Some Problems of the Peace ConferenceHaskins, Charles Homer
History
Some Problems of the Peace Conference
Haskins, Charles Homer
Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions
Nevertheless, the War has produced, or is likely to produce, fewer
and much less sweeping changes of territory in the Balkans than in
the case of Austria-Hungary or Germany. It will probably alter the
map of the Peninsula less than did almost any other of the Balkan
cataclysms of the last hundred years. That is partly because one of our
late enemies, the Sick Man on the Bosporus, had already handed over
so much of his estate to his impatient heirs that in Europe at least
very little remains to be liquidated; while our other enemy at Sofia
possessed very little land that was not Bulgarian in population, and it
was not the policy of the Allies to take away territory simply by way
of retribution. But the main reason why no very large alterations of
frontiers are now in process, is that the most contentious territorial
questions of the Peninsula were settled by the two Balkan wars of
1912-13 and the ensuing Peace of Bucharest. Whether they were rightly
settled at that time is a topic to which I may revert a little
later. At any rate, they were settled in a sense favorable to our
allies, Greece, Serbia, and Roumania. And the most salient feature
of the Balkan settlement made by the Conference at Paris is that it
essentially confirms the settlement made by the Peace of Bucharest.
Bulgaria escapes with far slighter losses than any other member of the
defeated alliance. Nevertheless, she is quite as indignant as any of
the rest of them over the peace treaty imposed upon her (the treaty
signed at Neuilly, November 27, 1919). But she is indignant, not so
much over what she has lost, as over what she has failed to gain. There
is, of course, not a little irony in the fact that at the close of
a war which she entered so perfidiously, conducted so brutally, and
ended so disastrously, Bulgaria should still be clamoring that to the
vanquished belong the spoils, and should be demanding that the Entente
hand over to her, at the expense of its Greek and Serbian allies, the
lands which she hoped to gain by fighting throughout the War on the
side of the Germans. But there is another way of looking at the matter.
Bulgaria and her many friends abroad regard the Peace of Bucharest as
a monstrous iniquity--the dismemberment of the Bulgarian nation at the
hands of its rapacious neighbors. Therefore, it is argued, at a time
when the victorious Allies are remaking the map of Europe on the basis
of the principle of nationality and of impartial even-handed justice,
it is only right that ‘the crime of 1913’ should be undone, and that
Bulgaria should be allowed to attain her national unity, as Greece,
Serbia, and Roumania are doing in such rich measure. And unless that is
done, it is said, there can be no stable peace in the Balkans.
Since the discussion of the new settlement thus turns largely on the
merits of the Peace of Bucharest, it is necessary to revert briefly to
the main facts connected with that treaty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account