WI: Catalyst of WW1 is the Greco-Turkish Aegean Islands Dispute

Could we see a war where, instead of say the Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated, maybe it could happen over the Aegean islands in 1914, with Greece controlling them and the Ottomans refusing to acknowledge their control?

Who would join who's side? How long would the war be?

How would this affect the rest of the world and its development as a result?

Thanks for reading!


-Josh
 
Last edited:
The Ottomans and the Russians had a long term thing going on. So the Russians recognise the Greek claim to the islands to piss off the Ottomans (the shiny new British built modern battle ships about to upset the naval balance of power in the Black Sea could also act as a catalyst towards this). Of course the Balkan League nations are delighted by the Russian position. This in turn concerns the Austrians who see the Balkans as their sphere of influence.

Naturally the Central Powers who had been quietly improving their relations with the Turks are horrified by this Russian interference as the islands are clearly Ottoman. Further they proclaim that the Tsar is sabre rattling and they are unimpressed and unafraid. The breakdown in relations forces the Russians to go gear up their war machine just in case. However as no system of part mobilisation has ever been figured out for the Russian military the chaos that follows convinces the Central powers that the Russians are preparing for an war and once they all start mobilising in turn war general becomes inevitable.

The main war plans had been drawn far in advance so the difference in flash point particularly for the French, Germans and Russians doesn't change their opening moves so the main battles of 1914 go as OTL.

The Balkans may go a little differently. As Greece and the Ottomans are more likely to be in it form the beginning. This means there would be an active front fought in Thrace between the two. If the other Balkan League nations get involved then they could/would face the Austrians as well. The Serbs managed to put up a decent fight against the Austrians IOTL. ITT aided by the Greeks they would at the least have somewhere to retreat to. I would expect western forces to be deployed into the Balkans (as was done later in WW1 OTL). Another variable is how this plays out in Bulgaria and Roumania. Neither of these nations had any traditional love for the Turks. If the Bulgarians stay neutral or worse join the Entente this would be a blow to the Central Powers as OTL the Bulgarians where first rate soldiers and it closes any assistance they could give to the Ottomans.

By 1915 the Balkan front starts to create a divergence from OTL. Do the British and French reinforce the Balkans instead of fighting at Gallipoli? Or Both? If Gallipoli goes ahead does the fighting to the north west tie down the Ottoman reserves so the line crumbles? Could this knock the Ottomans out of the war in 1915 as planned? Does this active front encourage the indirect rout supporters in the British cabinet to reinforce the Balkans at the expense of France and is this a war shortening move or not?

My gut says it would be to the allied advantage as the Austro-Hungarian Empire is far weaker and plagued by internal ethnic factions than Germany and if the Entente focused on knocking them out of the war before the Russians tire and descend into revolution then I just don't see the Germans fighting alone from say 1917 onward's.
 
Sugerpuffs I should have looked at the map before posting (head in hands with shame).

Do not worry my friend, for truth is weirder than fiction in this case. The head of the Greek admiralty planned for a invasion of Gallipoli, which probably would've worked because 1. Greek navy is better suited to Aegean than the British, 2. Better logistics with bases only a few miles away, and 3. A veteran army from the Balkan wars.

From here a battle in Thrace ensues.

Might see Germany do backhand deals for its neutrality, e.g. A divided Austria with a German puppet of Bohemia or maybe parts of Ottoman Empire (Germans had a slight interest in Iraq.

Overall, as the victory of WW1 led to Yugoslavia, I expect a victorious Greece to gain some serious territory, probably with Thrace, Constantinople and Asia minor coast. Don't know about Bulgaria though.

Thanks for the effort of your post! It shows you cared a lot about my idea!
 
Might see Germany do backhand deals for its neutrality, e.g. A divided Austria with a German puppet of Bohemia

Wait, what? How is Austria still getting sliced and diced in TTL? I'd think that they'd be golden in this scenario. Even if declarations of war are traded about, Russia and Serbia are going to be focused south so Austria doesn't have to fight unless Italy tries something. They're better off sitting on the border and negotiating terms for where and for whom they move. Of course, one could argue that's what they should have done in the OTL.
 
Wait, what? How is Austria still getting sliced and diced in TTL? I'd think that they'd be golden in this scenario. Even if declarations of war are traded about, Russia and Serbia are going to be focused south so Austria doesn't have to fight unless Italy tries something. They're better off sitting on the border and negotiating terms for where and for whom they move. Of course, one could argue that's what they should have done in the OTL.

They would anyway, we might just it happening later. But yeah, probably just letting the Ottomans be killed instead.
 

Deleted member 94680

The Ottomans and the Russians had a long term thing going on. So the Russians recognise the Greek claim to the islands to piss off the Ottomans (the shiny new British built modern battle ships about to upset the naval balance of power in the Black Sea could also act as a catalyst towards this). Of course the Balkan League nations are delighted by the Russian position. This in turn concerns the Austrians who see the Balkans as their sphere of influence.

So far this ratchets up tension but doesn't provide a casus belli, unless A-H or the Ottomans issues an ultimatum to Russia to withdraw the recognition?

Naturally the Central Powers who had been quietly improving their relations with the Turks are horrified by this Russian interference as the islands are clearly Ottoman. Further they proclaim that the Tsar is sabre rattling and they are unimpressed and unafraid. The breakdown in relations forces the Russians to go gear up their war machine just in case. However as no system of part mobilisation has ever been figured out for the Russian military the chaos that follows convinces the Central powers that the Russians are preparing for an war and once they all start mobilising in turn war general becomes inevitable.

Well there was a partial mobilisation plan for the Russians, in fact two. One for a war against just Germany and one for a war against just Austria-Hungary. The problem is, if the Russians activated the purely A-H plan and then the Germans mobilised, they wouldn't be able to react until the A-H related mobilisations were complete. Mainly due to the lack of rolling stock and poor co-ordination of railway lines, their "Great Plan" of military improvements were partially targeted at rectifying this. The general staff knew this and manipulated the Tsar into proclaiming general mobilisation to cover the possibility of Germany mobilising. This in turn made Germany mobilise as Russian units against their border were mobilised. It's the problem with all the nation's mobilisation plans - they were often viewed by the mobilising nation as precautionary, even defensive, in nature and as provocative, even aggressive, by the nation being mobilised against.

The main war plans had been drawn far in advance so the difference in flash point particularly for the French, Germans and Russians doesn't change their opening moves so the main battles of 1914 go as OTL.

So, War follows mobilisation, even though all that happens is proclamations have been made about the Aegean Islands? Germany plunges into Belgium, just because the Tsar says he agrees that the Greeks should have Karpathos and Kassos?

The Balkans may go a little differently. As Greece and the Ottomans are more likely to be in it form the beginning. This means there would be an active front fought in Thrace between the two. If the other Balkan League nations get involved then they could/would face the Austrians as well. The Serbs managed to put up a decent fight against the Austrians IOTL. ITT aided by the Greeks they would at the least have somewhere to retreat to. I would expect western forces to be deployed into the Balkans (as was done later in WW1 OTL). Another variable is how this plays out in Bulgaria and Roumania. Neither of these nations had any traditional love for the Turks. If the Bulgarians stay neutral or worse join the Entente this would be a blow to the Central Powers as OTL the Bulgarians where first rate soldiers and it closes any assistance they could give to the Ottomans.

I should hope the Greeks are "in it from the beginning", or else what has started the War? By 1914 the Bulgarians had less love for the Greeks and Serbians than the Turks, I would imagine having recent grievances against both for territory "lost" in the second Balkan war.

By 1915 the Balkan front starts to create a divergence from OTL. Do the British and French reinforce the Balkans instead of fighting at Gallipoli? Or Both? If Gallipoli goes ahead does the fighting to the north west tie down the Ottoman reserves so the line crumbles? Could this knock the Ottomans out of the war in 1915 as planned? Does this active front encourage the indirect rout supporters in the British cabinet to reinforce the Balkans at the expense of France and is this a war shortening move or not?

My gut says it would be to the allied advantage as the Austro-Hungarian Empire is far weaker and plagued by internal ethnic factions than Germany and if the Entente focused on knocking them out of the war before the Russians tire and descend into revolution then I just don't see the Germans fighting alone from say 1917 onward's.

If, and it's a big if IMHO, the war starts as you've said, an earlier and bigger Balkan Theatre is highly likely. But, if War follows largely as OTL as you've said elsewhere, do the WAllies have the troops to make a difference? How is the performance of Austria-Hungary any different in this war as to OTL?
 
So, War follows mobilisation, even though all that happens is proclamations have been made about the Aegean Islands? Germany plunges into Belgium, just because the Tsar says he agrees that the Greeks should have Karpathos and Kassos?

It didn't take much more than mobilisation and a OTL. Franz Ferdinand's assassination should have sparked at most a war between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, but once the big powers started mobilising nobody in power trusted their counterparts enough to pull back from the brink. I also feel this is less likely (but not impossible) than the OTL flash point but felt compelled to try to WI the POD.

I should hope the Greeks are "in it from the beginning", or else what has started the War? By 1914 the Bulgarians had less love for the Greeks and Serbians than the Turks, I would imagine having recent grievances against both for territory "lost" in the second Balkan war.

I'm not convinced they would have to be at war for it to all go to pot. The idea is that it is a reason for deterioration in the relationship between key members of the Central Powers and the Entente. If you look at the second Moroccan crisis 1911 it wasn't the fighting in Morocco that brought the continent closer to war it was how each belligerent called up their friends until one accepted defeat and stood down. So a similar situation ensures between Greece and the Ottoman Empire with the big boys taking sides but this time one side doesn't blink like the German's did in 1911. However it makes for a more interesting WI if the Balkans are set alight in 1914.

If, and it's a big if IMHO, the war starts as you've said, an earlier and bigger Balkan Theatre is highly likely. But, if War follows largely as OTL as you've said elsewhere, do the WAllies have the troops to make a difference? How is the performance of Austria-Hungary any different in this war as to OTL?

As I said in my earlier post 1914 goes along similar lines although there would be significant divergence in the Balkans. However once we get to 1915 the strategic situation has changed. The Balkans have more forces engaged (especially on the allied side). It would become a more attractive proposition to reinforce especially for the British who had very limited manpower in 1915 and where looking to deploy it where it could be most effective. I am not suggesting dozens of divisions but even half a dozen territorial divisions would make a bigger impact in Greece in 1915 than they did in France. If anything this could be to the allies advantage due to it reducing the eagerness of French and British commanders to launch offensives that no hope of success in 1915. Due to there being less troops held in reserve. Austro-Hungary's performance could be judged as worse as it would come up against more opposition earlier when it was as wedded to the manpower offensive as the French. They would therefore suffer more casualties earlier which would have a negative effect later in the war.
 

Deleted member 94680

It didn't take much more than mobilisation and a OTL. Franz Ferdinand's assassination should have sparked at most a war between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, but once the big powers started mobilising nobody in power trusted their counterparts enough to pull back from the brink. I also feel this is less likely (but not impossible) than the OTL flash point but felt compelled to try to WI the POD.

If, by "much more", you mean an ultimatum, that ultimatum not being met to the Austria's satisfaction, then A-H declaring war, then yes, there wasn't much more to the July Crisis than mobilisation. I would think putting the outbreak of WWI down to simple mobilisation of the Powers disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst. The mobilisation of Russia, followed by Germany, followed by France etc, etc has an entirely different context when War has already been declared by one of the nations involved. Mobilising, after expressing support for a belligerent, is far more likely to be seen as an aggressive act as opposed to brinkmanship.

I'm not convinced they would have to be at war for it to all go to pot. The idea is that it is a reason for deterioration in the relationship between key members of the Central Powers and the Entente. If you look at the second Moroccan crisis 1911 it wasn't the fighting in Morocco that brought the continent closer to war it was how each belligerent called up their friends until one accepted defeat and stood down. So a similar situation ensures between Greece and the Ottoman Empire with the big boys taking sides but this time one side doesn't blink like the German's did in 1911. However it makes for a more interesting WI if the Balkans are set alight in 1914.

So for simple make it more interesting reasons, that's fine. However, I think the attitudes of the Balkan nations will be far more affected by their feelings in regards to the Balkan Wars and the actions of the Great Powers than simple Balkan aggression in some form of vacuum.

As I said in my earlier post 1914 goes along similar lines although there would be significant divergence in the Balkans. However once we get to 1915 the strategic situation has changed. The Balkans have more forces engaged (especially on the allied side). It would become a more attractive proposition to reinforce especially for the British who had very limited manpower in 1915 and where looking to deploy it where it could be most effective. I am not suggesting dozens of divisions but even half a dozen territorial divisions would make a bigger impact in Greece in 1915 than they did in France. If anything this could be to the allies advantage due to it reducing the eagerness of French and British commanders to launch offensives that no hope of success in 1915. Due to there being less troops held in reserve. Austro-Hungary's performance could be judged as worse as it would come up against more opposition earlier when it was as wedded to the manpower offensive as the French. They would therefore suffer more casualties earlier which would have a negative effect later in the war.

Ah right, if you meant the A-H are worse as in they end up in a worse position after fighting more opponents, that makes sense. My bad for misunderstanding. However, if the British,9 French and Germans are involved in action on the Western Front, they won't have troops to spare above what could be found for Gallipoli and the like. Hindsight and retrospectively weighing up where the troops would be most effective is all very well, but in the minds of the commanders on the ground, those troops can't be spared. Who knows, sending more troops to Balkan adventures might well make a German breakthrough on the Western Front possible? What point putting more men into Greece if the Kaiser sits in Paris?
 
Bulgaria would probably do what Italy and Romania did OTL. Wait and see which bandwagon to jump on as there were spoils available from either side (Turkish Thrace and Greek and Serbian Macedonia)
 
Top