Challenge - Make Bulgaria the true Prussia of the Balkans

[Wendell]

Know Nothing

Alternatively have a 1914/15 POD. A slightly better organised Gallipoli campaign plus approaches to Bulgaria has it side with the allies, or at least declare war on Turkey. [The monarchy and many politicians were biased towards Germany but some argued for joining the entente powers].

This helps force the Turks to concede E Thrace, most [barring the straits themselves] going to Bulgaria. Germany and Austria might declare war on Bulgaria but can't get to it without going through someone else.

Bulgarian entry also triggers Greek entry on the allied side as they don't want to lose out or be isolated. This enables allied forces/supplies to reach Serbia, which along with the fact Bulgaria isn't attacking it's eastern border means it survives.

At the end of the war, which is probably 1816/17 at latest Serbia becomes Yugoslavia but it's heartland is exhausted after several years of war and the new northern territories are deeply hostile to coming under Serb control. Bulgaria has secured it's SE flank and has received military and economic aid from the allies [part of their price for joining the conflict]. Therefore in a subsequent conflict, aided by Croatian and Bosnian Bulgaria easily defeats an exhausted Serbia and grabs the territories it feels belongs to it.

This leaves the areas it disputes with Greece and that lost to Romania in 1913. Not sure about the latter but possibly also a war with Greece which is long a conflict with the Turks in Anatolia.

It needs some luck but is possible. What is more difficult is probably holding all this territory afterwards, with so many disgruntled neighbours.

Steve

I see problems with this. One big problem here is that getting Bulgaria to join the Entente is like getting Italy to join the Central Powers; more of the land desired is controlled by the side in question rather than the side joined in our timeline. Bulgaria did want as much of Thrace as they could get, but they wanted Ohrid more, and to weaken Greece. As much as the Italians may have wanted Savoy, Malta, and Nice, they wanted Trieste and Trent more, and wanted Istria if they could get away with it, but had designs on Dalmatia more broadly. Needless to say, most of these areas would make an alliance with the Hapsburgs essentially unpalatable.

Furthermore, the circumstances you present give Romania further cause than merely Bessarabia for joining the war on the opposite side than was true in our timeline. Here, southern Dobruja and Bessarabia are reasons to momentarily overlook continued Hungarian control of Transylvania. In essence, any aid that the Entente gives Bulgaria, if we accept your underlying premise, will be blown in a war with Romania, and not used to help save Serbia.

 

[Dementor]

Dementor
Given how many factions were involved in both powers it might be that someone on the Greek side made such an offer but without authority from the king and/or government. However it does seem unlikely as Greece didn't join the war until 1917, which split the country. [Or are you saying this was an offer made prior to the 2nd Balkan conflict?]

No, I meant that the Greeks made an offer during the Greek-Turkish war in the early 20s. But as I said above, the whole story seems dubious. Now, in an ATL where Bulgaria has been on the winning side, such a scenario would be quite possible, perhaps even a requirement for a Greek invasion of Turkey.

I see problems with this. One big problem here is that getting Bulgaria to join the Entente is like getting Italy to join the Central Powers; more of the land desired is controlled by the side in question rather than the side joined in our timeline. Bulgaria did want as much of Thrace as they could get, but they wanted Ohrid more, and to weaken Greece. As much as the Italians may have wanted Savoy, Malta, and Nice, they wanted Trieste and Trent more, and wanted Istria if they could get away with it, but had designs on Dalmatia more broadly. Needless to say, most of these areas would make an alliance with the Hapsburgs essentially unpalatable.

Yes, that's the main problem. But if the Entente seems to have the upper hand, then it would be certainly seem more prudent to join them. Of course, it's quite possible that Bulgaria will remain neutral in this scenario, which is what most of the opponents of the king wanted.

Furthermore, the circumstances you present give Romania further cause than merely Bessarabia for joining the war on the opposite side than was true in our timeline. Here, southern Dobruja and Bessarabia are reasons to momentarily overlook continued Hungarian control of Transylvania. In essence, any aid that the Entente gives Bulgaria, if we accept your underlying premise, will be blown in a war with Romania, and not used to help save Serbia.

In a scenario where one of three Central powers has been knocked out, joining them would be very unwise. And remaining neutral would jeopardize Romania's control of southern Dobrudja (which wasn't that vital, anyway) than joining the allies.

 

[stevep]

No, I meant that the Greeks made an offer during the Greek-Turkish war in the early 20s. But as I said above, the whole story seems dubious. Now, in an ATL where Bulgaria has been on the winning side, such a scenario would be quite possible, perhaps even a requirement for a Greek invasion of Turkey.

Ok thanks. I understand now. Could easily see the Greeks getting desperate enough to try this towards the end. Very risky through as the jewel the Greeks really wanted was E Thrace and Constaninople and that will of course put them between Turkey and Bulgaria after the war. Not a healthy position.

Yes, that's the main problem. But if the Entente seems to have the upper hand, then it would be certainly seem more prudent to join them. Of course, it's quite possible that Bulgaria will remain neutral in this scenario, which is what most of the opponents of the king wanted.

In a scenario where one of three Central powers has been knocked out, joining them would be very unwise. And remaining neutral would jeopardize Romania's control of southern Dobrudja (which wasn't that vital, anyway) than joining the allies.

Agreed, see below.

I see problems with this. One big problem here is that getting Bulgaria to join the Entente is like getting Italy to join the Central Powers; more of the land desired is controlled by the side in question rather than the side joined in our timeline. Bulgaria did want as much of Thrace as they could get, but they wanted Ohrid more, and to weaken Greece. As much as the Italians may have wanted Savoy, Malta, and Nice, they wanted Trieste and Trent more, and wanted Istria if they could get away with it, but had designs on Dalmatia more broadly. Needless to say, most of these areas would make an alliance with the Hapsburgs essentially unpalatable.

That is the big problem but if a major diplomatic effort is made it might work. Making a small but secure gain, making great power friends and getting a big boost to their economy and military might do it. As Dementor says above being on the winning side can be very attractive.

Furthermore, the circumstances you present give Romania further cause than merely Bessarabia for joining the war on the opposite side than was true in our timeline. Here, southern Dobruja and Bessarabia are reasons to momentarily overlook continued Hungarian control of Transylvania. In essence, any aid that the Entente gives Bulgaria, if we accept your underlying premise, will be blown in a war with Romania, and not used to help save Serbia.

Reasons and the Romanian monarch, being a Hohenzollern himself, wanted to side with Germany. However the Romanians really wanted Transylvania, which contains a large Romanian population. Also I doubt that Romania would try anything in the midst of a great war when it looks like Bulgaria not only has powerful allies but seems to be on the winning side.

I'm not thinking that the assistance to Bulgaria is to be used in helping Serbia. In the absence of Serbian willingness to make concessions on disputed land I could see the allies agreeing that Bulgaria is only declaring war on Turkey. Also that the funds and resources supplied are to pay for Bulgarian entry against the Turks. [Possibly implicit hints that if, after the war, Bulgaria ends up fighting Serbia over the disputed lands the allies will not intervene against them and perhaps keep the Romanians off their back].

Romania is a problem that is difficult to factor in because so many other things can happen with them. Dementor's point about Greece wanting Bulgarian support post-war can ease the question of both Greece and Turkey as they to a degree neutralise each other and Serbia could well be exhausted after the war but Romania could be an awkward point to overcome.

Basically Bulgaria in the allied camp is part of an alternative WWI TL I've played with where a shorter WWI enables a markedly stronger Britain and a mega RN leading to a later conflict.

Steve

 

[Nassirisimo]

I think if any extra land has to be gained from Turkey, it has to be in the first Balkan war or else its going to be much more difficult. The Balkan allies were able to get away with their attack on the Ottoman empire in the 1st war because most of the Ottoman Army was stationed in Asia, and the Greek navy made it difficult to get any more troops into Europe. However, from then on, the Ottomans kept a higher percentage of the army in Europe, allowing them to defend their territory more effectively, like in the Gallipoli campaign.

Gaining more of Macedonia doesn't seem to be as difficult, as long as the Bulgarians strike at the right time. A CP victory seems like the best way to get it, though that would involve a POD outside of the Balkans. Exept for one idea I have, which is kind of a long shot.

Basically, while not winning, the Bulgarians preform better in the Second Balkan war then OTL, and manages to hurt Serbia's army alot. If WW1 rolls around at the same time, the Russians might try mobilising alot more agressively then OTL in order to distract, or scare the Austro-Hungarians away from attacking a weakened Serbia. This in turn could scare Germany more, and persuade the Germans to drop the Schlieffen plan and concentrate on Russia instead.

 

[Snowstalker]

Bulgaria goes communist in the early 20's, and survives thanks to Soviet intervention.

The new Soviet client state is used to make inroads into the Balkans, becoming the Socialist Republic of the Balkan Peoples. It is later united with the Soviet Union, creating the Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Wallachian, Moldovian, Croatian, and Slovenian Soviet Socialist Republics.

 

[Wendell]

How successful is the proposed alternate Gallipoli?

If it's successful enough to know the Turks out of the war, then they won't have been in long at all, and will not seem as obviously defeated as they actually would be. Furthermore, you're also asking Bulgaria to side with a country, Serbia, that is arguably a much bigger enemy for Bulgaria than Turkey.

 

[Dementor]

I think if any extra land has to be gained from Turkey, it has to be in the first Balkan war or else its going to be much more difficult. The Balkan allies were able to get away with their attack on the Ottoman empire in the 1st war because most of the Ottoman Army was stationed in Asia, and the Greek navy made it difficult to get any more troops into Europe. However, from then on, the Ottomans kept a higher percentage of the army in Europe, allowing them to defend their territory more effectively, like in the Gallipoli campaign.

The Gallipoli campaign was fought on a narrow peninsula, with good defensive terrain. It's not clear if the Ottoman Empire would be able to effectively resist an attack by another strong army (in OTL, Bulgaria sent around 300 thousand against Serbia and had about half of that as a reserve on the Romanian border) in the rear of Gallipoli.
Of course, even if the Bulgarian intervention is unable to defeat the Ottoman Empire. it makes the defeat of the Central Powers even more likely and Bulgaria would be likely to receive some territory at the peace treaty.

Basically, while not winning, the Bulgarians preform better in the Second Balkan war then OTL, and manages to hurt Serbia's army alot. If WW1 rolls around at the same time, the Russians might try mobilising alot more agressively then OTL in order to distract, or scare the Austro-Hungarians away from attacking a weakened Serbia. This in turn could scare Germany more, and persuade the Germans to drop the Schlieffen plan and concentrate on Russia instead.

Interesting scenario, but a German invasion of Russia would probably go worse than defeating a rash Russian offensive.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If the Bulgarians manage to keep the Ottomans or Romanians out and fight only Serbia and Greece, might they win?

 

[Dementor]

If the Bulgarians manage to keep the Ottomans or Romanians out and fight only Serbia and Greece, might they win?

Quite possible, with a better plan and without the indecisiveness of the first days of the war.

 

[stevep]

That was basically the plan in the scenario I mentioned. The slightly more successful landings, say the forces are a bit better organised and also don't pause on the beaches but occupy more of the heights surrounding them. This draws the Turks into larger scale fighting and coupled with the extensive diplomatic campaign to get Bulgaria into the war they then overrun most of E Thrace. This forces a hurried retreat of the Turkish forces, possibly with heavy losses and the besieging of Constantinople. Greece, worried about being left out launches proposed attacks on the Ionnia coast.

Facing defeat on a broad front moderates overthrow the hard liners and sue for peace. Occupation of the straits by an international force for trade through them and of E Thrace by Bulgaria. What happens in Ionnia depends on how fast the various sides move. Greece is available as a supply route to Serbia and also enables allied troops to reach it, which with Bulgaria neutral means it holds and leads to an earlier collapse of Austria.

Steve

How successful is the proposed alternate Gallipoli?

If it's successful enough to know the Turks out of the war, then they won't have been in long at all, and will not seem as obviously defeated as they actually would be. Furthermore, you're also asking Bulgaria to side with a country, Serbia, that is arguably a much bigger enemy for Bulgaria than Turkey.

The Gallipoli campaign was fought on a narrow peninsula, with good defensive terrain. It's not clear if the Ottoman Empire would be able to effectively resist an attack by another strong army (in OTL, Bulgaria sent around 300 thousand against Serbia and had about half of that as a reserve on the Romanian border) in the rear of Gallipoli.
Of course, even if the Bulgarian intervention is unable to defeat the Ottoman Empire. it makes the defeat of the Central Powers even more likely and Bulgaria would be likely to receive some territory at the peace treaty.


Interesting scenario, but a German invasion of Russia would probably go worse than defeating a rash Russian offensive.

 

[Wendell]

That was basically the plan in the scenario I mentioned. The slightly more successful landings, say the forces are a bit better organised and also don't pause on the beaches but occupy more of the heights surrounding them. This draws the Turks into larger scale fighting and coupled with the extensive diplomatic campaign to get Bulgaria into the war they then overrun most of E Thrace. This forces a hurried retreat of the Turkish forces, possibly with heavy losses and the besieging of Constantinople. Greece, worried about being left out launches proposed attacks on the Ionnia coast.

Facing defeat on a broad front moderates overthrow the hard liners and sue for peace. Occupation of the straits by an international force for trade through them and of E Thrace by Bulgaria. What happens in Ionnia depends on how fast the various sides move. Greece is available as a supply route to Serbia and also enables allied troops to reach it, which with Bulgaria neutral means it holds and leads to an earlier collapse of Austria.

Steve

Would Constantinople, or perhaps only its European part, be made an international city in the long term, somewhat like Tangier?

 

[stevep]

Would Constantinople, or perhaps only its European part, be made an international city in the long term, somewhat like Tangier?

Wendell

Would depend on the circumstances. I think officially the deal was that Russia would get Constantinople but if/when Russia still collapsed into disorder then just about anything could happen. It was majority Turkish with a large Greek minority but if the Turks tried to fight on or you still get the Armenian massacres then there could be strong pressure to make sure they don't get it. Also given Greek and Bulgarian rivalry it could be decided that some international regime would be best although how that would work out in the longer run? The big problem would be how long would there be the will in assorted major powers to maintain it.

Steve

 

[Sift Green]

To make the analogue of Bulgaria to Prussia complete, shouldn't Bulgaria be the main force behind Southern Slavic unification like Prussia was the main force behind German Unification? As things stood in our timeline Bulgaria was the only Southern Slavic nation left out of Yugoslavia, making our timeline Bulgaria more like Austria in that regard.

 

[Dementor]

To make the analogue of Bulgaria to Prussia complete, shouldn't Bulgaria be the main force behind Southern Slavic unification like Prussia was the main force behind German Unification? As things stood in our timeline Bulgaria was the only Southern Slavic nation left out of Yugoslavia, making our timeline Bulgaria more like Austria in that regard.

I don't think the idea of a South Slavic federation was ever popular in Bulgaria - or at least before WWI. While Bulgaria was still one of the strongest states in the Balkans, the idea of unifying all lands which were considered Bulgarian was the main national cause.
Also, the Serbs and Croats at least shared a common language. This is not the case with the Bulgarians and the other South Slavic peoples. Even in Germany, while the various German dialects might not have been mutually intelligible, a common literary language had already been created.