Talk:Balkans Campaign (World War I)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Aftermath of the Romanian campaign[edit]

"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)

Greece's contribution to the war effort[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

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. 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 (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 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

End of WWI[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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?[edit]

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)

romania probably shouldn't be here[edit]

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)