Academic literature on the topic 'London (England). Conference of ambassadors (1912-1913)'

The history of the Balkans has been and is the story of the peoples who have lived and tried for the relationship of a worthy and peaceful neighborhood on this peninsula. But in a few cases, these relationships are defined by state policies and as such have been conflicting. Referring to political developments, after the First Balkan War Balkan conflicts between the Balkan states conditioned the outbreak of the Second Balkan War. Albania's destiny was directly linked to these Balkan conflicts. The only Balkan state, which had no territorial claims in Albania, resulted to be Bulgaria. In this regard, we point out that Bulgaria's interests after the First Balkan War resonated with the interests of Albanians. The decision of the Ambassadors' Conference in London unduly left outside the borders of the new Albanian state almost half of the country's lands. Did Bulgaria support the new Albanian state at the London Conference of Ambassadors? What was the attitude of the Bulgarian population during the Albanian uprising against the Serbs of 1913? The treatment and analysis of these issues is also the focus of our research in the framework of this scientific paper. In reflecting on such issues, we have relied on the consultation of a broad and contemporary literature, seen in the context of comparability of archival documents, with new approaches and attitudes.

The history of the Balkans has been and is the story of the peoples who have lived and tried for the relationship of a worthy and peaceful neighborhood on this peninsula. But in a few cases, these relationships are defined by state policies and as such have been conflicting. Referring to political developments, after the First Balkan War Balkan conflicts between the Balkan states conditioned the outbreak of the Second Balkan War. Albania's destiny was directly linked to these Balkan conflicts. The only Balkan state, which had no territorial claims in Albania, resulted to be Bulgaria. In this regard, we point out that Bulgaria's interests after the First Balkan War resonated with the interests of Albanians. The decision of the Ambassadors' Conference in London unduly left outside the borders of the new Albanian state almost half of the country's lands. Did Bulgaria support the new Albanian state at the London Conference of Ambassadors? What was the attitude of the Bulgarian population during the Albanian uprising against the Serbs of 1913? The treatment and analysis of these issues is also the focus of our research in the framework of this scientific paper. In reflecting on such issues, we have relied on the consultation of a broad and contemporary literature, seen in the context of comparability of archival documents, with new approaches and attitudes.

Before starting the First Balkan War, the Great Powers were not prepared for a quick victory of the young Balkan allies against an old empire, as it was until 1912 the Great Ottoman Empire. At the Ambassadors Conference in London, Austro-Hungary argued that the involvement of Shkodra City was essential to the economy of the new Albanian state. Meanwhile Russia did not open the way for solving the Shkodra problem, Russian diplomats thought how to satisfy Serbia's ambitions in Northeast Albania, respectively in Kosovo Beyond those considerations of a political character, on 8 October 1912, was the youngest member of the Balkan Alliance, the Shkodra northern neighbor, Montenegro, that rushed to launch military actions, thus opening the first campaign of the First Balkan War. The Montenegrin military assault, as its main strategic objective in this war, was precisely the occupation and annexation of the historic city of Shkodra, a city with a big economic and cultural importance for the Albanian people and territory. Received: 7 September 2020 / Accepted: 13 December 2020 / Published: 17 January 2021

By analysing leading Russian newspapers on the eve of the Great War, the author illustrates the perception of German policy by Russian public opinion during the two Balkan wars of 1912–1913. He concludes that during the ten months of the Balkan crisis, the attitude of the Russian press towards Germany underwent a significant transformation. In the first two months of the Balkan War (October and November 1912), when Berlin was not openly declaring its support for Austrian claims, one could find favourable comments on German policy in Russian newspapers. The attitude of the Russian press to Germany shifted in a negative direction under the influence of Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg’s speech in the Reichstag on 2 December 1912, when for the first time since the beginning of the Balkan War Berlin publicly declared its readiness to back its Austrian ally’s claims with arms in hand. Russian society experienced even greater disappointment in German politics after the start of the London Meeting of Ambassadors, at which the German representative supported the proposals of the Austrian side, and after a new speech by Bethmann-Hollweg in the German parliament on April 7, 1913, when the Reich Chancellor declared “racial opposites” between the Slavic and German peoples and laid full responsibility for maintaining a tense the situation in Europe affects the pan-Slavic circles of Russia. These two speeches by the head of the German government and Berlin’s support for Austrian claims at the London Conference were negatively perceived by the overwhelming majority of the Russian press. At the same time, the disagreements between Germany and Austria-Hungary that emerged during the Bucharest Peace Conference and immediately after it gave the Russian press reason to declare a serious crisis of the Triple Alliance. The article concludes that there was a significant increase in anti-German sentiment in Russia under the influence of German behavior during the Balkan crisis of 1912–1913. Thus, the two Balkan Wars became an important milestone not only in the history of international relations at the beginning of the 20th century, but also in the propaganda preparations for the First World War.

The article explores a particular source of Albanian newspapers for the cooperative efforts between Kosovo Albanians and Bulgarians in Macedonia. The Albanian press in the diaspora, particularly in Bulgaria, was of great importance for Albanian ideol-ogists after the closure of Albanian-language clubs, schools, and newspapers in Koso-vo. In Albanian newspapers, we can observe a different perspective on the efforts to cooperate between Albanian and Bulgarian insurgents until 1913. The Conference of Ambassadors in London and the waves of Albanian and Bulgarian refugees caused by the Balkan wars reaffirmed these tentative of collaboration for the common interest of both parties. These also resulted with joint Albanian and Bulgarian kachak forces in exile on the September Ohrid-Dibra uprising. Despite the failure of the uprising, Alba-nian newspapers remained supportive of the idea of common resistance.

Great Britain since the late 19th and early 20th centuries had increased its interest for the developments in the Balkan region. Since the Berlin Congress in June 1878, the Conference of Ambassadors in London, December 1912-May 1913, then during WWI and WWII. Her interest continued also during the Cold War. Tito's Yugoslavia as a conglomerate of peoples had special diplomatic treatment from UK because of political, economic and military interests of the latter. Mostly after 1948 the UK built good relations with Yugoslavia. Her interest was Yugoslavia to remain stable as it was the west "protected" area from any Soviet Union threat. From this perspective the predictions were that the British could approve of any kind of internal behavior towards other ethnic minority communities. Thus in 1981 riots broke out in the province of Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and they escalated widely all over Kosovo. The UK closely followed all developments through its embassy in Belgrade and reported continuously to the FCO in London. This research will be exclusively based on these Telegrams. The declassified diplomatic reports testify more to a diplomatic and political correctness since then, from the fact that they clearly write about the discrimination that has been done to Kosovo in the Yugoslav legal and political system.

This chapter outlines the issues for decision in December 1912-early 1913, at the peace conferences for which Sir Edward Grey had offered London as venue. These were, for Venizelos 1) the future of Salonika, 2) the fate of the Aegean islands, still claimed by Turkey, and 3) Albania/Northern Epirus. The chapter describes the division of the negotiations into two, one between the Balkan allies and Turkey, the second a conference of ambassadors to deal with other issues including the Aegean islands and Albania/Northern Epirus. Streit, Skouloudis, Metaxas and Danglis took part in the London talks, but Venizelos would not include Ion Dragoumis, who opposed Venizelos's conciliatory policy towards Bulgaria and hopes of a Balkan federation.