Talk:Balkans theatre

message: "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)
thread_title: Aftermath of the Romanian campaign

message: 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)
thread_title: Pointless text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  issues with article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italian contribute to the operations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Utterly antiromanian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Part of the Balkan Campaign? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  romania probably shouldn't be here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Romania ''should'' be here, and I intend it to add it in the near future  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of regurgitated and repetitive information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should Romania be put with the other Belligerents?