Weird Question : Balkans, Ethnic Nationalism, and *Wilsonian Principles

Naturally, it's part of Ottoman WI stuff involving very liberal butterfly net but I wonder about how will the failure of Russian invasion in 1877-78 and thus the absence of Bulgaria and the following piecemeal dismantling of Ottoman Balkans, will do to the concept and nature of nationalism in general ? It's perhaps not commonly known, but the creation of Bulgaria changed the outlook of nationalism and in general further radicalized it. Before, nation states were seen as only for the "great nations" like Germans, Russians, Italians, French etc. The recognition for Bulgaria in Berlin Conference pretty much gave a stamp of approval for every other smaller nations to strive for their own state. Absence of it would mean a setback for nationalism. So with larger states being viewed as the expected norm of the future without Balkan ethnic statelets to set the limit on how far national liberty should be taken, then how far will it be taken ? In the event where US decides to involve herself in European post Great War peace settlement to enforce her views on freedom and liberty (as a pretext), how will the post war map be drawn ? How will the smaller ethnic groups receive it and what will they do ? How will the concepts of nation and state and their relations with each other evolve down the road ? What will it do to the later de-colonization ?
 
But wasn't Greece already a precedent? :confused:
Or was that seen as a special case because of 'Classics' still being such an important aspect in western education at the time?
 
But wasn't Greece already a precedent? :confused:
Or was that seen as a special case because of 'Classics' still being such an important aspect in western education at the time?

Part of it was that. Another part was that it was in the fringe of Ottoman Balkans. There was also Serbia which managed a separate state in rougly the same time, but even then it had to contend with Ottoman suzerainty until 1878. Bulgaria was the real change since it broke the backbone of Ottoman control over Balkans and opened up the chance for pursuing separatist and irredentist aspirations.
 
Very interesting. Of course, a POD like this would work better in a structure timeline. But I'd expect after an alt-WWI there would be less of a push for independence rather than carving new vassal states for the great powers.
 
I don't understand why Bulgaria is seen as this linchpin instead of Serbia.

Serbia wasn't recognized as independent until 1878, but it was basically independent before. Recognition is everything, though. Bulgaria was very much a sudden creation of the Russian victory. A more natural Bulgarian state would've been much more centered on OTL's Macedonia.
 
Serbia wasn't recognized as independent until 1878, but it was basically independent before. Recognition is everything, though. Bulgaria was very much a sudden creation of the Russian victory. A more natural Bulgarian state would've been much more centered on OTL's Macedonia.

So, de facto independence is irrelevant to the rise of national statehood for small nations?
 
Serbia wasn't recognized as independent until 1878, but it was basically independent before. Recognition is everything, though. Bulgaria was very much a sudden creation of the Russian victory. A more natural Bulgarian state would've been much more centered on OTL's Macedonia.
Bulgaria was not a sudden creation of the Russian victory, since the whole war had started due to Turkish atrocities after a failed attempt by the Bulgarians to win independence. In fact, the Constantinople conference which preceded the war had decided on two autonomous Bulgarian principalities.
And true about Macedonia, but it would also include most of Thrace, leaving a Turkish enclave in the northeast.
 
Naturally, it's part of Ottoman WI stuff involving very liberal butterfly net but I wonder about how will the failure of Russian invasion in 1877-78 and thus the absence of Bulgaria and the following piecemeal dismantling of Ottoman Balkans, will do to the concept and nature of nationalism in general ? It's perhaps not commonly known, but the creation of Bulgaria changed the outlook of nationalism and in general further radicalized it. Before, nation states were seen as only for the "great nations" like Germans, Russians, Italians, French etc.
This was true until Greece became independent and that was fifty years earlier. Plus there is Serbia, Romania and Montenegro. You could argue that they were nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, but so was Bulgaria until 1908.
 
It's perhaps not commonly known, but the creation of Bulgaria changed the outlook of nationalism and in general further radicalized it. Before, nation states were seen as only for the "great nations" like Germans, Russians, Italians, French etc. The recognition for Bulgaria in Berlin Conference pretty much gave a stamp of approval for every other smaller nations to strive for their own state.

I'm guessing the Poles would have made that point sooner or later. Polish nationalism kept cropping up throughout the 19th century, and by 1905, it was clear that it couldn't be repressed forever. Even the Central Powers planned to create a Polish kingdom during World War I. The recognition of smaller nations might have come a few decades later, and maybe some of the multi-ethnic empires would survive in modified form, but I don't think a Russo-Bulgarian loss in 1878 would have ended it forever.
 
It's the geography. Once Bulgaria was lost Ottoman position became undefensible and outlying areas harder to control.

That seems to be far more about the reasoning for why the Ottoman Empire in Europe was doomed at that point. Ethnic nationalism was certainly played up in the Balkans, but so was a sort of 'politico-ethnic nationalism'. Albania's existence was very flimsy until after Versailles, and Serbian annexation of Macedonia didn't really follow the logic of including all Serbs, so much as it having been Serbian territory at some point in the past.
 
I'm guessing the Poles would have made that point sooner or later. Polish nationalism kept cropping up throughout the 19th century, and by 1905, it was clear that it couldn't be repressed forever. Even the Central Powers planned to create a Polish kingdom during World War I. The recognition of smaller nations might have come a few decades later, and maybe some of the multi-ethnic empires would survive in modified form, but I don't think a Russo-Bulgarian loss in 1878 would have ended it forever.

It will be setback, but indeed nationalism will still trickle into the smaller nations. Ottomans will not be able to shrug off minority aspirations if they retain the Balkans and they will have to address them. But with this setback and more multi-ethnic empires (OE especially) enduring I guess will provide a precedent on how dominant nations should deal with smaller ones, and for what the later should aim. Bigger nations like Poland and Hungary will going to get their own state eventually, but how about the likes of Slovaks or Belarusians ? Perhaps with less ethnic exclusivity among the states there will be less push for ethnic borders ?

Very interesting. Of course, a POD like this would work better in a structure timeline. But I'd expect after an alt-WWI there would be less of a push for independence rather than carving new vassal states for the great powers.

Depends on how much the whole freedom and liberty thing will be made a big deal of, I guess, since after all we're positing American involvement. My thinking is that, if the motion of independence will be pushed, it won't be for every single cultural-linguistic unit available.
 
That seems to be far more about the reasoning for why the Ottoman Empire in Europe was doomed at that point. Ethnic nationalism was certainly played up in the Balkans, but so was a sort of 'politico-ethnic nationalism'. Albania's existence was very flimsy until after Versailles, and Serbian annexation of Macedonia didn't really follow the logic of including all Serbs, so much as it having been Serbian territory at some point in the past.

It's quite of a both. Since the European powers permitted Ottoman Empire to meet doom in Europe that means they permitted the Balkan ethnics their quest for nation states. Not like they didn't want that before, but before then they viewed Ottoman Empire as a reliable buffer in the Balkans and therefore it was safer and wiser to keep the status quo.
 
Top