This could give the war to the Central Powers. Ottomans and Russians divide Balkans accordingly. Austria and Germany cite evidence of Albania/Balkan divisions without Italian knowledge as 'evidence' Italy will get promises from London and Paris but no delivery. They promise Albania, Epirus, Montenegro, Corsica, Tunisia, and (insert colony here) along with license to produce various aircraft etc. Italy sees France and Britain reeling from early setbacks following the invasion of Belgium and promise of plebiscite for Trentino. Germany assigns officers to Italy who manages to push along the coast and reach the Var in short course. France panics but Von Moltke doesn't - he is able to rally his forces during First Marne and not only stabilize the front but allow forces to the north to seize more territory while those in the south encapsulate several thousand French troops at the German border. Italy pushes past the Var, soon taking Grimaud, Saint Julian du Verdon, Le Sauze-du-Lac, and Briancon before the front stabilizes. Whether from gross incompetence, blind panic, or low supplies the front is (correctly) felt to be too far into French territory given the natural defensive of the terrain. Britain loses faith in France's ability to win the war, especially as the eastern suburbs of Paris are within artillery range of the largest German guns.
WI: The Ottoman’s “Enver-Leontiev Treaty” came to pass?
Deleted member 94680
Possibly...
What do London and Paris have to do with this? Again, this is an Ottoman-Russian negotiation/treaty and the Balkan nations are drawn in. It is not an Entente diplomatic manoeuvre. To cite British/French perfidy has no bearing on this and would make Vienna and Berlin look foolish at best, confused and floundering otherwise.
All well and good, but where does the coal, shipping and finances that Italy desperately need come from? I can offer you the moon, but without a rocket to get there, it’s an empty gesture.
The officers advance, or the Italian Army does? To assign officers requires Italy to agree and go on the offensive. None of that will happen overnight. Also, the Italian Army is now magically pushing into France? With what supply routes and depots? Does Italy even have a war plan aimed at France?
Possible but highly unlikely. What are the Entente reactions to all of this? You can’t have one side completely change and the other stay as OTL. Russia has only the eastern front to worry about, no Caucasus theatre. How does this affect the Germans and Austrians? How, under greater pressure from Russia, is Germany able to send expeditionary forces to Italy and not worry about Austria?
Both sides are courting an otherwise neutral Italy. If she joins the Central Powers she gains more for greater risk, Castello (Italian minister of foreign affairs) will only live to October but might be persuaded to side with the CP if they can make Italy think they offer a better deal. If France looks about beaten with Germany at the gates of Paris and Russia acting in accordance with the Ottomans to divide the Balkans without Italian involvement, the irredentialist spirit in Italy will probably demand action lest territories they deem theirs be denied to them for yet another century.
Many believe the war will be over by Christmas when it begins so long-term economic problems may not come into consideration. To continue the metaphor, if you can buy or sublet a rocket from the Russians, Musk, etc in a timely fashion you can still fulfill your lunar promise.
So the Western Front remains unchanged, at least in the beginning. If France has to move troops south to contain Italy, it might cause Von Moltke to avoid his nervous breakdown after First Marne and keep German troops closer to Paris.
From 1907 the primary military points of interest appear to focus on Grenoble and Toulon with lesser HQs at Albertville, Villefrenche, and Briancon. The coastal highway apparently was not as well protected as the mountain passes and thus seemed the logical place to start in my scenario. Nice had been Italian fifty years prior, as had Savoy. If Villefreche falls, the next nearest major defensive post along the coast will be at Toulon and a railway goes into the mountains behind Briancon, Digne, and several of the French border forts.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
Isn’t this what happened OTL? The Austrians (holding many of the lands Italy coveted) and the Germans made offers to Italy and Italy turned them down to join the Entente. How does this ATL put the Austro-German position in any better light?
A very good point. Anything can happen if the short-sighted are in charge. But OTL, Italy took longer than Christmas to join the War. Why different here?
Russia and the Ottomans have between them the capacity to dominate the Balkans and do so without Italy or Austria. If seen to be moving that way and thought to be acting as part of the Allies, I think Austria and Germany would make it clear the Allies have already divided up the Balkans regardless of what Italy is being told. Should France move troops to the Italian border on the belief or with evidence of an invasion or significant troop build-up it could change the outcome of (First) Marne and with it the Western Front.
If Austria and Germany can convince Italy that not only are the Allied promises bunk but that the Allies are on the verge of losing the war, Italy can either risk alienating its population seeking irredentist claims or start to mobilize. France then has a choice of wherher to move troops south or risk Italian invasion along the coastal roads and into former Italian Savoy and Nice. Disrupt the situation too much and I think the CP can win in the West before Christmas.
Deleted member 94680
OTL the Treaty of London, which was enough to get Italy into the War, only promised Austrian lands. It made no mention of Albania:
Italian gains are light green.
The Italian public wanted those irredentist claims. You suggest a war against a nation with no current belligerence towards Rome would be more popular? Highly doubtful...
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Why would the Allies be closer to losing the war with a stronger starting position than OTL with additional Russian troops turning up from the Caucasus (eventually...). If Italy was't tempted in Autumn / Winter 1914 OTL how can the CP change that view in ATL?
Art. 6 and 7 of the treaty: Italy get Vlore his surrounding, accept a division of the nation (North Epirus to Greece and the north of Albania divided between Montenegro and Serbia) with the remaining part of Albania becoming an italian protectorate
Honestly I think a lot of this is pretty wasted discussion. I would bet a house that the reference to Albania wasn't to all of Albania but to North Epirus and maybe a few bits of land north of that.
Albania in any case was in a state of turmoil from early 1914 and by August the international gendarmerie which served as a sort of police force was having a hard time battling rebels (who were capturing the Dutch officers) and the Prince of the Principality of Albania would flee by September 3rd.
Now's here what happened in OTL:
Picking apart what happened up to August 5th and attempting to extrapolate:
1. in OTL the Greeks, under Venizelos, received the approval of the Great Powers (including Italy) for the re-occupation of southern Albania in October 1914. Having skillful employed diplomacy to even getting Italy to agreeing to a Greek occupation of southern Albania/northern Epirus anyway, Venizelos doesn't strike me as being foolish enough to even want all of Albania if it was offered to him under the Enver-Leontiev Treaty, precisely because he would be well aware that it would raise the ire of Italy.
2. Italy's government (under Salandra) had decided in September 1914 to occupy Vlore, even though the Marshall of Italy (Cadorna) had feared the Albanian campaign would meet the same failures as the Italian campaign in Libya or Austrian campaign in Bosnia and result in the deployment of over 200,000 men. Cadorna's concerns were taken into account as Italy's marines didn't occupy much of an area outside of Vlore in December (following the occupation of Saseno Island at the end of October).
3. The bit from Wikipedia above that stated that Italy were not happy with the Greek occupation is sourced from a New York Times story on October 23, 1914 which suggests that Italian troops were landed at Valona then to provide succor to "150,000 Albanian refugee families" and to "oust the Greek soldiers who have invaded Albania in the guise of Albanian rebels", but this was according to the Adjutant of the Prince of Albania, American Captain H. Sherwood Spencer. This doesn't sound as if Italy was unhappy (which would seem odd given that they approved the Greek occupation in October) but more like the reading/wishes of an official of the Albanian government who would hardly be expected to be glowing about the Greek occupation. However the possibility remains that the Greeks may have occupied a larger area than the Italians were okay with and that this action might have helped spur the move (although as noted before, the Italians had decided to occupy Vlore before the Greeks had re-entered the country anyway, so this may have been more of a superficial reason/cover). There is no reason to believe things would have occurred much differently, except now instead of merely occupying southern Albania, Greece would have a greenlight from Russia and Turkey to annex it (though it would not need to do so in a hurry as having had multiple great power approval and with the Enver-Leontiev treaty's provisions pertaining to Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia likely remaining a secret, Venizelos likely still gets the approval of everyone to occupy southern Albania due to the turmoil but with a lot of winking coming from Russia and Turkey).
4. if the Enver-Leontiev Agreement had been accepted by Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia in addition to Russia and Turkey, then Bulgaria conceivably does not join the Central Powers in attacking Serbia. Bulgaria's secret mutual defence treaty with the Ottoman Empire of August 6, 1914 presumably occurs as planned (after all it aligns quite well with the Enver-Leontiev Agreement), however the Ottomans do not enter the war in October 1914, likely by breaking the Ottoman-German alliance of August 2, 1914 (which not everyone in the Ottoman government supported and the Sultan himself apparently preferred neutrality which the Enver-Leontiev treaty would provide unlike the Ottoman-German alliance which required an Ottoman declaration of war one day after Germany declared war on Russia [that provision wasn't adhered to clearly as the Ottomans entered the war basically months later, not a day later]).
5. This frees up 50-100,000 Russian troops to be sent to Poland/Galicia. It also means that the Mesopotamia, Sinai/Palestine and Gallipoli campaigns don't happen with the British Indian Army forces, British forces, Australian and New Zealander forces and French forces used in those campaigns (totally over 400,000 easily over the course of 1914-1918) being employed elsewhere (likely in the German colonies and in France/Belgium)
6. Presumably at some point Bulgaria evacuates western Thrace in conjunction with Serbia evacuating parts of Macedonia. Bulgarian and Ottoman neutrality are maintained (again assuming no backstabbing) and Allied/CP efforts to get Romania and Italy into the war on their side continue. My bet is that both break for the Allies at this point as Romania was pro-Entente/Allied generally by then and King Carol was dead from 1914. Italy probably gets the same promises as before, but now that Greece is occupying southern Albania (as happened in OTL anyway) and according to the Russo-Turkish agreement would be able to annex it and this is now part of the price of Bulgarian/Ottoman neutrality for the British and French (who will likely accept this lest the whole Enver-Leontiev agreement collapse and bring the Ottomans and Bulgarians in on the side of the Central Powers), the Italians probably get to establish a protectorate over Central Albania as in OTL and get to annex Vlore and other Albanian ports like Durres outright possibly as part of their price for entry on the Allied side (rather than just Vlore alone as in OTL Treaty of London).
7. How the war goes from there is anyone's guess. However it looks a lot better for the Allies at that point because Serbia and Montenegro are still in the game and the troops they would otherwise have needed to face Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire can now be usefully employed/wasted (your mileage may vary) elsewhere.
Albania in any case was in a state of turmoil from early 1914 and by August the international gendarmerie which served as a sort of police force was having a hard time battling rebels (who were capturing the Dutch officers) and the Prince of the Principality of Albania would flee by September 3rd.
Now's here what happened in OTL:
Picking apart what happened up to August 5th and attempting to extrapolate:
1. in OTL the Greeks, under Venizelos, received the approval of the Great Powers (including Italy) for the re-occupation of southern Albania in October 1914. Having skillful employed diplomacy to even getting Italy to agreeing to a Greek occupation of southern Albania/northern Epirus anyway, Venizelos doesn't strike me as being foolish enough to even want all of Albania if it was offered to him under the Enver-Leontiev Treaty, precisely because he would be well aware that it would raise the ire of Italy.
2. Italy's government (under Salandra) had decided in September 1914 to occupy Vlore, even though the Marshall of Italy (Cadorna) had feared the Albanian campaign would meet the same failures as the Italian campaign in Libya or Austrian campaign in Bosnia and result in the deployment of over 200,000 men. Cadorna's concerns were taken into account as Italy's marines didn't occupy much of an area outside of Vlore in December (following the occupation of Saseno Island at the end of October).
3. The bit from Wikipedia above that stated that Italy were not happy with the Greek occupation is sourced from a New York Times story on October 23, 1914 which suggests that Italian troops were landed at Valona then to provide succor to "150,000 Albanian refugee families" and to "oust the Greek soldiers who have invaded Albania in the guise of Albanian rebels", but this was according to the Adjutant of the Prince of Albania, American Captain H. Sherwood Spencer. This doesn't sound as if Italy was unhappy (which would seem odd given that they approved the Greek occupation in October) but more like the reading/wishes of an official of the Albanian government who would hardly be expected to be glowing about the Greek occupation. However the possibility remains that the Greeks may have occupied a larger area than the Italians were okay with and that this action might have helped spur the move (although as noted before, the Italians had decided to occupy Vlore before the Greeks had re-entered the country anyway, so this may have been more of a superficial reason/cover). There is no reason to believe things would have occurred much differently, except now instead of merely occupying southern Albania, Greece would have a greenlight from Russia and Turkey to annex it (though it would not need to do so in a hurry as having had multiple great power approval and with the Enver-Leontiev treaty's provisions pertaining to Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia likely remaining a secret, Venizelos likely still gets the approval of everyone to occupy southern Albania due to the turmoil but with a lot of winking coming from Russia and Turkey).
4. if the Enver-Leontiev Agreement had been accepted by Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia in addition to Russia and Turkey, then Bulgaria conceivably does not join the Central Powers in attacking Serbia. Bulgaria's secret mutual defence treaty with the Ottoman Empire of August 6, 1914 presumably occurs as planned (after all it aligns quite well with the Enver-Leontiev Agreement), however the Ottomans do not enter the war in October 1914, likely by breaking the Ottoman-German alliance of August 2, 1914 (which not everyone in the Ottoman government supported and the Sultan himself apparently preferred neutrality which the Enver-Leontiev treaty would provide unlike the Ottoman-German alliance which required an Ottoman declaration of war one day after Germany declared war on Russia [that provision wasn't adhered to clearly as the Ottomans entered the war basically months later, not a day later]).
5. This frees up 50-100,000 Russian troops to be sent to Poland/Galicia. It also means that the Mesopotamia, Sinai/Palestine and Gallipoli campaigns don't happen with the British Indian Army forces, British forces, Australian and New Zealander forces and French forces used in those campaigns (totally over 400,000 easily over the course of 1914-1918) being employed elsewhere (likely in the German colonies and in France/Belgium)
6. Presumably at some point Bulgaria evacuates western Thrace in conjunction with Serbia evacuating parts of Macedonia. Bulgarian and Ottoman neutrality are maintained (again assuming no backstabbing) and Allied/CP efforts to get Romania and Italy into the war on their side continue. My bet is that both break for the Allies at this point as Romania was pro-Entente/Allied generally by then and King Carol was dead from 1914. Italy probably gets the same promises as before, but now that Greece is occupying southern Albania (as happened in OTL anyway) and according to the Russo-Turkish agreement would be able to annex it and this is now part of the price of Bulgarian/Ottoman neutrality for the British and French (who will likely accept this lest the whole Enver-Leontiev agreement collapse and bring the Ottomans and Bulgarians in on the side of the Central Powers), the Italians probably get to establish a protectorate over Central Albania as in OTL and get to annex Vlore and other Albanian ports like Durres outright possibly as part of their price for entry on the Allied side (rather than just Vlore alone as in OTL Treaty of London).
7. How the war goes from there is anyone's guess. However it looks a lot better for the Allies at that point because Serbia and Montenegro are still in the game and the troops they would otherwise have needed to face Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire can now be usefully employed/wasted (your mileage may vary) elsewhere.
Last edited:
Combining the map on page 1 with the war aims of France, Russia, Italy, Serbia and Romania (British war aims were really only the restoration of Belgium and weakening of Germany and defence of France) by around 1915-1916 Russia and France would probably envision something like this as a result of the Enver-Leontiev Treaty:
Of course, the outcome will probably not look like that, but if the Enver-Leontiev Agreement held and Bulgarian and Ottoman neutrality continued as a result and the Allies won by 1916 then something along these lines might be expected (likely with less territory for Serbia - perhaps only Slavonia, Bosnia and parts of Dalmatia; and perhaps less territory in Transylvania for Romania as well.
Of course, the outcome will probably not look like that, but if the Enver-Leontiev Agreement held and Bulgarian and Ottoman neutrality continued as a result and the Allies won by 1916 then something along these lines might be expected (likely with less territory for Serbia - perhaps only Slavonia, Bosnia and parts of Dalmatia; and perhaps less territory in Transylvania for Romania as well.
Nephi
Banned
I do like that map, but I wonder might the people in Slovakia be a problem for that little Hungary?
Well there might not even be a Hungary as I think the original war aim of some high ranking officials in Russia was for the survival of the Dual Monarchy.
So maybe something like this:
Well who knows? Chances are slim. If A-H can't survive that defeat I expect Allied views will change in favour of establishing some kind of independent Czechoslovakia while retaining core Germanic Austria and Hungary in some kind of union and forbidding Austria from unifying with Germany.
EDIT: So something like this:
Attachments
Last edited:
The major problem with the Enver-Leontiev treaty is getting the entire Ottoman government to see it as in their interest (because ultimately, long term while some in the government while desirous of long term peaceful relations with Russia, it won't take long for some of them and others to figure out that an Entente victory could leave the Ottoman Empire at the mercy of Anglo-Franco-Russian benevolence). However IF the Ottoman government was able to support it and adhere to it from August 1914 through to 1916, perhaps they might be able to relieve even more pressure on themselves by supplementing the agreement in 1915 or 1916 with an agreed transfer of the Armenians in Anatolia to Russia (in exchange for some of Russia's Muslim subjects in the Caucasus most likely) and perhaps Greeks in Anatolia and Thrace. This would remove a long term pressure point for the Ottomans in regard to Russia (no Christian Armenian subjects means Russia has less reasons to interfere in Ottoman domestic affairs and less excuses to launch wars on it).
The other major problem is getting Serbian acceptance of it since apparently in OTL in August, Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pašić had outlined Serbia's war aims in August 1914 and in that document there was an explanation as to why the Entente were unjustified in their calls for Serbia to yield parts of Macedonia to Bulgaria (with the Entente aiming to renew the alliance of Christian Balkan states - i.e. excluding Turkey) because Pašić said, the area was inhabited by Macedonian Slavs who were closer to Serbs (according to him) than to Bulgarians. If Serbia won't accept it, then the whole thing falls apart since Bulgaria isn't going to yield Thrace to Turkey in exchange for nothing. And without getting Thrace, the Turks have no real incentive now to withdraw their forces in the Caucasus area to allow Russia to free up tens of thousands of soldier for the war in Poland/Galicia.
Perhaps with the Enver-Leontiev treaty drawing in Greece as well, Venizelos might be able to help persuade Pašić on the deal, and the fact that Bulgaria would not simply be gaining territory but gaining territory in exchange for losing territory elsewhere might get Serbia on board. Pašić's price though might be for Allied/Ottoman/Bulgarian/Greek support for the Yugoslav programme/aim of bringing Bosnia, Croatia and the Slovenes into union with Serbia (coupled with the proposed Serbian-Montenegrin customs, military and economic union that was being negotiated around that time) and maybe some plebiscites to determine which parts of Macedonia get ceded to Bulgaria.
The other major problem is getting Serbian acceptance of it since apparently in OTL in August, Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pašić had outlined Serbia's war aims in August 1914 and in that document there was an explanation as to why the Entente were unjustified in their calls for Serbia to yield parts of Macedonia to Bulgaria (with the Entente aiming to renew the alliance of Christian Balkan states - i.e. excluding Turkey) because Pašić said, the area was inhabited by Macedonian Slavs who were closer to Serbs (according to him) than to Bulgarians. If Serbia won't accept it, then the whole thing falls apart since Bulgaria isn't going to yield Thrace to Turkey in exchange for nothing. And without getting Thrace, the Turks have no real incentive now to withdraw their forces in the Caucasus area to allow Russia to free up tens of thousands of soldier for the war in Poland/Galicia.
Perhaps with the Enver-Leontiev treaty drawing in Greece as well, Venizelos might be able to help persuade Pašić on the deal, and the fact that Bulgaria would not simply be gaining territory but gaining territory in exchange for losing territory elsewhere might get Serbia on board. Pašić's price though might be for Allied/Ottoman/Bulgarian/Greek support for the Yugoslav programme/aim of bringing Bosnia, Croatia and the Slovenes into union with Serbia (coupled with the proposed Serbian-Montenegrin customs, military and economic union that was being negotiated around that time) and maybe some plebiscites to determine which parts of Macedonia get ceded to Bulgaria.
I don't think the Balkan states would be too keen on this. Serbia would be loath to give up "New Serbia" (Macedonia) even if it meant gaining Bosnia. Similarly Bulgaria and Greece would loath having to give up their parts of Thrace (and remember, both laid claim to ALL of Thrace).
If the Russians try to push the Serbs to accept this, they may well turn around and agree to the Austrian Gendarmerie investigating on their soil.
If the Russians try to push the Serbs to accept this, they may well turn around and agree to the Austrian Gendarmerie investigating on their soil.
Last edited:
Agreed on this part, though Greece would not have to give up any parts of Thrace, but rather some Aegean Islands.
Just minor nitpick: Russia will probably want, and likely get, the northern half of Bukovina (which IIRC had Slavic majority; it is part of Ukraine nowadays IOTL).
Not sure if Croatia proper and Slovenia will be part of a unified *Yugoslavia ITTL, though it remains a possible outcome (I am under the impression that many people in Slovenia especially only fully bought the Yugoslavist ideal, in its Serbian-led variant, when the writing on the Austrian wall was clearly appearing; I assume it was different in Croatia).
Edit: also, very unlikely that Italy gets that big a chunk of inland Dalmatia if a *Yugoslav state is formed. The inland area is mostly Serbian-majority I believe, so it would be very, very hard sell in Belgrade, and Serbia must get as much as she can in return for very reluctantly giving up most of hard-won Macedonia.
Well the map shows war aims which don't necessarily have to pan out. And by late 1914 I believe Serbian war aims had been to incorporate the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into it.
See the map further up thread. This was OTL what the Allies had promised to Italy, Serbia and Montenegro...