FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184  
185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   >>   >|  
vol. ii. p. 231 (Eng. ed.).] But the passage just cited only proves that Russia might have gone to war with Austria over the Eastern Question. In point of fact, she went to war with Turkey, after coming to a friendly arrangement with Austria. Bismarck therefore acted as "honest-broker" between his two allies; and it has yet to be proved that Bismarck did not sincerely work with the two other Empires to make the coercion of Turkey by the civilised Powers irresistibly strong. In his speech of December 6, 1876, to the Reichstag, the Chancellor made a plain and straightforward declaration of his policy, namely, that of neutrality, but inclining towards friendship with Austria. That, surely, did not drive Russia into war with Turkey, still less entice her into it. As for the statement that Austrian intrigues were the sole cause of the Bosnian revolt, it must appear childish to all who bear in mind the exceptional hardships and grievances of the peasants of that province. Finally, the assertion of a newspaper, the _Czas_, that Queen Victoria wrote to Bismarck in April 1877 urging him to protest against an attack by Russia on Turkey, may be dismissed as an impudent fabrication[122]. It was altogether opposed to the habits of her late Majesty to write letters of that kind to the Foreign Ministers of other Powers. [Footnote 122: Busch, _Our Chancellor_, vol. ii. p. 126.] Until documents of a contrary tenor come to light, we may say with some approach to certainty that the responsibility for the war of 1877-78 rests with the Sultan of Turkey and with those who indirectly encouraged him to set at naught the counsels of the Powers. Lord Derby and Lord Salisbury had of late plainly warned him of the consequences of his stubbornness; but the influence of the British embassy at Constantinople and of the Turkish ambassador in London seems greatly to have weakened the force of those warnings. It must always be remembered that the Turk will concede religious freedom and civic equality to the "Giaours" only under overwhelming pressure. In such a case he mutters "Kismet" ("It is fate"), and gives way; but the least sign of weakness or wavering on the part of the Powers awakens his fanatical scruples. Then his devotion to the Koran forbids any surrender. History has afforded several proofs of this, from the time of the Battle of Navarino (1827) to that of the intervention of the Western Powers on behalf of the slaughtered and harri
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184  
185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Powers
 

Turkey

 

Austria

 

Bismarck

 
Russia
 

Chancellor

 
influence
 

Constantinople

 
embassy
 
Turkish

ambassador

 

London

 

British

 

counsels

 

plainly

 
warned
 
consequences
 

stubbornness

 

Salisbury

 
responsibility

contrary

 

documents

 

Ministers

 

Footnote

 

Sultan

 

indirectly

 

encouraged

 

approach

 
certainty
 
naught

devotion

 
forbids
 

History

 

surrender

 

scruples

 

wavering

 

awakens

 
fanatical
 

afforded

 
Western

intervention

 

behalf

 

slaughtered

 
Navarino
 
proofs
 

Battle

 

weakness

 

religious

 

concede

 

freedom