleet (9th or 10th in 1914 in the world), ii) the Greek Navy that was coveted by the RN that was streched to provide light units in the Easten Med. In the matter of war economy, the most valuable greek mineral of that time was magnesite for the steel industry.

d) Politically is a win for Greece because the National Schism is avoided with a October 1915 Bulgarian invasion.

e) At the short term, the Entente could land immediately in Thessaloniki 4 divisions to support the Greeks - the 10th British and the 57th, 122nd and 156th French as in OTL. The number of divisions would grow in the following months. It would be rather easy for the Entente to have by summer 1916 anything from 30-35 divisions in the Macedonian Front. Of course, the Greek participation would free Anglo-French manpower to be used in other fronts.

Overall, such a senario would constitute a clear net again for the Entente and would put more stress in the CP's manpower. The butterflies could affect the Romanian Front in 1916 with the vast majority of Bulgarian manpower tied in the Macedonian Front.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't a combined offensive of the Germans, Austrians, Bulgars and Ottomans in Thrace capture everything east of Mount Olympus pretty easily? I know there are hills there but western Thrace has seen armies move through it for 1000's of years; also would Joffre or Haig tolerate so many formations being sent to Macedonia when the mindset in 1915 was the commitment of the last division would see them drive to Berlin and what would be the effectiveness of the French and British formations sent there at the end of an enormous logistical tether when they had a shell crises on the western front?

Those formations that where sent in the original timeline did nothing except take double digit illness casualties
 

formion

Banned
Wouldn't a combined offensive of the Germans, Austrians, Bulgars and Ottomans in Thrace capture everything east of Mount Olympus pretty easily?

With what strategic aim and what troops ? Germany and AH are resting from the Gorlice-Tarnow Offensive. Would they commit their entire reserve in the east in order to push the Greek army from Gevgelija to Olympus - a far more formitable defensive location? Why? So that the Entente can reap the benefits I mentioned above? Also how to support such an army level force? There is just a single rail line that was damaged by the bulgarian offensive against Serbia.

The Ottoman Army at this point is tied up in Gallipoli and has open fronts in the Caucasus, Sinai and Mesopotamia. Every available reserve formation would be earmarked for Gallipoli. The provided 2 divisions for the Romanian campaign in 1916 after the end of the Gallipoli campaign.

I know there are hills there but western Thrace has seen armies move through it for 1000's of years

There are hills and there are mountains: the Belles range in the border rises up to 2000m and that is only one mountain range in Macedonia. As the Balkan Wars and WW1 showed, Balkan armies were quite good in defending in such terrain. The wars that happened in the last 1000 years are as relevant examples as the Balkan wars and WW1.

also would Joffre or Haig tolerate so many formations being sent to Macedonia when the mindset in 1915 was the commitment of the last division would see them drive to Berlin and what would be the effectiveness of the French and British formations sent there at the end of an enormous logistical

Well, what happened in OTL is the answer. I mean why the sudden change of strategic thinking? Also from what I have read in WW1, there was never the thought that the Entente armies would reach Berlin or even Aachen in 1915. Regarding the logistics you mentioned, the Entente war machine has been supporting the Gallipoli Campaign at this point for 6 months without having even having a single port to unload ships. Thessaloniki on the other hand was the biggest port in Balkans and had rail connections as well.

Those formations that where sent in the original timeline did nothing except take double digit illness casualties

Well, if the Anglo-French were content to have these divisions over the winter of 1915-1916 as basically a glorified guard for a non-strategic bridgehead (Thessaloniki) wouldn't you think that they would be even more eager to use then to actually support a strategic objective (supporting Greece and opening AH flank in the best case senario)?


when they had a shell crises on the western front?

Shell crisis actually would support the commitment of those divisions in Thessaloniki for defensive purposes. Otherwise, they would have to be sent in the Western Front and equipped with Western Front levels of artillery. No, these formations were better used in a secondary theater, in defensive purposes that demand fewer heavy artillery pieces and fewer shells. That was up the OTL logic behing the use of specific formations.
 
Interesting points; the big one is the lack of strategic importance vs other priorities the central powers had; even if they could win the campaign it wouldn't give them anything
 
Interesting points; the big one is the lack of strategic importance vs other priorities the central powers had; even if they could win the campaign it wouldn't give them anything

When they won OTL they took Bulgaria out of the war convinced the Romanians to join in (again) and had advanced up to the Danube
 
I don’t think people realise just how mountainous Greece is. Pretty much the entire country is hills or mountains. Even if they somehow succeed in breaking though the central powers would then face the same partisan problem that the Axis did.
 
subjective question by whose standards was it worth?

Perhaps those formations could have reduced the huge losses the British took in the Spring of 1918 by giving them better force to space ratios; the Salonika forces still took huge losses due to disease; so in terms of losses they may have come out ahead of the game

France could have used the troops more profitably on their own sectors of the western front by having the men fight instead of sitting supine 95 percent of the time or being bed ridden

The British had 480k troops on the Macedonia front be struck by disease and the French only slightly less;
 
One more country who's war effort Britain has to take out loans to pay for, because the US banks won't lend it any money. It just joins Russia and Italy as drains on British finances.
 
Top