20th Century Greek Anatolia

*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.

1) They "allowed" it via gunboat diplomacy, no more and no less.

2) Citation needed.

3) Sure there's such a thing as Germanophilia. You see it all the time in alternate history.
 

rohala

Banned
I don't think the Entente was promising Bulgaria any Greek territory. When did that happen?
In 1914 and 1915. Venizelos had openly agreed to concede Kavala.

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.
They had eneough to waste on the autumn 1915 offensives in the western front with no gains. Mind you there were strong advocates in France of a Balkan startegy already since the stalement which ensude in the western front by the end of 1914. At that point Austria had been defeated by both Russia and Serbia. In front of the Serbs there was no cohesive defense line and only the lack of reserves on their part prevented them from invading Austria.

Which is not saying much, considering the terrible condition of the Bulgarian army at this point.
It wasn't in a terrible condition. It's morale was poor in general. Both at Dobropolie and at Doiran they held their line tenaciously. It was after the breakthrough that they started to disintegrate.
The Greek army begining from 1917 had trained under French superivision and equipped by France. It followed the latest French regulations. The French prepared the Greek army as best as they could. During the 1918 offensive various Greek regiments were attached to French divisions.
 

Dementor

Banned
It wasn't in a terrible condition. It's morale was poor in general. Both at Dobropolie and at Doiran they held their line tenaciously. It was after the breakthrough that they started to disintegrate.
The supply situation was also terrible, with a lack of ammunition, food and clothes with, many soldiers were literally barefoot at this point.
 

rohala

Banned
1) They "allowed" it via gunboat diplomacy, no more and no less.

2) Citation needed.
1)The force that the Allies landed to Salonica was too small. It's role was purely auxiliary to the Serb and Greek armies. The Allies landed to Salonica with the Greek permission. Without it there would be no point in a Balkan strategy -in fact there would be no Balkan strategy for the Entente

2)"Citation needed"? In 1916 Greece was split between the Greek Provisional Government in Salonica (the National Defence movement) and the governement in Athens. From summer 1916 the Entente (ie France) progressively requested that Athens demobilize, then move the army to Peloponnese and then hand over most of its equipment. By end 1916 Athens had no army. Conversely the French provided equipment for the National defence army and Greek forces loyal to the Salonica government fought with the French already since 1916.
So, by end 1916 Sarrail actually had more Greeks under his command than the ones he would face should he clash with Athens.
 
1)The force that the Allies landed to Salonica was too small. It's role was purely auxiliary to the Serb and Greek armies. The Allies landed to Salonica with the Greek permission. Without it there would be no point in a Balkan strategy -in fact there would be no Balkan strategy for the Entente

2)"Citation needed"? In 1916 Greece was split between the Greek Provisional Government in Salonica (the National Defence movement) and the governement in Athens. From summer 1916 the Entente (ie France) progressively requested that Athens demobilize, then move the army to Peloponnese and then hand over most of its equipment. By end 1916 Athens had no army. Conversely the French provided equipment for the National defence army and Greek forces loyal to the Salonica government fought with the French already since 1916.
So, by end 1916 Sarrail actually had more Greeks under his command than the ones he would face should he clash with Athens.

1) Or there'd just be an amphibious landing against an army much weaker than that of Kemal that provides a much larger base, instead of hypocritical mealy-mouthed approval of the Central Powers and attempts to limit the Allies solely to Salonika while the Allies ultimately dragoon Greece kicking and screaming into a war it never wanted to be in.
 

rohala

Banned
1) Or there'd just be an amphibious landing against an army much weaker than that of Kemal that provides a much larger base, instead of hypocritical mealy-mouthed approval of the Central Powers and attempts to limit the Allies solely to Salonika while the Allies ultimately dragoon Greece kicking and screaming into a war it never wanted to be in.
You obviously don't know much do you? At least admit it, don't play smart.

The Allies were invited to Salonica by Venizelos. Despite the confused situation in Athens and the fact that Greece eventually remained neutral, the order given to the Greek garisson in Salonica was to permit the landing of the Allied troops.
Without Greece's invitation there would be no landing. There would be no point in fact, since the whole objective of the Salonica landings was to draw Greece to the war. The Allied forces landed were pathetically small. The British, when it became clear that Greece did not intent to enter the war, considered the mission to be over and refused to march into Serbia. It was the French who marched anyway with to weak forces to succeed ina nything.
Also, had *somehow* the Allies wanted to force the landing in Salonica, they would have to duel with the naval fortifications and face the Greek army mobilized in Macedonia, which contrary to your poor knowledge, was not "much weaker" than "Kemal's army".
 
1) Or there'd just be an amphibious landing against an army much weaker than that of Kemal that provides a much larger base, instead of hypocritical mealy-mouthed approval of the Central Powers and attempts to limit the Allies solely to Salonika while the Allies ultimately dragoon Greece kicking and screaming into a war it never wanted to be in.

I too wonder where you get this information from....

It's one thing to dislike a nation for a number of subjective reasons, and another to make up your own facts just to justify your dislike....
 
Top