Talk:Battle of Doiran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) British military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Seriously, who writes these things???? My only fear is that someone is going to read this and take it for face value as "the truth". What on earth is the last paragraph even supposed to mean? 275,000 civilians lost? In a war that wasn't fought on Bulgarian territory (the allies never reached the pre-war borders of Bulgaria)? There seems to be a pattern to these nonsensical military articles about the Balkans - whoever is writing them - for the sake of people wanting to learn something please stop making up history. -Mladen

On another note - it is debatable whether this is a significant issue (I personally think it is) - but making stuff up (no sources) about "German advisors ordering the Bulgarians" seriously downplays the role of General Vladimir Vazov, who successfully defended the position and preserved the itegrity of his army in the face of overwhelming odds - he was saluted as a hero, by a lowering of the English flags, when welcomed at a Great War remembrance in London in 1935. -Mladen

Contents 1 The photo 2 Is This A Real Lake? 3 Some things need clarification 4 The numbers are seriously screwed up

[edit] The photo

A minor point, but the current photo entitled "British Military Cemetery in Doiran" is not a photo of Doiran Cemetery, but of Karasouli Cemetery at Polykastro/Greece. The name can be read on the inside of the lefthand gate pillar in the high-res image. Adrian 87.202.108.56 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is This A Real Lake?

I looked on google maps for it but couldn't find it. However on a map at macedonia's website I found a lake named Lake Dojran. http://faq.macedonia.org/information/

Yes, it is real. It is situated between Macedonia and Greece, not far alway from Bulgaria. The name is Dojran Lake. --Gligan 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some things need clarification

1. A claim that Bulgaria "lost" 87.500 soldiers in the war - what does "lost" mean? Are those only KIA or it includes WIA, POW and MIA? In the latter case the number is too low.

2. What does 275.000 civilians lost mean? As pointed out by Mladen on the top of this discussion the war was not waged on Bulgarian territory. Is this the number of civilians that were previously living in Bulgaria, but found themselves residing Greece or Serbia after the war due to the territory exchanges? Or is it the number of civillians killed by epidemics? Or those killed by the Bulgarian troops on occupied terirrories?

3. Some sources for the casualties. If these (obviously very rounded) Allied casualties were true, this battle would have probably beeen the most one-sided battle of the WW1. Casualties are nearing the British Expeditionary Force`s losses on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which would be hard to beat! I personally doubt these figures as they probably come from Bulgarian estimates and not the Allied casualty lists.

4. What do you mean by describing the battle as a "Decisive victory". This battle`s outcome did not change the fact that the Bulgaria was knocked out of the war by the general Allied offensive of which this battle was only a minor part. Regardless of the casualty ratio the battle was merely a tactical success for the Bulgarians.

Veljko Stevanovich 03:20 28. Dec. 2006. UTC+1

Greeting, i will try to answer your questions one by one.

1. 87,500 are the soldiers who died during the battles; this number is simply too small to include the woulded, the POW were not so many having in mind the fact that we lost only one battle in the war (in Dobro Pole).

2. I do not know what does it mean, but I will tell you my opinion: these people could not be Bulgarians who lived in the borders of the country, because there were neither battles nor epidemics in Bulgaria; these could not have been killed by the Bulgarian Army, bacause in this case they would have been regarded as serbian, or whoever else casualties; so they could be Bulgarians living in Macedonia and Western Thrace killed by the serbs, the greeks and the other allies OR this could be wrong data.

3. Yes, the numbers are true, but as you know the westerners rarely pay any attention to smaller nations, and it would be a shame for them to write a lot for this defeat; how would sound to an englisman that the haviest defeat of their "glorious" army was from "stupid illiterate savages" such as the Bulgarians??? If you read english or american sourses carefully, you will see that they write for the western front much more and exaggerate its importance for both WW1 and WW2. BUT in the archives of the enlgish army it is written what happenned in Doiran in 1918.

4. Because of the victory in Doiran, we prevented an enemy occupation of the country and further territorial losses, because of the victory the allies agreed to truce in Solun although their plans were not do do so. The serbs wanted Vidin, Kustendil and border along the Struma, the greeks wanted the border to be at 90 km to Sofia and at 30 km of Plovdiv, and some mad men in romania wanted the whole of northern Bulgaria up to Stara Planina; and it is considerred that we saved these land because of the victory in Doiran.

I am sorry for answering so lately, but I saw your questions now. --Gligan 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, before I reply I`d like to say that I respect very much the way you answered my question.

1)The first issue is clarified,

2) Well, my oppinnion (if those indeed are supposed to be Bulgarian civilians killed in Macedonia) is that the figures are wrong. Firstly I doubt that there were so many Bulgarians there (unless you take the ultra-nationalist Bulgarian stance that all the Macedonians are Bulgarians as the truth). Btw the Serbian army in Sept. 1918. swept through Macedonia with great speed (In 45 days it covered Macedonia and the whole Serbia on foot) - so I don`t think it had enough time to kill 250.000+ civilians even if it wanted to. And such a huge massacre would have been noted at least by the Central powers` propaganda office had it happened during the 1914-1915. period (before the occupation of Serbia). However, it would be nice to hear the article writer`s word about this.

3) You have a point, but I`d still like a reference to the numbers.

4) I suppose that what you wrote is the Bulgarian version of the story - I`ll provide you with a Serbian one (eventually reaching a NPOV is what the wikipedia is all about, right?):)

While the battle of Doiran was taking place the Franco-Serbian army has broken the Bulgarian front on it`s sector and soon won the battle of Dobro Pole (Dobro Polje in Serbian). The Serbian army almost reached Shtip near the present-day Bulgarian-Macedonian border in a blitzkrieg-like drive and was about to enter Bulgaria regardless of the outcome of the Battle of Doiran when Bulgaria sued for peace - her representatives begging Franchet D`Esperey not to let the Serbian army on the Bulgarian soil fearing reprisals for the conduct of Bulgarian troops during the occupation of Serbia (notably the suppression the Toplica revolt). It was the Serbian regent Alexander who agreed to the non-occupation "In the interest of reaching peace as soon as possible".

What would the Allies gain from a temporary occupation of Bulgaria after they disarmed the Bulgarian army as they did may be a topic for itself - but in doing so they would certainly lose time which the Germans and Austro-Hungarians could use to organise the defence and stop the breakthrough while the situation on the Western front was still not a clear victory for the Allies. The Allies had a bigger game - the Austria-Hungary.

Additionaly - as far as I know - no other Central Power was fully occupied either (some parts of each were) and yet I still haven`t found a - say - German decisive victory that prevented an occupation - it was simply unneccesarry save for the annexed territories. I think that Bulgaria kept those lands you speak of because of the decisions of the great powers at Versailles not the outcome of this battle. For instance Hungary an Austria kept some of the territories that the Serbian government was demanding because of the great powers` decisions even though they didn`t have their own battle of Doiran.

Veljko Stevanovich 14. Jan. 2007. 4:00 UTC+1

If the Bulgarians had lost the battle of Doiran the allies would have inevitably enterred the territory of the country, because there would have been no soldiers to stop them. From strategical point of view it would be easier to reach romania which was in that time occupied by Central Power forces through Bulgaria and then reach the eastern Austro-Hungary border from there, so it would be an advantage to occupy Bulgaria, especially for the serbs and the greeks, who would seek revenge and would (I suppose) have robbed the country. Also, in a state of occupation it would be easier for them to claim more territories (in the same way they tricked us in the Second Balkan War): having occupied Macedonia, they claimed it for themselves, although we had an agreement with the serbs concerning our border in the region.

About the population in Macedonia: there is no doubt that it was mixed, there were Bulgarians, greeks, turks and some albanians and aromanoians, but the fact is that the predominate populaution was Slav => Bulgarian. I think that you do not believe that there are "Macedonians", because in the historical documents and books the name was never mentioned (except for the contemporary macedonian and some serbian ones); the population, also, was not serbian because it spoke Bulgarian (the Macedonian dialect is strongly related to literaly Bulgarian).

This point of view is not ultranationalistic, more than 90% of the Bulgarians believe that one day Macedonia will return in our borders, including well-balanced and realistic people (there are only 2-3 men I know which do not agree with this, really). Ultranationalism is to claim almost the whole territory of Serbia, the whole of Dobrudzha from Romania, greece north of Larisa including several island (Tasos, Samotraki) and most of European Turkey; THIS is veeeeeery difficult and almost imposible to achieve and I do not think that it will happen soon: )

Of course, different sourses present different information: ) : ) I myself was very surprised when i found in the wikipedia that the battle of Bregalnitsa was a Serbian victory, in Bulgaria it is considerred for our victory, so I hope that one day we will reach a consensus for what really happenned in those awful for the Bulgarian and perhaps the Serbian? people years. --Gligan 09:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I`ve already noticed that the Serbian and Bulgarian sources show VEEEEEEEEEEEERY different pictures of what happened. The official line in Serbia before communism was that all Macedonians are Serbs and it was not considered ultra-nationalistic at all back then - I`ve noticed, however that the great powers` interests often label the various Balkan nations` versions of history as "OK" or "ultra-nationalist" according to their own interests at various times.

The real cause for the 2. nd Balkan war was the decision of the great powers to make Albania independent thereby robbing the Serbs and the Greeks of much of their territories according to the Balkan League agreements (actually Greece and Bulgaria hadn`t designated the future border) prompting them to seek compensation in Macedonia. Of course it helped that the Ottomans underestimated the Serbian and Greek armies and assigned smaller contigents of troops to deal with them - as a consequence both managed to capture some of the land that was to go to Bulgaria (for instance Serbia captured Monastir).

As for Bregalnitsa - It is simply an issue of weather you describe Kalimantsi as a part of it, or as an independant action. This is left vauge in the Serbian sources which mostly describe the battle (labeled Battle of Bregalnitsa) that took place before the Serbian counterattack reached the Kalimantsi defence line in great detail and describe it as a decisive defensive victory. I think that it is correct since it was Bulgaria that had an offensive strathegic goal (to take some of the land controlled by the Serbian and Greek forces) tha she was prevented to realise. However, the Bulgarian defensive victory at Kalimantsi is mentioned in only two sentances which state that the Serbian advance was stopped since the Shumadijska division was sent to bolster the defence of Pirot, and that Bulgarians at one point mounted a local counterattack that pushed some units a little back. It seemes to me that Bulgarian historians similarly downplayed the unpleasant parts of Bulgarian history and emphasised the nice ones. However I still cannot see how the whole situation could be objectively described as anything better (for the Bulgarians) then as a draw.

I still disagree with you about the assumption that the Battle of Doiran saved Bulgaria from the occupation (I made a minor mistake in the previous post: the Serbian army had already captured Shtip and was nearing Kustendil when Bulgaria sued for peace). The Serbian army was already on the Bulgarian border and the Bulgarian forces that stood in it`s way seemed powerless to stop it. Additionally - there would be no point taking a detour through Bulgaria and Romania in order to strike Austria-Hungary when the route through Serbia offered a much shorter way to the heart of A-H (especially through a fine route through a North-South direction valley of Morava - while the Balkan mountain in Bulgaria runs in East-west direction and posed a serious obstacle), and also there would be no point establishing a land-route to Russia which was already engaged in a civil war and was no longer fighting the Central Powers. Additionally, there was more to be gained in entering Bosnia an Croatia (which the 2nd Serbian army did as soon as it disarmed the Bulgarian units on it`s sector) which were full of South Slavs who would speed up the break-up of A-H that was already brewing.

It might appear that I am overplaying the role of the Serbian Army since I`m constantly saying "Serbian army this, Serbian army that", but the truth is that it indeed was (along with some French units - mostly cavalry) the spearhed of the Allied advance (the other contigents mostly followed it).

Btw yes, those days were awful for Serbs as well even though they`re today described as glorious since we were on the winning side - but we payed it with 28% of our population (according to some of our sources - some even go as high as 33%). But I think we should learn from the Balkan wars - They show how important is to reach a consensus and how dreadful the things may turn out if it fails.

Veljko Stevanovich 14. Jan 2007. 17:25 UTC+1

Yes, the Serbian army was close to our border, but after Doiran there were no organised allied troops between our positions and Solun, and Gen. Vazov was surprised when the Government ordered not to advance further to the south and capture Solun, which was the main base for the British and the French; and this order was because of the truce which was already in discussion. The loss of Solun may have proved even as a disaster for the Allies having in mind the fact that in the western front the outcome was still uncertain. As far as the Serbian Army is concerned, there were reserves inland (around Sofia, Pernik, Radomir), certainly not elite units but you see what happenned in Slivnitsa and the other battles in 1885; also the ordinary people would have helped the Army to stop the invaders, because the emotions of the Second Balkan War were still vivid, then the whole nation was indignant at our neighbours's actions.

Of course this does not mean that we could have won the war (unfortunately) : ) : ), but it would have been pointlessly enlongated with perhaps hunders of thousands more casualties for the Serbs, Greeks, British, French and Bulgarians; and it is possible (here we can only guess) that the battle of Doiran may have prevented this.

I admit that the Serbian people showed great courage in this war, and I admire this. Let as hope that the Balkan peoples will stop trying tricking each other one day, but unfortunately this day does not seem close; and I think that one of the reasons for this is the post-war Yugoslavia, which brought nothing good for its peoples, this is the result of the desire (end of 19th-beginning of 20th cent.) of the Serb polititians to rule over the South Slavs (very, very wrong policy), even now the Serbian people pays for its cosequences.

Do you think that the population of Macedonia is Bulgarian??? --Gligan 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that we actually need some good and reliable information on BOTH the number of troops on each side before this battle (strathegic reserve preferably included) and the casualties (please write a reference for where are the current figures from). If we had those it would be possible to see weather you were right about the prospects of a Bulgarian attack on Salonika a success of which which would have certainly complicated things a lot for the Entente (but since the whole Greece was with the Entente, there would certainly be other ports that could be used 4 supply as well). I have never come across an assumption that it was possible or even considered, and I personally doubt very much that Greek and British armies had destroyed themslves in this attack to such an extent that they wouldn`t be capable of a mere defence.

Also a citation is needed for the claim that this battle saved Bulgaria from occupation.

If the former is impossible I propose presenting both points of view in the text saying: "Bulgarians say..." and "Serbians say..." (I suppose that a Greek or a British POV would be simmilar as the Serbian - I checked the original article - it had labeled this battle as Greco-British Pyhrric victory).

About the last question - my oppinnion is not important because I`m not an expert on the subject, but if you insist my answer is no - the people of Macedonia are mostly descendants of both the Serbs and the Bulgarians since Macedonia was at various times a part of both medievel states so mixing was greater there then along the present-day Serbo-Bulgarian border. They also contain to a smaller extent genes of Thraceans, Albanians and Turks, but they still keep mostly Slavic cultural markings (ethnic minorities excluded of course). As such a mixture they eventually grew unique enough to proclaim themselves a separate nationality (aided by political situations in the last few centuries as well). I aknowledge that your oppinnion on this matter is different so please do not expand this into a new disscussion topic since it is irrelevant to the present topic. The number of civillians "lost" simply needs references and clarification.

Veljko Stevanovich 15. Jan 2007. 01:00 UTC+1

How can you claim that this battle was a Bulgarian victory. Sure the Bulgarian army lost 500 men while the allies lost 59,000 but the main factor is that the Bulgarian abandoned there positions and allowed the British and the Greeks to occupy the pass. In English this type of victory is called a phyrrhic victory. Every country has there own POV. In the book that I read on the subject it claims that the battle was an allied phyrrhic victory. Maybe the Bulgarians claim that they won the battle but the allies claim the same thing. Thanks. Kyriakos 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And why should we accept the claim of the Allies??? The Bulgarians abandonned their possitions after the defeat at Dobro Pole in order not to be cut from the rear, not as a result of any Allied military success during the battle of Doiran itself. My respects to the Allied army, but it failed to obtain its aims at Doiran. --Gligan 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The numbers are seriously screwed up

I am sorry, but I have tried to study this, and I find it strange to say the least that I have found all of ONE source that specifically states the numbers given. That would be Demitar Zhivkov, a man whose father was killed by the Greeks in the war of 1913,who later fought in WWII, lost an arm and two toes to a British Mortar in the Greek Campaign of WWII, but still rose to the rank of Major. The "good" Major has a decidingly bad habit of painting all of not only Macedonia but also ALL of the Balkans and Asia Minor as rightfully Bulgarian, and also known for racist slander (you should HEAR some of the things he attributes to the "******* Serb liars." In short, nobody in their right mind would consider him an imperial source. Maybe this is just me, but I have found no loss estimate for EITHER side that says that the Bulgars lost less than 4,000 and the Allies lost more than 20,000. Maybe I am missing something, but I have spent quite a bit looking up and down and all around, so you would think I would have found them. I am looking for an actual SOURCE that is not Mr. Zhivkov for the loss ratio. If none is given, than I feel it is safe to write this off as false and readjust the loss counters. I am waiting for a response. ELV

Hmmm... The number of casualties really seems high, but here is my sourse [1]. If you don't know Bulgarian, you may see the numbers in the last but one paragraph of the last article (Жени пращат баници на победителя) in the same page. It is written there that the Bulgarians expected total defeat and were ready to die but the artillery fire caused only 9 dead and 40 injured. When the allies advanced they were literaly slain by the Bulgarians who were well-protected and were far more numerous than they expected. The Allies could not even reach most of the Bulgarian position, so they were unable to kill many Bulgarian soldiers. This is the only sourse I have seen to write the casualties.

Yes, you are right to think that the casualties are overestimated, because they are really high but still this data exists and might be correct (I believe it is). Up to now I will add this data too and will leave yours, but I will wait for your answer first. --Gligan 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your source and as far as I could see due to the similarities in Serbian and Bulgarian it stated that the Bulgarians had 494 men killed, but it said nothing about the number of the wounded soldiers (which is often at least twice the number of those KIA), so technically both of you might be right about the Bulgarian casualties. The Allied losses certainly included the number of wounded (if they were indeed as high as stated)

Veljko Stevanovich 5. Feb. 2007. 08:37 UTC+1

Very good idea! It is possible that the Allied losses include the woulded because it is not written that they were necessarily all killed. In the sentence is written: And with good reason- at the end of the assault 9th Pleven division lost 494 killed, the English 47,000 and the Greeks- 12,000. In Bulgarian language this (killed) should normally mean that it is the same with the second and the third figure in order to avoid repetition. Still you are most probably right: the figures should include the woulded, they are really many.

So we may write this in the casualties' box: English 47,000 killed and woulded, Greeks 12,000 killed and woulded; total c.20,000 dead; Bulgarians: 494 killed and 2,000-5,000 woulded. This might be neutral; if the casualties' box should iclude the woulded, it is obvios that the Bulgrians should have at least 2,000 and we must write it down. What do you think? --Gligan 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the new source - a very good one (but in BG) - [2] - much more sensible number of casualties - allied 11 670 dead and wounded, 540 captured - BG 1 736 dead, 1 000 wounded. (Out of 75 000 against 35 000). And by the way - there are 5 Battles of Doiran 1 in 1916, 3 in 1917 and 1 in 1818.--Miko Stavrev 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that these numbers are more sensible - 2 Serbian divisions lost a similar number of soldiers to the Austro-Hungarians in a 14 - 22 Sep. (1914) period that included perhaps the single most fierce engagement on the Serbian front that year on Mačkov Kamen that lasted 4 days during the larger Battle of Drina (but that was a maneauver type of battle with both sides trading attacks & taking heavy casualties and neither strongly fortified). Additionally your source is heavilly referenced. Perhaps it is still not all 100% neutral since it sometimes referes to the Allied armies as "adversaries", if I understood it correctly, but nevertheless I strongly suggest that these numbers be the ones listed in the battlebox.

Veljko Stevanovich 16. Feb. 2007 23:30 UTC+1

The source is quete neutral (100%? come on! these are the Balkans :-) - противник is a very neutral word in bg - means the opponent - you can see in the last quote that a British oficer calls the Bulgarians противник.--Miko Stavrev 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)