Talk:Balkans theatre

Aftermath of the Romanian campaign

"Despite this disaster, Romania was on the winning side and did get Transylvania as a reward in the peace treaty that ended World War I.". IMO this paragraph is not neutral - it suggests that the only argument Romania had to claim Transylvania was being on the winning side - and it should be rephrased. On the other hand, it is incomplete - Transylvania was not the only territory gained by Romania at the end of the war (see Bukovina and Bessarabia). Mentatus 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pointless text

The French and British kept six divisions each on the Greek frontier from 1916 till the end of 1918. Originally, the French and British went to Greece to help Serbia, but with Serbia's conquest in the fall of 1915, their continued presence was pointless. For nearly three years, these divisions accomplished essentially nothing and only tied down half of the Bulgarian army, which wasn't going to go far from Bulgaria in any event.

It is official front of WWI. Honestly, this few divisions could not break it alone, so idea was to rebuild and refit Serbian army. While French General was in overall charge, story of how Serbia was freed takes no notice of majority of Serbian troops and their contribution.

Also, above text is pointless: few divisions linking half of army is a tactical success. A point that front was a stalemate for few years is nothing new in WWI. Rastavox (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Greece's contribution to the war effort

"In fact, Keegan argues that "the installation of a violently nationalist and anti-Turkish government in Athens, led to Greek mobilization in the cause of the "Great Idea" - the recovery of the Greek empire in the east - which would complicate the Allied effort to resettle the peace of Europe for years after the war ended." (Keegan pg. 308)."

The above does not provide a balanced argument as it cites only Keegan. Besides, this excerpt does not reveal anything about who installed the allegedly "violent" government in Athens. To the contrary the Greek government lost the elections of November 1, 1920 and the new government despite its previous antiwar position escalated Greece's engagement in Asia Minor. Furthermore it was not the Greek "Great Idea" but the much broader "Eastern question" (the demise of the Ottoman empire) that defined the peace problem of Eastern Europe. After all the "allied effort" ceased to be so allied after the end of the war, as France, Italy (and USSR) came to terms with a Kemalist Turkey as a successor to the Ottoman Empire and materially supported the Kemalist forces, while Great Britain continued to support the Greek campaign in Minor Asia under the mandate of the Treaty of Sevres until the Greek defeat.

NPOV dispute

The article is highly confusing and clearly not neutral as it awards central role to Romania in the Blakan front of the war. In fact fighting was more presistent in the Western and South-Eastern Balkans. The article, however clearifies the marginal Romanian involvement, but only briefly mentions the lengthy fighting occuring in Serbia and Bulgaria ommiting the Turkish front. There are further incorrections regarding Bulgaria`s involvment - notebaly Bulgaria`s involvment in the war was based on promised gains of territories considered lost in the Balkan wars. Therefore firstly Bulgaria`s High Command insists upon invading Greece but is ordered to remain at the borders by its allies who were hoping to recruit Greece on their side. When Greece chose the other side however the French and British devisions were needed to guarantee Greece`s security. These devisions task was not to "hold half the Bulgarian army" as stated but rather to invade Bulgaria. They were stoped although the average ratio of British&French manpower to Bulgarian manpower was 4 to 1 soldiers (this is untrue. Aprox 150.000 Allies + similar number of Serbs vs. around 300.000 Bulgarians + lesser contigents of Germans + A.H.s) Another ommitment of the article which is obviously ambigous and regarding only the Romanian viewpoint is Bulgarian army involvement in the conquest of Romania. The Bulgarian army swiftly sweeped all resistance in the region of Doubrouja (Norht-Eastern Balkans) and even encountered Russian army forces which were fend off to Moldova. As I mentioned before Bulgaria`s involvment in the war was strictly because of popular discontent with the borders after the Balkan wars and was aimed at teritories considered to be Bulgarian in esense - populated by a majority Bulgarian population and historically part of the country. For example Dobrouja was acuiered by Romania after the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 as a reward for Romania`s involvment of the war but had remained predominantely Bulgarian populated as well as being the historic origin of the Bulgrian state as all historians agree that it was the place where the state was established(refer to Bulgarian hisotry). Therefore Bulgrian army only occupied Dobrouja and refused to advance and fight with Russians who were still highly valued as "liberators" from Ottoman rule. The government could not persuade the public that any advance in "foreign" territory is needed as the majority of Bulgarians were cotempt with "liberating" what they saw as a natural part of the country. Therefore the involvment in what is now Northern Greece and the Rebublic of Macedonija as well. I think the article needs serious revision although I feel biased to be able to do so. However in its present form the article is no less biased and confusing.

issues with article

I can clearly see why this article was rated to be checked for neutrality. I'm no expert on the Balkan Campaign of WWI, but I do know that there is a severe bias in this section. "Humiliating defeats in 1914", "Fought very well" and "the retreat was skillfully carried out" is a definite violation of neutrality. It sounds as if this person is seriously pro-Serbia. I'm not saying that Serbia didn't fight well, because they did, I just think that this is a violation of the policy of neutrality.

Climie.ca 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

If anything this is pro-Austrian, "Serbian Campaign" part is incorrect. The Serbians fought the full force of Austria but was underestimated by the central powers having it had spent the past years mobilizing and purchasing one of the first Airforces in the world. The Serbians fought incredibly well, throwing waves and waves of Austrians until an overwhelming force of Germans, Austrians and Bulgarians came which had some extream ratio of like 8:1 against Serbia.MitchKliev 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it somewhat less than 2:1 but the Germans had vastly superior heavy artillery and Serbia was exposed from three sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.43 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not correct it is against Romania. It insist on the fact that Dobrogea (not Dobrudja) was a territory with ethnic majority of bulgarians.This is not true , according with the ethnic maps of 19-th century. Romania is mistakenly seen like the only profitor of this campaign.I believe that the whole article should be placed under supervision because of lack of ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.100.244 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

End of WWI

The article should put more emphasis on how the breakthrough against Bulgaria contributed to the end of World War I.

Italian contribute to the operations

This article completely neglects the Italian contribute in the Balkans campaign, and especially the rescue of the Serbian Army and the operations on the Macedonian theatre: Kingdom of Italy sent there in particular the 35th Division (three infantry brigades, and others units) wich formed the Italian Expedition Corp in the East.--Lanzichenecco (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Utterly antiromanian

The article now seems utterly antiromanian, not mentioning the reason for which Romania entered the war (It wanted half of southern dobruja, which was populated majoritarily by turks, then romanians, then bulgarians, in that order, and this was encouraged by Russia)

Also, it is stipulated that the romanians cost extra, and they were a burden, doing more harm to the allied side. This is utterly POV, antiromanian, anti-historical, anti-truth, unsourced and blatantly stupid. 98.207.188.226 (talk)

Southern Dobrudja never had a Romanian majority. Perhaps only between 1918 - 1940 when Romania was free to colonize it.All official censuses show a Bulgarian majority and that is recognized by most authors.--Avidius (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In 1910, of the 282,007 inhabitants of Southern Dobruja, 134,355 (47.6%) were Bulgarians, 106,568 (37.8%) Turks, 12,192 (4.3%) Gypsies, 11,718 (4.1%) Tatars and 6,484 (2.4%) Romanians.--Avidius (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You may also refer to the Dobruja article if you have more doubts about the population.--Avidius (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the Balkan Campaign?

While the Balkan Campaign category seems the best place for the Romanian Campaign (not the Eastern Front), only a small part of Romania is on the Balkan Peninsula. However, as the article the Balkans notes; the definition of the Balkans is often extended beyond the peninsula to include Romania and Slovenia, and sometimes Moldova and Turkey also. Hugo999 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This should be a Wikipedia top priority at this point. Rather, I would merge the Italian campaign with the Balkan theatre to form some sort of southern Front, but merging Italy into the Balkan theatre works too. Yavneh (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

romania probably shouldn't be here

Romanian campaign cant be really separated from Eastern Front, while it was geographically completely separate from Serbia-Macedonia-Greece front. So I would suggest removing Romanian campaign part from this article because otherwise it becomes impossible to separate Balkans and Eastern front and you get weird stuff like Brussilov as major commander.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Romania should be here, and I intend it to add it in the near future

That the region of Dobruja is an integral geographical part of the Balkans in undeniable, given that it lies south of the Danube River. Even more, the Romanians in WW1 also owned the southern half of the region, which today is part of Bulgaria and as such nobody disputes its Balkan-ness. Romania should be in this article only as much as it pertains to Dobruja, or to Bulgaria itself (see Flămânda Offensive). Through its geography, Romania in WW1 quite simply covers both theatres, Balkan and Eastern, boxing it in only in the Eastern Front is simply inaccurate. As a matter of fact, so is the case with the Gallipoli campaign. Why isn't it in the Balkan Theatre? Just because it's Ottoman territory doesn't automatically place the action in the Middle Eastern Front, the Campaign clearly takes place in the European part of Turkey, ergo, in the Balkans. I was never a fan of sacrificing accuracy for comfort. Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't add them, and if you do it will be removed. The reason is that the campaign in Romania (and in Gallipoli) fell under totally different theatre commands even if part of them geographical could be considered Balkan. Its inaccurate and confusing to include those parts here since they are totally disconnected from everything else and part of different theatre commands/campaigns --Havsjö (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

But...By this logic, the Battle of Turtucaia for instance - located in what today is Bulgarian Southern Dobruja and thus indisputably part of the Balkans - should not be here. I mean I get your point but still doesn't seem entirely appropriate/logical to me, this approach. That battles well within the Balkan Peninsula be included in the Eastern Front. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No, as I explained some parts of that may be geographically located in the Balkans, but it was part of the battles fought entirely under the command of, in the theatre of, in the "area of operations" of, the commands in the the eastern front Romanian campaign. The 1914-1918 "Balkan theatre" refers to the invasion of Serbian and the resultant front in Greece (Macedonian Front). This is a continuous area of operations/theatre under the same theatre commands from 1914-1918, which does not overlap with the commands and theatre operations of the Romanian Campaign, even if some parts of that campaign can be counted as taking place at the northern edge of the Balkan peninsula--Havsjö (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well alright then, I understand. Good thing I decided to talk about it first before doing any large-scale edits. G'day. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of regurgitated and repetitive information

After giving the article a quick skim and grammatical error check I came to the conclusion that this article probably needs a major revamp. The Greek offensive supported by the Allied Powers is mentioned over 3 times in almost the exact same fashion, to name one instance. I believe at some point the article should be almost completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Should Romania be put with the other Belligerents?

Should Romania be added to the Belligerents box? while they did not have major victories they did help with the allies. I think they should be added as they did contribute to the war and the Balkans theater. 2600:1700:2620:BCE8:5DE1:3B1A:880B:49B9 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)