WI: Treaty of San Stefano accepted?

The Marquess of Salisbury, the British Foreign Secretary, supported the Russian position and the Treaty of San Stefano. After returning from the Congress of Berlin, Salisbury confessed that in supporting Austria-Hungary instead of Russia, the British had "backed the wrong horse."

So what if Britain decided for some reason or another to accept the treaty. Germany wanting to get close the Britain also accepts, and France seeing a strong Russia might counterbalance Germany accepts the treaty as well.

So what is the effects on the future of the Balkans now Ottoman presence has been whipped out?
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Well, assuming it does get accepted (and nothing on this god given Earth would convince me that it can get accepted):

You would have an independent, pro-Russian Bulgaria rather than a rump, Ottoman-vassalized Bulgaria, with the former gaining all of it's generally desired territory in Slavic and what is now Eastern Greek, Macedonia.

Montenegro would pretty much be unchanged (I think Montenegro's claims were unaffeceted by the Berlin treaty.

Serbia will still gain Nis and other places in Ottoman Serbia, but also Kosovo.

Romania's gains and loses (Northern Dorbuja for Southern Bessarabia) would also be unchanged.

Russia gains a chunk of Eastern Anatolia, predominantly Ottoman Armenia and Georgia.

Long term effects:
Ottomans have even less of a presence in the Balkans (They have Albania, Thessaly, Southwestern Macedonia and Thrace) but would have less Christians to deal with...

Russia effectively dominates the Balkans, a victory for the Pan-Slavist Movement against Turkey. Dunno how it would affect Alexander II's plans though in the long run, popular or no, there is still the movement aimed at destroying the Monarchy.

Austria-Hungary would wet their pants. While Bosnia is under Austrian influence (and may be...but not surely annexed), Russian influence in the Balkans would surely inspire such nationalist movements in Serbia.

As for the rest, I dunno...but that's my two cents.
 
Just for illustration:

%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0+%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+-+%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0.jpg


I am not sure if a Greater Bulgaria would be more of a Russian puppet than OTL Bulgaria. After all, the election/imposition of Alexander von Battenberg as Prince Regnant (or even as King/Tsar) of Bulgaria would not be changed by the TOSanStef, and we all know how well that turned out.
 
The best way of getting Britain to accept San Stefano, IMO, is to have Gladstone win the 1874 Election. Gladstone took the opposite view of Disraeli and believed, if Britain supported independence movements in the Balkans against the Ottomans, those countries would be a lot less pro-Russian, despite some being Slavic. Though it may be too late for a pro-British Bulgaria, this would at least help.

Also it would have a secondary-effect of Britain and Greece coming closer together, as a Gladstonian Britain would likely encourage the Greeks to go to war with the ailing Ottomans, unlike Disraeli who IOTL threatened the Greeks. So we could see Greece gain Thessaly, Epirus and Crete in the treaty, where IOTL they only gained Thessaly 3 years later than San Stefano.
 
Wouldn't the Greeks be a bit upset that Russia favored the Bulgarians on getting Solun though? Also, couldn't Montenegro get more of Sandzak?
 
And the Russians will have to cultivate the Russophilia that Bulgaria is slowly developing in the same way the Russians did when they cultivated Russophilia in neighboring Serbia and Montenegro.
 
I doubt the Treaty would go through in that form, the other powers wouldn't allow Russia to get so close to the Mediterranean (even by proxy), but assuming it did, is a Bulgaria-led Yugoslavia plausible later?
 

katchen

Banned
Any chance that the British might simply deal themselves into the Treaty of San Stefano by taking Thrace and Gallipoli up to Istanbul (or maybe even taking Istanbul and forcing the Ottomans to move their capital elsewhere in Anatolia) as a buffer between Russia and the Mediterranean, controlling the entrance to the Black Sea, much the same way the UK controls the entrance to the Med with Gibraltar?
 
Any chance that the British might simply deal themselves into the Treaty of San Stefano by taking Thrace and Gallipoli up to Istanbul (or maybe even taking Istanbul and forcing the Ottomans to move their capital elsewhere in Anatolia) as a buffer between Russia and the Mediterranean, controlling the entrance to the Black Sea, much the same way the UK controls the entrance to the Med with Gibraltar?

I doubt Russia would have accepted that. One of the main goals of Russian foreign policy up to WWI was to gain control over the straits, and putting them in British hands is a major step backward. (Russia has some ability to influence/cajole/bully the Ottomans when it needs to...the British, not so much.) I don't think even Greater Bulgaria would be enough for the Russians to accept a British Istanbul.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Just for illustration:



I am not sure if a Greater Bulgaria would be more of a Russian puppet than OTL Bulgaria. After all, the election/imposition of Alexander von Battenberg as Prince Regnant (or even as King/Tsar) of Bulgaria would not be changed by the TOSanStef, and we all know how well that turned out.

Someone should be shot for that Bulgaria. It looks like there's a blood covered tumor coming out of Bulgaria's ass.
 
I doubt Russia would have accepted that. One of the main goals of Russian foreign policy up to WWI was to gain control over the straits, and putting them in British hands is a major step backward. (Russia has some ability to influence/cajole/bully the Ottomans when it needs to...the British, not so much.) I don't think even Greater Bulgaria would be enough for the Russians to accept a British Istanbul.

I know it would be a massive kick in the teeth but if Russia has just imposed San Stefano it will have no friends in Western Europe and it can't take on Britain alone, not in the 1870's which was pretty much the peak of British power. I don't think Britain would take Istanbul for itself but it might give it to a very compliant and subservient Greece who is sufficiently pissed off about San Stefano. But to be honest it's much more likely that Britain would just help the Ottomans.
 
Any chance that the British might simply deal themselves into the Treaty of San Stefano by taking Thrace and Gallipoli up to Istanbul (or maybe even taking Istanbul and forcing the Ottomans to move their capital elsewhere in Anatolia) as a buffer between Russia and the Mediterranean, controlling the entrance to the Black Sea, much the same way the UK controls the entrance to the Med with Gibraltar?
The Ottomans aren't just going to surrender Thrace and Istanbul, the British would have to go to war to take it and then hold it. I don't see the willingness to attempt that. And such an action would lead to other attempts to seize the remaining Ottoman territory in Europe from other states, causing a ton of instability.
 

katchen

Banned
Gallipoli alone would make a very good second Gibraltar if held by Great Britain. Gallipoli would check and bottle up Russia even if Russia were to take Istanbul. Gallipoli, as we saw in the campaign of the same name IOTl, is a Gibraltar like mountain that is well nigh impregnable. And because Gallipoli effectively checkmates Russia's ambitions without costing the Ottoman Empire it's capital (especially if Greece, not Bulgaria gets the Aegean coast of Thrace and Macedonia as in IOTL), the Ottoman Empire just might be inclined to surrender Gallipoli without a war with the UK.
 
Top