Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons

Montenegro Backs Down, Greeks and Bulgarians Clash

Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons

The First World War was an unprecedented catastrophe that killed millions and set the continent of Europe on the path to further calamity two decades later. But it didn’t come out of nowhere. With the centennial of the outbreak of hostilities coming up in 2014, Erik Sass will be looking back at the lead-up to the war, when seemingly minor moments of friction accumulated until the situation was ready to explode. He'll be covering those events 100 years after they occurred. This is the 67th installment in the series.

May 1 through 4, 1913: Montenegro Backs Down, Greeks and Bulgarians Clash

In 1912 and 1913, the victories of the Balkan League precipitated a series of diplomatic crises which threatened to escalate into a general continental war. In the first crisis, from November 1912 to March 1913, Serbia’s conquest of Durazzo (Durrës) provoked a standoff between Serbia’s patron Russia and their shared enemy Austria-Hungary, whose foreign minister, Count Berchtold, was determined the city should belong to the new independent nation of Albania. Berchtold called on mediation by all Europe’s Great Powers at the multilateral Conference of London, but the crisis was actually resolved by the bilateral Hohenlohe Mission, when Russia and Austria-Hungary reached an agreement that the Serbians would withdraw in return for compensation in the interior.

In the second crisis, from April to May 1913, Montenegro’s conquest of Scutari (Shkodër) led to another clash between Austria-Hungary and Russia. At first glance, the Scutari crisis seemed less dire than the Durazzo crisis, because reason dictated the tiny kingdom would never defy all the Great Powers, who had also awarded Scutari to Albania at Austria-Hungary’s behest. And yet that is precisely what Montenegro’s King Nikola seemed prepared to do, issuing defiant statements telling the Great Powers to butt out of Balkan affairs.

Despite the obvious irrationality of this stance (Montenegro couldn’t take on one Great Power, let alone all of them), Nikola’s defiance could easily have turned the Great Powers against each other, resulting in disaster. Indeed, the demands of prestige left very little room for negotiation or maneuver: While the Russians were privately urging Nikola to back down, on April 2, at the Conference of London, they warned their colleagues that Austria-Hungary must not act unilaterally. If Austria-Hungary attacked Montenegro, there was a good chance that Serbia would be drawn in, and the Russian government might be forced to act by pan-Slav ideologues. The British ambassador to St. Petersburg, Sir George Buchanan, warned London that “Isolated action by Austria seems now inevitable and, as the possibility of such action has ever since the beginning of the crisis constituted the chief menace to European peace, the political outlook is blacker than at any other period of the crisis.” In 1914, this same dynamic—in which Russia and Austria-Hungary faced off over the fate of a smaller Slavic state—would result in disaster.

But in May 1913, common sense prevailed, by however small a margin. After Austria-Hungary mobilized troops along the border with Montenegro on April 29, on May 2 the Austro-Hungarian joint council of ministers agreed on military action and Count Berchtold prepared to issue an ultimatum to Montenegro. As Austria-Hungary wielded the stick, the Conference of London offered King Nikola a carrot in the form of a generous loan, to the tune of £1,200,000, backed by British and French banks. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, on May 3 the troublesome monarch finally caved, sending a telegram to British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey stating “I place the fate of the city of Scutari in the hands of the Powers.” The next day he informed his own royal council, and on May 5, Montenegrin troops began withdrawing from the city, clearing the way for an occupation force drawn from the multinational fleet blockading Montenegro.

While most of Europe’s leaders were heaving a sigh of relief, key figures in the Austro-Hungarian government viewed the peaceful outcome as a missed chance for the Dual Monarchy to settle accounts with the southern Slavs. The leader of the Austro-Hungarian war party, chief of staff Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf—who had advocated annexation of Montenegro at the May 2 cabinet meeting—complained bitterly to a friend as the prospect of war slipped away yet again: “Now it is all up … pity me.”

To make matters worse, on May 3, the Austrian governor of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Oskar Potiorek, declared a state of emergency in the province as a precaution in case war broke out. The decree dissolved the local parliament, suspended civil courts, and closed Slavic cultural associations, which Potiorek accused (with some justification) of fomenting rebellion. After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, some of the plotters would cite these draconian measures as one the grievances motivating their crime.

Greeks and Bulgarians Clash

As tensions eased in the western Balkans, they were rising again in the east, where the members of the Balkan League fell to squabbling over the spoils of the First Balkan War. Deprived of their Albanian conquests by the Great Powers at the Conference of London, in early 1913 the Serbians repeatedly asked the Bulgarians for a bigger share of Macedonia, but their requests were ignored, even as Serbian troops helped Bulgaria capture Adrianople. Meanwhile Romania demanded the territory of Silistra, in northern Bulgaria, in return for recognizing Bulgarian conquests to the south—where conflict was also brewing between Bulgaria and Greece.

Although full-scale hostilities were still a month away, on May 1, 1913, Greek and Bulgarian troops skirmished near the port city of Kavala, which was claimed by both sides but assigned to Bulgaria by the Conference of London. On May 5, the Serbians and Greeks agreed on a secret treaty dividing up Bulgarian territory in Macedonia, to be followed by a military alliance against Bulgaria on May 14. And on May 8 the Great Powers, who were arbitrating the dispute between Romania and Bulgaria, assigned Silistra to Romania, reflecting Russia’s desire to expand its influence in the Balkans by winning favor with Romania. Russia justified the decision by promising to compensate Bulgaria with territory to the south—but here Greece stood in the way. Unsurprisingly, Bulgaria resisted the judgment, leading to a dispute with Romania (as well as a falling out with Russia, which the Bulgarians accused of betrayal). In June 1913 all these conflicts would erupt in the Second Balkan War.

See the previous installment or all entries.

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
College Board Wants to Erase Thousands of Years From AP World History, and Teachers Aren't Happy
iStock
iStock

One would be forgiven for thinking that the Ides of March are upon us, because Julius Caesar is being taken out once again—this time from the Advanced Placement World History exam. The College Board in charge of the AP program is planning to remove the Roman leader, and every other historical figure who lived and died prior to 1450, from high school students’ tests, The New York Times reports.

The nonprofit board recently announced that it would revise the test, beginning in 2019, to make it more manageable for teachers and students alike. The current exam covers over 10,000 years of world history, and according to the board, “no other AP course requires such an expanse of content to be covered over a single school year.”

As an alternative, the board suggested that schools offer two separate year-long courses to cover the entirety of world history, including a Pre-AP World History and Geography class focusing on the Ancient Period (before 600 BCE) up through the Postclassical Period (ending around 1450). However, as Politico points out, a pre-course for which the College Board would charge a fee "isn’t likely to be picked up by cash-strapped public schools," and high school students wouldn't be as inclined to take the pre-AP course since there would be no exam or college credit for it.

Many teachers and historians are pushing back against the proposed changes and asking the board to leave the course untouched. Much of the controversy surrounds the 1450 start date and the fact that no pre-colonial history would be tested.

“They couldn’t have picked a more Eurocentric date,” Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, who previously helped develop AP History exams and courses, told The New York Times. “If you start in 1450, the first thing you’ll talk about in terms of Africa is the slave trade. The first thing you’ll talk about in terms of the Americas is people dying from smallpox and other things. It’s not a start date that encourages looking at the agency and creativity of people outside Europe.”

A group of teachers who attended an AP open forum in Salt Lake City also protested the changes. One Michigan educator, Tyler George, told Politico, “Students need to understand that there was a beautiful, vast, and engaging world before Europeans ‘discovered’ it.”

The board is now reportedly reconsidering its decision and may push the start date of the course back some several hundred years. Their decision will be announced in July.

[h/t The New York Times]

nextArticle.image_alt|e
Nate D. Sanders Auctions
Sylvia Plath's Pulitzer Prize in Poetry Is Up for Auction
Nate D. Sanders Auctions
Nate D. Sanders Auctions

A Pulitzer Prize in Poetry that was awarded posthumously to Sylvia Plath in 1982 for her book The Collected Poems will be auctioned on June 28. The Los Angeles-based Nate D. Sanders Auctions says bidding for the literary document will start at $40,000.

The complete book of Plath’s poetry was published in 1981—18 years after her death—and was edited by her husband, fellow poet Ted Hughes. The Pulitzer Prize was presented to Hughes on Plath’s behalf, and one of two telegrams sent by Pulitzer President Michael Sovern to Hughes read, “We’ve just heard that the Collected Plath has won the Pulitzer Prize. Congratulations to you for making it possible.” The telegrams will also be included in the lot, in addition to an official congratulatory letter from Sovern.

The Pultizer’s jury report from 1982 called The Collected Poems an “extraordinary literary event.” It went on to write, “Plath won no major prizes in her lifetime, and most of her work has been posthumously published … The combination of metaphorical brilliance with an effortless formal structure makes this a striking volume.”

Ted Hughes penned an introduction to the poetry collection describing how Plath had “never scrapped any of her poetic efforts,” even if they weren’t all masterpieces. He wrote:

“Her attitude to her verse was artisan-like: if she couldn’t get a table out of the material, she was quite happy to get a chair, or even a toy. The end product for her was not so much a successful poem, as something that had temporarily exhausted her ingenuity. So this book contains not merely what verse she saved, but—after 1956—all she wrote.”

Also up for auction is Plath’s Massachusetts driver’s license from 1958, at which time she went by the name Sylvia P. Hughes. Bidding for the license will begin at $8000.

Plath's driver's license
Nate D. Sanders Auctions

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios