Liberation of Bulgaria

 

Why in God's name should Britain of the west in that case care for "fellow Christians" in Balkans to become enemies for the Turks. Those countries ruled by the check book and bank account, what benifits us economically is our policy, Armenians suffered times as much as Bulgarians, Romanias and greeks combined yet the Turkish actions were supported if not publically then by the official silence on what happened to them.

 

The war of 1877-1878 was a golden opportunity down from God on the west, such a war would bleed the Turks to near death and devastate Russia economically and politically. Russia won everything in the war only to be forced to forsake it in Berlin and Tukey was bankrupted by the war only to be saved by european loans and economic help beginning by Cyprus and ending with Egypt. Russia lost up to 100k killed or died from the cholera epidemic that hit their army. Tens of thousands more were wounded and the war nearly bankrupted it. The Turks didn't lose as much but were completely bankrupted. Turkey became weak enough not to bother the big powers in their mediterranian interests and strong enough to stop Russian expansionism.

 

Finally, I don't think the Bulgarians will appreciate the occupation of some of their lands by the Romanian, as WWI clearly demonstrated, so I don't think Romanians will get much appreciationa and in any case the was was largely fought between the Russians and the Turks on Bulgarian lands and Romanian contribution was limited to the Danube region as Sarmat explained.

 

Al-Jassas 

 

The background goes like this, as we all know Russia wanted a warm water port, and  Britain did not like this idea. Other Christian states were successfully liberated in the Balkans before by the West and Russia, but they could not supply what Russia wanted. A Bulgarian state extending from the Black Sea to the Aegean seemed to offer a unique opportunity.

 

But there were serious problems. Bulgarians were not Greeks or Yugoslavs. Greeks, Montenegrins, Bosnians, etc. all had their mountain bandit traditions, which combined with Westernised upper classes to create the core of their nationalist movements, but the Bulgarians did not have them. Ottoman rule in Bulgaria was rarely contested by anyone, making it very likely the most loyal province in the Empire's history. Bulgarian culture itself was weak, and dominated by the Ecumenical church in Istanbul. What's more, Bulgaria was heavily inhabited by Turks and other Muslim or Christian ethnicities, to the extent that Orthodox Bulgarians were a minority in the lands designated to be in the Bulgarian state by the Russians. Even where the Bulgarians had the greatest majority in numbers, 30% were non-Bulgarians according to French statistics. Bulgarians also lacked the cadres required to run a state.

 

All this resulted in the failure of the Bulgarian uprisings before the war. The tactic was to arm the Bulgarian gangs and make them attack Muslim villages to provoke a response from the Ottomans, which would be used by the Russians or the West to intervene. When the Bulgarian uprising happened, it was quickly crushed by the local Ottoman militias. Compare this to the performance of Bosnian or Greek gangs who could keep the Ottoman army at bay during their uprisings. While the Western media, as always, wrote of Turkish untermenschen barbarously in killing millions of helpless Christians and ignored the Muslims killed in the clashes, the real significance of this event is that it shows the difference between Bulgaria and other Balkan states.  

 

Russia, however, predicted these problems, and approached them systematically. They 'resurrected' the Bulgarian church and culture from old sources. They trained the cadres to run the future Bulgaria. They created a Bulgarian ministry of land affairs or a similar office in St. Petersburg, even before there was a country called Bulgaria. Their plan in creating Bulgaria had two two main operations, what they called the 'demographic revolution' and the 'land revolution'.

 

'Demographic revolution' of course meant the ethnic cleansing of Bulgarian Muslims so that the Bulgar Orthodox would have a comfortable majority in their lands. This was achieved during the occupation after the 1877 war by

1. arming the Christians

2. disarming the Muslims 

3. making the irregular Cossacks in the Russian army and to a lesser extent the regular Russian units attack the civilians to initiate the ethnic cleansing campaign

4. sit back and watch as hundreds of thousands get killed or diven from their lands.

The Russians had no uncertainty about what they were doing, and one of their internal documents refer to it as 'race extermination'. While this happened many times in history before and after 1877, to the Turks in the Balkans, this was the single worst event.

 

As it was typical in the 19th century, these atrocities were celebrated as a victory over barbaric Turkish untermenschen by fellow Christians in the Western media. However, there were exceptions, with many independent reports. I can dig them up, along with numbers and Russian quotes and dates if required, but it is not my intention to start a discussion about numbers killed and accusations of genocide. 

 

The second term, that of 'land revolution', referred to the land (and property) transfer from the ethnically cleansed Muslims (many were land owners) to the Bulgarians. The fear of losing this land to their old owners ensured the support of the Bulgarians for Russian dominated new Bulgaria, more than any other factor.

 

After Ayastefanos agreement, it seemed Russia has succeeded in its aims. It had created a Bulgaria, which stretched from the Black Sea to the Aegean, inhabited by Bulgarians supporting the new state.

 

At that point the West interfered. In the end, Bulgaria was given a German King like Greece (great insult if you ask me. also interesting that after Communism the German King returned to Bulgaria, as history repeated itself) and it failed to get the warm sea port as it was removed from the Russian sphere of influence.

 

In the end Russia was not happy about what happened in the Balkans. All the states they have given independence have become Western puppets instead, even Bulgaria, which owed them everything. They had not gained much in the Balkans, considering how much they invested in their adventures there.

 

The Bulgarian debacle had direct consequences in another future disaster. Namely what happened to Armenians in Anatolia. What happened there was the Armenians adopting the Bulgarian model for their national movement. But that was a horrible miscalculation because:

1. Armenians were in minority almost everywere where they wanted their state. Considering the problems the Bulgarians had even where they were the majority, it was obviously a disaster recipe.

2. Russia was once bitten twice shy, not so eager to create an Armenia which would later become another Western puppet.

3. After the ethnic cleansing of Armenians, the Anatolian Muslims who kept their lands and property were keen to support the Turkish nationalists, and the new Turkish state, just like the Bulgarians after 1877. The Turks were also feeling cornered after a century of defeats and disasters and retreats and immigration into Anatolia it was a common feeling both among the rulers and the people that they had nowhere else to retreat. They were determined to make sure that if someone needs to go, it won't be them this time around.

1. Although population in large cities was Turkish, majority of population at least in the center of Balkans was Bulgarian.

2. Bulgaria had its own tradition of "bandits" as you call them. They are called "hajduti".

3. At the time of Russo-Turkish war Bulgarian nation was at the peak of its nationalism which was not created by Russia but simply because increase in literacy and education in Bulgarians. Which in turn was a result of economical improvement in those lands.

4. Many of those educated people were educated not only in St.Petersburg but in Europe as well.

5. "The German King" was offered to Bulgaria by Russia rather than Europe and was nephew of Alexander II.

 

1. Although population in large cities was Turkish, majority of population at least in the center of Balkans was Bulgarian.

 

I did not claim otherwise. I wrote in the area designated to be Bulgaria by the Russians, the Orthodox Bulgarians were not the majority. There was a 'heartland' where the Bulgarians were the majority, but even in the area with the greatest most Bulgarian population, 30% were minorities. 

 

2. Bulgaria had its own tradition of "bandits" as you call them. They are called "hajduti".

 

Everybody has a haydut or two in the Balkans and Anatolia, but Bulgaria had nowhere near the others I mentioned.

 

3. At the time of Russo-Turkish war Bulgarian nation was at the peak of its nationalism which was not created by Russia but simply because increase in literacy and education in Bulgarians. Which in turn was a result of economical improvement in those lands.

 

Of course there was some Bulgarian input, but Russian designs were decisive in creating the new Bulgarian state. Much more so than the case was for other Balkan minors.

 

4. Many of those educated people were educated not only in St.Petersburg but in Europe as well.

 

Doesn't change the main narrative. Again nowhere near the Greeks educated in the West, for instance.  

 

5. "The German King" was offered to Bulgaria by Russia rather than Europe and was nephew of Alexander II.

 

Yes, they were all nephews, the inbred bastards. However, my point is Bulgaria was liberated by Russia, but joined the West.

Doesn't change the main narrative. Again nowhere near the Greeks educated in the West, for instance.  

 

Having said this, I would assume that you have numbers or at least estimation of number of educated people and where did they get their education. Otherwise your claim would be baseless.

 

"Everybody has a haydut or two in the Balkans and Anatolia, but Bulgaria had nowhere near the others I mentioned. "

 

Another baseless claim.

 

Strange information given that the Turks surrendered after failing to break through the Russian lines. And that Osman Pasha himself was detained by the Russians and even spent the rest of the war in captivity in the Russian empire.

 

Then, I do not doubt that destiny of Turkish population ibn BG, Greece and Serbia was horrible but you can hardly call it cleansing and even more, first ethnic cleansing --

 

What happened was textbook ethnic cleansing. It is sick to deny it. As to 'first' ethnic cleansing, that's a pointless claim. These things happened all the time in history. After years of reading history, I came to notice that 90% of the 'first in history' claims are wrong, and 100% are pointless. 

 

Finally I cannot understand how could one explain Armenian genocide by bad destiny of Turks in Balkans.

 

If you mean 'justify' by 'explain', I am not justifying anything. It was obviously wrong to ethnically cleanse the Armenians, there can be no excuses to that. I have no intention of justifying ethnic cleansing by saying that everyone did it so it is OK. However, I do believe like everyone including the Armenians who read about that subject, that what happened to Turks in the Balkans was an important factor in the Turks' later decision to cleanse the Armenians from Anatolia. In that sense it helps 'explaining' the Armenian debacle and if you can't understand it that must be because you have no idea whatsoever on that subject.

 

I think you should question yourself as you don't even call what happened to Turks 'ethnic cleansing' when you call the same thing happening to Armenians 'genocide'. Note that I am not interested in the semantics of the argument, call it 'genocide' or 'massacres', or 'deportation' or 'ethnic cleansing', whatever you like. But justice dictates that we call both events by the same name.

 

BTW, if you'd like to read more on my two 'baseless' claims you objected to, read Hobsbawm, a nationalism and 19th century expert. He also has a book on bandits.

 

You are referring to the Bulgarian uprising. I explained it already. There was no 'ethnic cleansing' by the Turks. Bulgarians attacked Muslim villages, and there were heavy- handed reprisals against the Bulgarians, in which civilans were killed. These were reported multiplied by ten (literally) by the Western media (similar to what happened in the recent Georgian war, except that this was the 19th century). And they were used as a pretext to attack the Ottoman Empire.

 

If you look for Balkan fascist sites you can find many accounts of barbarian savage Turks killing 10 million Bulgarians, taken from 'reputable' western sources. I am sure some Bulgarian fascist or other will post them in this thread soon, 'proving' how millions of Bulgarians were killed but no Turks were harmed.

 

We don't need such shit like newspaper reports here. Just read some good historians if you can find them. You'll hardly find any good ones in Bulgaria or in Turkey, though. Their narrative is nationalistic.