Print Page | Close Window

Liberation of Bulgaria

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25187
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 03:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Liberation of Bulgaria
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Subject: Liberation of Bulgaria
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:01
I am curious to know the Bulgarian perspective on what happened in Bulgaria during the  Russo-Turkish war (1877-1878).
 
1. What is taught in school.
 
2. What is said of Nicolas.
 
3. What is said of Carol I.
 
 
From my basic understanding the Russians wished to pass through Romania to fight the Turks in Bulgaria. The Romanians agreed as long as the national integrity of Romania would be maintained. Carol I of Romania offered the Russians help, who turned him down. After the Russian troops passed through Romania, they fought in Bulgaria against the Ottoman Turks and were pushed back. Carol I of Romania again offered to help and the Russians had no choice but to accept. Carol I then lead a combined Romanian/Russian force and liberated Bulgaria from the Ottoman Turks.



Replies:
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:18
Not really.
 
Romanian troops took part in the siege of Pleven and played really important role there. They also took several Turkish forts on the Danube. But they didn't moved further south.
 
The complete liberation of Bulgaria was achieved by the Russian troops who reached as far as Andrianopole and were preparing to enter Istanbul but the British intervention in the final minute stopped the war at that point.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:20
Also I'm not sure who you mean by Nicolas. If you meant the Russian emperor. It was not Nicholas, but Alexander the IInd.

-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:26
Not really what part? I know the Russians were defeated and won after Carol I lead them with Romanians in several sieges. But they did not go further south? Is that pretty much the gist of it?


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:28
I read Nicolas' name somewhere. I'll take your word for it.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:42
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Not really what part? I know the Russians were defeated and won after Carol I lead them with Romanians in several sieges. But they did not go further south? Is that pretty much the gist of it?
 
Russians together with Romanians still were not able to capture Pleven by the direct assault. So the Pleven was taken only after the long siege when the fortress was complitely surrounded by the both armies and the Turks ran out of supplies.
 
And also although the Pleven was taken in the end, it didn't mean the complete liberation of Bulgaria.
 
It was achieved only after Russians defeated the Turks at the battle of Shipka pass and draw the Turks out of the southern Bulgaria.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:51
So the role of Carol I was more so of piercing Ottoman Bulgaria allowing the Russians in to go further south.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 06:58

I think that Romanian contribution during the siege of Pleven was important. Romanians also secured the Russian rear on the Danube. But it's wasn't like Carol's leadership liberated Bulgaria.



-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 07:03
No. But it did allow for the Russians to go into Bulgaria in the first place. Too bad the Russians later took Basarabia and Bukovina from them. =/ Some way to thank Romania.
 
Funny story, my great great grand father was raised at a monestary and if he ever swore he would get whapped. The only time he swore was when he fought against the Ottoman Turks. "fututi turnu mati" literally "f--- you're mother's tower" refering to the Turkish towers in place.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 07:14

Do you think it would be in the interests of Romania not to allow Russians to pass? After all, the result of the war was the complete independence of Romania.



-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 15:32

A huge percent of the soldiers,who fought in the russian armies in Bulgaria were in fact poles,drawn to the russian army by force,because at that time part of Poland was occupied by RUssia.In fact russians were occupying more nations than the ottomans and were liberators for the bulgarians,but occupators for many others.



-------------


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 16:34
How big was the huge percentage?
 
I known that the Russian army included considerable contingent of Finnish soldiers, "Finnish Guard".
 
Poles as citizens of the Russian empire were obliged to answer the draft. However, it's interesting that a lot of ehtnicities in the Empire were actually exempted from the draft.
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 16:59
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Do you think it would be in the interests of Romania not to allow Russians to pass? After all, the result of the war was the complete independence of Romania.

 
Romania was never really ever a part of the Ottoman Empire. Simply a tributary state. I think the complete independence would have happened regardless. In any case I don't think it was right for the Russians to take parts of Moldova.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 17:08
Yes, but in order to compensate the loss of the southern Bessarabia, Russia gave the Danube delta and Dobruja to Romania.
 
And if the independence was not that important why is it still a national holidy in Romania? Apparently it does have a meaning for Romanian people.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 17:19
It doesn't matter what their excuse was. Why take Romanian land after they agreed to respect its national integrity?
 
Where did I say the independence was not important?


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 17:49
Russia as an empire first of all took into consideration its own interests. Southern Bessarabia was lost after the Crimean war. So, the Russian concern was to restore the empire in its previous borders.
Of course it was not fair for Romania, but this is how it worked in the 19th century.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 22:45
As an overall summary, the war ended with a huge defeat for the Ottoman Empire, who actually was left alone in the world stage after France & Britain left acting as a balancing force to Russian aggression, instead joining to the partition of the empire. This intention was to become more and more clear in annexations made by France & Britain (1878- Cyprus, 1881- Tunisia, 1882- Egypt).
 
Ottoman Empire was living its worst days of decline after series of bad years with inner complications and problems. Post-Crimean War era saw the Ottoman Treasury counting zeroes and debts taken from European states couldn't be re-paid, so it was on the verge of collapse. Ottomans' first trial for a parliamentary monarchy ended quite soon after Abdulhamid II virtually terminated the parliament after the declaration of war.
 
Despite some heroic local figures and commanders have made great individual efforts(like of Nene Hatun in Azizieh Line to protect Erzurum, Ahmed Muhtar Pasha in early phases of Caucasian front, Gazi Osman Pasha in Plevne) and some successful resistance has been created against Russian army, largest numerical force of world at the time, these only delayed the Russian advance for several months.
 
Outnumbered and outgunned Ottoman armies retreated till Edirne in West and Erzurum in East at the end. War had to stop as Russia couldn't move further due to international balance. Russia enforced the Treaty of San Stefano(Ayestefanos), with heavy terms for Ottomans, which created a "Greater Bulgaria" within the influence of Russia, and it could have been a great tool which could be of perfect use for the Russian benefits. This "Greater Bulgaria" included all of today's Macedonia and large parts of today's Greek Macedonia, and even some of Eastern Thrace. San Stefano included harsher provisions for Ottoman Empire, was strongly favoring Russian interests.
 
Great Powers denied Russian wishes and a conference assembled in Berlin, creating Treaty of Berlin, which(likewise San Stefano) resulted in total and recognized independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro. However, Greater Bulgaria project was denied and Bulgaria was to remain as an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire, only to gain full independence in 1908.
 
An interesting aspect of this treaty was its creation of a new tension area. Bosnia & Herzegovina.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 23:21
I think it is so typical of England and friends to try to stop Russian expansion against the Turks even though really the Turks were the enemies of both groups. They British feared Russia would somehow go as far as push into India.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 23:45
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

I think it is so typical of England and friends to try to stop Russian expansion against the Turks even though really the Turks were the enemies of both groups. They British feared Russia would somehow go as far as push into India.
 
Ottoman Empire and Britain were not enemies till Britain decided to follow the policy of partition of the empire. That amounts to 1870s.
 
Before that, there was no hostilities.
 
There are no permanent allies or enemies within politics. There are actual interests, and allies and enemies are dependant on those actual interests.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 23:47
Apparently, San-Stefano Bulgaria would be largest Balkan state and its dependence/good relationship with Russia Empire would screwed up interests of GB an Austria in this region. Hence the Berlin treaty. Bulgaria was split into 2 -- Principality of Bulgaria and Pricipality of Eastern Roumelia, Macedonia and all southern territories were taken off. First one was practically independent although important decisions had to be aproved by Ottoman Empire. After the war Russia continued to help the new state creating state institutions, army, economical aid etc. All this support ended when Bulgarians proclaimed unification of both pricipalities which was not supported by Russia. This led to the situation when Bulgarian army was left without generals and high rank officers who were all Russians at this time.

-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 23:52
At the time when I studied most of the credit was given to Russia obviously with recognition of participation of Bulgarians. Not much credit was given to Romanians :) As for Alexander II, he was called "the Liberator" but you can imagine what could be said about a tzar in socialist Bulgaria.

-------------
.


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2008 at 23:56
Originally posted by Kapikulu

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

I think it is so typical of England and friends to try to stop Russian expansion against the Turks even though really the Turks were the enemies of both groups. They British feared Russia would somehow go as far as push into India.
 
Ottoman Empire and Britain were not enemies till Britain decided to follow the policy of partition of the empire. That amounts to 1870s.
 
Before that, there was no hostilities.
 
There are no permanent allies or enemies within politics. There are actual interests, and allies and enemies are dependant on those actual interests.
 
I mean down the line going back into history and all. The west wasn't happy about Muslim expansion into the Balkans.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 11:21
Hello Carpathian
 
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 


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 11:44
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
 
I mean down the line going back into history and all. The west wasn't happy about Muslim expansion into the Balkans.
 
Before 16th century, Britain had no effect or influence over Continent politics. What you mean by West is the Holy Roman Empire/Habsburg Empire, which at the time controlled major part of Continental Europe, including most parts of Italy and Germany, Spain, Austria and Lowlands. France was even allied with Ottomans in that same century against Habsburg dominance.
 
So, once more, temporary interests matter. And to repeat, leaving warfare apart, no hostilities took place between Britain and Ottoman Empire till 19th century, if you exclude a group of voluntary English fanatics joining the Crusade army in Balkans which will be defeated by Yildirim Bayezid's armies in Nigbolu.
 
 


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 13:38
Originally posted by Al Jassas

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


Russians participated with 300.000, Romanians with 120.000 (losing 10.000).

Pleven surrendered to the Romanians, not to the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 14:05
Originally posted by Menumorut

Russians participated with 300.000, Romanians with 120.000 (losing 10.000).
Pleven surrendered to the Romanians, not to the Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence%20 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pleven - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pleven


-------------
.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 14:46
Liberation of Bulgaria was a carefully planned operation by Russia. I always find it curious that while this event was the worst atrocity that happened to the Turks in the Balkans and anywhere else, it gets relatively little attention from the Turkish nationalists. Yes, the Greeks expanded more against Turkey and killed many when in Anatolia more recently, but the number they killed pale in comparison to what happened in Bulgaria. Perhaps the reason is because Turkish anger is directed against Russia rather than Bulgaria (correctly).
 
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.


-------------


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 14:55
Nice try, Beylerbeyi. Not convincing at all, though. Full of inacuracies. :D

-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:02
Some of them:
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.
 


-------------
.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:11
Hello Anton
 
What is innaccurate about what Beylerbyi said? I read almost the entire account of the 77-78 war in both the NY times archives, which are now fully online, and other newspapers and magazines and they paint a pretty horrific picture about the fate of the Turkish refugees in Istanbul in the cold winter of that year, remember the Danube was frozen solid in December 1877. What happened in Bulgaria was the first real programmed ethnic cleansing of a certain group in Modern times, one can consider the elimination of the middle and educated classes in Algeria by the french the first but this is another debate.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:29
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.


-------------


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:33
Well, some of the inaccuracies I listed above. 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 -- Bulgaria still has 10% Turkish population despite population exchenge policies. BTW, you might not know that Turkish population had their own representative members in Bulgarian Parlament, elected among Turks. Note that this happened shortly after the liberation. Then, Bulgarian population in the Ottoman Empire was not nice either. Finally I cannot understand how could one explain Armenian genocide by bad destiny of Turks in Balkans.

-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:36
"
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.


-------------
.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:40
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello Anton
 
What is innaccurate about what Beylerbyi said? I read almost the entire account of the 77-78 war in both the NY times archives, which are now fully online, and other newspapers and magazines and they paint a pretty horrific picture about the fate of the Turkish refugees in Istanbul in the cold winter of that year, remember the Danube was frozen solid in December 1877. What happened in Bulgaria was the first real programmed ethnic cleansing of a certain group in Modern times, one can consider the elimination of the middle and educated classes in Algeria by the french the first but this is another debate.
 
Al-Jassas
 
AFAIK the Turks started ethnic cleansing of Bulgaria before the war and continued during the war. The atrocities against Christian population of Bulgaria were widely publicized during the conflict.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:49
[QUOTE=Menumorut]

Russians participated with 300.000, Romanians with 120.000 (losing 10.000).

Pleven surrendered to the Romanians, not to the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence  %20%5b/QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_War_of_Independence   [/QUOTE ]
 
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.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 15:51
Here you just some examples of Eastern Roumelia "top management":
1. Alexander Bogoridi (first Roumelian ruller)-- educated in Istanbull, then France
2. Gavril Krustevic (Second Roumelian ruller) -- educated in France
 
Liberal party leaders in Eastern Roumelia:
1. Ivan Salabashev -- Prague
2. George Stranski -- Bukuresti
3. Stoyan Chomakov -- Florecia, Paris
 
People Party leaders:
1. Ivan Geshov -- Manchester
2. Ivan Geshov (another one) -- Istanbull (at Robert Colledge)
 


-------------
.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:03
Just to clarify a point or two;
 
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.


-------------


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:17
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

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. 
You can call whatever you like to call it. In any case as usuall all sorts og killings, population movement and other happened in both sides. You cannot claim that Turkish population was suddenly ethnicly cleansed out of Balkans for nothing. Obviously, I do not justify anything either :)
 
 
  
If you mean 'justify' by 'explain', I am not justifying anything.
The whole tone of your message was justifying it.
 
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.
OK. I admit this. Do you  realize yourself that what happened to Turkishj population is in turn a result how other nations were treated being under Ottoman domination?
 
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'.
It was shorter for me to call it that way. Chose another term and I will call it in that way in discussions with you. I actually never understood nations trying to get some profit from past disasters.
 
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.
I have already shown you that at least in Eastern Roumelia people who actually ruled the province were educated in Europe.


-------------
.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:17
AFAIK the Turks started ethnic cleansing of Bulgaria before the war and continued during the war. The atrocities against Christian population of Bulgaria were widely publicized during the conflict.
 
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. 


-------------


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:26
So you basically suppose that those bands of Bulgars just attacked Muslim villages for nothing? If yes, then your point of view is no different to that of "some Bulgarian fascist".
 
 


-------------
.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:29
You can call whatever you like to call it. In any case as usuall all sorts og killings, population movement and other happens in both sides.
 
Good, we agree then. 
 
The whole tone of your message was justifying it.
 
I beg to differ. I called the Armenian debacle 'disaster' there. And I have drawn parallels with what happened to the Turks. I clearly disapprove of both. I had no intentions of justifying either. Neither should you.
 
OK. I admit this. Do you  realize yourself that what happened to Turkishj population is in turn a result how other nations were treated being under Ottoman domination?
 
I believe that the Bulgarians and Greeks and Serbs etc. had the right to be independent from the Ottoman rule, regardless of how they were treated by the Ottomans.
 
So you basically suppose that those bands of Bulgars just attacked Muslim villages for nothing? If yes, then your point of view is no different to that of "some Bulgarian fascist".
 
My point of view is very different from any fascist indeed. I believe that they had a right to seek independence. My point is that they did consciously choose terror as a tactic. They also knew full well that the Ottomans would crack down and Bulgarians would die, and create the environment for foreign intervention, which was the only way to achieve their goal. This happened many times in Ottoman history.
 
So I do not think that they attacked the civilians because they were bloodthirsty barbarians, but because they were terrorists with a clear political agenda. While I agree in their right to achieve their general objective, namely an independent Bulgaria, I object to their methods. One can say that they were successful in the end, so maybe the Bulgarian nationalists will never question them.


-------------


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:45
You are trying to escape the direct question -- do you agree that atrocities were done not only by Bulgarians, Serbs etc. but by Turks as well? :)
I do not know much about other countries, but apparently April uprising was a provocation. However to call it as tactic of terrors would be probably overestimation. There was no any program at all. Otherwise it would be better prepared.
 
Look, actions of Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs in Macedonia may probably be considered as such.


-------------
.


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 16:59
You are trying to escape the direct question -- do you agree that atrocities were done not only by Bulgarians, Serbs etc. but by Turks as well?
 
? Of course they were. The Bulgarian 'terrorists' knew that the Ottomans would kill many Bulgarian civilians after the provocation. Also, OE did not conquer and hold the Balkans by distributing flowers. You can't have an Empire or, indeed, a state, without committing atrocities.
 
Look, actions of Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs in Macedonia may probably be considered as such.
 
It's not just Macedonia or Bulgaria, that is the general model of insurrection in the Ottoman Empire. 
 
In any case, I wonder if it would have been better if Bulgaria and OE partitioned Macedonia and Thrace so that Bulgaria had an Aegean port. Would that help keep the Russians off the Ottomans' back, discourage Greece to attack the Ottomans (would they have attacked Bulgaria instead?), and Turkey out of Balkan problems earlier? Macedonian question resolved this way may have avoided a few wars. 


-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 17:15
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello Carpathian
 
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 
 
Well England and the west in general historically speaking didn't find Islamic expansion favorable.
 
The Romanian contribution was thus: it allowed the Russians who were beaten out of Bulgaria to return and fight their war against the Turks. Without Romania there wouldn't have been a Russia in Bulgaria.
 
What "Bulgarian land" did Romania take? Confused


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 17:31
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

In any case, I wonder if it would have been better if Bulgaria and OE partitioned Macedonia and Thrace so that Bulgaria had an Aegean port. Would that help keep the Russians off the Ottomans' back, discourage Greece to attack the Ottomans (would they have attacked Bulgaria instead?), and Turkey out of Balkan problems earlier? Macedonian question resolved this way may have avoided a few wars. 
 
Bulgarians initially had access to Aegean Sea. It was not suitable for port though as far as I understand. The only place suitable for port was Thessaloniki which was never a trully Bulgarian city although some Bulgarian population was there. As for the rest, there was WWI which was really unescapable.


-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 17:54
"What "Bulgarian land" did Romania take? Confused"
 
I guess he mean South Dobruja in Second Balkan War.
 
"The Romanian contribution was thus: it allowed the Russians who were beaten out of Bulgaria to return and fight their war against the Turks. Without Romania there wouldn't have been a Russia in Bulgaria."
 
When did this "beaten out" happen?


-------------
.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 18:05
In fact, if Carol didn't allow the Russian army to pass it would simply cross Romania despite any opposition. As the Russian ambassadot said in case Romania doesn't allow the Russian army to pass, "the Romanian army will be forced to be disarmed." Carol as a smart person perfectly understood that the war with weak Ottomans would be much beneficial for the country than the conflict with the Russian empire, so he agreed to the Russian demand and even contributed to the war.
 
But the point is that Russia still would cross. I actually wouldn't think that Romanian army would be very eager to fight with Russians in order to protect Turkish borders.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 18:32
"I guess he mean South Dobruja in Second Balkan War."
 
At the time I suppose it would be Bulgarian. It has passed hands several times.
 
"When did this "beaten out" happen?"
 
When the Russians passed through to fight the Turks. Carol offered to help but the Russains said no until they started losing badly. Then the Russians asked Carol to help.
 
"In fact, if Carol didn't allow the Russian army to pass it would simply cross Romania despite any opposition. As the Russian ambassadot said in case Romania doesn't allow the Russian army to pass, "the Romanian army will be forced to be disarmed." Carol as a smart person perfectly understood that the war with weak Ottomans would be much beneficial for the country than the conflict with the Russian empire, so he agreed to the Russian demand and even contributed to the war.
 
But the point is that Russia still would cross. I actually wouldn't think that Romanian army would be very eager to fight with Russians in order to protect Turkish borders."
 
We're not talking about letting the Russian army pass. The Russian army passed, and then lost to the Turks and then asked Carol for help, and then the Romanian/Russian combined force lead by Carol made it so that the Russians could push on.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 19:35
Yes, the Romanian contribution in Pleven was important.
However, even after the Romanian army joined, the Pleven couldn't be taken and the additional Russian still reinforcements were required to complete the encirlclement of the fortress.
 
So, it can be said that Romanian army presence saved the Russian of additional logistic problems i.e. bringing even more troops to Pleven. It of course could be accomplished, but the Romanian army participation saved the Russians of additional headache.
 
However, it can be said with certainty that even if Romanians didn't join, Pleven still would be taken, but just by the Russian troops only.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 19:39
"Romanian/Russian combined force lead by Carol "
 
This is mistake. Carol never led Russian forces. All 4 seiges of Pleven were ruled by Russian Generals under formal rule of Grand Duke Nicholas.


-------------
.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 21:35
Hello Sarmat
 
What happened in Bulgarian in the spring of 76 wasn't ethnic cleansing, it was a military uprising that was crushed and unfortunately some massacres happened and they were the fault of Bashi bazouks, Ottoman irregulars raised from the local population which initially suffered from the rebels and wrecked their revenge on those who they found. There was no systematic massacres and actually it was the Ottoman regulars who stoped the bashi bazouks which indicates that their was no central planning but that what happened was a reactionary event. There were no forced expulsion to the main population, except in limited area and for the safety of the Bulgarians. There were no mass confiscation of property or distruction of cultural heritage of the people.
 
Unfortunately the same cannot be said to have happened to the Turks when the Russians came, hundreds of thousands were forcibly expelled from their homes in the dead of one of the worst winters the region have seen, tens of thousands were as lucky and were brutally massacred by Cossacks or bulgarian militias or even the regular Russian army itself. There was a systemtic effort to clean the liberated areas of any Turkish influence and now you can go to Bulgaria to cities built and/or exclusively populated by Turks in before 1877 and now has no Turkish population nor any remnants of Turkish heritage, Sofia only have one mosque left and it had many. Now which is ethnic cleansing?
 
Al-Jassas  


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 21:44
Sarmat:
 
Pleven wasn't the only place where they fought and I think your assumption that the Russians would have been successful anyway ignores the role of the Romanian participation and number of troops contributed.
 
Anton:
 
"Osman Pasha strengthened his defences and built more redoubts while the Russians sought and obtained reinforcements from the army of Prince Charles of Romania, who made the condition that he should be given command of the joint besieging force. "
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pleven#Second_Battle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pleven#Second_Battle
 
Al Jassas:
 
Disapprove How typical...
 
I read an account by the Russian Grand Duke of when he went to a village in Bulgaria and found all the men dead, the women stripped naked, blinded and killed after being raped. And how he saw a 11 or 12 year old girl walking around aimlessly with her eyes gouged out naked and sobbing. But of course your accounts of the Turks is typically bias so whatever.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 23:23
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Sarmat:
 
Pleven wasn't the only place where they fought and I think your assumption that the Russians would have been successful anyway ignores the role of the Romanian participation and number of troops contributed.
 
 
Actually Sarmat said the contribution was important, remember? :) Anyway all key generals were from Russian  Army with major contribution by general Todleben who was actually good engineer.


-------------
.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2008 at 23:44
Originally posted by Al Jassas

actually it was the Ottoman regulars who stoped the bashi bazouks which indicates that their was no central planning but that what happened was a reactionary event.
 
This is wrong. One of the reasons of the uprising was that Ottomans failed to stop bashibouzuks, cherkesses and kurjaliis. You are right, there was no central planning, the problem was the opposite -- there was no central planning at all. You might mention that real uprising and nationalism started in Balkans when feodal Ottoman state institutions became ineffective. Hence appearance all sorts of bandits etc who were not stopped by Ottoman administration. Bashibouzuks, as far as I remember, were even not paid so they had no choice but robbing and looting locals.  
 
 
There were no forced expulsion to the main population, except in limited area and for the safety of the Bulgarians. There were no mass confiscation of property or distruction of cultural heritage of the people.
Actually there were quite a lot.
 
 
 
Unfortunately the same cannot be said to have happened to the Turks when the Russians came, hundreds of thousands were forcibly expelled from their homes in the dead of one of the worst winters the region have seen, tens of thousands were as lucky and were brutally massacred by Cossacks or bulgarian militias or even the regular Russian army itself. There was a systemtic effort to clean the liberated areas of any Turkish influence and now you can go to Bulgaria to cities built and/or exclusively populated by Turks in before 1877 and now has no Turkish population nor any remnants of Turkish heritage, Sofia only have one mosque left and it had many. Now which is ethnic cleansing?
 
Al-Jassas  
Come on Al Jassas, you can't simplify the situation to such extent. Yes, there were massive expulsions but before this there were almost 500 years of similar things from the side of Turks, Bulgarians were not allowed to wear weapons, they paid more taxes as christians, they had to pay "blood tax", Bulgarian church was under control of Greeks who basically performed hellenization of the population, there were several uprisings that basically drained in blood. All this means that Bulgarians had plenty of reason to be not happy living under Turks. Not all though. As I mention elsewhere Stefan Bogoridi, one of rare christians having high rank in Ottoman administration strongly opposed to any liberation movement. 
 
 Also mind that there were a lot of expulsions of Bulgarians and Greeks from Ottoman territories.  There are many signs of Turkish herritage in Bulgaria, Sofian Mosque is certainly not the only one etc. :)


-------------
.


Posted By: Burdokva
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2009 at 19:35
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

So you basically suppose that those bands of Bulgars just attacked Muslim villages for nothing? If yes, then your point of view is no different to that of "some Bulgarian fascist".
 
My point of view is very different from any fascist indeed. I believe that they had a right to seek independence. My point is that they did consciously choose terror as a tactic. They also knew full well that the Ottomans would crack down and Bulgarians would die, and create the environment for foreign intervention, which was the only way to achieve their goal. This happened many times in Ottoman history.
 
So I do not think that they attacked the civilians because they were bloodthirsty barbarians, but because they were terrorists with a clear political agenda. While I agree in their right to achieve their general objective, namely an independent Bulgaria, I object to their methods. One can say that they were successful in the end, so maybe the Bulgarian nationalists will never question them.

I'll take the risk of being a 'Balkan fascist' (though, honestly, I see no connection between the current dispute and fascism), being would be kind enough to point any reliable sources claiming that Bulgarian 'terrorist' (again, interesting term for freedom fighters) assaulting Turkish or Muslim Bulgarians villages and committing massacres against Muslim civilians?

Bulgarian rebels took a defensive tactic and fortified the rebelling Bulgarian villages in addition to creating several mountainous strongpoints. The only exception was Benkovsky's cavalry squadron which raided several train stations and was to rapidly move and aid the other rebels where and when needed. Even if a Bulgarian cheta committed an atrocity against Muslim civilians (again, I'd like to see a source for such a claim), does this justify the way in which the Ottoman Empire quelled the uprising and its general politics towards 'minorities'? 

How do you define genocide and ethnic cleansing? By the scale of it alone, by the method exercised, by the presence of will and conscious decision? The latter was clearly present when Suleiman pasha (with disciplined, regular army units) butchered 14 to 15 000 civilian ethnic Bulgarians after retaking Stara Zagora. In late July/early August, by the way. And maybe we should note that many Turks voluntarily left there homes, fearing (rightfully or not) retributions.

You are trying to excuse a state that committed serious crimes against its subjects of non-Turkish ethnic origin, crimes that by modern international law would have had extremely harsh consequences for the Ottoman Empire. There is absolutely no excuse for the Ottomans “cracking down”.  Please, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, even outside the context of the current topic?

If you believe that Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs etc. had the right of independence and their own nation states how to you propose they achieved it, when the Ottomans turned down every effort of those nations to achieve political freedom? Even before the Liberation War of 1877-78 the sultan refused to apply the decisions of the Constantinople convention and proclaimed that he granted his subjects a Constitution, which was practically abandoned within a year after the war ended in 1878. There was an absolute lack of will to give the minorities in Southern/Eastern Thrace and Macedonia political rights, local autonomy and self-management, good education.

Bulgarian revolutionary ‘terrorism’ is not the cause and an excuse for the decadence and brutality of the Ottoman state, it’s a direct consequence of Ottoman state politics. 



-------------
Unity makes Strenght


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 06:55
Hello to you all
 
I totally forgot about this thread but since it was brought back to life.
 
Anyway about regular Ottoman troops trying to stop the bashi's, I returned to newspapers of that time and they claim this as a fact, also people who wrote the history of this war during this time also claim this. Now of course there were some attrocities committed by the army but those newspaper accounts say the regulars were mostly professional in their behaviour.
 
The second point is by the 1870s, the OE wasn't fuedal as you said. Bulgaria at that time was one of the centers of Ottoman industry, textiles to be particula, and the people who profited the most were Bulgarians themselves. The turks also began democratic reforms allowing for municipal elections well before the rebellion broke. The Turks actually invested more money in the Balkans than in Anatolia itself. Of course Bulgaria would have achieved much more if independent but to deny any good coming out of the OE is not true.
 
The third point about Bulgarians suffering during the Turkish years, well like it or not others suffered as much. All the people living in places far from the frontiers or were not nomadic were forbidden by law from carrying weapons wether they were muslim or not. This is one of the reasons why many of the attrocities committed during the rebellions of Ottoman ruled regions were so bloody. In Tripolis region in the Peloponnesses alone more than 30k+ Turks and muslims Greeks died according to  western estimates at that time. The reason was simple, these people didn't have any arms. Much more aggressive rebellions were not as successfull because the people there were armed and were able to defend themselves properly like the Armenian rebellions and others.
 
Finally I must admitt that Bulgaria was much more tolerant of the Turks than the greeks or other Bulkan states, only a minority did those terrible things and they were prevented from doing them after independence. Turkish heritage is all over Bulgaria but one must not forget that there were attrocities committed by both sides because it helps insure that these things never happen again.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Burdokva
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 11:08
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Of course Bulgaria would have achieved much more if independent but to deny any good coming out of the OE is not true.
 
Al-Jassas

I haven't, nor would I ever try to deny the achievements of the Ottoman Empire, especially in the late Medieval Ages when it was in the forefront of the most well organized and disciplined states. My point is that these successes of Ottoman culture and state organization were never applied (with the needed modifications) to the foreign people in the Empire, Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks etc (not counting the forced Islamisation during the late XVIth and XVIIth centuries, which is a different matter).

And while the Ottomans, except in times of crisis, did not act with extreme violence and brutality against other nations, they also refused to modernize the Empire based on the achievements of those other nations. Ottoman social organization was forced from ‘above’ on people who didn’t understand it, and worse, could cope with it.

But by the time of the industrial revolution the Empire was a backwards (even if still strong in military sense) state. Greeks and Bulgarians revolted in the XIXth century exactly because their own regions were better developed and they wanted to modernize their societies and economies based on Western standards. The Ottoman state was simply holding them back with its obsolete administration, laws and esnaf economic organization. Had the Ottomans accepted the proposals of the Great Powers in the Constantinople convention of 1976 (creating two large, autonomous Bulgarian regions under the nominal power of the sultan), or better, before the April Uprising, I'm sure that relations between the two nations and states would have been vastly better.

Especially in economic terms, since Bulgaria (being after all an autonomous, but part of the Empire) could have provided cheaper industrial goods, while using the vast territory of the Ottoman state as an internal market for its goods.

Just some 'food for thought'.



-------------
Unity makes Strenght


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 16:18
Burdokva,

There is no point in denying that the Bulgarian chetes attacked Muslim villages to incite a reaction from the Ottoman state, which would later lead to Great Power intervention. That's not just Bulgaria, and indeed half of Ottoman history in the 19th century. My main sources are Hobsbawm (he seems to like Bulgarians), and Stefanos Yerasimos' articles originally published in French (I have the Turkish translations).

Bulgarian rebels took a defensive tactic and fortified the rebelling Bulgarian villages in addition to creating several mountainous strongpoints.
Of course they did because they knew the Ottomans would react. However, they were spectacularly unsuccessful, compared to what other Balkan chetes accomplished.

Even if a Bulgarian cheta committed an atrocity against Muslim civilians (again, I'd like to see a source for such a claim), does this justify the way in which the Ottoman Empire quelled the uprising and its general politics towards 'minorities'?
'Even if'? So you believe Bulgarian hayduts were noble freedom fighters who revolted in the name of humanity and never hurt anyone... Of course they committed atrocities. And of course it does not justify the heavy-handed Ottoman reprisals, or their policies. Nobody said it does.

How do you define genocide and ethnic cleansing? By the scale of it alone, by the method exercised, by the presence of will and conscious decision? The latter was clearly present when Suleiman pasha (with disciplined, regular army units) butchered 14 to 15 000 civilian ethnic Bulgarians after retaking Stara Zagora. In late July/early August, by the way. And maybe we should note that many Turks voluntarily left there homes, fearing (rightfully or not) retributions.
I think genocide and ethnic cleansing are not different. And I don't dispute that the Ottomans committed it in the Balkans and elsewhere. The numbers quoted by all sides are usually inflated (sometimes ridiculously so), but that is not the point. The point is, you can not say that the Ottomans comitted ethnic cleansing but 'demographic revolution' of Bulgaria was not ethnic cleansing. Which is what nationalists do. Turkish nationalists do it the other way. You are both wrong.

You are trying to excuse a state that committed serious crimes against its subjects of non-Turkish ethnic origin, crimes that by modern international law would have had extremely harsh consequences for the Ottoman Empire. There is absolutely noexcuse for the Ottomans “cracking down”.  Please, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, even outside the context of the current topic?
You are imagining things. I am not trying to excuse anyone. In fact, I agree with you, Ottoman Empire was a reactionary state at the time. And the Bulgarians had the right to independence.  Ethnicity for me is not important, even if they were Turks and wanted to live in a progressive regime, they would be right to revolt.

As to modern parallels, they are irrelevant. Nevertheless, Turkey cracked down on the Kurds in the 30s pretty hard and suffered no consequences whatsoever. Recently it again cracked down on the Kurds (admittedly less harsh) again without any consequences. I won't even mention what other countries did/still do without any consequences (Israel I am looking at you). The reason Ottomans's behaviour led to bad consequences was because:
a. they were weak (when they were stong, they could crack down on anyone they liked)
b. the imperialists were looking for excuses to partition it.

If you believe that Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs etc. had the right of independence and their own nation states how to you propose they achieved it, when the Ottomans turned down every effort of those nations to achieve political freedom? Even before the Liberation War of 1877-78 the sultan refused to apply the decisions of the Constantinople convention and proclaimed that he granted his subjects a Constitution, which was practically abandoned within a year after the war ended in 1878. There was an absolute lack of will to give the minorities in Southern/Eastern Thrace and Macedonia political rights, local autonomy and self-management, good education.
You make good points here and I don't disagree. Abdulhamid II was oppressive for everyone. I would not be against armed uprising either. What I am against is:
a. imperialist penetration into the near east (I believe Bulgarian uprising was a Russian project). While Ottomans were imperialists as well, they were getting weaker and at some point independent states (not imperialist lackeys) could have been created in the Balkans and the Middle East. That way the world could maybe have avoided two world wars and many middle eastern wars.    
b. use of terror tactics against civilians. 
Still, I would not be against targeting of Ottoman army and state offices (these are terror tactics as well), demos, strikes, civil disobedience and such mass action. If the Ottomans responded to those by terrorising the people, then I would even be lenient towards Bulgarian reprisals against civilians, like I am towards the Palestinians who are being terrorised daily by the Israelis. It would be unfair to hold both sides to the same standard.
I agree with the Bulgarian cause, but I fail to see the Ottoman state terror to justify the initial Bulgarian terror tactics. They should have started with more peaceful tactics. However, the point was that the whole point was to prepare the conditions for a Russian intervention which would give them a Bulgaria. That I disagree with.

Bulgarian revolutionary ‘terrorism’ is not the cause and an excuse for the decadence and brutality of the Ottoman state, it’s a direct consequence of Ottoman state politics.
I agree with this with one little (or maybe not so little) addition, Ottoman and Russian state policies.  

I haven't, nor would I ever try to deny the achievements of the Ottoman Empire, especially in the late Medieval Ages when it was in the forefront of the most well organized and disciplined states. My point is that these successes of Ottoman culture and state organization were never applied (with the needed modifications) to the foreign people in the Empire, Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks etc (not counting the forced Islamisation during the late XVIth and XVIIth centuries, which is a different matter).
This is not true. Greece and Bulgaria at the time of their independence were the most advanced lands in the whole Empire. (Side note: Imperialist sources (especially Western) at the time write that this is because of the racial inferiority of the Turks and the superiority of the Christian peoples such as the Bulgarians and whomever. Internet is still full of fascists/idiots who believe these Western newspaper reports are 'neutral' sources on the matter. Most of them are only useful as toilet paper.)  
Ottomans did develop their lands (at least the strategically important ones) when they were strong and rich, and Christians and Muslims and Jews all benefitted. And in the 19th century they had little control of their economy, which was totally dependent on the Western imperialists (not Russia) who enjoyed special benefits and a local comprador bourgoisie, a class composed totally of Ottoman Christians who carried dual citizenships. For example, in early 20th century Anatolia, Christian minorities under Imperialist protection enjoyed wealth and power far greater than their demographics would suggest, so you can not make a case for Christians being oppressed while Muslims were rich and powerful in the Empire. For instance, Armenians were given the right to form 50% of the local government in provinces where they were 25% of the population.  

Although it should be said that Bulgarians were not as lucky as other minorities. They were always mostly peasants. 

And while the Ottomans, except in times of crisis, did not act with extreme violence and brutality against other nations, they also refused to modernize the Empire based on the achievements of those other nations. Ottoman social organization was forced from ‘above’ on people who didn’t understand it, and worse, could cope with it.
Actually Ottomans did not 'refuse' to modernise, they tried but failed. And some of the modernisers knew very well what they were doing. But you are, of course, right about the consequences, Ottoman Empire was a backwards place like the Russian (the great bulwark of reaction until 1917) and even Austrian Empires and deserved its fate.

But by the time of the industrial revolution the Empire was a backwards (even if still strong in military sense) state. Greeks and Bulgarians revolted in the XIXth century exactly because their own regions were better developed and they wanted to modernize their societies and economies based on Western standards. The Ottoman state was simply holding them back with its obsolete administration, laws and esnaf economic organization.
This is correct.

Had the Ottomans accepted the proposals of the Great Powers in the Constantinople convention of 1976 (creating two large, autonomous Bulgarian regions under the nominal power of the sultan), or better, before the April Uprising, I'm sure that relations between the two nations and states would have been vastly better.
Yes, ideal solution would be achieving an autonomous Bulgaria through Ottoman reform, however, I am not aware of the details of the particular agreement. The autonomous Bulgaria should not be the first step towards the future Russian satellite of 'Greater Bulgaria' which would ethnically cleanse its Muslim population. Or another tool of imperialist economic domination.  I would distrust any Great Power involvement in the matter.


-------------


Posted By: Burdokva
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 19:05

I'd like to point something - the April Uprising was never a Russian project. Yes, it aimed to force the governments of the Great Powers (not limiting to Russia) to act and impose reforms on the Ottomans due to the public pressure the revolt would cause in Western (and Russian) societies. That was the whole idea of the Constantinople Convention, which was a project driven mostly by the English.

Had the sultan accepted it, the Russian wouldn't have had their carte blanche and start a war. I think that you're also severely underestimating the influence of the Russian society and public opinion on the matter. Yes, that tsar and his government had an agenda of their own (that's a widely known fact in modern Bulgarian education), but the hundreds of thousand Russian army volunteers and humanitarian aid-workers were more concerned about the welfare of a civilization-aly related nation.

As to how much Bulgaria turned into a Russian puppet (the great fear of Western Great Powers that led to the debacle and brutal oppression that is the Berlin Treaty of 1878), I'd say check the pre-communism history of my country. 



-------------
Unity makes Strenght


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 19:43
I have detailed how I see the issue in many posts. I don't believe in much 'public pressure on the Tsar'. Tsar wanted the public to be excited about this and fed them the propaganda. Also, public pressure on the British Prime minister, maybe, on the Russian Tsar, not really.

Of course Bulgarian romantic nationalist discourse paints the matter in this light; 'rightous struggle of the Bulgarian nation for independence with the benevolent help of racial brothers'.  

As to how much Bulgaria turned into a Russian puppet (the great fear of Western Great Powers that led to the debacle and brutal oppression that is the Berlin Treaty of 1878), I'd say check the pre-communism history of my country.
Since you haven't read what I have written here before, I will repeat some of it. Russian project indeed failed in the end, and Bulgaria became a Western dependency rather than a Russian one. Not very Huntingtonian of you to betray you 'civilisational relative', by the way (I personally think that theory is bollocks). 

This failure of the Russians was a major reason when later the Armenians tried the same tactics in Anatolia, Russia was not as willing to help. They did not want to invest in an Armenia, and lose the profits to the Westerners as was the case with Bulgaria...   


-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com