Pretty much as the tin says, what if the Ottoman Empire did not declare war on Bulgaria (or anyone else for that matter) during the Second Balkan War? Would Bulgaria be able to hold itself against just the Serbs, Greeks and Romanians ? If not, would Greece end up being able to take more of Thrace from the Bulgarians ? What are the possible consequences of Greece and the Ottoman Empire having a land border after an alt-Second Balkan War ?
WI: Ottomans don't participate in the Second Balkan War ?
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
Nothing changes for the 2nd Balkan War - the Romanian invasion that caught Bulgaria utterly unprepared and could have well marched on Sofia was the real decisive event. The Ottomans merely responded by ganging up when they could.
If they don't even gang up then, they'd be seen as even weaker and probably alt-Gallipoli is more determined/successful overall.
If they don't even gang up then, they'd be seen as even weaker and probably alt-Gallipoli is more determined/successful overall.
Bulgaria would still have lost badly , so concessions to Greece in the form of some of the areas the Ottomans took back OTL isn't all that unlikely .
Bulgaria would have lost badly but not as badly as it did OTL as its forces wont be defeated on the Ottoman front. I do not think it will face a harsher peace than OTL
Than lets not forget that things did not happen in a vacuum: Russia and Austria as well took a pro Bulgarian stance vis a vis Greece (though not against its other opponents). Neither of these powers is interested in allowing Bulgaria to be mauled too badly. The great powers allowed the Balkan wars to play out without their direct military interference but that was on ocassion a close run thing and not at all guaranteed to remain so. Let the Balkans states push things too far and they will get involved.
Russia wanted to keep the Balkan alliance together or at least retain the ability / hope to resurrect it one day - for that Bulgaria could not be disappointed too much. Before the Balkan wars Bulgaria has been the traditional number 1 ally / client of Russia in the Balkans. During the war Russia clearly favoured Serbia ower Bulgaria in the Macedonian questions which greatly disappointed Bulgaria. Russia hoped to retain Bulgarian goodwill by supporting their claim against Greece in Serres and later in ending the conflict. Also Bulgaria was slavic and that did matter to Russian panslavists.
For Austria the preferred outcome of the war would have been Romania and Bulgara as CP aligned. They saw that Bulgaria and Serbia will clash ower Macedonia and because of the hostility between themselves and Serbia they clearly preferred Bulgaria there. As Greece was at the time clearly aligned with Serbia and Austria hoped for a Bulgarian alliance anyway they preferred Bulgaria to Greece as well. They also wanted Bulgaria to make concessions to Romania in hopes to avoid a Romanian-Bulgarian war - as we know in vain.
Edit: its also important to point out that Russia absolutely hated the idea of any orthodox nation getting Constantinople but themselves. Even the turks having it was better than that.
Last edited:
Probably the silliest policy that Russia followed.
If Russia had of been willing to let Bulgaria take Constantinople (or had arranged a compromise of an internationalised city jointly under the supervision of select great powers and the Balkan states) they might have kept the Balkan alliance together and won WW1 in 2 years.
I do understand that an Orthodox controlled Constantinople would have meant Russia could never take it but given the opportunities that it would have opened up it would imo have been worth it.
Disagree. The problem with the Balkan alliance was that they could never agree on who should get what teritory especially in Macedonia. Because of geography it was also never gonna work out:
1. They started the conflict without prior agreements on how to divide the territory. Serbia did manage to come to an agreement with Greece (as they interests did not really overlap) but there was no agreement between Greece and Bulgaria and the agreement between Serbia and Bulgaria was also such that it left a big chunk of Macedonia undecided because they couldnt agree about it (the decision was to be made by Russia after their victory)
2. Bulgaria's number 1 priority was Macedonia. But a victory also ment that it will be necessery that they wont be the one's actually occupying it as they would still need to fight the turks in Thrace while the others will be practically be done with their part of fighting. This was a huge issue because the Balkans states were very loath to give up a territory they once occupied.
3. Part of territory promised to Serbia (the northern half of Albania) was not going to get the nod from the GP's - at least not from Austria. The Austrians would have sooner started what would have probably turned out to be an early wwI than let that happen. Combine this and the Serbians also occupying the supposedly Bulgarian part of Macedonia (beyond what was supposed to be decided by Russia) and there is about zero possibility to avoid a Bulgarian - Serbian conflict.
Sorry but this made me laugh because there was a point in the war when Bulgaria seemed to be about to take the city - they were stopped on the last line of defense (Catalca line) before the city. The russian reaction was to prepare a naval invasion of Constantinople and be ready to take the city from the Bulgarians if necessery. I dont know if their obsession with the city was more religious or ideological - maybe both - but it undoubtedly existed. If any of the Balkan states would have taken it Russia would prepare for war if not attack right away. Russia would not only be ready and willing to take the city from any of the Balkan States but much more likely to try to do so.
Final point that just came to mind: there was an important strategic reason for the Ottomans to retain Constantinople as well - and this one was for everyone. All existing agreements regarding the Straits were made with the Ottomans. Any new power taking them or even half of them would open a huge can of worms for everyone.
Last edited:
In theory.
And maybe not without some further awkwardness.
But never say never.
And not with any more *physical difficulty* than taking it from the Ottomans or any succeeding Turkish regime.
Another possibility is that without Ottoman participation in the Second Balkan War, the Bulgarians may join the Central Powers earlier in 1914 and the Ottomans join the Entente in response (which may be cancelled out by Austria and Bulgaria doing better in Serbia in 1914 than Austria versus Serbia alone in 1914 and Austria and Bulgaria using the extra strength and time to invade the Dardanelles and neutralise Ottoman and Black Sea trade advantages to the Entente). But more likely is the Ottoman giving up their claims to Edirne and whatever they retook from Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War to Bulgaria or Greece and joining the CP as in reality while Bulgaria joins the CP earlier since they won't need to wait for Ottoman intervention for the CP before Bulgarian intervention for the CP.
Even if the Greeks were able to seek out maximum gains for themselves against Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War due to Ottoman neutrality or the capture of Sofia in that war, the Greeks won't share a land border with the Ottomans as a result of the Second Balkan War because the Greek maximum end goal of that war against Bulgaria would still leave Bulgaria with Aegean territory (Dedegatch) connected to Sofia and it would still leave Greece separated from an Ottoman land border by Bulgaria, resulting in no Ottoman land border with Greece even if Greece were able to seek out maximum gains for itself against Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War due to Ottoman neutrality or the capture of Sofia in that war.
AIUI, Enver Pasha got a leg up through appearing to lead the Ottoman reconquest of Adrianople. If Turkey remains neutral, he won't become Minister of War and one of the "Three Pashas" who controlled Turkey in 1914.