We all know that Bulgaria initiated the Second Balkan War by attacking Serbia and Greece, and ultimately lost following Ottoman and Romanian intervention. Would things be any different if Serbia and/or Greece threw the first punch (attacked Bulgaria first)?
Inverse Second Balkan War
- Thread starter FlygonNitro
- Start date
coffeebreakcigarette
Banned
I don't see the Bulgarians winning without outside help. Maybe there is from Austria-Hungary?
Well, we don’t want to have the Second Balkan War escalate into The Great War. Besides, wasn’t Russia more favoring to Serbia than Bulgaria? What would happen now if Serbia became the aggressor in the conflict?
coffeebreakcigarette
Banned
They are both Slavic, but yeah they were AFAIK. Although Serbia starting might not help Russia joining her side.
Okay, so what would this do regarding Bulgarian-Russian relations? They weren’t exactly the best, as far as I know.
Well, who would Russia support if Serbia and/or Greece attacked Bulgaria?
None. Great powers would just demand a ceasefire before things escalate.
If Bulgaria is on the defense, they should be able to hold on to their 1912 gains so long as the Ottomans and Romanians don't jump in unlike otl.
It all comes down to when the Great Powers intervene. Austria and Germany and maybe even Italy would support Bulgaria at the table. France and Britain would support the Greeks and Serbs.
Russia in otl liked Serbia and Bulgaria equally but ended up supporting the Serbian claim to Macedonia in otl.
If Bulgaria is on the defense, they should be able to hold on to their 1912 gains so long as the Ottomans and Romanians don't jump in unlike otl.
It all comes down to when the Great Powers intervene. Austria and Germany and maybe even Italy would support Bulgaria at the table. France and Britain would support the Greeks and Serbs.
Russia in otl liked Serbia and Bulgaria equally but ended up supporting the Serbian claim to Macedonia in otl.
How would a Bulgaria being on the defensive affect Romania and (especially) the Ottoman entries into the war?
It wouldn't be obvious that they were losing and if they were on the defensive, they wouldn't be overextended and could shift troops around wherever they're neefed, making the Romanians and the Ottomans more cautious than otl.
In otl, the Ottomans and Romanians only piled on when it became clear Bulgaria was losing.
So if this is the case, would Serbia and Greece have the advantage or would Bulgaria have the advantage?
Greece and Serbia were content with result of First Balkan War. There is no reason to attack.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
I'd say Serbia had a gripe about Greece holding Salonika, as that was Serbia's only real option as an accessible port.
There was also Albania, but I don’t believe that would go over too well.
Serbia wouldn't piss off the Greeks because then they'd side with the Bulgarians, who are pissed about the Serbs controlling Macedonia
It's been suggested that Bulgaria would be in a stronger position being on the defensive. And if so, and Bulgaria doesn't collapse, Romania and Turkey don't pile on. In that case - Enver Pasha doesn't lead Ottoman forces to the recapture of Thrace. That victory (coming after the disastrous defeat of the previous year) elevated Enver to the level of co-leader of the country. He was raised to the rank of pasha, and married a princess of the sultan's family.
No Thrace campaign, and Enver remains a second-tier player.
No Thrace campaign, and Enver remains a second-tier player.
So, if that were the case, how far would Bulgaria push back Serbia and Greece before a peace treaty is signed/a ceasefire is demanded?
It's be a military stalemate. Great Powers would intervene as said earlier. Political outcome depends on what each Great Power wants out of the war along with why Serbia and Greece attacked Bulgaria (in otl they wouldn't have done this unless Bulgaria gets some of the land they wanted in the First Balkan War).
Would the Armenian genocide have still happened without Enver in charge?