Disraelis Handling of the Balkan Crisis represented the triumph of style over substance How far do you agree?

        However in the other ways Disraeli’s handling was a failure for style. One examples of this was the way he dithered through the crisis. This was largely as a result of foreign policy without focus. His decisions were almost always reacting to something that had happened rather than moulding the future to his views. This problem was further worsened by the divide in his cabinet. Only two members out of twelve held a firm stance against the expansion of Russia: Lord John Manners and Gathorne Hardy. The rest of the members were generally against Disraeli’s view of the ‘go-getting’ and invasive foreign policy, these contrasting views within the cabinet lead to a rather inactive time for Disraeli and a failure of style.

Another failure of substance was further highlighted by the relationship between Disraeli and Lord Derby. Disraeli’s view of acting in Europe was especially opposed by the influential and popular Lord Derby who was a large problem for Disraeli. They had grown up together in politics and were good friends however while Disraeli wanted to act upon what was happening, Lord Derby, the foreign secretary, did not want to act. He was a passive foreign secretary who harboured liberal sympathies and did not think that upholding the Ottoman Empire was of great importance despite the words of Disraeli. These contrasting views between Prime minister and the Foreign Secretary lead to an inactive cabinet. The failure of substance by Disraeli was the decision to allow these contrasting views to hinder him for the entire Eastern Crisis. In attempt to stop the indecisiveness of the cabinet the Queen tried to convince Disraeli to fire Derby. Disraeli should have fired him however he wanted to remain friends with him and also feared that if he removed such and influential person from the cabinet that they would loose a lot of support. This lead to more inactivity, a common occurrence throughout the Eastern Crisis.

However in other cases Disraeli’s handling of the crisis was a triumph for substance. One of Disraeli’s main aims was to break up the Emperors’ league as he thought this would start the balancing of power in Europe. During the Easter crisis Austria made a move away from the Emperors’ league to take up a position alongside Britain infuriating the Tsar hugely. This detachment was the break up of the Northern Alliance, rebalancing the power in Europe and a success of substance for Disraeli. Another example of a success of substance was achieved in the Berlin Congress when Disraeli stopped Russia from creating a ‘Greater Bulgaria’. He believed that this would be a large puppet state for Russia and would cause a huge imbalance of power in Europe. It would also give Russia a route to move south towards the Suez Canal and even more scarily towards India. This was obviously against Disraeli’s views so he forced Bulgaria to split in two, the Ottoman Empire retaining the southern half. A further success for Disraeli was annexation of Cyprus to the British Empire. Britain could station naval bases in the Mediterranean and that mean that Britain could protect Turkey from Russia. Protecting Turkey from Cyprus meant that Russia were much less likely to move south towards Turkey and ultimately India.

In conclusion the substance was effective in some case, but overall was fairly weak. An example where it was effective was the halting of Russia’s move south towards Turkey. However there are examples where substance was weak, for example initially Cyprus looked like a good gain for Britain but in reality it was militarily ineffective. All the success that Disraeli had in the Eastern crisis was due to his style. This is most obviously shown in his bullish performance in Berlin congress forcing Russia to back down as well as making a string alliance with Turkey.