Serbian army surrenders in 1915?

What if, instead of embarking on the retreat through Albania to link up with the Allies in Greece, Serbian troops surrender in October 1915 following the German/Austrian/Bulgarian attack?

How does this affect both Allied and Central Powers' war plans - positively and negatively? Is a Salonica Front still created, and what is the scope and size of such a front in this alternate setting?
 
What if, instead of embarking on the retreat through Albania to link up with the Allies in Greece, Serbian troops surrender in October 1915 following the German/Austrian/Bulgarian attack?

How does this affect both Allied and Central Powers' war plans - positively and negatively? Is a Salonica Front still created, and what is the scope and size of such a front in this alternate setting?

To whom do they surrender?
 
The Salonica Front would not be created in this scenario.
The French, British, Russian (and maybe even Italian) troops that fought at Salonica in OTL will be used on other fronts.
The German and Austrian troops can also be used elsewhere...but the CP's biggest asset at Salonica, the Bulgarian army, will not be used on other fronts; it simply stays at home.
The Serbian troops don't participate on any front, but they turn the Serbian resistance movement (which was no joke even in OTL) into a massive headache for Austria-Hungary; as a result, A-H is forced to divert many more of its troops to occupation duty in Serbia and Montenegro.
Greece stays neutral, but they only fought on the Salonika Front anyway (which in this scenario doesn't exist). Romania is still likely to join the Entente.

All in all, I'd say this gives the Central Powers an advantage compared to OTL - but only a slight advantage.
 
The Salonica Front would not be created in this scenario.
The French, British, Russian (and maybe even Italian) troops that fought at Salonica in OTL will be used on other fronts.
The German and Austrian troops can also be used elsewhere...but the CP's biggest asset at Salonica, the Bulgarian army, will not be used on other fronts; it simply stays at home.
The Serbian troops don't participate on any front, but they turn the Serbian resistance movement (which was no joke even in OTL) into a massive headache for Austria-Hungary; as a result, A-H is forced to divert many more of its troops to occupation duty in Serbia and Montenegro.
Greece stays neutral, but they only fought on the Salonika Front anyway (which in this scenario doesn't exist). Romania is still likely to join the Entente.

All in all, I'd say this gives the Central Powers an advantage compared to OTL - but only a slight advantage.
Bulgarian troops can be deployed to Gallipoli and force an early withdraw
 
The Salonica Front would not be created in this scenario.
The French, British, Russian (and maybe even Italian) troops that fought at Salonica in OTL will be used on other fronts.
The German and Austrian troops can also be used elsewhere...but the CP's biggest asset at Salonica, the Bulgarian army, will not be used on other fronts; it simply stays at home.
The Serbian troops don't participate on any front, but they turn the Serbian resistance movement (which was no joke even in OTL) into a massive headache for Austria-Hungary; as a result, A-H is forced to divert many more of its troops to occupation duty in Serbia and Montenegro.
Greece stays neutral, but they only fought on the Salonika Front anyway (which in this scenario doesn't exist). Romania is still likely to join the Entente.

All in all, I'd say this gives the Central Powers an advantage compared to OTL - but only a slight advantage.
With the entire Bulgarian army free would Romania still jump in? There is no front tying the Bulgarian forces from deploying against them if no Salonkia front so that would have to factor into their equations and a neutral Romania keeps Falkehyn in charge of the German army which likely delays or stops USW from happening which stops the US from joining the entente before they run out of money.
 
With the entire Bulgarian army free would Romania still jump in?

I believe it's still very likely to jump in.
Romania had been growing extremely close to the Entente, and the biggest factor in their final decision was the start and initial success of the Brusilov Offensive. Basically, Romanians came to believe that the Brusilov offensive would smash everything in its path and that the CP and Austria in particular would soon be suing for peace. So they thought it was smart, and even necessary, to join the war now so Romania's aspirations don't get ignored in the peace conference.
Fear of Bulgaria was an issue, but not a major one - indeed, it wasn't even 100% certain that Bulgaria would attack Romania. And the Brusilov offensive and its early successes will still happen in this scenario.
 
I believe it's still very likely to jump in.
Romania had been growing extremely close to the Entente, and the biggest factor in their final decision was the start and initial success of the Brusilov Offensive. Basically, Romanians came to believe that the Brusilov offensive would smash everything in its path and that the CP and Austria in particular would soon be suing for peace. So they thought it was smart, and even necessary, to join the war now so Romania's aspirations don't get ignored in the peace conference.
Fear of Bulgaria was an issue, but not a major one - indeed, it wasn't even 100% certain that Bulgaria would attack Romania. And the Brusilov offensive and its early successes will still happen in this scenario.
Romania had taken land from Bulgaria during the 2nd Balkan War so there was some claims there for the Bulgarians. And as mentioned in this case the entire Bulgarian army is free so it may be redeployed to other fronts or some units moved to the Romanian border at which point I would have to think the calculus changes for the Romanians. Or if they send 1 or 2 armies to reinforce the A-H front against Russia that could change how well Brusilov does, or maybe deploy against Italy in which case more A-H armies remain deployed against Russia.

OTL the Bulgarians were tied up at Salonkia, here that is no longer the case so the Romanians are going to have different weights on their actions.
 
If there's no Salonica front does that free up enough German and Austria manpower for the Trentino Offensive Offensive to go ahead without Galicia being stripped of units prior to the Brusilov Offensive? That could be a game changer.
 
What could a sizable Serbian resistance movement look like?

A bit like the OTL movement, but on steroids. The Serbian army disbanding in Serbia (instead of retreating south) means the resistance gains a massive increase in manpower, a massive increase in weapons and supplies, and a massive increase in professional leadership (in OTL, the leadership of the Serbian resistance was mostly made up of enthusiastic amateurs, which led to some...let's say, confused tactical decisions).

Resistance would most likely be strongest in the Austro-Hungarian occupation zone (unlike in OTL, where it reached its peak in the Bulgarian zone). In my arbitrary estimate, the revolt would be able to tie up over 50,000 Austrian troops at its peak. And it would erupt earlier...early enough to coincide with the Brusilov offensive. So it would be a serious inconvenience - but not, like, a crippling blow or anything.
 
A bit like the OTL movement, but on steroids. The Serbian army disbanding in Serbia (instead of retreating south) means the resistance gains a massive increase in manpower, a massive increase in weapons and supplies, and a massive increase in professional leadership (in OTL, the leadership of the Serbian resistance was mostly made up of enthusiastic amateurs, which led to some...let's say, confused tactical decisions).

Resistance would most likely be strongest in the Austro-Hungarian occupation zone (unlike in OTL, where it reached its peak in the Bulgarian zone). In my arbitrary estimate, the revolt would be able to tie up over 50,000 Austrian troops at its peak. And it would erupt earlier...early enough to coincide with the Brusilov offensive. So it would be a serious inconvenience - but not, like, a crippling blow or anything.
How many men could it die down and how would it effect the Austro-Hungarian performance through her multiple fronts?
 
Romania had taken land from Bulgaria during the 2nd Balkan War so there was some claims there for the Bulgarians. And as mentioned in this case the entire Bulgarian army is free so it may be redeployed to other fronts or some units moved to the Romanian border at which point I would have to think the calculus changes for the Romanians. Or if they send 1 or 2 armies to reinforce the A-H front against Russia that could change how well Brusilov does, or maybe deploy against Italy in which case more A-H armies remain deployed against Russia.

OTL the Bulgarians were tied up at Salonkia, here that is no longer the case so the Romanians are going to have different weights on their actions.

This is all true (except, I think, for the part where Bulgaria commits troops to the Galician or Italian front - they'd find it very hard to persuade Bulgaria to do so). But it's true with the benefit of hindsight; doesn't really reflect how the Romanian leadership saw the situation at the time.
 
How many men could it die down and how would it effect the Austro-Hungarian performance through her multiple fronts?

Well, like I said my arbitrary estimate is over 50,000 Austrian troops tied down (perhaps as many as 100,000...but that's a long shot). And also around 50,000 Bulgarian troops. The effect on Austria and its other fronts: a serious problem, but not a catastrophe.
 
Top