Аннотация: The liberation of Bulgaria in 1878. A historical essay.
The liberation of Bulgaria in 1878. A historical essay.
Several well-known historical works by Yevgeny Tarle are dedicated to the Crimean War of 1853-1856.
The Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878) looks quite different (as a topic of the public attention). We could not find works comparable in fame and informational richness to the works by Yevgeny Tarle.
But, nevertherless, there is a certain interest - for example, it is awakened by the works of the artist Vasily Vereshchagin 'Everything is calm on Shipka' ['На Шипке всё спокойно'] and 'Tsar's birthday' ['Царские именины'].
A certain interest in the topic is fueled by the fact that the war of 1877-1878, it was a continuation, - after the Crimean War, - of the sequence of those foreign policy failures that led to both the leave of the Romanov dynasty and the collapse of Imperial Russia.
If there are no information-rich works available about the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, then maybe turn to the biographies of Emperor Alexander II of Russia, Alexander the Liberator?
The situation with biographies is approximately the same as with descriptions of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. What a busy era of transformation! And there are almost no biographical works.
But, nevertheless, the book by Lyashenko Leonid Mikhailovich [Ляшенко Леонид Михайлович] "Alexander II, or the Story of Three Loneliness" ['Александр II, или История трех одиночеств'] is available. In this book, the author focuses on psychology and philosophy (the concept of "loneliness"!). This book is very laconic about the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878.
Thus, then we turn to the book of Academician Vsevolod Nikolaev 'Alexander II - the man on the throne. Historical biography ".
This book is much more informative. And the picky reader may also suspect that he meets on the pages of the book by Leonid Lyashenko with a number of elements of a creative product made, produced by Vsevolod Nikolaev. But it is more convenient for the publishing house to deal with a Russial author, and not with Nikolayev, who because of political reasons moved from socialist Bulgaria to Europe, and then to the United States.
After reading the books by Nikolayev and Lyashenko, you come to the opinion that the distance from the topic of consideration is of great importance when covering historical phenomena.
It's one thing to talk about the Romanovs in general. In such case, it is necessary to talk about Romanovs' predecessors, and about some of the political traditions of monarchical Russia.
Another thing is to talk about the representatives of the Romanovs in the period from 1853 to 1917.
And the painting completely changes when you read the biographies of Alexander II the Liberator.
Becoming the head of state, he found himself in a system of conditions that were not created by him personally. And some elements of what he created - for example, the court of jury - turned out to be the best in all pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet history.
A portrait of a very attractive, educated, outstanding person appears.
(Of course, in a distant reserve fund, in addition to the works by Nikolayev and Lyashenko, is the story (the novel) "Impatience" by Yuri Trifonov. But this story is dedicated to Zhelyabov and his associates. There is not much information about Emperor Alexander II in this story).
So, we are trying to find information about the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 in the book by Vsevolod Nikolaev.
Book by academician Nikolaev has a lot of interesting things. You involuntarily recall Henri Troyat (he also moved from Eastern Europe to Western one). Henri Troyat has indicated in his books that he is a member of the Académie Française (French Academy). And a member of which Academy Vsevolod Nikolaev? It is not said directly, but it is logically to assume - he is a member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
In general, we read the book by Vsevolod Nikolaev.
A good, informative book. With a systematic presentation of the topic. With consistency, systematic presentation, it compares favorably with the book by Lyashenko. Naturally, - we did not find any mention of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the book by Academician Nikolaev. Again here a talking about "Lithuania" is presented.
Vsevolod Nikolaev's book expresses his deep gratitude to the Tsar-Liberator for the independence of Bulgaria.
So, in one book (in the book by Nikolaev), the suppression of the uprising in the territories of the partitioned Rzeczpospolita (the suppression by the Russian Empire, Alexander II) and the suppression by the Ottoman Empire of the uprising on the territory of the future Bulgaria (and assistance to the Bulgarian people from the Russian Empire, Alexander II) are described.
But for the science of history, nothing is impossible.
Whichever way you look at the liberation of the Bulgarian people - this is a noble, kind cause, a good task.
Even somehow involuntarily I want to personally feel the involvement. Maybe one of my ancestors participated in this noble cause? This is not excluded. But the events of 1853-1856, 1877-1878, 1904-1905, 1914-1918, as well as of the Civil War, caused such devastation, such results that those, who could tell, prematurely left for another world.
Remembering the general historical context of the liberation of Bulgaria, we may come to the opinion that even in Russial sources, or, for example, in the book by Vsevolod Nikolaev, the role of the Western powers in the liberation of the peoples of Southern Europe from the Ottoman yoke is visible and this role is clear.
Maybe Russia should have played in the foreign policy arena not alone, but as a team player?
This is a good question to ponder.
Of course, both the Great Bulgaria (with access to the Mediterranean Sea), the capture of Constantinople were looming in the historical fog - with the independent actions of Russia...
If of all the goals set, only one was achieved - Bulgaria's independence - then this is not the worst option. Chancellor of the Russian Empire Alexander Gorchakov spoke with bitterness about the huge losses and about the huge costs of waging the war of 1877-1878, losses and costs, that turned out to be ineffective.
But what if we will look at the events of 1877-1878 from the point of view of a representative of Western historical science?
Could Western Europe show, present itself as the liberator of Bulgaria?
Western Europe in the 19th century was never aloof from the problems of the Greek, Bulgarian and other peoples who were under the Ottoman yoke.
'In the end, on March 19, 1877, the London Protocol was signed, which, of course, was a considerable success for Russian diplomacy, despite reservations. `` The great powers, - reads this document, - declare that if the fate of the Christian subjects of the Sultan is not improved according to the conditions set (...), then such a situation, incompatible with the interests of Europe, will become intolerable, and the great powers will consider it their right to collectively accept appropriate measures to improve the lot of the Christian population in the Turkish Empire and to ensure common peace '. (Quoted from the book by Vsevolod Nikolaev). [the translation of russian-language text, presented in the book by Nikolaev]
So, the Western powers are not on the sidelines.
Moreover, thanks to the publications of the American journalist of Irish origin Januarius MacGahan (who married a Russian girl), public opinion in both Western Europe and the Russian Empire was focused on supporting the Christian peoples of Southern Europe.
So, Western countries do not stand aside. They, together with Russia, formulated the position and demands against the Ottoman Empire.
'But nevertheless, the situation was very delicate: before the signing of the protocol, the British representative at the London conference, Lord Derby, submitted a written statement:' If the great powers fail to prevent the war, England will consider this protocol invalid. '(...)
... Turkey rejected the London Protocol. (...)
On April 7 of the same 1877, the Russian government responded with an official note: "His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of All Russia decided to achieve by force what the unanimous efforts of the great powers could not achieve." (Quoted from the book by Vsevolod Nikolaev). [the translation of russian-language text, presented in the book by Nikolaev]
So, the Western countries (together with Russia) have formulated a position. Little later the Western countries provided the Russian Empire with the opportunity to fight, to war on its own.
And after the victory of Russia they put collective pressure on Russia.
With a tired army, heavy losses, a disorganized, reeling financial system, and internal problems, the Russian Empire and Alexander II were unable to withstand this pressure. Russia has abandoned most of the achievements. Western countries did not agree with the creation of Great Bulgaria.
But, in principle, they contributed to the liberation of the Bulgarian people. Of course, not all at once and not in full. But Bulgaria gained independence.
'The decisions of the Berlin Congress on July 1, 1878 destroyed Bulgaria, created by Treaty of San Stefano. Instead, a small Bulgarian principality, vassal to the sultan, was created, which included only Northern Bulgaria, bounded by the Danube, and the so-called Sofia Province. A semi-autonomous region called Eastern Rumelia was formed from southern Bulgaria. Eastern Rumelia was handed under the political and military control of the Sultan. " (From the book by Vsevolod Nikolaev). [the translation of russian-language text, presented in the book by Nikolaev]
Thus, under a certain interpretation, it can be argued that the Western countries liberated Bulgaria, but - without entering the war personally, directly, but - by their own diplomatic maneuvers, and - by the efforts and means of Russia.
As the poet Fyodor Tyutchev wrote (on another occasion, in 1870):
"Yes. You kept your word:
Without a single cannon, without the war spendings ... "
May 31, 2021 07:18
Translation from Russian into English: May 31, 2021 13:50.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский 'Освобождение Болгарии в 1878 году. Исторический очерк'.