An Analysis of the Effect of the 1878 Berlin Treaty on Diplomatic Policy Making

Öz

Politically, the Balkan region was split into multiple new entities such as Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania after the Russo-Turkish War 1877-1878. The Ottoman Empire lost the majority of its territory in Europe and the Balkans became an influential competitor among the Great Powers of Europe. The ambitions and interests of these Great Powers, the consequences of a declining Ottoman influence and the interests of the newly formed Balkan nations are the key components of analysing this competition. These components feed into the Berlin Treaty’s influence in laying the foundations of the Balkan Wars in the 1910’s and how the meddling of Great Powers caused underlying territorial and ideological tensions to escalate into warfare on 3 occasions, eventually creating the “powder keg of Europe”.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balkans
• Pan Slavism
• WW1
• Great Powers
• Balkan Wars

1878 Berlin Antlaşmasının Diplomasi Siyasetine Etkisinin Analizi

Öz

Siyasi olarak, Balkan bölgesi 1877-1878 Rus-Türk Savaşı'ndan sonra Sırbistan, Bulgaristan ve Romanya gibi birçok parçaya bölündü. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, Avrupa'daki topraklarının çoğunu kaybetti ve Balkanlar, Avrupa'nın Büyük Güçleri arasında bir rekabet alanı haline geldi. Bu Büyük Güçlerin hırsları ve çıkarları, azalan Osmanlı etkisinin sonuçları ve yeni oluşan Balkan uluslarının çıkarları bu rekabeti analiz etmenin temel bileşenleridir. Bu bileşenler, 1910'larda Balkan Savaşlarının temellerinin atılmasında büyük rol oynarken, aynı zamanda bölgesel ve ideolojik gerilimlerin üç defa nasıl savaşa dönüştüğünü ve Büyük Güçlerin müdahalelerinin sonucunda “Avrupa'nın barut fıçısının” nasıl ortaya çıktığı açığa çıkaracaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balkanlar
• Panslavizm
• Birinci Dünya Savaşı
• 93 Harbi

Kaynakça

1. Kohn, Hans. “The Impact of Pan-Slavism on Central Europe.” The Review of Politics, vol. 23, no. 3, 1961, pp. 323–33. Crossref, doi:10.1017/s0034670500008767.
2. Mazower, Mark. The Balkans. Phoenix, 2002.
3. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons, and England Wales. Parliament. House of Commons. Turkey. No. 39 (1878). Correspondence Relating to the Congress of Berlin, with the Protocols of the Congress. House of Commons?], 1878.
4. Ketenci̇, Ayşegül. “Panslavizm ve Başarısızlık Sebepleri.” Dergi Park, 1 June 2018, dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/asj/issue/40224/479039.
5. Cilliler, Yavuz. “Modern Milliyetçilik Kuramları Açısından 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Fikir Akımları.” Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, vol. 10, no. 2, 2015, doi:10.17550/aid.76834.
6. Lewis, Bernard. “The Ottoman Empire and Its Aftermath.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 15, no. 1, 1980, pp. 27–36., doi:10.1177/002200948001500103.
7. BASSET Arthur Tilney (2016); Gladstone’s Speeches, London.
8. MILLMAN Richard (1979); Britain and Eastern Question 1875-1878, London

9. PRAZAC Albert (1928); “The Slavonic Congress of 1848 and the Slovaks”, The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol:7, No:19 (Januray)
10. THE M.P. FOR RUSSIA (1909): Reminiscences Correspondence of Olga Novikoff, I, (Edited by W.T. Stead) London. TURAN Ömer (1998); The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria (1878-1908), Ankara
11. UZUNÇARŞILI İsmail Hakkı (1954); “Tersane Konferansının Mukarreratı Hakkında Şura Mazbatası”, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi, cilt:6 Sayı:9.
12. Whitehead, Cameron. “Reading beside the Lines: MARGINALIA, W.E. GLADSTONE, and the International History of the Bulgarian Horrors.” The International History Review, vol. 37, no. 4, 2014, pp. 864–886., doi:10.1080/07075332.2014.974652. “The Greco-Turkish War of 1897.” Indiana University Press, 2009, pp. 31–36. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16gz6xr.7. Accessed 24 Apr. 2021.
13. Oscar Halecki. “THE RENAISSANCE ORIGIN OF PANSLAVISM.” The Polish Review (New York. 1956), vol. 3, no. 1/2, 1958, pp. 7–19.
14. Abdioğlu, Hasan. (2018). The Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA) in Debt Process of Ottoman Empire”.
15. Çetin, Engin Can. “THE REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC DEBTS AND THE EXTERNAL DEBT OF OTTOMAN.” BJSS Balkan Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 14, 2018, pp. 243–49, dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bsbd/issue/38666/449298.
16. Vukov, Nikolai. “The Great Expectations: Political Visions, Military Preparation and National Upsurge in Bulgaria at the Onset of the Balkan Wars.” The Wars before the Great War: Conflict and International Politics before the Outbreak of the First World War, edited by Dominik Geppert et al., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015, pp. 129–148.
17. “Europe’s New Ethno-Nation-States.” Princeton University Press, 2020, pp. 210–240. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvm7bc1n.11. Accessed 10 May 2021.
18. Akhund, Nadine. “The Two Carnegie Reports: From the Balkan Expedition of 1913 to the Albanian Trip of 1921.” Balkanologie, vol. 14, no. 1–2, 2012, pp. 1–5. Crossref, doi:10.4000/balkanologie.2365.
19. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and d’Estournelles de Constant. “The Origins of the Two Balkan Wars.” Report of the International Commission to Inquire Into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War, 4th ed., Washington D.C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1914, pp. 1–49.
20. Cvijić, Jovan. “The Zones of Civilization of the Balkan Peninsula.” Geographical Review, vol. 5, no. 6, 1918, pp. 470–482. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/207806. Accessed 10 May 2021.
21. Michalopoulos, Dimitris. “THE SALONICA ISSUE AND THE BALKAN WARS.” Journal of Balkan Research Institute - Trakya University, vol. 1, 2012, pp. 57–63. The Central and Eastern European Online Library, www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=263044.
22. Detrez, Raymond. “Colonialism in the Balkans Historic Realities and Contemporary Perceptions.” Kakanien Revisited, 15 Dec. 2001, www.kakanien-revisited.at/beitr/theorie/RDetrez1.pdf.
23. Turkey. No. 20 (1878). Correspondence Respecting the Representation of Greece in the Congress. House of Commons?], 1878.
24. Palabıyık, Mustafa Serdar, and Yıldız Deveci Bozkuş. “THE PONTUS QUESTION: A GENERAL VIEW.” Uluslararası Suçlar ve Tarih, 2011, pp. 77–139. Dergi Park, dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ustich/issue/44805/557301.
25. Temizer, Abidin, and Ibrahim Serbestoğlu. “THE OTTOMAN-SERBIAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND THE AMBASSADOR TO BELGRADE YUSUF ZIYA PASHA.” Journal of Balkan Research Institute - Trakya University, no. 2, 2020, pp. 477–506. The Central and Eastern European Online Library, www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=925717.
26. Blackwood, John. “ENGLAND AND THE TREATY OF SAN STEFANO.” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine (Edinburgh, Scotland), vol. 123, no. 751, 1878, pp. 635–652.
27. Gross, Stephen G. “The Legacy of Wilhelmine Imperialism and the First World War, 1890–1920.” Export Empire, 2015, pp. 27–67.
28. SAKİN, Serdar. (2015). Minas Çeraz’ın (Minasse Tcheraz) Avrupa Temasları ve Berlin Kongresi İzlenimleri. Gazi Akademik Bakış. 8. 10.19060/gav.59118.