Balkan nationalism has also been seen as an important factor in the origins of the First World War, especially since it was the Balkan crisis which provided the immediate occasion for war. Balkan nationalism has been traditionally viewed as an outburst of oppressed European Christians against Muslim Turkish domination, in ethnic and religious terms.
Due to the unique isolated Balkan terrain, the dominant form of consciousness was village patriotism. The 20th century Balkan lands were largely a land of peasants. There was also a divide between the rural areas dominated by people of Slav origin and the urban areas populated largely by Greeks. The identity of the people was therefore asserted at two levels. The first was the ethnic identity based on linguistic differences. The second was the religious identity, in which the Greek Orthodox Church was perceived as distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. Since these two also had different linguistic bases, a linguistic identity was also automatically preserved in the Balkans. The religious identity of the common man was however much stronger.
The Ottoman Empire of the 17th century was multi-ethnic and multi-religious. In this empire, it was easy for ethnic identities like a Greek identity to be preserved. Hardening of religious identities was only witnessed late in the 19th century. The Ottomans had created a millet system, in which the people would be governed by their religious authorities who would be answerable to the central authorities. These religious and administrative local elite were unpopular figures.
When we look at the emergence of Balkan nationalism, we note four basic elements. The first of these was the peasantry. In the largely religious protest movements, peasant participation was high due to their religious millenarianism. Overthrow of Turkish rule was also seen by them in religious terms. It should of course be noted that Christians were not against the Muslim Turks in a united manner. The peasantry was also active in nationalist activities since in the context of transformed agricultural relations, economic factors made it lucrative for them to assist in the downfall of the Turks.
A second important element was the intellectual class. The emergence of such an influential intellectual class in the Balkans is testimony to the fact liberal and tolerant character of the Balkan state. These intellectuals who emerged from the class, which had prospered and risen under the Ottomans, began to espouse modern values of nationalism. The Greeks, in particular the Phanariots were one such group. They were also instrumental in the preservation and fostering of a modern Greek identity.
Early Balkan nationalism was understood in the context of Enlightened Despotism. Libertarian Enlightenment of the time of Napoleon and the French Revolution also influenced Balkan nationalism. A third strand that flowed into this was the Romantic reaction to Enlightenment, with its focus on culture and preservation of tradition. It is here that we see a crystallization of the European stereotype. This is important since a national identity is not just a political, but also a cultural identity. It is interesting that in the Russian fashion, many of these westernized intellectuals went to the countryside in search of the ‘soul of the country’, and came out disillusioned with reality. The intellectuals were however a divided group and could not constitute a unified movement since their secular nature inevitably ran them against the hierarchy of the Greek Orthodox Church.
The Local Turkish Chiefs or Pashas were also an important element in the emergence of Balkan nationalism. Due to the vast nature of the Ottoman state, there was invariably a struggle between these power local officers and the central government at Istanbul. It was in this conflict that these governors often chose to foster Balkan nationalism to serve as a tool. Muhammad Ali in Egypt and Ali Pasha in Greece were such powerful governors.
The most important element in Balkan nationalism was however the role of the Great Powers, in what they termed as the ‘Eastern Question’. This Eastern question concerned the disposal of the Balkans after the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore here one witnessed increasing Russian interests, who began to lay claims to the Balkans for strategic reasons, on religious and racial grounds. As a part of the racial argument, Russia encouraged Pan-Slavism in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary was deeply concerned with the question of nationalism in this region primarily because it was a multi-ethnic region where Balkan nationalities often overlapped with ethnic identities. Britain in fear of Russia’s advance towards Constantinople supported the Turks against Russia. The French too had ambitions in the region and followed a pro-Turkish policy.
Every crisis in the Balkans had resulted in new states being carved out, after which the intellectuals would come in and start the process of ‘nationalization’. Nation-building in this context comprised of two concepts. One was the ethnic element, where Greek hegemony was sought to be overthrown in favour of the local language. The second was the desire to break free from the religious hegemony of the Greek Orthodox Church, in favour of an autonomous national Church.
Serbia
The Serbs were a Slav people who had been conquered in the 14th century by the Turks at the Battle of Kosovo (1389). Peasants had little role to play in the emergence of modern Serbian nationalism. The capital, Belgrade was dominated by the Local Provincial Governors or Pashas, who were engaged in a power struggle for Serbian autonomy. The wazirs or viziers who were the agents of the central government and the Knez or Christian nobles were the important players in Serbian nationalism.
In 1804, the Pashas revolted against Turkish rule. Their outrage was directed against the Christian nobility who were loyal to the Turks. The Christian nobles decided to appeal to Russia for help when help from the Ottomans was not forthcoming. This is where religion as a factor entered Russian rhetoric in the Balkans. Between 1815 and 1830 under Russian pressure, the Pashas were replaced by the Christian notables. In 1830, Serbia was also granted autonomy in order to secure her neutrality in the Greek war of independence. In 1878 following a Russo-Turkish war, Serbia was declared an independent state at the Congress of Berlin. For Serbia however this was not the realization of her nationalism and she sought to unite all Slavs into a Yugo-Slav union with Russian help. It was the Austrian insecurity at this that led directly to the World War.
Greece
The Greeks were a largely disunited group comprising mainly of the poverty stricken peasantry or klepht. Greek priests held a prestigious position. In Greek nationalism a crucial role was played by the intelligentsia or Phanariots. Ali Pasha the Turkish governor had been engaged in a struggle with the centre and he began to systematically flirt with Greek nationalism to use it for his own interests. The Greek war of independence began when the Turks moved in to crush Ali Pasha. The movement against the Turks however was not united and was crushed by the end of the 1920s.
In this situation, the intervention of the Great Powers was crucial. The Phil-Hellenism in the west had led to a perception of the Greek civilization as the ancestral European civilization. The Greek cause thus became central in the Romantic movement of the period and a crusade for the Greek war built up all over Europe. Governments of the various Great Powers therefore had public opinion behind them in their unilateral intervention and in 1830 the Greek state was carved out. This Greek state however contained few Greeks and a majority of Greeks lived outside Greece. A systematic attempt at identity creation therefore began in Greece.
Romania
Romania was formed out of the two historical provinces of Moldavia and Walachia. This was a region inhabited largely by Romanian-speaking impoverished peasantry. Above them were a native landowning class known as the Boyars. Above them were the Greek princes who governed these territories on behalf of the Turks at Constantinople. In the Greek war of independence the Greek princes were overthrown. In 1826, under Russian pressure, they were replaced by the Boyars under Ottoman rule. For 20 years, 1829 onwards, Romania was ruled as a Russian protectorate in the name of the Turks. The result of all this, was increasing anti-Russian feeling in Romania.
New leaders in Romania began to look to France under Napoleon III. This new generation of intellectuals began to argue for linguistic commonality with France, since the Romanian language was of Latin and not Slav stock. Napoleon III as we have seen had fostered nationalism all over Europe periodically to foster his own interests. In the Crimean War (1854-56) these provinces became the theatre of power. At the Peace Congress in Paris, Britain and France argued for autonomy and unity of these provinces which was carried out in 1859. At the Congress of Berlin in 1878, Romania was declared independent. After this attempts began to create a national identity and a rewriting of history began.
Bulgaria
Bulgaria, which lay to the south of Romania, had been conquered at the end of the 14th century by the Turks. Nationalism in Bulgaria began firstly as a linguistic revival, sponsored by the intellectuals, and as a call for an autonomous Bulgarian Church. The mid-1870s saw a religion sponsored uprising suppressed by the Turks. At the Congress of San Stefano, Russia created the Bulgarian nation. Seeing that Bulgaria was becoming a puppet state of Russia, the Great Powers decided to intervene and following the Russo-Turkish war, at the Congress of Berlin (1878) Bulgaria was created as an autonomous state. In 1912, Bulgaria became fully independent. Montenegro also emerged at the Congress of Berlin.
On the eve of the First World War, the Balkans were politically and economically one of the most unstable regions of Europe. It was comprised of a number of small and highly aggressive states constantly fighting against each other. By the early 20th century, this region was also witnessing the highest population growth in Europe increasing pressure on land. In the context of this instability, the Great Powers sought to intervene and get the best out of the region. In the early part of the 20th century, a series of Balkan wars (1912-1913 and 1913) were fought. The conflict began with the Italian invasion of Libya, which encouraged the Balkans to attack the Turks directly. The Turks were defeated by the League of Balkans in 1912-13. Following this conflict, a new state, Albania was carved out and Turkish rule was finally wiped out of Europe except a small strip of land around Constantinople.
Link between Balkan Nationalism and the First World War
While the Balkan question was an old one, in the 20th century the condition had become more volatile. Austria had begun to feel threatened by the very existence of Serbia. Till the time of Metternich and Bismarck, Austria had been reined in. however following the dismissal of Bismarck in 1890, the character of German foreign policy changed and under the new approach of Weltpolitik no attempts were made any longer to rein in either Austria or Russia. The Dual Alliance was in fact used now to urge the Austrians on to a forward policy in the Balkans.
Bosnian Crisis
Bosnia, which had been conquered by the Turks in the 15th century, was at the core of the Austrian-Serb rivalry as both of them desired to control Bosnia. The capital of Bosnia was Sarajevo. In the mid 1870s a Bosnian uprising had been crushed by the Turks. In 1878 at the Congress of Berlin, Bosnia was placed under Austrian rule. Austria began to fear the impact of the Young Turk movement in the predominantly Muslim Bosnia, and feared that if Bosnia modernized it would break out of Austrian control. In 1908 therefore, Austria annexed Bosnia. Russia and Serbia immediately protested. However Germany now threatened Russia with the prospect of a European war if she decided to intervene, forcing Russia to step down. At the same time in Serbia, terrorist groups began to emerge with the aim of carrying out terrorist activities to liberate Bosnia. This forms the background to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo. Austria was now assured of Germany’s support (‘blank cheque’) against Russia and Serbia. It was finally Germany who declared war both in the west and the east.
New imperialism, the alliance system, militarism and Balkan nationalism had created an atmosphere of tension and rivalries in Europe. While these were not the causes of the war, they created the broad conditions that precipitated war. The Balkan crisis need not have precipitated in war as long as there was a restraining hand in Europe. Austrian aggression and German encouragement added a new element to the old conflict. The immediate origins of the war lay not so much in Austrian as in German policy. Its roots lay in the post-Bismarck period in which a new policy aiming at becoming the most powerful world power (weltpolitik) emerged. Germany’s tremendous economic growth was also a big factor in this.
The new German foreign policy took the following directions. The first of these was in the form of a challenge to Britain, as a part of which Germany started building a huge navy. The second was the expansion of German power on the continent through what was called the Mitteleuropa Policy, which aimed at concrete economic dominance over the European continent. Thirdly, the new German foreign policy also used the Dual Alliance to push for intervention in the Balkans.
German rivals were especially concerned with the rhetoric adopted by Germany in their expansionist drive. There was a constant feeling that Germany had arrived late on the scene, and therefore there was a sense of urgency and aggressiveness in her policies. Germany never identified the limits of her ambitions and this also created uneasiness among the European countries. Germany’s deliberate escalation of crises which could have been controlled such as the Moroccan and Bosnian crises also added to this feeling. Germany’s declaration of war in 1914 at Russian mobilization was also seen in similar light. Germany of course saw 1914 as a defensive struggle against her perceived encirclement.
On August 4, Britain declared war independent of the Triple Entente. While Britain’s real reason for entering the war was to prevent a disruption of continental balance of power, her official pretext was German entry into neutral Belgium. It has in fact been shown recently that Britain probably had her own plans to violate Belgian neutrality. USA too entered the war on the pretext of the German submarine blockade. However USA had never been neutral and had always provided financial and material assistance to the allies. USA was also opposed to a triumph of German militarism and therefore was also ideologically drawn towards the allies. As status quo powers, both Britain and USA were able to enter the war on idealistic grounds, in which they were almost as aggressive as Germany.