Talk:Battle of Bregalnica

Dispute

What a bunch of nonsense - do you people read the stuff you actually write? The "Aftermath" paragraph is pure fiction - "bow to the inevitable" is not something that a history book would include. The casualty figures are funny too - they basically say "yeah, we've no clue how many people the Bulgarians lost - but bet that they were more than the Serbs" (which is not even true by the way). And how does the next battle - Kalimantsi even fit in with the idiocy in this article. This is clearly not written by a historian and has the potential to "enlighten" only some local nationalist, who'd like to feel good that his country at some point actually won a battle. This is not serious - and is not history. - Mladen

Ok cool down. While I didn`t write the article, I have the source in question and the casualties are indeed taken from there. If the figures are false then it is (Serbian historian) Savo Skoko`s fault, not this article writer`s. Apart from the Serbian casualties from the article (in this battle), the book puts the Bulgarian casualties in the whole 2nd Balkan War (on all fronts combined) as 93.000 (KIA, MIA, POW & WIA). The assumption that the Bulgarian casualties are higher is also from the book that states that it is rational to assume that at least a third of those casualties came from this battle. If you have some other figures(and I assume you do since you claim that the Bulgarian casualties were lower), please post them since I would personally like to hear the Bulgarian version of the story (you`re from Bulgaria, right?). The Savo Skoko`s book in question does contain at least a slight pro-Serbian bias in my oppinion, but you should likewise acknowledge the possibillity that Bulgarian historians on their part tried to downplay their nation`s greatest defeat in the Second Balkan War.

Veljko Stevanovich 31. 10. 2006. UTC+1

As much as I don't want to be dragged into an argument over pseudo-history (see my comment above regarding the language used in this article - "bow to the inevitable"???!), I feel compeled to reply to your question about the casualty figures. Hopefully you might learn something - and hopefully the source that I cite will convince you that Serbian history books are not really about history. Then again - my experience is that no matter how good the facts, a lot of people just believe what they want regardless. You can decide for yourself what makes more sense. - Mladen

Total figures for Bulgaria: Total mobilization: 607 422 Killed: 44 862 Wounded: 104 584 MIA: 7 824

Second Balkan War: Killed: ~18 000 Wounded: ~30 000 MIA: (this is for all four fronts in the war - Mladen)

Source: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Report of the International Commission to inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars, Great Britain, 1914, p. 378. Ibidem, p. 385

Thnx for the info - the source seems neutral. To tell you the truth the 93.000 Bulgarian casualties in 2nd BW indeed seemed a bit high to me. If we use a 1/3 of Bulgarian casualties (from your source) in 2nd BW for Bregalnica and assume that the posted Serbian casualties are correct, that would amount to roughly the same casualties for both armies. I think that the Bulgarian casualties were somewhere between 16.000 and 20.000, but that's just my oppinnion. We need more sources for this battle in particular. But you're wrong if you think that Bulgarian history books are much better then the Serbian ones. See this text and find the word Bregalnica in it.

Veljko Stevanovich 9. Feb. 2007. 22:15 UTC+1

This is a non-sensical Serbian POV

"compensation for having observed neutrality" - what kind of reason for entering a war is that one? Lantonov 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC) "prevented by Austro-Hungary" - prevented for what?
"the Bulgarian Army did conduct the costliest campaign in the war" - this is partly true in periphrasis - Bulgaria took the main burden of the war by fighting on the most difficult front against the main Turkish forces while Serbia and Greece occupied most of Macedonia fighting with light Turkish forces and after the First Balkan War wanted to take the occupied regions for themselves although in the treaty signed before the war there was no mention that allies will take territory that they occupied (this is the meaning of "to revise the original pact on rebus sic stantibus legal grounds"). Being thus like two thieves and knowing that their theft will not pass by international court, they signed a secret treaty to attack Bulgaria. Bulgaria learned of this and started the Second Balkan war. Those are the facts. The things that are written in Serbian textbooks are fictions of such cabinet fantasts as Cviić and Čorović. I read them wondering how many lies are collected in so few words. Lantonov 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Describing Serbia and Greece as "thieves" reveals your own selfish pro-Bulgarian POV. The REAL truth is that great powers (primarily Austria-Hungary which was looking for a way to destroy the Balkan League, and afterwards crush Serbia) decided to create a new sovereign state - Albania which would have otherwise been divided between Serbia, Montenegro (the city of Shkoder) and Greece thereby robbing them of some of the territories that they were supposed to get and tossing an apple of discord between the allies. Meenwhile Bulgaria lost no land to their decisions. The issue turned into weather the reduction of territories captured will be suffered by all the allies minus Bulgaria, or Bulgaria will give up some of their designated land to Serbia nad Greece thereby showing solidarity (a kind of which Serbia showed when it answered to Bulgarian pleas and sent it's Second army + heavy artillery to help the Bulgarians at the Siege of Adrianopole during the First Balkan War). Of course, this time each of the Balkan states turned as greedy as possible. So, as Serbian and Greek armies had captured some of the Bulgarian-designated lands (by pre-war agreements), because the Ottoman command concentrated the main forces against Bulgaria, Bulgarian army launched a surprise attack on Serbian and Greek armies to simply take what it considered Bulgarian (without even waiting for Russian tsar's mediation as was agreed upon in case of conflict of interests before the war). However, even the above is a simplified version of the story - the details being that the whole Balkan League was not formed by a single agreement between all four states in question. It was formed by bilateral agreements between the allied states that differed. Serbia and Bulgaria drew a line dividing what should become Bulgarian and what Serbian, however Bulgaria and Greece agreed to settle the matter of future boundaries after the war with conflict first emerging between these two - Greece demanding the land distribution according to ethnographic principles, whereas Bulgaria insisted on a principle based on each country's contribution to the war effort. When Serbia joind the party demanding the revision of it's agreement with Bulgaria, chaos was at hand. Of course it did not help that every Balkan country had it's own idea about the ethnic composition of the territories taken from the Ottoman Empire. Other important players in this story: 1) Russia (who greatly helped the creation of the Balkan League) wanted to gain access to the Bosfor and Dardanelle straights in the endless bid to gain an unlimited access to the seas - it probably encouraged Bulgaria to advance on Istanbul - and mount the disastorous attack on Tchatalja line during the 1st Balkan war. 2) Britain - ever concerned not to lose supremacy on the seas opposed Russia and ironically enough sided with Austria-Hungary in creating Albania (sending it's fleet to block the Greek ships carrying Serbian troops from Salonika to Shkoder to help the Montenegrin siege of that city towards the end of the 1st Balkan war).

Veljko Stevanovich 14. 08. 2007. 11:45 UTC+1

The above is a part of the truth leaving, however, the most important things unsaid. Before the first war Bulgaria made bilateral agreements with Serbia and Greece. In the agreement with Serbia, Macedonia was divided into 2 zones, one "uncontroversial" to be given to Bulgaria, and one "controversial" to be divided between Serbia and Bulgaria under the arbitrage of the Russian Emperor. After the first war, Serbia occupied all "controversial" zone and started occupation also of the "uncontroversial" zone which before the war it agreed belonged to Bulgaria (attacks towards Monastir and Voden). Greece just held to the territory it occupied, starting a genocide towards the Slav population there (very well documented). Serbia and Greece made a pact after the first war to occupy even more Bulgarian territory, amounting to most of what is now Southern Bulgaria. After learning this, Bulgaria made a series of diplomatic blunders: first by order of Ferdinand starting the second war in very unfavorable international conditions (when Bulgaria had only to stick to written agreements) without consulting the rest of the government, then the government without consulting Ferdinand ordering stopping of the war creating confusion and initial loss of momentum, resulting in losses on the field (Kiklis, Doiran, initial stage of Bregalnitsa-Kalimatsi). The decisive say in the second war, however, had the Romanian march and the Turkish advance in Thrace. In summary: greedy and treacherous neighbours and incompetent Bulgarian government and tsar led to the situation won the battles, lost the war. Ah, forgot the Great Powers for whom Bulgaria was a thorn in the heel.

As for Albania, there was nothing in the agreements for this state, but it was known that Albanians didn't want to be "liberated" as they are Muslims (Prizren league etc). So for Serbia and Greece to act as surprised over this is ridiculous and at the same level as the statement of Romania that it wants a compensation for neutrality. For the Serbian help, it was not a whole army but 2 divisions and they mostly stood at the side in the attack of Odrin, and during the attack of Chataldja they just went home content to criticize the "incompetent Bulgarian command". This, however, did not prevent Serbian government to claim the whole victory in Thrace for itself and additional territory because of it. Lantonov 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Serbia occupied all "controversial" zone and started occupation also of the "uncontroversial" zone which before the war it agreed belonged to Bulgaria". Although I do agree that the whole. or almost whole, Serbian historiography is highly biased (but, they`re not alone and I dont`t even think they`re the Balkans champions in that sport, the competition is too hard), you (whoever you are, since you haven`t signed) are shooting at a wrong target at this point. Actually, the Serbian historiography doesn`t deny that fact (and if you expect they emphasize it, well, maybe you`re expecting too much). They basicly say - since the Bulgarians have been the first to attack them (never mind if they`re right in that claim or not), it`s their fault if the previous accords have become void. Kornjaca (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I suggest using this: Jacob Gould Schurman, The Balkan Wars: 1912-1913 Third Edition [1] for a start, to at least explain propperely the chain of events that led to this battle and the whole Second Balkan War. The whole "Introduction" section is just a heavy Bulgarian POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.161.203 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Peace Theories and the Balkan War (2004), by Norman Angell. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The battle ?

Is it only me noticing that the article doesn't speak nothing about the battle itself? It's all about background and aftermath, and nothing about the battle itself, save the template at the beginning. The article should be rewritten from the start with omitting the POV nagging about who was right and who was wrong. Clanedstino (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)