20th Century Greek Anatolia

Nietzsche

Banned
So you are saying that the UK while fighting Germany would be willing to risk another war but when they only had a rebel army to face they didnt?

What is Greece going to do? They would have to be suicidal to start anything, and if they do, the Royal Navy makes the Aegean into a live-fire training ground. Greece couldn't beat Turkey, what hope do they have against Britain? It'd be like Cuba trying to seize Miami.

The only hope they have is Britain not doing anything out of sheer pity, or dying from laughter.
 
Well, why can't they fight Britain for it, especially if they promise the Russians unhindered access to the Bosporus? With a faster collapse of the Ottomans alongside a faster end to the European war (maybe early American entry?), wouldn't an Anglo-Russian rivalry resurrect itself rather quickly? I could see the British supporting Turkish nationalist insurgents in Anatolia against an alliance of the Orthodox ethnic groups in the region, backed by Russia.

Wait, Greece fight the British Empire over this? Bye-Bye Greece. :eek:
 
Exactly. Greece will look like the surface of the moon before it's over. Few seem to appreciate how much weight Britain had to throw around.

And of course the Allies just got a very nice new base to menace Austria-Hungary from the south and provide a means to ultimately establish a direct link for military aid to Russia. With Bulgaria being next to go in that process and Romania being "voluntarily" asked to join the Entente. This is a brilliant move.....for the Allies. And it's all but a guarantee that Greece, if it's stupid enough to attack Turkey after such a debacle ITTL, will provide the Turks with a pushover and then they have a real war with the Armenians.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
And of course the Allies just got a very nice new base to menace Austria-Hungary from the south and provide a means to ultimately establish a direct link for military aid to Russia. With Bulgaria being next to go in that process and Romania being "voluntarily" asked to join the Entente. This is a brilliant move.....for the Allies. And it's all but a guarantee that Greece, if it's stupid enough to attack Turkey after such a debacle ITTL, will provide the Turks with a pushover and then they have a real war with the Armenians.

Pretty much. Greece's territorial ambitions rest on Britain liking them. However, Britain could never like them enough to give up the Bosporus. Britain would never willingly give up the ability to choke Russia's power projection, not when all it would have to do to make sure things go their way is to fight Greece.
 
Yes we saw how the British military might just showed up kicked Turkey out of the war destroying Bulgaria and marched on Vienna within weeks and then gave Istanbul back to the Turks out of sheer pity so just adding greece to its enemies wouldnt make any difference
 
Pretty much. Greece's territorial ambitions rest on Britain liking them. However, Britain could never like them enough to give up the Bosporus. Britain would never willingly give up the ability to choke Russia's power projection, not when all it would have to do to make sure things go their way is to fight Greece.

The moreso when something like Gorlice-Tarnow happens and it starts looking like the main beneficiary of "Russia's" interests will be Germany's. We know in hindsight that was never going to happen, but would the UK of WWI which had some relatively weird views of Germany's overall power? And if this happens then Russia actually is the real gainer strategically as it has the ability to establish its own direct lines of communications with its Allies and at least one of its major OTL handicaps just got removed.

Admittedly so long as Nicholas II is ruling it this will not lead to very impressive results, but still.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Yes we saw how the British military might just showed up kicked Turkey out of the war destroying Bulgaria and marched on Vienna within weeks and then gave Istanbul back to the Turks out of sheer pity so just adding greece to its enemies wouldnt make any difference

There's a big difference between fighting the Ottoman Empire and fighting GREECE. All of their major cities and strategic points can be hit by the Royal Navy. They will turn Athens into a parking lot within days, and there is NOTHING Greece could even hope to do about it.

Their only hope basically rests on outside intervention. From Mount Olympus.
 
Yes we saw how the British military might just showed up kicked Turkey out of the war destroying Bulgaria and marched on Vienna within weeks and then gave Istanbul back to the Turks out of sheer pity so just adding greece to its enemies wouldnt make any difference

There is a big difference between the British after WWI, who were busier with Iraq and Afghanistan, places where its army didn't hesitate at all to drop the hammer, BTW, and the British during WWI. The British during WWI being attacked by Greece is a recipe for one of the most lopsided defeats of one European state by another. And as it was, the British Empire when it was fighting the Ottomans at this time was able to engage in some of the most brilliant maneuver campaigns of the entire war with a paucity of resources.

Greece er...........let's not go there.
 
And while the Brits somehow deliver this devastating defeat to Greece the Central Powers stand idly by? Or will they just lob some grenades at Athens and hope for a Zanzibar?
 
And while the Brits somehow deliver this devastating defeat to Greece the Central Powers stand idly by? Or will they just lob some grenades at Athens and hope for a Zanzibar?

Well, the Central Powers can do whatever they want but it'd do them no good. If anything the Ottomans will decide that it's a perfect moment to consider altering their whole strategy of the war as the British having troops in Greece can menace Constantinople far more directly overland than through the amphibious Gallipoli landings. As I said, this really is a brilliant move on the Allies' part as quite a few basic rules of the OTL Mediterranean aspect of WWI have been rendered obsolete. We're not talking the Gardeners of Salonika here.
 

rohala

Banned
Greece couldn't beat Turkey, what hope do they have against Britain?
Britain didn’t defeat Turkey either. Besides the fact that most of Turkey’s effort was drawn towards the Caucasus, the Anatolian mainland was never captured by anyone.

Exactly. Greece will look like the surface of the moon before it's over. Few seem to appreciate how much weight Britain had to throw around.
You don’t seem to appreciate how weak Britain was when it came to ground warfare.

And of course the Allies just got a very nice new base to menace Austria-Hungary from the south and provide a means to ultimately establish a direct link for military aid to Russia. With Bulgaria being next to go in that process and Romania being "voluntarily" asked to join the Entente. This is a brilliant move.....for the Allies.
The Allies had their base in Salonica whenever they wanted. However, they had no army to menace anyone. They failed miserably to protect Serbia. They couldn’t break Bulgaria until 1918.

Pretty much. Greece's territorial ambitions rest on Britain liking them. However, Britain could never like them enough to give up the Bosporus. Britain would never willingly give up the ability to choke Russia's power projection, not when all it would have to do to make sure things go their way is to fight Greece.
Ugh…
-The Bosporus and the Dardanelles are different places. I'm not sure you are aware of that.
-Britain actually advocated Greece's participation in an attack on Contantinople in 1915. Russia opposed it.

Realistically, the possibility of a war between Greece and Britain is practically zero. It defies logic. The two states have virtually the same interests at the time.


There's a big difference between fighting the Ottoman Empire and fighting GREECE. All of their major cities and strategic points can be hit by the Royal Navy. They will turn Athens into a parking lot within days, and there is NOTHING Greece could even hope to do about it.
Athens isn’t on the coast. Most of the Ottoman cities were however on the coast. How many did the RN bombard? Where would the bombarding of cities lead anyway?

There is a big difference between the British after WWI, who were busier with Iraq and Afghanistan, places where its army didn't hesitate at all to drop the hammer, BTW, and the British during WWI. The British during WWI being attacked by Greece is a recipe for one of the most lopsided defeats of one European state by another. And as it was, the British Empire when it was fighting the Ottomans at this time was able to engage in some of the most brilliant maneuver campaigns of the entire war with a paucity of resources.

Greece er...........let's not go there.
How many troops did the British Empire deploy against the Ottomans in those “brilliant maneuver campaigns”? How many did it face? In what condition were they? What is Greece’s military strength? Yeah…

Greece is more like Gallipoli than Palestine/Iraq. And that’s without reinforcements.

Well, the Central Powers can do whatever they want but it'd do them no good. If anything the Ottomans will decide that it's a perfect moment to consider altering their whole strategy of the war as the British having troops in Greece can menace Constantinople far more directly overland than through the amphibious Gallipoli landings. As I said, this really is a brilliant move on the Allies' part as quite a few basic rules of the OTL Mediterranean aspect of WWI have been rendered obsolete. We're not talking the Gardeners of Salonika here.
Ehm. Greece and the Ottoman Empire do not share a land border. Allied troops were present in north Greece since 1915. They had to go through Bulgaria to reach Constantinople.
 
The Allies had their base in Salonica whenever they wanted. However, they had no army to menace anyone. They failed miserably to protect Serbia. They couldn’t break Bulgaria until 1918.

Primarily because Greek neutrality was the Central Powers' best thing going for them. Alter this and the Ottomans and Bulgaria are botth vulnerable to a strike in the rear, and if it's early enough Bulgaria might actually join the Allies.

How many troops did the British Empire deploy against the Ottomans in those “brilliant maneuver campaigns”? How many did it face? In what condition were they? What is Greece’s military strength? Yeah…

Greece is more like Gallipoli than Palestine/Iraq. And that’s without reinforcements.

Quite a few, developing concepts like air interdiction and combined-arms warfare in the British style in the process. The Ottomans put quite a bit of *their* manpower into these campaigns.

Ehm. Greece and the Ottoman Empire do not share a land border. Allied troops were present in north Greece since 1915. They had to go through Bulgaria to reach Constantinople.

That's precisely what I'm getting at: without the bother of a mealy-mouthed pro-CP policy on the part of Greece the Allies just bull into Bulgaria and/or make it an Allied power.
 

rohala

Banned
You don't seem to know the situation very well.

First, Greece was hardly neutral. The Gallipoli campaign used the Greek island of Lemnos as its base, while also munitions were flowing from Greece to the Serbian army. Greece was very willing to join the war against Turkey but feared Bulgaria.

Bulgaria had a mobilized strength of 380 battalions and 1200+ artillery pieces, or about 800,000 men.
Serbia had some 250 battalions and 600 artillery pieces, or about 500,000 men.
Romania had 340 battalions and 1000+ artillery pieces, or about 700,000 men.
To those Greece only had some 140 battalions and 250 (plus some older) artillery pieces, or about 250,000 men.

Greece was obliged to go to war against Bulgaria from her alliance agreement with Serbia. However under the allaince agreement Serbia was supposed to put 150,000 combatants (ie ~200,000 men total) between Gevgelia and Pirot. Due to her involvement against Austria and Germany Sebia could provide only two divisions.
Greece asked the Entente to provide the necessary troops or Romania to join the war. Historically Romania remained neutral and the Entente landed a "whopping" 60,000 men (40,000 combatants), and at a very slow rate at that.

The Greek staff advised Greece to stay out from what appeared to be a suicide. The memorandum written by the Staff predicted that if Greece joined the war, what would happen would be the successive annihilation first of Serbia and then Greece. It's fair to say that Greek neutrality actually saved the Anglo-French troops from destruction.
 
You don't seem to know the situation very well.

First, Greece was hardly neutral. The Gallipoli campaign used the Greek island of Lemnos as its base, while also munitions were flowing from Greece to the Serbian army. Greece was very willing to join the war against Turkey but feared Bulgaria.

Bulgaria had a mobilized strength of 380 battalions and 1200+ artillery pieces, or about 800,000 men.
Serbia had some 250 battalions and 600 artillery pieces, or about 500,000 men.
Romania had 340 battalions and 1000+ artillery pieces, or about 700,000 men.
To those Greece only had some 140 battalions and 250 (plus some older) artillery pieces, or about 250,000 men.

Greece was obliged to go to war against Bulgaria from her alliance agreement with Serbia. However under the allaince agreement Serbia was supposed to put 150,000 combatants (ie ~200,000 men total) between Gevgelia and Pirot. Due to her involvement against Austria and Germany Sebia could provide only two divisions.
Greece asked the Entente to provide the necessary troops or Romania to join the war. Historically Romania remained neutral and the Entente landed a "whopping" 60,000 men (40,000 combatants), and at a very slow rate at that.

The Greek staff advised Greece to stay out from what appeared to be a suicide. The memorandum written by the Staff predicted that if Greece joined the war, what would happen would be the successive annihilation first of Serbia and then Greece. It's fair to say that Greek neutrality actually saved the Anglo-French troops from destruction.

Greece was neutral, as Greece was far too prone to side with Germany to actually enter the war on the Allies' side, even with the Ottoman Empire one of the central powers. It's worth noting that the moment Greece went solidly into the Entente Camp the Bulgarian forces in the Salonika Front crumbled overnight. In this case Bulgaria is more likely to join the Allies, which in turn is likely to lead Romania to do the same, which in turn leads to a more favorable position for the Allies.
 

rohala

Banned
Greece was neutral, as Greece was far too prone to side with Germany to actually enter the war on the Allies' side, even with the Ottoman Empire one of the central powers. It's worth noting that the moment Greece went solidly into the Entente Camp the Bulgarian forces in the Salonika Front crumbled overnight. In this case Bulgaria is more likely to join the Allies, which in turn is likely to lead Romania to do the same, which in turn leads to a more favorable position for the Allies.
a)Greece never entered into negoitiations with the central Powers. Converesely, at several times the Greek governments (1st Venizelos' term, Gounaris, 2nd Venizelos' term) had made it clear that they intented to join Entente as long as there would be an agreement. The snag was that the Entente would neither guarantee Greece's integrity (as they were promising Bulgaria the Greek area of Kavala) not guarantee precise gains in Anatolia, because Greece's claims conflicted with those of Italy.
b) Greeece joined the alliance wholly in June 1917. Bulgaria collapsed in September 1918, after quite some fighting between 1916 and 1918.
c)Bulgaria wanted concessions from Serbia and Greece in Macedonia in order to join the Entente. Venizelos had agreed to concede Kavala, in exchange for Anatolian lands, but Serbia had refused concessions. Bulgaria's strategic interest was always in Macedonia. It was very difficult indeed to bring Bulgaria on the same side as Serbia and Greece.
Realistically the best for the Entente would be to send the necessary forces to restore balance in the Balkans. Sarrail, who led the French expedition to Salonica in September 1915, cocneived an ambitious plan to eliminate Bulgaria. He asked for 3 or 4 French Corps to drive towards Sofia, however Joffre vehemently refused.
 

Dementor

Banned
It's worth noting that the moment Greece went solidly into the Entente Camp the Bulgarian forces in the Salonika Front crumbled overnight.
That's a strange conclusion to make, considering the Greek army didn't exactly cover themselves in glory while fighting the Bulgarians. A far more likely reason is the fact that for the fist time in the war the Allies could send substantial forces to the area.
 
a)Greece never entered into negoitiations with the central Powers. Converesely, at several times the Greek governments (1st Venizelos' term, Gounaris, 2nd Venizelos' term) had made it clear that they intented to join Entente as long as there would be an agreement. The snag was that the Entente would neither guarantee Greece's integrity (as they were promising Bulgaria the Greek area of Kavala) not guarantee precise gains in Anatolia, because Greece's claims conflicted with those of Italy.
b) Greeece joined the alliance wholly in June 1917. Bulgaria collapsed in September 1918, after quite some fighting between 1916 and 1918.
c)Bulgaria wanted concessions from Serbia and Greece in Macedonia in order to join the Entente. Venizelos had agreed to concede Kavala, in exchange for Anatolian lands, but Serbia had refused concessions. Bulgaria's strategic interest was always in Macedonia. It was very difficult indeed to bring Bulgaria on the same side as Serbia and Greece.
Realistically the best for the Entente would be to send the necessary forces to restore balance in the Balkans. Sarrail, who led the French expedition to Salonica in September 1915, cocneived an ambitious plan to eliminate Bulgaria. He asked for 3 or 4 French Corps to drive towards Sofia, however Joffre vehemently refused.

1) With a massive army sitting in Salonica, there was a damn good reason it didn't do that. The Greek state wanted to join with the Germans, in a way it's lucky it didn't. I dread thinking of what Sarrail would have done to the Greeks had they put that target sign on themselves.

2) Yes, after repeatedly refusing to do so for years from Germanophilia.

That's a strange conclusion to make, considering the Greek army didn't exactly cover themselves in glory while fighting the Bulgarians. A far more likely reason is the fact that for the fist time in the war the Allies could send substantial forces to the area.

I said the Allies, not Greece. Greece's sole military badass moment was beating Fascist Italy. Which is impressive on the one hand, but on the other hand it's Fascist Italy.
 

rohala

Banned
That's a strange conclusion to make, considering the Greek army didn't exactly cover themselves in glory while fighting the Bulgarians.
Actually, the Greek Army fought very well at Doiran, better than the British. In 1918 the Greek army, or at least he infantry component, was excellent. They had been groomed by the French to lead the assaults -and take the most casualties- against the Bulgarians for the upcoming campaign seasons of 1918 and 1919.

1) With a massive army sitting in Salonica, there was a damn good reason it didn't do that. The Greek state wanted to join with the Germans, in a way it's lucky it didn't. I dread thinking of what Sarrail would have done to the Greeks had they put that target sign on themselves.

2) Yes, after repeatedly refusing to do so for years from Germanophilia.
*sigh*
1)
a)There wouldn't be a "massive army sitting in Salonica" had Greece not allowed it in 1915.
b)After 1916 there was no Greek Army for Sarrail to clash anyway.
c)Had southern Greece hypothetically possesed an Army, and had it decided to side with the Central Powers, the Entente armies around Salonica would be sandwiched between Greeks and Bulgarians. Also, that would consitute a Civil War for Greece, as Sarrail's command included the Greek National Defence army in Salonica and the islands.

2)There is no such thing as Germanophilia. There is Grecophilia.
 

Dementor

Banned
a)Greece never entered into negoitiations with the central Powers. Converesely, at several times the Greek governments (1st Venizelos' term, Gounaris, 2nd Venizelos' term) had made it clear that they intented to join Entente as long as there would be an agreement. The snag was that the Entente would neither guarantee Greece's integrity (as they were promising Bulgaria the Greek area of Kavala) not guarantee precise gains in Anatolia, because Greece's claims conflicted with those of Italy.
I don't think the Entente was promising Bulgaria any Greek territory. When did that happen?

Realistically the best for the Entente would be to send the necessary forces to restore balance in the Balkans. Sarrail, who led the French expedition to Salonica in September 1915, cocneived an ambitious plan to eliminate Bulgaria. He asked for 3 or 4 French Corps to drive towards Sofia, however Joffre vehemently refused.
The Entente didn't have many spare corps at this point. And realistically persuading Serbia to make some concessions to Bulgaria would be probably be the best, considering they could not defend Serbia against the Bulgarians anyway.

Actually, the Greek Army fought very well at Doiran, better than the British. In 1918 the Greek army, or at least he infantry component, was excellent. They had been groomed by the French to lead the assaults -and take the most casualties- against the Bulgarians for the upcoming campaign seasons of 1918 and 1919.
Which is not saying much, considering the terrible condition of the Bulgarian army at this point.
 
Top