Demonel
Amicus
I am Jack's regained insanity.
Posts: 833
|
Post by Demonel on Feb 28, 2009 9:28:06 GMT -5
"DIE EINSER BOSNIAKEN", Herausgegeben vom Kameradschafts-Verband des Regimentes, Erstes Heft 1932
Sturm auf die Totenschanze bei Gorna borina, von Obstlt. Rudolf Linhart, Seite 21
Gorna Borina = Gornja Borina
Gornja Borina je naselje u opštini Loznica u Maèvanskom okrugu.
|
|
|
Post by nogrentain on Mar 3, 2009 15:33:15 GMT -5
Regarding what the Yugoslav military was capable of, it was the largest of all Balkan nations, and with the most developed military industry, and a score of victories to showcase its high elvel of training and military tactics. Yugoslavia was more than capable of tackling any nation, and by 1940, the Yugoslav generals were asking for permission to have a showdown with Italy over several border incidents with Italy violating Yugoslavia's territorial integrity. You don't go out looking for fights if you're clearly outclassed in every manner possible.
Do not forget that Greece and Serbia, in the Second Balkan War, beat out Bulgaria, which had superior artillery, in a surprise assault by Bulgaria. Although I would have loved to see the Balkan LEague continue to exist into 1914, and feel it a total shame for the League to fall apart on infighting, and that Romania was not included. That would have provided quite a formidable front against the KHK and Ottoman empire in 1914.
|
|
|
Post by Kubrat on Mar 3, 2009 15:54:46 GMT -5
the surprise attack wasn't really a surprise, since serbia and greece were planning an attack and Bulgaria defended itself by attacking. And you didn't beat out anyone. it was also 5 nations vs. 1. with a "general armistice" as a result. if you want to look at something more "fair" look at the serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885
the yugoslav generals over-estimated their power, and many people over-exaggerate the military power of yugoslavia.
|
|
|
Post by nogrentain on Mar 5, 2009 3:17:20 GMT -5
the surprise attack wasn't really a surprise, since serbia and greece were planning an attack and Bulgaria defended itself by attacking. And you didn't beat out anyone. it was also 5 nations vs. 1. with a "general armistice" as a result. if you want to look at something more "fair" look at the serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885 the yugoslav generals over-estimated their power, and many people over-exaggerate the military power of yugoslavia. I'm guessing your sources come from imperial Bulgaria in 1913. Because Bulgaria did not get all of modernday Macedonia, it was decided a surprise assault would be the best option to take it. Bulgaria committed its entire army to MAcedonia, ie Greece and Serbia, because it was only going to go against those two, the controllers of the regions of Macedonia. Bulgaria did not even declare war before attacking. The diea was defeat Serbia and Greece, and turn against an enraged Romania. A shame the Serbian army wasn't the glorified police force the Bulgarians clearly assumed it to be. 500 000 Bulgarian soldiers verses 230 000 Serbian and 140 000 Greek soldiers, and the GReeks didn't even deploy everything against Bulgaria until well after the attack. Greece aimed for Sofia, but once Serbia got the frontline it desired, it stopped dead, and unfortunately thus screwed over the GReeks, which then had to contend with the greater part of the Bulgarian army on its own, and thus was stopped dead too and agreed to an armistice. There was no Bulgarian army to stop the Romanians, or the Turks, so none of that played much of any part other than the Bulgarians agreeing to an armistice after 2 nations jumped in seeing Bulgaria committed everything against Serbia and Greece, and was losing. The Italians were even worse for it. It was truly sad to see Hungarian troops perform better than Italian ones on the Eastern Front. That was an unpopular war where most Serbian soldiers, upon discovering the king had to trick them into be willing to obey orders to strike Bulgaria, no longer wanted to fight. Barely half the Serbian Army was committed. Most veterens were not included, including the best generals. Exagerate or not, only Romania could compare in size, and none could compare in quality of training. Equipment was a different matter, but remained easily on par with anything any other Balkan nation had. The only flaw was military doctrines of defending the cities and full scale conventional warfare as opposed to dissolving into the hills and mountains to fight a large scale guerrilla war, with an intact army, as Yugoslavia clearly stood no chance against a large power, such as Germany. Italy, though, was a different matter. I'm not sure if Yugoslavia could have won it, but it remains that the Army was willing to stand up to ITaly, and the generals were not known for being ignorant of the capabilties of their army.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Mar 5, 2009 3:47:26 GMT -5
There was a preliminary treaty between Bulgaria and Serbia from 1912. According to it, Bulgaria would control the lands east of Struma river, and serbia those west of Sar Planina. As for the area between the Ohrid Lake, Sap Planian and west of Struma, it was divided into an indisputed and disputed area, the undisputed that was to go to Bulgaria, and the disputed - up to the decision of the Russian emperor. Very bad treaty in any way, giving plenty of room for diasgreement and various claims. No wonder many Weastern politicians foresaw it as a precondition for a new war that actually happened. So after the Balkan War I, Serbia and Greece signed a secret treaty against Bulgaria and Serbia occupied both the disputed and undisputed zones. That was the mistake of Bulgaria. Despite the warnings from Russia that whoever attacked first would bear the consequences, encouraged by Germany and Austro-Hungary we attacked even without declaring a war. It was almost a solemn decision of Ferdinand, btw, he didn't even get the consent of the Parliament, but this doesn't count now. Very wrong move because thus public opinion in Europe turned against us. We became agressors instead of waiting patiently for the pressure on Serbia and Greece to give its results and we get what was agreed before Balkan War I without war. The final result is that we achieved out first national catastrophy not being defeated on the batllefield...
|
|
|
Post by nogrentain on Mar 5, 2009 4:09:17 GMT -5
Yes, the agreed new borders in the aftermath of the First Balkan War. Considering Bulgaria did its best to limit Serbian involvement in Macedonia as much as possible, that placed all three nations together in the wrong. The Greeks remained more than willing to negotiate with both Serbia and Bulgaria, separately, in order to benefit as much as possible. Bulgaria also screwed with Romania, and continued to play with fire. Ferdinand chose to attack, and yes, he did so without the approval of parliament, and off went the second Balkan War.
The final result is that Bulgaria caught Serbia and Greece off guard, but because of expecting hostilities, the armies were able to react quickly, and this, coupled with Romania jumping into the fray along with the Ottoman empire, because Bulgaria assumed it could beat both GReece and Serbia in time to defend against an expected attack by Romania and the Ottoman empire. Bulgaria's army was utterly unable to win on an strategic level against the Serbian and GReek armies, and thus it was forced into an armistice because of it being beaten on the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Mar 5, 2009 6:11:36 GMT -5
If it wasn't for Romania to attack us in the back, with no army whatsoever to face them, this war might have ended differently. But they almost reached the capital, there was nothing we could do, surrounded by enemies only and involved im heavy fights with Serbia and Greece.
|
|