What If Bulgaria Joined The Triple Entente? | Alternate History 

What if Spain Joined the Axis in WW2?

bruh your voice is too deep for how you look

One thing, with all the concessions to Bulgaria, I think Russia would keep Constantinople, as that was their whole incentive to enter the war in the first place.

Also, some lands in the middle east would be made another afghanistan-like buffer zone, either with france or by creating a new country, as the brits didn't want to step on the toes of russian claims.

What if UNITA had won the Angolan Civil War ?

But then Bulgaria was easily defeated by the Greeks in the Battle of Skra. War fatigue? Underestimated the opponent? Maybe. The outcome was still a loss

You mean Germany?

@@domaspauliukevicius5088 even though Germany was carrying 80% of the central powers war efforts Bulgaria made up 15% percent of the efforts

@@domaspauliukevicius5088 Of course Germany was the main hard Carry but Bulgaria was surprisingly very effective

Prussia of the Balkans.

Just made nothing but bad political choices and kept on joining the losing side.

Indeed

*CORRECT*

@@MonsieurDeanmaaan why did you block it

In 1912 we had the 5th biggest army with n the world from a population of just 5 million. In WW1 we had the biggest army in the world on a per capita basis.

I doubt Bulgaria would beat Serbia in a 1v1. If Serbia held back Austria Hungary's far more superior army, it could definitely do the same to Bulgaria.

@@_MilanSnah Bulgaria could easily do it the same way they almost did so Serbia AND Greece in the 2nd Balkan war before Romania and the ottomans joined in

@@th3radlad_727 That is the most Bulgarian view I've ever seen

As a Serb, I've personally believe, that despite being a Monarchists, that Pre-Tito Yugoslavia could have only survived by further federalisation into a Confederation of several Kingdoms/Principalities. Something Tito did correctly with formation of Yugoslav Socialist Republics, albeit with flaws. I personally made a couple of dozens of scenarios where Yugoslavia survived, by using this exact system. As Trying to force the various cultural, religious and linguistic elements under a centralised rule and a single Dynasty would end up being Catastrophic.

@@strahinjafilipovic9804 personally the only way I could see yugoslavia surviving is if it was more like the EU as opposed to what it actually was. Basically it has to be so decentralised its not even a country.

Well it started to be more federal after the creation of Banovina of Croatia. If it weren't for the war, the federalization project would have probably been completed and most people satisfied. The main problem were the politicians, the representatives of the nationalities. Like, for example, Stjepan Radic openly seeking support from the Soviet Union, Vlatko Macek not really hiding his plans for Croatian independence and wanting to get as much federal territory as possible by demanding that the territory of Banovina of Croatia contain all the territory within Yugoslavia which has even a single Croatian home within it, as it was "historical Croatian territory". Couple that with the embittered Serb leadership which was mostly against the creation of Yugoslavia to begin with, clashes with Montenegrin and Macedonian nationalists whom they mostly just saw as nonexistent nationalities, with IMRO terrorist organization wreaking havoc against the civilians in Macedonia, Montenegrin king in exile in Italy, and Bosniak muslims being discriminated against by both Serbs and Croats, and you just have a recipe for a disaster. The greatest issue for all of them was "territory". Not even today can you decide these people under strict ethnic lines, with so many Serbs and Croats within Bosnia, Serbs within Croatia, Hungarians, Bosniaks and Romanians within Serbia etc. The only way it could be solved is by a population exchange, but no one is willing to give away territory, even if it would create stability and less internal conflicts. Basically, the moment the war started, Croatians mainly jumped on the bandwagon of freedom the moment Germans entered Yugoslavia. The experiment of banovinas under king Alexander basically satisfied no one. The banovinas didn't solve the issue at all, it was an attempt of assimilated the people within them to adopt a Yugoslav identity. Obviously, no one wanted that. Yugoslavism didn't really take off, mostly because it all happened by a unification after a war in which Serbs, Montenegrins and Macedonians were fighting against Bosniaks, Croats and Slovenes. Not even Serbia basically rescuing Bosniaks, Slovenes and Croats from the losers negotiations table didn't help. Besides that, Serbia saw itself like the Prussia of Germany, Piedmont of Italy. Just like Prussia had a strong leading role within the North German Confederation and later on unified Germany, they saw themselves as natural leaders as well, because they made this union happen with great sacrifice. Now, what would have worked, and which was actually something proposed by a Serb politician during that time, was to create a federal government akin to United States of America, to have the municipalities hold a referendum on which federal territory they want to belong to. That way, the people within the territory would decide based on the majority vote whether they want to join an existing federal territory or create their own, separate one. Still, both Serbs and Croats refused this idea, because both thought that the votes would be rigged or that there would be a stream of settlers to create new votes in favor of one side (kinda like what happened in USA, when the states were deciding whether to be free or slave states). Hence why the proposal was rejected. Clearly, the newly formed Yugoslavia couldn't have done it on its own, and an arbitration by the Entente powers, mainly France and USA, would have greatly helped in making this actual federal project a reality. But unfortunately, the great powers didn't give a damn about this new country. At least not enough to help make it stable. An impartial mediator was necessary, but no one cared enough. Some say that king Alexander's visit to France was in hopes of doing something like that, considering basically his last words were something along the line "I will find a way to create a stable federal government with the help of the French". But we all know that he never came back alive, thanks to a Bulgarian nationalist who was trained and funded by Croatian fascists. As for post war Yugoslavia, it shouldn't have happened. Croats especially have soured the relations with everyone to the point of no return due to the Ustase regime. No ideology could fix the irreparable damaged caused by them. Yugoslavia shouldn't have been a thing after WW2. The illusion of brotherhood and unity was only kept because Tito was a dictator, a pretty ruthless one. His reign was more like "play nice, or you are off to the work camp". The moment he died, the iron grip loosened, and people started expressing their anger freely. The scars left by the Croats were just too much. Mind you, Serbs also committed atrocities, as well as Bosniak SS divisions. But what Croats did was the worst holocaust the Balkans have ever experienced. Not even the reports of Serb atrocities during the 90s can even hold a candle to the brutality and scale of Croat war crimes. And you think such a country can live with "brotherhood and unity"? All of them are at fault, and it all started with the politicians, the leadership. Alexander's ideal was commendable, but way too idealistic. Especially because he tried to force the Yugoslav identity way too fast and way too strictly. He basically just managed to piss off everyone, even the Serbs, who used to see him as their champion.

At one point our tsar simeon the great tried to unit the bulgarian and byzantine empires, the byzantines were our enemies but also our most respected and worthy rivals.

@@Silver_Prussian remembers me about Byzatine emperor called "Bulgar Slayer"

​@@alexzero3736 Remember Kaloyan "The Byzantine Slayer"

You be everywhere

@@yoghurtmaster1688 I am?

I always enjoyed the concept of Constantinople being governed under Condominium... But I never expected the two powers to be Bulgaria and Greece. Such a thing would be very, very interesting.

It's actually possible, Ataturk only won because the Great Powers were exhausted for another Anatolian campaign and also no arm supplies from the Bolsheviks to Turkey, making this timeline truly blessed (I hate Turkey)

@@MissionControlTet Thing is, Bulgaria was quite exhausted too and not like the soldiers knew the Anatolian terrain either, unlike the Turks. There's also the fact that all the motivation to fight would go away as let's be honest, nobody would fight for some majority Muslim Turkish lands for their Byzantine Emperor wannabe.

Balkan fellowship, it's rare but beautiful.

@@MonsieurDean Oh yeah, I feel for my brothers. They lost their lands, we lost our lands, everyone lost their lands. We have the same experiences, we should work together to heal the damage in the future. Afterall, when Bulgaria wanted to join the EU, Greece was the first member to eagerly say yes.

@@georgios_5342 even tho i am a big patriot i would have to agree with you. Greece and Romania are the only neighbours that i don't hate. (but still Edrine and North Macedonia are Bulgaria)

If the people of the balkans could just sit on a table bring some rakija and ouzo we would be able to go to the moon together

@@agno3113 not all, but if you give us albania i'm fine with giving you lads macedonia :)

Howdy.

He be looking like a chad from gigachadland

@@MonsieurDean World view changed

@@MonsieurDean youre a good lookin man, brother😂

Same

Yep, he's here in the comments actually.

@@MonsieurDean where is he?

Well thanks, pally.

@@MonsieurDean No worries, buddy.

So what if the Stresa front was more succesful.

If Italy joins the allies or stays neutral then it is over for Germany as they do not have the man power. In 1939 the Royal Italian Army is 1,600,000, in 1943 3,500,000. In Europe, you have taken half the axis manpower off the table who is going to occupy the fallen nations

@@freddysw not to mention the near impossibility of German fighting in Africa, thereby securing more British troops to fight in the Balkans and Asia, thus weakening the positions of Japan and Germany significantly.

@@idcgaming518 In addition there is no threat to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal freeing up the Royal Navy. Think of the damage a couple aircraft carriers could do in the Mediterranean based near Malta. The German Navy doesn’t have the operational strength to attack in the mediterranean

If Spain joined the Allie’s (Franco lost the civil war before), then the Germans most likely occupied Spain and from there Gibraltar. This could block the Mediterranean from there... And with Italy on the Allies there would have been no famous Italian military fiascos on the axis site. Maybe by a German Italian campaign would keep the Germans long enough busy for Stalin attacking the third reich

They kind of did by the way during the reign of Simeon the Great. He defeated the byzantines so badly that they gave In to his demand to have the title tzar of bulgarians and romans. But it was just on paper and he couldn't invade anatolia and Constantinople.

Nah, we were their longest rival but we weren't them.

@@rawka_7929 Elaborate, please

@@zwilder1 Bulgaria wasn't the Eastern Roman Empire. Instead Bulgaria was the Eastern Roman Empires longest rival.

​@rawka_7929 yes it is true and the successor to the Eastern Roman Empire is Greece.

As a Greek, I also find this alternative map highly impossible. No way Greece was going to accept Pella, Thessaloniki and Chalkidiki given to Bulgaria. The most likely compromise is Greece accepting an after 1st Balkan War, pre 2nd frontier. Now, on the Asia Minor part, I also find a Bulgarian presence impossible. Bulgaria didn't have a strong navy, no Bulgarian ever lived in these lands nor Bulgaria ever wanted them. For me, Western Anatolia was going to be given to Greece and not the south stretch, which I believe will be into the French zone of influence, as per Sykes-Pikot agreement. About the aftermath, Bulgaria and Greece could be allies but the most probable and Balkan course will be a 3rd Balkan war. Bulgaria would wanted Thessaloniki, Greece would wanted Constantinople and Serbia may join Greece, looking to regain North Macedonia. Turkey would be too weak to be an important player but I can see some indirect or not interfering from Britain, Russia, France and even Italy.

Macedonia is rightfully bulgarian land.

Fine, give us the lands that should be ours and we won't fight

At least give the france faction italy than to otherwise it would be a sloughter

Germany gets Britain, Russia (whose only real problem was germany) and America meanwhile France gets Austria Hungary, the ottomans and Bulgaria. Yeah its a wipe for germanys team.

WW1 was basically Germany and some minor countries against 4 great powers. You cant put France and some minor countries against Germany alone, nevermind vs Russia, GB and the USA aswell.

I feel like modern Turkey in this timeline would be similar to what is going on right now in Middle East.

I am ever more so convinced that any alternative timeline where Bulgaria's wishes come true and demands fulfilled, no matter in what way, are somehow always better than today's situation.

Literally impossible lmao

@@user-in8un6bh2u as a Bulgarian, ngl ye. Imo we could've done pretty well against Greece and Serbia, but there's no way Romania and the Ottomans don't join.

@@user-in8un6bh2u Possible and most likely if Romania and the Ottomans didn't attack

Finally it has arrived.

While serbian help was present, it wasn't enough to justify breaking the written Treaty. The Thracian front was ALOT harder and you contributing to the siege of Edirne isn't enough and Bulgaria was ALOT more present on the thracian front and contributed ALOT MORE.

I agree with you on Thessaloniki but some part of Grek Macedonia would have to be given to Bulgaria given that at the there was a very sizable Bulgarian population in the region. As for Anatolia Bulgaria would want it as Tsar Ferdinand had the ambition like many Bulgarian Kings before him to restore Byzantium under Bulgarian dominion. That's why he would have claimed Byzantine lands under that justification. As for Greece I can see a compromise being reached wherein Greece is given Southern Anatolia and then some sort of Bulgar-Greek Byzatine confederation is formed between both countries, later maybe even incorporating Serbia with its capital being Constantinopole which would be controlled jointly by Bulgaria and Greece. That's the best way to avoid war and actually restore the Byzatine Empire in a serious capacity as neither Greece nor Bulgaria alone could manage to do it. Also to hold a city as massive as Constantinopole and assimilate its majority Muslim population would be very difficult and require lots of time and resources. As for Macedonia I do agree Serbia will have pretensions to it, but lacking control it has no claim to the regions. There are no large amount of Serbs living in Macedonia, and there have been, so Serbian claims will have no support from the local population. The only way the Yugoslav managed to bring some Macedonian partisans to support them was through communism and the promise fo a Balkan federation.

@@arbendit4348 I was thinking a border at the mountains western of Serres valley, half of today's Greek Macedonia. Sorry for not specifying on my original post. Also, I understand what you're saying about a possible confederation, but i find it highly unlikely, given the 2 countries history of conflict during the Macedonian Struggle and the Balkan Wars, plus no strong Ottomans (Turkey would be much more weaker on this timeline), so no need to unite against a common enemy.

Well there are a lot to unpack here to be honest. You are correct on your assumptions on the Greek border it you be pushed at most to Strymon river. What of the Serbian though? I doubt all of N. Macedonia would be given away maybe 2/3 or 1/2 but certainly not all. The very idea of WW1 ending in 1916 is plainly not possible. The Germans when Bulgaria joined had amassed a truly big army of 400k and a huge artillery component to break the Serbians and they did. Most on the comments seem to totally forget about that huge army that Serbia was dealing with and focus on Bulgarian role which while significant it wasn't the hammer that broke the camel's back. In all likelihood the war ends after the first Russian revolution of March 1917 and the Russians are on a path to civil war or some serious turmoil in general. That would mean some thousand Bulganians dead and a lot of lost agricultural production which leads to a crisis in Bulgaria, as it did in Greece. Constantinople is not given to Bulgaria as it wasn't given to Greece. Any Asia Minor claim is faced with a huge Turkish war which for some reason is brushed of in the video. I mean there are at least 4-5 mill Turks in west Anatolia to fight both Bulgaria and Greece and to give them trouble for years. I fell like the author is just fantasizing in the end of what a better world would be with the lack of fascism which is not explained, Germany would as our timeline be punished for 3 hard years of war either way as the French were vary salty. And the Balkans would most certainly go to a 3rd war.

It's not Turkish lands, it is Greek and Bulgarian lands

I dunno. Russian Republic sounds dope

I have a similar fetish: Every alternative timeline where Bulgarian wishes come true and demands fulfilled, no matter what way, somehow is always better than today's situation.

Thanks, pally.

Thanks, pal!

*New Ottoman Empire

New British*

instagram.com/p/CkZJgP5OINc/

@@MonsieurDean Sorry man, don't do insta, or snap, or any of that garbo. Keeps my sanity... somewhat. Still losing it from watching the news daily lol

Good call on that, social media is a real drain. The link was to a picture of me on Halloween when funny enough I dressed as a Roman Emperor.

@@MonsieurDean oh, very nice. Probably can get it to pop on Google if I just search it. Yeah, haven't done the social media thing for quite some time. Facebook just nuked my account from orbit. Only used it to keep in touch with old friends and family, hadn't posted in like a year. Got perma banned, do not pass go, there is no appeal process, go screw yourself. Basically what they told me. So I guess I'm not even doing that now. Thanks for the video and the chat though. Off to play some Vic 3 before bed. 3rd shifters make the world go round :P

Nah, it looks cool

Bro, Constantine himself was from land that would be held by Bulgaria for most of its existence.

@@k.constantine I said it was cursed because at this point it seems like Divine Intervention that they holding the city isn't possible for them. Also the land was Grecco-Roman for most of its existence, just like Constantine. The ones who have the best claim to the city are Greece, and Italy. Naturally the Turks have the right of conquest over it, however.

@@KraNisOG I largely agree, but there was a brief period of time during which the Bulgarian capital of Great Tarnovo had a larger population and was more important for trade than Constantinople. It was called a third Rome in its time, and the Bulgarian Empire came within spitting distance of conquering Constantinople once or twice and failed basically due to bad luck.

this idea pops up pretty often. With my knowledge of history, and economy...I can say that regions that italy was not given (Dalmatia, Antalya, some deserts in Africa) could give them wider acess to the seas, in fact they would solely dominate Adriatic, which makes Yugoslavia dependant on Italy. Although Italy was in huge debt and inner turmoil after WW1 (there were streetfights of socialists and police and fascists)...I believe Italy would fall into fascist hands anyway (Victor Emannuel was pretty weak person for a king), although fascists would keep monarch as a symbol. If Italy keeps anatagonism against Germany they would block Anshcluss of Austria, i believe there would be a conference about it with UK, France, Germany and Italy and everything what comes next depends on "Is Austria eaten, or stays alive".

Even if Macedonians acknowledge they were Bulgarians, they're already a new identity and we can't take that away from them. Let them be I'd say.

@@rawka_7929 no. Because this identity was imposed on them violently through oppression. Just like Cassius Clay, when he realized that his name and identity was imposed on him and changed his name to Muhammad Ali.I imagine it will be something like that.

@@b.s.1929 the identity is still something many like to identify with, not to mention it's not like it was invented by Tito it became its own thing in the late 19th century and wasn't a majority for awhile in the region, but still.

@@rawka_7929 Macedonists/Macedonian identity did indeed exist in the latter 19th century yeah. But it was a fringe and incorrect theory (just like the Illyrian movement in the early modern period, look it up), propagated by Serbia in order to artificially separate Bulgarians in Macedonia from other Bulgarians and Serbianize them later. Furthermore, the term Macedonian as a regional identity appeared only in mid19th century. Unless North Macedonians reclaim their rightful Bulgarian heritage, I don't see the country lasting more than 50-100 years. They will have to choose from 1.Rebulgarization, but preservation of their unique political identity 2. Remain the same way and eventually be split along ethnic lines between Albania and Bulgaria/ Albanians split and they remain a statelet 3. Be absorbed into Serbia or a Serb-dominated state yet again. I think option 1 is best, but their current situation is untenable in the long run.

@@b.s.1929 imo the Macedonian identity isn't any less legitimate just for being young or an offshoot of the Bulgarian one, sure it came from ours but it's been here for over 100 years, it's too late now, best we can do is support our brothers and let them be.

wha

It will come.

@@Dock284 I’m off the perc dawg anything and everything I say in this comment section will not be right

@@MonsieurDean I’ll be chilling in this bitch till than can’t wait

@@MonsieurDean oh god

Did you assume I was from Ohio?

Thanks!

😁

😂 Funny finding you here!

Oh, and given your vexillology content, I figured you might like this: facebook.com/profile.php?id=100086678611994 My Facebook page is literally nothing but custom flags.

@@MonsieurDean Yooo looks like Facebook is actually useful for something

Yes way.

@@MonsieurDean I can’t believe you actually did it

So basically "What if greatness of Rome was destroyed"? Well, that pretty obvius, Rome would be replaced by it s rivals, like Carthage, Sparta, Pontus, Parthia. The Latin language would never be a world or science language, it would be Greek and German, as Greek culture would dominate one part of Europe and Asia minor, while German would dominate Western and North Europe. Also there wont be remakes of Rome like HRE or Eastern Empire. Ottomans wont rise since Asia minor was populated by peoples who shared Greek culture since conquests of Alexander the Great.