• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was the Bulgarian Crisis, which started in 1885, the most important factor threatening peace in the Balkans in the years 1870-1890?

Extracts from this document...


Was the Bulgarian Crisis, which started in 1885, the most important factor threatening peace in the Balkans in the years 1870-1890? It is difficult to pin Balkan tensions down to a single factor, and issues threatening the peace are composed of a hybrid of reasons. Arguably, peace in the Balkans had been endangered for a long time, due to the Sultan's brutal and often corrupt way of running things, and the reluctance of the countries he ruled over to be governed as one 'Ottoman Empire'. Whilst it is true that such tensions were manifested in the Bulgarian Crisis, and prior to that the Near East Crisis of 1875-78, the majority of issues in the Balkans were stemmed from nationalist feelings and, in the years 1870-1890, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The major powers can also be argued to have escalated the situation through their own interests in the area- especially Austria-Hungary and Russia, whose interests clashed, and whose self-adopted control ('annexing tendencies') of the countries was not always to the inhabitants' favour. The growth of nationalism was always an underlying factor threatening peace, and it was because of such rebellions that the major powers got involved and partitioned parts of the Balkans off for their own gain. ...read more.


The way this threatened peace was self-explanatory, and in turn this affected the interests of the other major powers. Germany, for example, was uninterested in the Balkans themselves, with Bismarck deeming them unworthy of 'the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian musketeer', but was forced to get involved in order to keep Russia and Austria in check. He called this the 'balancing of discontents'. This union was established in the Three Emperor's Agreement of 1873 and, despite valiant attempts to juggle the two countries, conflict still found a way through, such as in negotiations in 1887, when Austria only agreed to remain neutral if their Balkan interests were fully respected (a term it was inevitable for Russia to infringe). Of course, Germany employed the use of other countries to help her in this 'balancing' task, e.g. Britain and Italy. Germany appealed to Britain to play a leading role in opposing Russia, which they accepted, already suspicious by tradition of Russian interests in the Balkans. This is an example of how other countries were drawn in by the major powers' interests in the Balkans, and the Balkan and Bulgarian Crisis demonstrate how such involvement could fuel further rebellion, and therefore further threaten the peace. ...read more.


In fact, there was danger of war at the end of 1886 and in 1887, due to Russian dissatisfaction, and this crisis was only solved peacefully due to the efforts of Bismarck (perhaps the only positive, peaceful influence a major power managed to have in the Balkans). It is misleading then, to claim the Bulgarian Crisis is the biggest threat to peace in the Balkans; the previous Balkan Crisis was just as destructive and involved massive atrocities with the Bulgarian massacres. However, in conclusion, it is still more accurate to put the threatened peace in the Balkans down to several factors of equal importance. Firstly, nationalism was a long-term factor within the Ottoman Empire, inevitably, being precariously made up of so many different nationalities. However, the major powers helped to stir up and abuse such feelings, especially the foreign policies of Russia and Austria-Hungary. Had Russia not stirred up Panslavism, there may not have been as ferocious a rebellion and consequent quashing of one and the great powers needn't have got involved. Austria too, naturally wanting to preserve her own multi-national empire wouldn't have had to oppose Russian designs. In this aspect then, the biggest factors threatening peace in the Balkans were the major powers' mishandling and own self-interests in the Balkans and the nationalism causing such unrest in the first place. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?

    4 star(s)

    The succession crisis which came about after the death of Edward VI can in no way be blamed upon Henry VIII either, and Northumberland must be held responsible. Henry's will dictated that Mary should reign if Edward died without an heir, and it appears as if he had been trying to prevent the crisis which occurred.

  2. To what extent was Bismarck in control of the direction Germany's Foreign Policy took ...

    Thus, Bismarck's involvement was meaningless and actually could have disrupted the status quo. Perhaps the most important argument supporting the intentionalist view is Bismarck's control of the Austro-Russian friendship and that of Germany, and the Alliance System, he employed to maintain their relationship.

  1. Why was the league so ineffective in dealing with the Abyssinian Crisis?

    However, the sanctions were not placed upon the essentials for war, iron, coal and oil because Britain and France were worried about provoking Mussolini any more than they had to.

  2. How far did the reforms during the period 1826-39 contribute to the eventual fall ...

    This was partly due to the treatment of the citizens by the Janissaries and also, as Ahmad suggests, because of the Janissary's poor performance in the Greek insurrection of 1821. Mahmud II waited eighteen years to abolish the Janissaries, who had overthrown and executed his predecessor, Selim III.

  1. Do imperial strengths outweigh weaknesses in Germany by 1890?

    During the late 19th Century Church and State had come into conflict in several countries. A Catholic revival had been pronounced, Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors had condemned every major principle for which liberals stood. There was much support on the continent for Bismarck to become threatened, the French

  2. To what extent was Gladstone's religion the driving force behind his attempt to 'sabotage' ...

    Disraeli saw Gladstone's policy as counter-productive in terms of British interests, accusing him of wanting to dismantle the Empire, while Gladstone found Disraeli to be far too much of an imperialist and insensitive to the rights of foreign nations. Disraeli not only poured scorn on Gladstone's foreign affairs, but also disliked his dogmatic religion.

  1. How far has nationalism changed over the last hundred years?

    Obsession also leads to insecurity and instability, according to Orwell where the country becomes paranoid of any military developments by their rivals. The Weltpolitik, and later "Mitteleuropa" (a form of dominating Europe by controlling a customs system), was an obsessive attempt to make Germany the all-powerful European nation and a clear example of nationalism.

  2. 1798 Irish Rebellion notes

    Protestant organizations such as the Peep-of-Day Boys and Catholic groups like the Defenders effectively combined elements of Whiteboyism and distinctly sectarian attitudes. 6. In addition, while the Defenders undoubtedly articulated notions of political revolution well before their association with the United Irishmen began around 1795, they did so in

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work