History of the Balkans 9780521274593, 9780511868580

Citation preview

HISTORY OF THE BALKANS TWENTIETH CENTURY VOLUME 2

ka, ; ¥ thefoimr § LEARNED SOCIETIES «>

: Committee :

: oncastem :

3Fumio! CULO.

ny 4 g Sees THE SOCIAL

Blank Page

HISTORY OF THE BALKANS Twentieth Century

VOLUME 2

BARBARA JELAVICH

=| CAMBRIDGE Sb) UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, S40 Paulo

Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/978052 1254489

© Cambridge University Press 1983 Full term copyright is claimed. Thereafter all portions of this work covered by this copyright will be in public domain. The work was developed under a contract with the U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position of that Agency, and no official endorsement of these materials should be inferred. First published 1983 Reprinted 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994 (twice), 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library ISBN-13 978-0-521-27459-3 paperback ISBN-10 0-521-27459-1 paperback Transferred to digital printing 2006

Contents

Preface 1x Introduction I

Last of maps page Vill PART I. WAR AND NATIONAL CONSOLIDATION, 1887-1941

Romania 23 Serbia 28 Montenegro 34 Bulgaria 37 Greece 40 to 1914 SI Bosnia-Hercegovina 59

Chapter 1. The Balkan national monarchies 13

Economic developments 15

The “Europeanization” of Balkan life 45 Chapter 2. The Dual Monarchy: Austria-Hungary from 1867

The national problem in Austria 53

The Kingdom of Hungary 63 Conclusion: Austria-Hungary under the Ausgleich 77

Chapter 3. The end of Ottoman rule in Europe: the

Albanian and Macedonian questions 79

The Ottoman Empire 79 The Albanian national movement 84

Macedonia 89 The Balkan Wars, 1912, 1913 95 Albanian independence 100 The Ottoman legacy 104 Vv

Contents

Sarajevo 106 The war 114.

Chapter 4. World War I 106 The peace settlements 121 The fall of the Ottoman Empire: the Turkish Republic 126

Conclusion 133 Chapter 5. The first postwar decade 134

Immediate postwar problems 134

development 143 The Great Depression 184. Problems of national organization and internal

Conclusion I9I

Traditional peasant life 185

World War II 192 The rise of Soviet and German influence 192

Chapter 6. Balkan authoritarian regimes: the outbreak of

Inter-Balkan relations 212

The establishment of the Balkan authoritarian regimes 199

The Axis advance: the conquest of Albania 213

Conclusion 238

The outbreak of the war: the period of Balkan neutrality 221

PART II. WORLD WAR II AND THE POSTWAR DEVELOPMENTS

Chapter 7. The Balkan states in World War II 24.7

The military background 247 Balkan participation in the war 250

The inter-Allied negotiations on the Balkans 284 The establishment of the Communist regimes 287

Partisan warfare 298

Chapter 8. The immediate postwar readjustments: the Greek

civil war and the Yugoslav—Soviet conflict 301

The Allied coalition breaks 301 The Greek civil war, 1946-1949 306 The Yugoslav developments 314 The repercussions in the Soviet bloc 329 Albania changes direction 331

The Cold War 333 Vi

Contents

Chapter 9. The Communist governments, 1950-1980 336

Internal developments 336 Foreign policy 352

Albania 364 The Yugoslav variant 384 Conclusion 4.04 Contrasting Communist regimes: Bulgaria, Romania,

Chapter 10. The Greek alternative 406 Economic problems: American intervention 406

The Cyprus dispute 413 Social and economic changes 416 The Papandreou era 418 The military dictatorship 426 Karamanlis restored 433 Andreas Papandreou: the elections of October 1981 436 Papagos and Karamanlis: Greek governments to 1963 408

Conclusion 437 Conclusion 439

Index A6I

Bibliography 447

Vil

Blank Page

Preface

HE FIRST VOLUME of this Balkan history covered the main events of

) the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The emphasis was on the

national movements leading to the formation of the modern states and the organization of the first independent or autonomous governments. Although the final stages were not completed until after World War I, the major steps toward a national organization and a definition of future goals were taken by the end of the nineteenth century by all of the nationalities except the Albanians. The main issues in the twentieth century were thus to be the completion of territorial unification and internal economic and political development. Problems of great-power interference and rivalry among the nations continued from the previous period. This volume commences with an introduction designed for those readers whose primary interests lie in the present century, although it is hoped that this factual review of the preceding centuries will also be of interest to those who desire a summary and an overview of the previous volume. The material selected is that which is necessary as a background for the next chapters.

This volume, as well as its predecessor, was prepared as part of a program organized in 1972 by the Joint Committee on Eastern Europe of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council to provide histories of Eastern Europe. Professor Peter F. Sugar of the University of Washington was the chairman of the special committee that prepared the original proposal; Professor Michael B. Petrovich of the University of Wisconsin became chairman of the supervising committee and was responsible for the subsequent organization. This Balkan history has received generous funding from the Office of Education, including grants that allowed the author the free time necessary to complete the writing and funds to assist in the preparation of the volumes for publication. Dr. Gordon B. Turner, Vice-President of ACLS until 1980, and his successor, Dr. Jason H. Parker, contributed valuable suggestions and assistance. The author is also greatly indebted to Julia A. Petrov of the Office of Education for her advice and support. As stated in the original project, this book 1s designed as an introduction 1X

Preface to Balkan history; it assumes no prior knowledge. Major European events and political, philosophical, and economic theories necessary to the narrative are also covered. Because of the complexity of the developments being treated,

some subjects are touched on in more than one section. Since this area has played such a major role in world affairs, attention is directed not only to internal Balkan events, but also to the great international conflicts in this turbulent century. This book thus covers both Balkan developments and the place of the peninsula in twentieth-century history. The multiplicity of languages and the varieties of spelling that have been used in the past provide certain difficulties for the historian of the area. In this book the attempt has been made to adopt in the spelling of personal and geographic names the form that is most commonly used and that will be most familiar to the reader. Standard systems of transliteration have been used for Greek and Bulgarian; Serbian words and names appear in their Latin spelling. Complete consistency has not been possible. In addition, names of rulers and Ottoman statesmen and many first names have been anglicized. Dating also provides some problems, since the Balkan people used three separate calendars until after World War I. The Muslims dated events from the Hegira in A.D. 622. The Orthodox used the Julian, or Old Style, calendar, whereas the Catholics and Protestants adopted the Gregorian, or New Style. In the nineteenth century the Julian calendar ran twelve days behind the Gregorian; in the twentieth century this number increased to thirteen. All dates in this book are in the New Style. The difference in dating produces difficulties principally when a particular day or month 1s associated with an event. For example, the Serbian Constitution of 1888 was actually passed in January 1889. When such complications arise, they are explained in the text. For the most part, the footnotes have been limited to identifications of the sources of quotations and of some of the statistical information. The capital-

ization and spelling of quotations from old sources have been changed to conform to the style of the text. The bibliography is designed to provide the reader with a list of books on various aspects of Balkan history. Books in languages other than English and all articles are excluded, although, of course, these have been used extensively in the preparation of the book. The author is greatly indebted to her friends and colleagues, specialists in

the field, who kindly consented to read the manuscript. Their expert comments and criticisms greatly assisted in the preparation of the final version of the book. All or a major section of the two volumes was read by Professors Richard V. Burks, Wayne State University; Dimitrje Djordjevic, University of California, Santa Barbara; Rufus Fears, Indiana University; John V. A. Fine, Jr., University of Michigan; Keith Hitchins, University of Illinois; Halil Inalcik, University of Chicago; John R. Lampe, University of Maryland; Thomas A. Meininger, York University; John A. Petropulos, Amherst College; Michael B. Petrovich, University of Wisconsin; Dennison I. Rusinow, American Universities Field Staff; Traian Stoianovich, Rutgers University; X

Preface and Peter F. Sugar, University of Washington. In addition, this work is in fact the product of the collaboration of the author with her husband, Charles Jelavich, who contributed not only suggestions and criticisms, but also the results of his own research. The author would like to thank Debbie Chase, who typed the final draft, and Janis Bolster, whose excellent editorial reading and valuable suggestions

added much to the manuscript in its final stages of preparation. She also compiled the index. The maps were prepared by William Jaber.

X1

Blank Page

Introduction

LTHOUGH THIS VOLUME OF BALKAN HISTORY commences for-

A mally at the beginning of the twentieth century, the reader should be aware of the immense influence of past events, including those of classical and medieval times, on contemporary developments. For example, the modern Greek and Romanian national movements look back for insp1ration to ancient Greece and Rome. The Albanians of today lay emphasis on their Illyrian ancestry. The Slavic invasions of the sixth through the eighth centuries brought these people into the peninsula as permanent settlers. For the great majority of Balkan inhabitants the conversion to Christianity and the subsequent division of the church after 1054 provided both elements of unity and cohesion and causes of mutual distrust and animosity. In the Middle Ages the Byzantine, Serbian, and Bulgarian empires were states of considerable power and prestige. The thousand-year Byzantine civilization left a deep imprint on Balkan culture. Independent or autonomous political entities, under their own kings, princes, or noble leaders, arose also in Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Wallachia, Moldavia, and ‘Transylvania in this early period. In approaching twentieth-century Balkan history it is thus essential to remember that all of these people have deep historical roots in the ancient and medieval periods, when they lived under their own rulers, despite their subsequent long period of domination by outside powers. For the entire history of the peninsula perhaps the deepest mark was left by the five hundred years of Ottoman occupation. By the end of the fifteenth century the Ottoman Empire had gained control of the territory now held by the modern states. Despite this subjugation, the methods of government and the attitude of the Muslim conquerors in fact preserved a feeling of iden-

tity among the Christian population. The Ottoman rulers regarded themselves as representing not a national, but a religious, organization. By converting to Islam, any individual among the conquered could become a member of the privileged section of society. Those who retained their faith were indeed not regarded as equals, but they were allowed a great deal of self-government through their churches and their institutions of local government. Under the millet system the majority of the Balkan people, being Orthodox, were under the jurisdiction of their church authorities, of which the most important was I

Introduction the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In general, local communities ran their own affairs under the direction of their traditional leaders. The preconquest Balkan aristocracy had been eliminated except in a few areas, such as Bosnia, Albania, and Crete, where some converted to Islam and thus preserved their privileges. Ottoman officials held the major government offices in the peninsula and controlled the police and, with limitations, the legal system. The Muslim population provided the soldiers for the army, although, at least in the early period, many of these were in fact Christian converts to Islam. Although this system of administration was in effect in the greater part of the peninsula, different conditions existed in certain border provinces and in the lands that fell under Habsburg control by the beginning of the eighteenth century. The Danubian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia always retained a special status. Transylvania, Croatia-Slavonia, and the Vojvodina were

similarly to have distinctive governments. In these areas a Christian aristocracy was able to retain a predominant influence, even though in places — Transylvania, for instance — it might not be of the same nationality as the majority of the population. Most of the Balkan people were peasants who supported themselves by animal husbandry or agriculture. In the lands under direct Ottoman administration they could be sharecroppers or farm laborers on the estates of Muslim or Christian landowners, or they could hold land on what were in practice conditions of virtually free ownership. All were subjected to numerous taxes, whose high rates and methods of collection caused extreme dissatisfac-

tion among both the Muslim and the Christian people. In areas where a native aristocracy existed peasant conditions could in fact be worse than in the other regions. Here the peasants were usually serfs, although most were freed from this bondage in the eighteenth century. Questions of land tenure and taxation were a major cause of social unrest throughout all of the lands under study. The Treaty of Karlowitz of 1699 provides a convenient landmark with which

to begin the modern history of the Balkan peninsula.. In this agreement the Ottoman Empire surrendered important territories to Christian powers on a permanent basis. At this time the Habsburg Empire acquired Transylvania, Croatia, and Slavonia, as well as other lands; Venice took Dalmatia and the Peloponnesus. Throughout the eighteenth century the Ottoman Empire waged repeated wars with the European powers, in particular with Russia and the Habsburg Empire, which were usually in alliance. The Balkan lands were also

involved in the campaigns of the French Revolution and Napoleon. However, despite the many wars, relatively little Balkan territory changed hands on a long-term basis during this time. In 1775 the Habsburg Empire acquired Bukovina; in 1797 it gained Dalmatia and Istria, annexations that were confirmed in the Vienna settlement of 1815. Russia received Bessarabia in the Treaty of Bucharest of 1812, which brought to an end a century of successful 2

Introduction Russian endeavors to acquire lands north of the Black Sea. In 1815 Britain gained control of the Ionian Islands, which were held until 1863. The wars of the eighteenth century, although the results were usually to the detriment of the Ottoman overlord, brought few advantages to the Balkan people. Instead, they saw large sections of their lands devastated. In addition, the conflicts had the negative result of involving the European great powers — Britain, France, Russia, the Habsburg Empire, and, on some issues,

Prussia — in the events of the Near East. This situation arose not so much because of the conditions within the peninsula as because of the highly strategic position of these lands, especially the Turkish Straits, in world affairs. Not only were Russia and the Habsburg Empire, the neighboring states, determined to protect their interests on their sensitive Balkan borders, but Britain and France, the great imperial powers, were deeply concerned about the balance of power in the Mediterranean, where they had often conflicting interests. Involved in a wider arena, Russia and Britain throughout the nineteenth century were in competition for lands and influence along a broad band of territory running through China, the northern borderlands of India, Afghanistan, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the Ottoman state as a valuable check on Russian expansion in the Near East, the British government usually attempted to maintain its territorial integrity. The Habsburg Empire held a similar view. In contrast, both Russia and France, at least in some crises, were more sympathetic to the national movements. The question of the fate of the Ottoman lands, referred to in the diplomacy of the period as the Eastern Question, was perhaps the major cause of European international controversy in the century from 1815 to 1914.

With the European powers divided, it can be understood why the major initiative for the ending of Ottoman control over the peninsula came from the Christian population itself. Although the leaders of each national movement called for outside assistance, their actions had their basis in domestic considerations. By the end of the eighteenth century conditions were favorable for revolutionary activity. In a period of decline at the center, the Ottoman authorities lost their ability to control the actions of some of the provincial authorities. In these years, and through the first decades of the nineteenth century, anarchy and outlawry ruled in many regions. For the Balkan people the activities of Ali Pasha of Janina and Pasvanoglu of Vidin were particularly

important. In addition, by this time many of the ideas associated with the French Revolution, in particular liberalism and nationalism, had penetrated into the Balkans, especially among those groups having connections with the rest of Europe. The first national revolution, that of the Serbs in 1804, arose directly from

the failure of the Ottoman government to curb provincial disorder. Under the first leader, Karadjordje, it turned from a revolt against corrupt local authorities to a movement for national independence. Although Karadjordje

3

Introduction was defeated, a second insurrection in 1815, headed by Milo§ Obrenovic, succeeded in obtaining favorable conditions from the Ottoman government. By 1830 Serbia had attained an autonomous status in the empire. Milo$ was forced to abdicate as prince in 1839, when he was succeeded by his sons, first Milan and then Michael. In 1842 Michael was replaced by Alexander Karadjordjevi¢,

a son of the revolutionary leader. By this time a bitter controversy over the throne had arisen between the two families. In 1858 Alexander was overthrown and Milo was recalled for a short reign. After his death he was followed in 1860 by Michael for a second term. When this prince was assassinated in 1868, his cousin Milan became prince. The second national revolution occurred in Greece and attracted wide attention and sympathy throughout the Christian world. The rebellion had two centers: first, the Danubian Principalities and second, the Greek mainland, in particular the Peloponnesus and Rumeli. Although the revolt in the Romanian lands was crushed, the Greek leaders had more success in Greece proper. After the interference of the powers and after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in a war with Russia, an independent Greek state was established in 1830, although the territory allotted to it represented only a fourth of the lands inhabited by Greeks. ‘The great powers determined that the first government should be monarchical, and they chose the second son of the king of Bavaria, Othon (Otto), as king. The third national movement, that of the Romanians in Wallachia and Moldavia, obtained few notable successes until the second half of the century. In 1821, in association with the Greek revolt of that year, Tudor Vladimirescu

led an insurrection whose prime aims were more social than political in direction. When he came into conflict with the Greek leadership, he was assassinated and his army disbanded. In 1848 a Wallachian attempt to set up an independent administration, initiated by a liberal, revolutionary leadership, was crushed by a Russian and Ottoman occupation. A great improvement in the political position of the Principalities came only after 1856, when Russia was defeated in the Crimean War. Thereafter, primarily with French aid, the Romanian leaders were able to secure the election of a single prince, Alexander Cuza, for both Wallachia and Moldavia. He then united the administrations and legislatures of the two provinces. During Cuza’s reign important reforms to improve the condition of the peasants were introduced. In 1866 this prince was overthrown and Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a member of the Catholic branch of the Prussian royal family, was chosen as ruler. By the 1860s, therefore, Serbian, Greek, and Romanian national endeavors

had achieved a great measure of success. An independent Greece and an autonomous Serbia and Romania had been established. In addition, in the rugged mountains of the western Balkans, another state, Montenegro, under its own rulers, was in existence. Orthodox in religion and Serbian in nationality, the Montenegrin people enjoyed relative independence, largely because of

4

Introduction the poverty and remoteness of their lands. The relationship of the government with Constantinople varied over the years, but the great powers considered the country an Ottoman dependency. Although all of these states thus achieved a high degree of separation from Ottoman control, in so doing they fell under increasing great-power influence. Independent Greece was by treaty endowed with three protectors — Britain, France, and Russia — which could and did interfere constantly in its internal affairs. After 1826 Russia became the protecting power for Romania and Serbia. Its representatives in the Danubian Principalities, in particular, attempted to guide and influence domestic policy. After 1856 the powers signatory to the Treaty of Paris of that year took over the role of guarantors not

only for Serbia and the Danubian Principalities, but also for the Balkan Christians in general. Once established, the governments, with the exception of Montenegro’s, followed a similar pattern. Following Western European institutions, they all acquired constitutions: Serbia first in 1838, Greece in 1844, and Romania in 1866. In general, these documents provided for a strong executive and limited the franchise to the wealthier and more powerful elements of the society. The legislatures thus represented primarily their interests. Political parties, based on loose combinations of individuals with similar aims, also emerged. Usually designated “Liberal” and “Conservative,” they fought over issues such as the relative power of the executive and the legislature, the franchise, and who should staff the government offices. Much corruption characterized all the regimes. As far as internal organization was concerned, the new national leaders, admurers of French administrative practice, favored a strongly centralized sys-

tem. Power and influence were accordingly taken from the village communities and the local leaders, to the detriment of the interests of the peasant majorities. Faced with opposition and rebellion from within and with attacks and interference from the great powers, the Ottoman government, often referred to as the Porte, made determined attempts to halt the disintegration of the empire. From the eighteenth century on the necessity for reform was recognized. The first important measures were taken during the reign of Mahmud II (1808-1839). The great period of reform, that of the Tanzimat, lasted from the beginning of the reign of Abdul Mejid in 1839 to 1878, when Abdul Hamid

II suspended the recently introduced constitution and began a period of autocratic rule. Despite the great efforts made in these years and thereafter to improve the administrative eficiency and military capabilities of the state, the Ottoman leaders were unable to halt the empire’s decline in international standing or to maintain the integrity of its territories. Nor could they formulate a program of sufficient strength or appeal to combat successfully the nationalist propaganda of the militant Balkan Christian leaderships. Meanwhile, national tissues had become a major problem in the Habsburg Empire. By 1815 the monarchy held large areas populated in the majority by 5

Introduction Romanians and South Slavs. A Romanian population, primarily Orthodox in religion and, of course, sharing a similar language with the people of the Danubian Principalities, lived in Transylvania and in parts of Bukovina. Of the South Slavic people, the Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes, the Croats and Serbs shared a common literary language, but were divided by religion. The Croats and Slovenes, both Catholics, were separated by their differing languages. The Slovenes, whose national movement will be described in Chapter 2, lived primarily in Carniola and Styria; the Croats were to be found principally in Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia; and the Serbs lived mainly in the Vojvodina and in the southern border areas of Croatia and Slavonia. Of these people the Croats in Croatia and Slavonia enjoyed the best political position. With a strong historical background, looking back to the Triuune

Kingdom of the medieval period, whose lands had included Dalmatia and much of Bosnia as well as Croatia and Slavonia, the Croats had certain autonomous rights, although their definition was a matter of continuous controversy with both the Habsburg and the Hungarian authorities. The relationship of the Catholic Croats to the Orthodox Serbs, who composed about a fourth of the population of the regions in question, also was to become a major problem, as will be discussed subsequently. The situation in Transylvania was quite different. There the Romanian, Orthodox majority of the population was effectively blocked from political influence. The control of the province lay in the hands of the Hungarians; of the Szeklers, who were related to the Hungarians and spoke the same language; and of the Germans, called Saxons, descendants of twelfth-century immigrants. The Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Unitarian churches were recognized, but not the Orthodox. In the eighteenth century a Uniate church was established, which attracted some Romanians and played an important cultural role. The Orthodox church and its leaders, in particular Bishop Andreiu Saguna, were an even greater influence on the Romanian movement in the province. In 1866 the Habsburg Empire faced a grave internal crisis: the defeat by Prussia excluded it from a major role in German affairs and resulted also in the loss of Venetia, its last major Italian possession. Challenged by the growing claims of the national minorities, the central authorities came to an agreement with the strongest and most vocal of the nationalities, the Hungarians. In the Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867 the empire was divided into two sections, which will be referred to subsequently as Austria, with the center in Vienna, and Hungary, with the capital in Budapest. Of the regions with which we are primarily concerned, Dalmatia, Bukovina, and the Slovene lands fell under Austrian authority; Croatia, Slavonia, the Vojvodina, and Transylvania were assigned to Hungary. Franz Joseph stood at the head of both sections,

but he was emperor in Austria and king in Hungary. A central authority existed in Vienna, but its duties were limited to foreign affairs, the military, and finance (the third having jurisdiction over only the first two offices). The 6

Introduction major problems in the empire until 1914 centered around the difficulties caused by this new political arrangement.

By 1870 the Habsburg Monarchy had thus undergone a radical reorganization; and the Ottoman Empire, despite numerous efforts at reform, had lost effective control of a major portion of the Balkan peninsula. In addition, by this year a Bulgarian national movement had taken shape. Here the first

target of the leadership had been the Greek cultural and political control. Some local revolts had also taken place. In 1870 the Bulgarian position was strengthened when an Exarchate, separate from the Greek-dominated Patriarchate, was established to represent Bulgarian religious interests. Thereafter a sharp struggle to gain members ensued between the two ecclesiastical organizations. The major Bulgarian uprising took place in 1876, with its cen-

ter in the Balkan Mountains. Although this revolt was suppressed with an enormous loss of life, many of its aims were to be achieved within the next two years as a result of other events. In 1875 a revolt broke out in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The cause lay in the peasants’ grievances against their landlords, who were Muslim but of SerboCroatian language and nationality. Despite the efforts of the Ottoman gov-

ernment and the great powers, this rebellion could not be subdued. In the summer of 1876 Serbia and Montenegro, taking advantage of a turbulent situation, declared war on the Ottoman Empire. A major international crisis arose, which reached a climax when Russia declared war in April 1877. Once

victory had been won over the Ottoman armies, the Russian government was able to impose the Treaty of San Stefano in March 1878. This agreement, which upset the balance of power in the peninsula among both the Balkan states and the great powers, had as its principal achievement the creation of a large Bulgarian state whose lands embraced Macedonia and Thrace as well

as those of present-day Bulgaria. The reaction of the powers, in particular Britain and Austria-Hungary, was so strong that Russia was forced to accede to a new settlement that was decided upon at the Congress of Berlin, held in June and July 1878. The Congress of Berlin 1s an important landmark in the formation of the Balkan national states. The treaty drawn up at this time is perhaps the most significant single document for the national liberation movements. Three states, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, joined Greece as independent nations. An autonomous Bulgaria was also established, but with a much reduced territory. The San Stefano state was divided into three sections: an autonomous

Bulgaria in the lands north of the Balkan Mountains; a semiautonomous province, Eastern Rumelia, to the south; and Macedonia, which was returned to Ottoman rule. Serbia and Montenegro each gained some territory. In 1881, as part of the general settlement, Greece obtained Thessaly and part of Epirus. The great powers also took rewards. Austria-Hungary was given the right to administer and occupy Bosnia and Hercegovina and occupy the Sanjak of 7

Introduction Novi Pazar, a strip of land separating Serbia and Montenegro. Russia took back from Romania three districts of southern Bessarabia lost in 1856; Romania in compensation received southern Dobrudja. Britain, in a separate agreement, compelled the Ottoman Empire to agree to its occupation of Cyprus. In addition, the Ottoman defeat and the terms of the settlement forced the Albanians to organize and to examine their relationship with the Ottoman Empire. In the majority Muslim, and separated from the other Balkan people by racial background and language, the Albanians had previously fought for local autonomy, but they had not seriously challenged Ottoman sovereignty, at least in the modern period. When the congress awarded Albanian-inhabited lands to Montenegro, the League of Prizren was formed in their defense. Henceforth, the great powers and the other Balkan states had to take Albanian claims into account. None of the Balkan states was satisfied with the Berlin settlement. The Bulgarian leaders in particular were deeply disappointed about the dismemberment of the San Stefano state. Nonetheless, they devoted the first years after the congress to the establishment of state institutions. Since Russia had been tacitly accepted by the powers as the Bulgarian protector, Russian ofhcials played a major role in the accomplishment of this task. A prince, Alexander of Battenberg, was named by the powers and a constitution adopted. In 1885 a revolt in Eastern Rumelia resulted in the unification of that province with Bulgaria. This event caused an international crisis and a break between

the government and its Russian patron. In 1886 Alexander was forced to abdicate, and a new prince, Ferdinand of Coburg, was chosen. He ruled at first in close association with his influential minister Stephen Stambolov, but after Stambolov’s assassination, Ferdinand played the major role in state affairs. He was soon able to reestablish good relations with Russia.

Despite its great losses, the Ottoman Empire, under the rule of Abdul Hamid II after 1876, still held Macedonian, Thracian, and Albanian lands, and the island of Crete. Moreover, in theory it held sovereignty over autonomous Bulgaria and Habsburg-occupied Bosnia and Hercegovina. No Balkan government expected this situation to last: each had claims on these areas. Greece looked forward to acquiring Macedonia, Thrace, and all of Epirus; Serbia too looked southward to Macedonia. Moreover, most Serbs were firmly convinced that Bosnia and Hercegovina were rightfully theirs. For Bulgaria the San Stefano boundaries marked the correct borders for the state. Albanian leaders similarly looked to a future when they could unify the regions occupied by their people. Although Romania had no serious claims to Ottoman territory, the nationalists hoped that at some time Transylvania and Bessarabia, both in great-power possession, would be joined to their nation. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as we have seen, the great powers directed a great deal of attention toward Balkan events. However, after 1887 they were more concerned with other areas; a major Balkan crisis was 8

Introduction not to recur until 1908. In 1887, largely as a result of the Bulgarian affair, the Three Emperors’ Alliance, which joined Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary, was broken. By the end of the century the Continent was divided into two major alliance systems: the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy and the Russo-French Alliance. At this time none of these powers wished another Balkan crisis; all were involved in imperial expansion or in meeting their internal problems. For a period the Balkan peninsula was out of the international spotlight. Although all of the Balkan states had territorial objectives, their major immediate problems were connected with the necessity of internal economic development and improvements in the living conditions of their people. The national leaders were acutely conscious of the economic backwardness of the region, and they were aware that radical advances were necessary both for

the welfare of the population and for defense. Attention was thus directed increasingly to the social and economic issues, which had been relatively neglected in the era when first national liberation had to be achieved and then new independent or autonomous political institutions had to be organized.

9

Blank Page

PARTI

War and national consolidation, 1887-I941

The Balkan national monarchies

HE MAJOR GOAL of the Balkan national liberation movements was

) largely obtained by the end of the nineteenth century. Much of the

peninsula was under the control of native governments (see Map 1). Ottoman rule was limited to Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, and Albania. Although Bosnia, Hercegovina, and Bulgaria were still theoretically Ottoman possessions, the Ottoman Empire had no voice in their administration. The

conclusion of the revolutionary era and the establishment of the national regimes in the peninsula, however, in no sense decreased the problems of Balkan social and economic life. Indeed, in some areas the difficulties of national freedom overshadowed those of Ottoman dependency. A major question concerned finances. The independent states had to bear the full burden of the costs of defense, internal administration, and foreign representation,

at least some of which had previously been carried by the Porte. Equally important, as the century progressed and the industrial revolution brought a radical change in European standards of living, the Balkan leadership too revised its goals. With the most technologically advanced sections of the world as their model, successive Balkan governments and the wealthier members of their societies sought to introduce into these backward lands the most modern of European achievements. For this period, the building of railroads and

the acquisition of military equipment was to have the first priority in most of the countries. Unfortunately, none of the states had the economic base for the accomplishment of their aims. First and foremost, there was little domestic capital to invest in new enterprises. The entire peninsula was extremely poor. In the past, wealthy men had preferred to place their earnings in land or in the purchase of state offices, such as the position of tax farmer. More prestige was attached to landholding and official posts than to commercial ventures. In this situation, only two other sources of funds were available: taxation and foreign loans. With an impoverished peasant majority, most governments faced extreme limitations on the amount of taxes that could be collected. The fate of states that relied on outside loans was to be illustrated by the Ottoman and Greek economic disasters. The economic weakness and the huge expenditures that had to be met forced the independent regimes to face immediately the problem of the in13

War and national consolidation, 1887-1941

0 50 100

Scale in miles last S Under Habsburg "Habsburg occupation oecrdministration BOSNIANnws1:) Q HERCEGOVINA Belgrade

% w P Satajevo O : s, \ CE

We _ , SERBIA R @ Bucharest hy S SS SANJA Keg, “SSA MONTENEGRO 1 ~~ ® Pleven y .

Au eso BULGARIA of ADRIATIC ry Ottoman Empire ‘e SEA O |\__ ePlovdiv 0 “ r 7LT» atieed Caw | ? a Ohsnd O —_ a utonomous state within the

SS iy Thessaloniki : _ C RaQ Si alias

C Sy , at! san eg ©, Ore

Q Y\ Lee AZ RY ri e A

|z WN aAGPS,ws Je 3 oArheis ”

cS SS ¥ {l : Ss 3 y

© s ; \INGARE NN pee R FZ) OX (CZ Sh,