What if all three of these countries resisted the tempting offers given them by both the Allied and Central Powers, and remained neutral? What would be the major strategic effects on the war?
 
What if all three of these countries resisted the tempting offers given them by both the Allied and Central Powers, and remained neutral? What would be the major strategic effects on the war?

Greece itself was torn. The pro-Entente faction took control of the north, allowing the Allies to land and try to save the Serbs. Assuming the pro-German King is strong enough to prevent this, then there will be no Thessalonika front, which is probably a net boost for the Entente, even though they don't get to save as many Serbs.

However, if Bulgaria also remains neutral prior to this, then the whole Serbian situation isn't as desperate as above, meaning they can probably more safely evac through Albania, meaning the Entente gets to have their cake and eat it too.

Without the Greek islands to stage the op from, Gallipoli is probably never carried out, which is another net Entente gain.

OTOH, not having Romania join is a net Entente loss, meaning even more pressure on the Entente from freed-up CP forces. Falkenhayn probably keeps his job too, which is good for the CP.

Overal, a stronger 1915 for the Entente, followed by a better 1916 for the CP. On the whole, I think it benefits the Entente more, as more thoughtfully applied pressure against the OE in '15-'16 (especially without a berlin-constantinople railroad) could get them to bow out, opening up the straits and establishing a connection with Russia, something that IMO outweighs Romania's impact.
 
Greece was neutral at the time of the Gallipoli campaign.
Yes, but AFAIK the Entente troops assembled on the Greek island of Lemnos prior to landing, which they did courtesy of Venizelos, who was anything but neutral
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
OTOH, not having Romania join is a net Entente loss, meaning even more pressure on the Entente from freed-up CP forces. Falkenhayn probably keeps his job too, which is good for the CP.

Maybe not. IIRC the Russians had a practical military objection to Romania joining the Entente (they had plenty of political & diplomatic reasons as well) that it would extend Russia's military obligations. And IOTL that's exactly what happened - the Romanians collapsed and Russia faced a greatly increased frontage on its southern borders. Alexeyev in particular thought this would happen and planned accordingly by sending only a small force to link up with the Romanians in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. In addition the Central Powers gained full control of the Romanian oilfields (those that survived Entente agents' sabotage attempts) and loot such as rail rolling stock, etc.

Weirdly Romania staying neutral would probably have been an overall gain in hindsight for the Entente.
 

tenthring

Banned
The Salonika front was a waste for most of the war, but its collapse was the immediate reason for CP capitulation in 1918.
 
The Salonika front was a waste for most of the war, but its collapse was the immediate reason for CP capitulation in 1918.

Might not have collapsed so spectacularly without the failure Spring Offensive, though. CP morale just hit the toilet on all fronts, even though they were often not outnumbered that badly.
 

tenthring

Banned
Might not have collapsed so spectacularly without the failure Spring Offensive, though. CP morale just hit the toilet on all fronts, even though they were often not outnumbered that badly.

Yes, they had lost. But this made any delay totally untenable.
 
What's the PoD? It all comes down to Bulgaria. Had it remained neutral, Greece would likely remain neutral as well as Venizelos had compromised with the King and accepted that as long as Bulgaria didn't join the war, neither would Greece. Bulgaria invading Serbia really opened the Pandora's box that was the National Schism. As for Romania, I think they would still join at some point even with a neutral Bulgaria (in fact, it may encourage them further) so you most likely need two points of divergence.

Mind you, even if all these countries remained neutral, Dardanelles would still happened, just like OTL it happened and when it failed, then the Entente started making huge concessions to Bulgaria to join them and invade Thrace from the northwest, trapping the Ottoman armies in the Kallipolis peninsula.
 
As noted, Greece was neutral for much of the conflict and that still lead to the violation of said neutrality multiple times so I see no change there. Bulgaria would slightly hurt the Central Powers in operations in the Balkans and in terms of aiding the Ottomans, but on the whole nothing too disastrous for them. Romania, however, is a war changer in favor of the Central Powers. The entry of Romania, coupled with the Brusilov Offensive, effectively broke the back of the Austro-Hungarian forces for the remainder of the conflict. Preventing that will enable them to more effectively fight in both the Balkans and in Northern Italy until the war comes to an end. Much more important, however, is that the Romanians will still be sending the CP grain supplies. This will prevent a large sum of the food issues the CP faced throughout the second half of the war, which resulted in reduced troop effectiveness and lead to the revolutions that occurred at the end of the war.

On the whole, I'd say the CP wins a peace of exhaustion around 1918/1919.
 
Last edited:
Top