Talk:Congress of Berlin

Bismarck as a pacifist

Can he really be described as an ardent pacifist? Surely his politics were more machiavellian than ideological, as this suggests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.185 (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1876, when the 1875 Balkan revolts against the Ottoman Empire threatened to extend to a war between Austria and Russia, Bismarck addressed the Reichstag and made his emphatic warning against any German military involvement in Balkan disputes:

Only a year later [1876], he is faced by the alternative of espousing the cause of Russia or that of Austria. Immediately after the last crisis, in the summer of 1875, the mutual jealousies between Russia and Austria had been rendered acute by the fresh risings in the Balkans against the Turks. Now the issues hung upon Bismarck's decision. Immediately after the peace, he had tried to paralyse the Balkan rivals by the formation of the Three Emperors' League. "I have no thought of intervening," he said privately. "That might precipitate a European war. [...] If I were to espouse the cause of one of the parties, France would promptly strike a blow on the other side. [...] I am holding two powerful heraldic beasts by their collars, and am keeping them apart for two reasons: first of all, lest they should tear one another to pieces; and secondly, lest they should come to an understanding at our expense." In the Reichstag, he popularises the same idea in the words: "I am opposed to the notion of any sort of active participation of Germany in these matters, so long as I can see no reason to suppose that German interests are involved, no interests on behalf of which it is worth our risking--excuse my plain speaking--the healthy bones of one of our Pomeranian musketeers." [Emil Ludwig, Bismarck: The Story Of A Fighter, Little, Brown (1927) p. 511]

According to Taylor, "The more familiar grenadier took the musketeer's place in a speech of 1888." [A. J. P. Taylor, Bismarck: the Man and the Statesman. Alfred A Knopf, New York, (1969) p. 167]Italus (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this. It is ridiculous to ascribe the motivations of an 'ardent pacifist' or 'seething aggressor' to the greatest statesman of his era playing Realpolitik to achieve the best results for his backers. It is misleading and uninformative to reduce the actors of the highest affairs of state to clichéd millitarist or pacifist caricatures driven by extremes of emotion. The 'Great Game' is indeed greater than that. To deny sophistication to Bismarck's policy is to infantilise history; It is unbecoming of an encyclopaedia article that aims to educate and inform.

The correct words to use are pacific policy and belligerent policy. It should not be difficult to substitute the offending lines with ones that communicate Bismarck's policy of reconciling Austria and Russia, and that in the absence of any German interests in the Near East, any problems there would inevitable threaten to destroy his policy for no gain or advantage, forcing Germany to pick between the two with the other picking France (as would happen in 1914), hence the pacific policy of Bismarck's system in the Near East.

If it is felt necessary because the capacity of Bismarck to wage a belligerent policy is in doubt to the uniformed reader due to his pacific Near East policy, then a quick history tour of Germany's unification can show his ability to orchestrate and lead Prussia/Germany into wars, and the "War in Sight" crises and his many diplomatic threats to Russia over Poland can show his ability to posture belligerency as a diplomatic tool. I think this is unnecessary and superfluous to the scope of this article, but others may find it prudent. It any case in it upon us to give this historical account its proper due by not resorting to uninformative caricature that belie complex people, policy and events. 58.173.51.73 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Where can the original text of the treaty (in French) be found? --Hubertgui (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Should this really be a separate article from the Treaty of Berlin, 1878? IMHO they should be merged. --romanm (talk) 21:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert war but no talk

Why? It seems some people need a lesson in Wikipedia policies - or just need to grow up.

Bring your issues to the talk page instead of this revert war.

And if some people do not think that "russophobia" is POV, they should stop editing Wikipedia!

--itpastorn 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

POV - example 1

"The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine of the balance of power, which the largest empire in the world often used to further its imperialist ends."

What power in 1878 was not imperialist? Russia was. France was. Germany was. The Ottomans would have been if they had had the power. I see no difference whatsoever between the Brittish and the Russians. Ask the people of Central Asia if they wanted Moscow to rule over them any more than the people of Africa wanted to be under London.

--itpastorn 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the first statement is poorly written. It should read "the UK at once recalled its favourite doctrine: the balance of power. The next part of the sentance is an awefully written short hand for "With peace on the continent the UK was free to persue its interests elsewhere in the globe." I recomend a correction to the effect of "The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine - the balance of power. By securing peace on the continent they hoped to persue their imperial interests." The fact of the matter is Russia at this time held Moldavia and Walachia as an imperial interest, as well as much of the Balkans, so it is a valid point. IF someone were to do a rewrite it may be a good idea to include that point. -Schatbot

The statement, while poorly written, does have a distinct ring of truth to it insofar as it is stated policy of the UK maintain hegemony over the Mediterranean and characterizing any challenge to this hegemony as destablizing.

As for Moldavia and Walachia, the common Slavic roots of Russia lend it slightly more legitimacy than English affairs in the Africa and certainly more than the Ottomans. Wrath0fb0b 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not questioned the UK's imperialism. Of course they were trying to rule the World. My point is that all major European powers were imperialist at the time. And Russia was expanding in all directions, not only the Balkans. They had a struggle with the Brittish for Central Asia as well - and the people who had the misfortune of living there were neither brittish or slavic. It's POV to villify one nation and let another receive no blame, when both were equal culprits, as far as intention goes. Then maybe the Brittish were worse when it comes to effect, thanks to industrialisation and some other factors they had a head start and were more effecient empire-builders. --itpastorn 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems that everyone wanted to rule the world. Oddly, the Germans were the best imperialists, as they created an empire in the course of a decade or two the size of which almost two hundred years of British history accomplished. They had interests across the globe, including various islands in South East Asia, etc. In fact, the location of this conference in Berlin indicates they were the best imperial state, as much like Vienna in 1814/15 they were the diplomatic hub of Europe. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the Russians were running large-scale offensive across their borders. At this time they had little interest in future locations such as Afghanistan (where the Brisish were otherwise occupied) and many other middle Eastern Areas. Indeed, Russian foreign policy was largely directed at East Central Europe and Constantinople, following the 1850/60's deals with China regarding Manchuria (which came to a head in the 1910's war over the area) which freed them to follow these policies; as the opening to this article indicates. Overall, I'm very pleased with the revisions that have been made to this article, and it is a credit to the nature of Wikipedia. - Schatbot

NPOV problem

User:Ghirlandajo feels that my edits to this article were POV, however I believe that using phrases like 'Freeing them from the Muslim Ottoman yoke' is hardly a neutral statement. As such, I am prepared to defend my edits. Should User: Ghirlandajo have further problems with this, I encourage him/her to discuss it with me here rather than revert again. Tev 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to User:Ghirlandajo's feeling that my edits were POV, I have gone through the article and attempted to make it comply further with the NPOV policy. However, I still do not feel that my original edits were POV. Tev 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have this all resolved now. Thanks for everyone involved in reaching a peaceful consensus! Tev 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misha Glenny

Does anybody object to a citation of Misha Glenny's The Balkans: 1804-1999? That is, does anyone object to it ante facto? --VKokielov 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that work, could you possibly find a section of the writing, or a summary? Tev 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] --VKokielov 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah sorry, didn't realise you'd replied to that. Mea culpa. Seems fine to me, cite away (unless you already have) Tev 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion from Final Paragraph

I made two changes in the section about the Ottoman Empire and Greece. One was deletion of reference to the Ottoman parliament, which had ben prorogued by 1881 and had nothing to do with the border rectification with Greece.

Second, I deleted the reference to the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, which was very tandentially related to the topic and misleading to the point of POV. While it's true the Ottomans declared war on Greece at that time, this was AFTER Greece had invaded Crete, been ejected by the powers, then invaded Ottoman territory on the mainland.

Also, this was not so much a result of tensions between the two states as a result of the Treaty but rather the Greek government's inability to control nationalist public opinion, which was sympathetic to the cause of Greek rebels on Crete. Relations between Greece and the Ottomans between Berlin an 1897 were actually reasonably harmonious.

Finally, I don't think we need the ubiquitous and gratuitous reference to the Armenian Genocide that seems to accompany every article that includes the words "Ottoman" or "Turkey", particularly in this topic, which seems POV absent an explanation for its inclusion. - John

Update May 26, 2007 - If you have a reason for insisting on factually inaccurate statements or irrlevant asides, please take the time to discuss your position. I am restoring the changes mentioned above. Jpiccone 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Where are the sources for this article? Terrifying Angel 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

International law

The Treaty of Washington, 1871 was negotiated at Washington, D.C. in 1871. Ratifications occurred at London. In 1872, the United States was awarded an indemnity at Geneva. The conclusions reached and the rules adopted in 1871 had an effect on the Congress of Berlin. Nations were expected to remain neutral and not interfere in wars when extraterritoriality was an issue. Superslum (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Synvet's map

I removed the ref about A.Synvet being pro-Greek because what the ref actually says is not at all that: It says that the MAP was favourable to the Greek cause, not the geographers, which is something entirely different. In detail: "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..... were favourable to the Greek cause" meaning that they agreed with the Greeks. That doesn't make (the geographers themselves) pro-Greek. The text is free on line as pdf. --Factuarius (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Gligan:::Synvet is not pro-Greek as explained above and the ref is clearly misquoted. If is something, is pro-Turk, which is very obvious in his map and from his positioning in multiple high ranking jobs in the Ottoman Empire, as well as from his close relations with well known Turk nationalistic circles of the era, especially around the Young Turk movement. He even show Turks inside Greece although I find that unlikely after the 1897 Greco-Turk war. Read more about him before accusing him or his map in being pro-Greek. So stop removing Stanford opening another edit war. --Factuarius (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnographic maps

It is my understanding that we had agreed to keep the maps in this article, following a lengthy discussion at Talk:Treaty of San Stefano. I don't appreciate User:Kostja laying low for a few months then sneakily trying to undo the consensus we had agreed upon when he thought no one was watching. This user did the same at Philippopolis, and now here. Athenean (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus there. Not to mention that all maps from that article were removed so it makes little sense for them to be included in a similar article like this one. On the other hand there was discussion on this point at the Admin noticeboard where it seems the general consensus was that ethnic maps should be used only in cases where a more thorough discussion about the demographic history of the region could take place: [2]. Kostja (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Congress of Berlin redrew borders in the Balkans, amid (and followed by) plenty of controversy over ethnicity and nationality. Surely we need good maps on an article like this. If the existing historic maps are for some reason inadequate or misleading (though I haven't seen it suggested on this talkpage), could somebody point out better ones?

If some people's nationalist passions are inflamed by this subject, that only serves to further underline the need for good mapping. If there's dispute about content (or the implications that could be drawn from content) then we need more sources, not fewer. ;-)

Kostja: the discussion on [3] seems to be very different to what you describe. To my eye, it looks more like a discussion where other people feel that you're editwarring, rather than a consensus that we should remove maps of the Balkans because they are somehow irrelevant to an article on Balkan borders.

bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about historic maps - I haven't removed the single real historic map in this article - but about ethnographic maps made in the 19th century by often biased researchers. This article doesn't discuss demographics at all, so why there should be completely of topic demographic maps here?

And the discussion wasn't about whether I was edit warring, but whether it would be allowed to add information about the neutrality of those maps' authors. It was agreed that this was improper and it was also suggested that such maps should be placed only in articles dealing directly with demographics. While not all users agreed with this, it's been a generally accepted principle and many articles like First Balkan War and Treaty of San Stefano which once had such maps no longer contain them.

And as this is obviously the same kind of article, for consistency's sake there shouldn't be any such maps here as well, not that they're very useful, being practically disconnected from the article as it is now. Kostja (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this frustrating.

Now your latest reason for deleting the maps is that they're contextless. How much more "context" is needed to put a historic map of the Balkans in an article about historic changes to Balkan borders?

Please stop revert-warring.

bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Congress of Berlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621140434/http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/berlincongress.html to http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/berlincongress.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Added image from National Trust

Hello! I added an image of a fan signed by delegates which was uploaded to Commons as part of a pilot by the National Trust, there's further info here & further images here Lajmmoore (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)