Can Austria-Hungary "just say no" in 1912 & head-off the 1st Balkan War?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Russians would have no problem putting a stop to the Balkan Wars before they started and wouldn't have minded the Balkan states being defeated either

Did Austria-Hungary commit a strategic blunder by not trying harder to prevent the outbreak of the 1st Balkan War and not signaling violent objection to any Balkan League attack on Turkey-in-Europe?

It seems to me the effects of the war were all negative for Austria. Serbia gained combat experience, territory, population and confidence. It satisfied its southward facing goals for the moment. This left Serbia stronger and more focused on its northward-facing, anti-Austrian agenda in Bosnia. It also created occasions for the Russians to practice mobilizing and for arguments by proxy between Russia and Austria.

The point I am quoting from Aphrodite suggests that the Russians were not even hankering for a Balkan League takedown of Turkey in Europe, they preferred the Balkan League to be a northward-facing, not southward facing barrier to Austria.

So, knowing that the Italo-Ottoman War is probably exciting the ambitions of the Balkan states, but unable to restrain Italy, because Italy is an ally, what if the Austrians started to signal to the Balkan states, Russia, indeed all the powers, that it expected the Balkan League to keep its hands off Turkey?

Would that deter the Balkan states from launching the war of 1912?

If it did, how many years of peace in the Balkans would it buy?

Would Romania have any interest in joining any Austrian warnings, out of opposition to Bulgarian aggrandizement?

Imagine that the 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars are avoided as a consequence of Austrian deterrence.

However, come 1914 or 1915 or so and Franz-Ferdinand still goes to Sarajevo on St. Vitus day and still gets assassinated.

Under the changed circumstances, would Austria-Hungary feel compelled to go to war with Serbia or not?

If Austria did feel compelled to war, and this started an alliance chain reaction, how will the larger size of Turkey-in-Europe (still stretching to the Adriatic and including Albania, Novi Bazar, Macedonia and Thrace), affect the course of WWI diplomacy and the warfighting?

Would the changed circumstances make it particularly more likely for the Ottomans to remain neutral or become pro-Entente rather than join in on the CP's side?

Would it make Bulgaria likelier to join the Entente?

But if Bulgaria did that, could the CP tempt Romania to join them, by promising the Romanians southern Dobruja?

Your thoughts?
 
Balkan politics are always a mess and predicting anything is impossible. Russia was interested in a Serbian-Bulgarian alliance against Austria and Romania- a nominal ally of the CPs as long as King Carol lives. They are not interested in Greece joining nor are they interested in the Balkan states attacking Turkey. Russia wants the straits for themselves. They figure if Russia does attack Turkey, the Balkan states other than Romania would have to join in to get some spoils

Turkey and Russia get along great after the 1877 war. The Russians asked that the straits be open to their commercial ships and closed to foreign warships. If the Turks agree to this, the Russians left them alone

The powers had numerous means of checking the Balkan powers. Austria can mobilize on the Serbian border, Romania on the Bulgarian and the Greek fleet bottled up Deterring just one of the Balkan states would be enough. Where everyone stood on this is hard to know. Minds changed from day to day. Ultimately, Romania decides on a policy of compensation at Bulgaria's expense

Politically, things are a bit harder for Russia after the liberalization in 1905. Publicly opposing the Balkan states is a bit riskier but encouraging Romania or Austria is fair game


In the end, Russia makes it clear where she stands. She ditches Bulgaria, backs the Serbs, Greeks, Romanians and the Turks at Bulgaria expense Russia seeks reconciliation with Romania above all. She is the key to the future. Romania's army is excellent by Balkan standards and large. The Russians deployed six divisions to watch the Romanians in 1914- if Romania could be flipped and Austria forced to send six divisions to Translyvania, that would be twelve division swing in Russia favor- a fourth of Austria's army

the Romanians are not joining the CP. King Carol signed such an alliance in the 1880s and renewed it constantly. He was so afraid of the country's reaction, he never published it The idea of an Orthodox country fighting the Tsar's army in defense of the Germans is a bit hard to swallow. Bulgaria never fights the Russians. If they did, the army was likely to throw their weapons down and flee

Your other questionsrequirethought
 
So, knowing that the Italo-Ottoman War is probably exciting the ambitions of the Balkan states, but unable to restrain Italy, because Italy is an ally, what if the Austrians started to signal to the Balkan states, Russia, indeed all the powers, that it expected the Balkan League to keep its hands off Turkey?

Would that deter the Balkan states from launching the war of 1912?

If it did, how many years of peace in the Balkans would it buy?

"Peace" would be a misleading term for the state of the Ottoman Balkans in 1912.

The rebellion in Albania was not fully subdued even after the Ottoman government's massive appeasement effort in August (an appeasement that also caused an explosion of fear and outrage in other minorities and basically just kicked the problem down the road).

The Ottoman elites and officers were bitterly, and violently, divided between the CUP and anti-CUP factions. This division had already caused quite a bit of bloodshed (including multiple coups and a lowkey civil war during the Albanian rebellion); and it's practically guaranteed to cause more in the future.
Oh, and if the CUP comes to power again they are likely to rev up the centralization again, and bring the Albanian revolt back in full power.

And if the disorder and violence in Albania (and the mixed Serbian-Albanian regions) were bad - Macedonia was maybe even worse. The situation there was increasingly coming to resemble total sectarian war. Terrorist attacks were becoming an almost weekly occurrence in 1912; while the Ottoman Army had moved from failing to prevent massacres, to organizing and actively participating in massacres against Christians.

In these circumstances, if Austria made particularly strong threats against the Balkan states, its attitude would inspire disbelief and derision. Not just in the Balkan capitals; Europe as a whole would struggle to accept it and take it seriously.

Especially since Austria's 1912 "reform package" for the Ottoman Balkans was rejected by the Ottoman government a few weeks before the First Balkan War broke out. So Vienna couldn't even offer an alternative solution (not even an ill-defined and limp-wristed one like the so-called "reform package" in question).
Would Romania have any interest in joining any Austrian warnings, out of opposition to Bulgarian aggrandizement?

Not really. Romania's ideal scenario was that the Balkan League defeats the Ottomans (preferably, but not necessarily, after a longer and bloodier war) and successfully expands, after which Romania can demand "compensation" in Dobrudja and increase its own territory. It had 0 interest in the status quo.
 

BooNZ

Banned
The point I am quoting from Aphrodite suggests that the Russians were not even hankering for a Balkan League takedown of Turkey in Europe, they preferred the Balkan League to be a northward-facing, not southward facing barrier to Austria.
I suggest you find more credible sources. Why would Bulgaria join an alliance with a traditional rival that was not directed explicitly towards the Ottomans? The Serbian-Bulgarian reconciliation was a focus of Russian diplomacy from 1904 for potential use against both the A-H and Ottoman empires. Does your source suggest there was no Russian interest in liberating Slavs from Ottoman rule?

So, knowing that the Italo-Ottoman War is probably exciting the ambitions of the Balkan states, but unable to restrain Italy, because Italy is an ally, what if the Austrians started to signal to the Balkan states, Russia, indeed all the powers, that it expected the Balkan League to keep its hands off Turkey?
I recently read of a proposal for an A-H, Romanian, Ottoman alliance that arose during the Italo-Ottoman war, but was not pursued while the war was in progress. I am not familiar with the proposal, but it indicates some were already searching for ways to contain the Balkan League before the first Balkan war.

Would that deter the Balkan states from launching the war of 1912?
OTL in 1912 Imperial Russia mobilized against A-H in anticipation, so it could result in an earlier great war.
 

BooNZ

Banned
How do you think that an earlier Great War would have differed from our TL's Great War?
That's a very open question with significant variables, but a possible scenario below:

I believe the formal French position at that point in time was it was not bound to support Russian adventurism in the Balkans. I think the Germans were also applying the brakes to A-H, but in 1912 the Germans did have a mobilization plan that contemplated hostilities initially being limited to the Balkans (i.e. this exact scenario). Per OTL, initially only Russia and A-H mobilise, but instead of the OTL climb down, things escalate. Once it is clear war is unavoidable, I expect the Germans would execute their Balkan mobilization plan and France would likely follow suit. You then presumably also have the Balkan league and the Ottomans going at it. I think Italy would initially wait and see.

I believe Conrad had about 48 divisions at his disposal and his plans to deal with a combined Russian-Serbian threat (circa 1911) were for 11 divisions to advance on Serbia, 27 were to hold the Russians and a further 10 were to be held in reserve. Conrad's OTL obsession with crushing Serbia was daft, but in this scenario it will force Serbia to 'trust' Bulgaria to defend its interests against the Ottomans, which is unlikely to end well. The Russians will be slightly weaker and slightly slower than 1914 and will likely be facing a slightly stronger A-H and four German armies instead of one. The British will either be neutral or a relatively passive belligerent.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That's a very open question with significant variables, but a possible scenario below:

I believe the formal French position at that point in time was it was not bound to support Russian adventurism in the Balkans. I think the Germans were also applying the brakes to A-H, but in 1912 the Germans did have a mobilization plan that contemplated hostilities initially being limited to the Balkans (i.e. this exact scenario). Per OTL, initially only Russia and A-H mobilise, but instead of the OTL climb down, things escalate. Once it is clear war is unavoidable, I expect the Germans would execute their Balkan mobilization plan and France would likely follow suit. You then presumably also have the Balkan league and the Ottomans going at it. I think Italy would initially wait and see.

I believe Conrad had about 48 divisions at his disposal and his plans to deal with a combined Russian-Serbian threat (circa 1911) were for 11 divisions to advance on Serbia, 27 were to hold the Russians and a further 10 were to be held in reserve. Conrad's OTL obsession with crushing Serbia was daft, but in this scenario it will force Serbia to 'trust' Bulgaria to defend its interests against the Ottomans, which is unlikely to end well. The Russians will be slightly weaker and slightly slower than 1914 and will likely be facing a slightly stronger A-H and four German armies instead of one. The British will either be neutral or a relatively passive belligerent.
I want to clarify--are you suggesting that Germany won't implement the Schlieffen Plan in this TL's WWI?
 

BooNZ

Banned
I want to clarify--are you suggesting that Germany won't implement the Schlieffen Plan in this TL's WWI?
I have assumed not, based on the fact Germany had a mobilization plan that contemplated an initially limited conflict in the Balkans, with France initially neutral. However, if contrary to expectations, France mobilises immediately, then the Schlieffen Plan is back in play.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I have assumed not, based on the fact Germany had a mobilization plan that contemplated an initially limited conflict in the Balkans, with France initially neutral. However, if contrary to expectations, France mobilises immediately, then the Schlieffen Plan is back in play.
Would Germany have been willing to limit a conflict to the Balkans, though? After all, if France doesn't intervene immediately, wasn't there a risk of it intervening later?
 
The Germans had, out of habit, always planned for the possibility of a Russia only war. Many people get confused and think this is an "East first" option. It was not. It was an East only option.
They drop all planning on this as a result of the 1912 Balkan crisis. They were right. If Germany mobilized, then the French would have no choice but to mobilize as well. The risk of Germany turning her army West was too great. But if France ordered a precautionary mobilization, then Germany would have to go West as the French were too strong to leave in the rear.

In OtL, Germany demands France turn over Toul and Verdun if she wanted to stay neutral. Not only would no French government ever do so, it shows just how bad the Germans thought going East was. More directly to our discussion is the Germans dropping all planning for an East only option. This means the French had convinced the Germans that no matter what the cause, France would stand by Russia and they did so because of the Balkan crisis. The conclusion is inescapable: The Germans are certain the French will back Russia. The Schlieffen plan is in play

And a Germany that implements the Schlieffen plan in 1912 is a Germany going down to defeat hard unless they can get Italy to help
 
I suggest you find more credible sources. Why would Bulgaria join an alliance with a traditional rival that was not directed explicitly towards the Ottomans? The Serbian-Bulgarian reconciliation was a focus of Russian diplomacy from 1904 for potential use against both the A-H and Ottoman empires. Does your source suggest there was no Russian interest in liberating Slavs from Ottoman rule?

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say that Bulgaria would only be interested in Ottoman territory and then you say for "potential use against both the A-H and Ottoman empires". If the Russians saw a use for it against the A-H Empire than the Bulgarians do as well. Balkan games are complicated. Bulgaria is a good ally to have against the Turks and good relations with Bulgaria is a means of checking the Turks. Its also a means of checking Romania- Bulgaria has claims in that direction as well

If you want to fight Austria, than Romania is the ally you want.

Russia and the Ottomans got along very well under Nicholas and his father until the Young Turk rebellion After that, things get a bit complicated. Its hard to find any significant incident between Turkey and Russia from 1881 Russia happily backs the Turks during the Armenian uprising and works with Germany and Austria to ensure Greece's defeat in 1897

As for Russia having no interest in liberating slavs from Ottoman rule, that is nonsense. The Russians had every intention of liberating the Slavs from the Turks and putting them under Russian rule. They had little interest in the Balkan states liberating themselves

The Russians care above all else about the straits. They will never allow them to fall into Bulgarian or Greek hands

The idea of a Serbo-Bulgarian alliance being a threat to the Ottomans is also wrong. Even after the Italians had banged up the Ottomans, Serbia and Bulgaria would lose. It takes the Greeks to tilt the balance in favor of the Balkan League- Greece provides not only her own 200,000 man army but her navy prevents the Ottomans from bringing up forces from Asia


OTL in 1912 Imperial Russia mobilized against A-H in anticipation, so it could result in an earlier great war.

For war to break out Nicholas, the Kaiser or Franz Joseph must want it. There is no indication anywhere that any of them seriously sought a Great Power war in 1912. There are tense moments but the monarchs keep the situation quite restrained
 
Top