Russia's Turkish Delight: Big Bulgaria

The Treaty of San Stefano was signed by the Russian and Turkish Empires at the end of the Russo - Turkish war of 1878; in it, Serbia and Montenegro received their independence, as did Romania, and all received some measure of aggrandizement. The main point however was the creation of Great Bulgaria which occupied not only the main Bulgarian -speaking areas of the Balkans but Macedonia and portions of what are now northern and eastern Greece. In addition, Russia and Austria were to be accorded administration rights over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Obviously, this Treaty was not looked favorably on by the majority of Europe, especially Austria and Britain, and so to end the tension which had arisen, a Congress was held in Berlin to settle the matter. As we know, Bulgaria was divided into various districts which had autonomy and the promise of Turkish reforms. Now, what would be the result if:

a) Russia refuses Western interference. Would another war ensue? How would things unfold from 1878 to 1914?

b) Russia barters away everything else EXCEPT Great Bulgaria. They let Austria be sole administrator of Bosnia, they give up pretensions elsewhere (temporarily) in the Balkans, and make promises about not interfering in the new State's development beyond some economic investments. On this point Russia refuses to yield, threatening to withdraw altogether, so the Powers conclude that this is - if not agreeable - certainly better than the danger of a war with far wider scope. Russia still ends up a winner with her new big Bulgaria.

So how do things unfold differently than our timeline with a more pro - Russian outcome???

Thoughts?
 
So if Russia accomodates Austria by letting them have Bosnia and recognizes Serbia as their sphere of influence in the Balkans, can that keep the Three Emperors' League a viable Alliance?
 

Dementor

Banned
The Treaty of San Stefano was signed by the Russian and Turkish Empires at the end of the Russo - Turkish war of 1878; in it, Serbia and Montenegro received their independence, as did Romania, and all received some measure of aggrandizement. The main point however was the creation of Great Bulgaria which occupied not only the main Bulgarian -speaking areas of the Balkans but Macedonia and portions of what are now northern and eastern Greece. In addition, Russia and Austria were to be accorded administration rights over Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Macedonia was mostly Bulgarian speaking at the time, as were most of the regions today in northern and eastern Greece.

a) Russia refuses Western interference. Would another war ensue? How would things unfold from 1878 to 1914?
Most likely and Russia would lose. This is why Russia backed off.

b) Russia barters away everything else EXCEPT Great Bulgaria. They let Austria be sole administrator of Bosnia, they give up pretensions elsewhere (temporarily) in the Balkans, and make promises about not interfering in the new State's development beyond some economic investments. On this point Russia refuses to yield, threatening to withdraw altogether, so the Powers conclude that this is - if not agreeable - certainly better than the danger of a war with far wider scope. Russia still ends up a winner with her new big Bulgaria.
Thoughts?
Still not good enough. Britain was alarmed at what they saw as a Russian satelite state reaching the Aegean Sea and coming very close to Constantinople; Austria was against losing what it saw as a natural area of influence in Macedonia.
 
@Dementor: Austria - Hungary had no influence in Macedonia, as it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. She did, however, have influence in the autonomous principality of Serbia. Her efforts were stymied on account of Russia's foolish hubris about being protector of Slavs and Orthodox Christians everywhere. This put Russia on a direct path with her destiny in 1917: however, had she reached some accomodation with Austria and turned her eyes elsewhere, things would have been very different.

Austria would have been happy to let the Russians have their Bulgaria if St. Petersburg agreed to divide the balkans. Dividing spheres of influence into east and west would have been an equitable solution: Romania and Bulgaria (great Bulgaria) to Russia; Serbia and Montenegro to Austria.

If Bismarck had played the role of faithful friend instead of honest broker, Russo - German relations would probably have not soured as they did otl. And if Russia had not been greedy in the balkans against Austria's rather modest intentions, the Three Emperors' League could easily have survived. That would have had very interesting ramifications for the early 20th century.
 
@Dementor: Austria - Hungary had no influence in Macedonia, as it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. She did, however, have influence in the autonomous principality of Serbia. Her efforts were stymied on account of Russia's foolish hubris about being protector of Slavs and Orthodox Christians everywhere. This put Russia on a direct path with her destiny in 1917: however, had she reached some accomodation with Austria and turned her eyes elsewhere, things would have been very different.

Austria would have been happy to let the Russians have their Bulgaria if St. Petersburg agreed to divide the balkans. Dividing spheres of influence into east and west would have been an equitable solution: Romania and Bulgaria (great Bulgaria) to Russia; Serbia and Montenegro to Austria.

If Bismarck had played the role of faithful friend instead of honest broker, Russo - German relations would probably have not soured as they did otl. And if Russia had not been greedy in the balkans against Austria's rather modest intentions, the Three Emperors' League could easily have survived. That would have had very interesting ramifications for the early 20th century.

This. Definitely. I blame Austria though. They should have seen that a Bulgarian client state would leave Serbia in the cold.
 
Top