• 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)

    Northumberland tried to change the succession himself, proclaiming Lady Jane Grey queen. However, such was the support in the country for Mary, the rightful heir, that a potential political crisis was avoided. Even if the situation had been worse, Henry's policies could not be held responsible as Northumberland deliberately tried

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

    According to Langer, "No other statesman of standing had ever before shown the same great moderation and sound political sense of the possible and the desirable", this can clearly be justified. There were five main understandings and alliances, which were established during the two decades, following the Unification of Germany,

  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 ...

    to a flood of British goods and ruined many Ottoman crafts'.xxv The destruction of the Janissary corps (1826) and the Anglo-Turkish Convention (1838) further integrated Ottoman and European economies, just as the 1839 Tanzimat decree more closely aligned the Middle Eastern with Western political structures.

  1. 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.

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

    in the west the Poles in the east, the Rhinelanders whom resented being 'Prussian' and more notably the southern German states who tended to identify with Austria rather than Prussia. Bismarck's main domestic aim was to successfully unify Germany, and took the view that these minorities would pose a threat on this.

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

    The threat of a March on Rome caused any suggestion of a liberal coalition with the fascists to be abandoned. Probably the most influential factor that led to the march on Rome was the fear of the left. Fascism increased its support and, as a result, began to appeal the

  2. 1798 Irish Rebellion notes

    area of southern Ulster where, almost uniquely, Catholics and Protestants both constituted significant elements within the population. 4. Here efforts by the gentry in Armagh to mobilize poorer Protestants by giving them weapons intermeshed with economic discontent among local weavers and sectarian disputes over land to produce an explosion of widespread unrest.

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