The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria—Serbia—Greece—Rumania—TurkeyHogarth, D. G. (David George)
History
The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria—Serbia—Greece—Rumania—Turkey
Hogarth, D. G. (David George)
Balkan Peninsula -- History; Eastern question (Balkan)
The revolutionary Committee in Salonika, called ‘of Union and
Progress’, held up its cards at first, but by 1910 events had forced
its hand on the table. The definite annexation of Bosnia and
Hercegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, and the declaration of
independence and assumption of the title Tsar by the ruler of Bulgaria,
since they were the price to be paid by the revolutionaries for a
success largely made in Germany, were opposed officially only _pro
forma_; but when uninformed opinion in the empire was exasperated
thereby against Christendom, the Committee, to appease reactionaries,
had to give premature proof of pan-Osmanli and pro-Moslem intentions by
taking drastic action against _rayas_. The Greeks of the empire, never
without suspicions, had failed to testify the same enthusiasm for
Ottoman fraternity which others, e.g. the Armenians, had shown; now
they resumed their separatist attitude, and made it clear that they
still aspired, not to Ottoman, but to Hellenic nationality. Nor were
even the Moslems of the empire unanimous for fraternity among
themselves. The Arab-speaking societies complained of
under-representation in the councils and offices of the state, and made
no secret of their intention not to be assimilated by the Turk-speaking
Osmanlis. To all suggestions, however, of local home-rule and
conciliation of particularist societies in the empire, the Committee
was deaf. Without union, it believed in no progress, and by union it
understood the assimilation of all societies in the empire to the
Osmanli.
Logic was on the side of the Committee in its choice of both end and
means. In pan-Ottomanism, if it could be effected, lay certainly the
single chance of restoring Osmanli independence and power to anything
like the position they had once held. In rule by a militarist oligarchy
for some generations to come, lay the one hope of realizing the
pan-Ottoman idea and educating the resultant nation to self-government.
That end, however, it was impossible to realize under the circumstances
in which past history had involved the Ottoman Empire. There was too
much bad blood between different elements of its society which Osmanli
rulers had been labouring for centuries rather to keep apart than to
unite; and certain important elements, both Moslem and Christian, had
already developed too mature ideas of separate nationality. With all
its defects, however, the new order did undoubtedly rest on a wider
basis than the old, and its organization was better conceived and
executed. It retained some of the sympathy of Europe which its
beginnings had excited, and the western powers, regarding its
representative institutions as earnests of good government, however ill
they might work at the first, were disposed to give it every chance.
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