1876年英国议会中的东部问题

Miloš Ković
{"title":"1876年英国议会中的东部问题","authors":"Miloš Ković","doi":"10.2298/zmsdn2178189k","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article scrutinizes the attitude of the British political elites towards the Eastern question, in the year of the beginning of the Serbian liberation and unification wars of 1876-1878. It is based on diverse sources, Hansard?s Parliamentary Debates being the most important one. The Eastern question, as geopolitical problem of the future of the Balkan and Levantine lands from which the Ottoman Empire was gradually retreating, has been considered through the confrontation of Great Britain and Russia on the wider Eurasian stage, especially in relation to their conflict in the Central Asia. The article is mainly devoted to the different interpretations, debates and conflicts in the British Parliament and public opinion, provoked by the Serbian uprising in Herzegovina and Bosnia, atrocities in Bulgaria, and the beginning of the Serbian-Turkish Wars. The divisions went mainly through the party lines. Behind almost all events in the East, the Conservatives perceived the hand of Russia and League of the Three Emperors (Dreikaisebund). These ?foreign influences? were attributed mainly to Russia and Serbia, as the alleged Russia?s tool in the Balkans. Thus, according to the Conservatives, the Serbs and Russians were to blame for the sufferings of Bulgarians in the hands of the Turks. Additionally, they were repeating that Turkish crimes were committed in self-defence, and that the numbers of victims were hugely exaggerated by the Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda and the British liberal press. The Conservatives had similar attitudes towards the atrocities committed by the Turks in the Eastern Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Liberals, on the other hand, were insisting that the main causes of these uprisings and wars were national feelings, economical problems, and the misrule of the Turks. They were directing their moral indignation not only to the Turks, but to the British government as well. According to the Liberals, by despatching of the British fleet in the vicinity of the Ottoman capital, the British government encouraged the Turks and made Great Britain co-responsible for the atrocities committed in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.","PeriodicalId":40081,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Matice Srpske za Likovne Umetnosti-Matica Srpska Journal for Fine Arts","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The eastern question in the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1876\",\"authors\":\"Miloš Ković\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/zmsdn2178189k\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article scrutinizes the attitude of the British political elites towards the Eastern question, in the year of the beginning of the Serbian liberation and unification wars of 1876-1878. It is based on diverse sources, Hansard?s Parliamentary Debates being the most important one. The Eastern question, as geopolitical problem of the future of the Balkan and Levantine lands from which the Ottoman Empire was gradually retreating, has been considered through the confrontation of Great Britain and Russia on the wider Eurasian stage, especially in relation to their conflict in the Central Asia. The article is mainly devoted to the different interpretations, debates and conflicts in the British Parliament and public opinion, provoked by the Serbian uprising in Herzegovina and Bosnia, atrocities in Bulgaria, and the beginning of the Serbian-Turkish Wars. The divisions went mainly through the party lines. Behind almost all events in the East, the Conservatives perceived the hand of Russia and League of the Three Emperors (Dreikaisebund). These ?foreign influences? were attributed mainly to Russia and Serbia, as the alleged Russia?s tool in the Balkans. Thus, according to the Conservatives, the Serbs and Russians were to blame for the sufferings of Bulgarians in the hands of the Turks. Additionally, they were repeating that Turkish crimes were committed in self-defence, and that the numbers of victims were hugely exaggerated by the Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda and the British liberal press. The Conservatives had similar attitudes towards the atrocities committed by the Turks in the Eastern Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Liberals, on the other hand, were insisting that the main causes of these uprisings and wars were national feelings, economical problems, and the misrule of the Turks. They were directing their moral indignation not only to the Turks, but to the British government as well. According to the Liberals, by despatching of the British fleet in the vicinity of the Ottoman capital, the British government encouraged the Turks and made Great Britain co-responsible for the atrocities committed in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zbornik Matice Srpske za Likovne Umetnosti-Matica Srpska Journal for Fine Arts\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zbornik Matice Srpske za Likovne Umetnosti-Matica Srpska Journal for Fine Arts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/zmsdn2178189k\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Matice Srpske za Likovne Umetnosti-Matica Srpska Journal for Fine Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/zmsdn2178189k","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了1876-1878年塞尔维亚解放与统一战争开始之年,英国政治精英对东方问题的态度。它是基于多种来源的,汉萨德?国会辩论是最重要的。东方问题,作为奥斯曼帝国逐渐退出的巴尔干和黎凡特地区未来的地缘政治问题,在更广阔的欧亚舞台上,特别是在两国在中亚的冲突中,通过英俄的对抗得到了思考。本文主要探讨了塞尔维亚人在黑塞哥维那和波斯尼亚的起义、保加利亚的暴行以及塞尔维亚-土耳其战争的开始所引发的英国议会和公众舆论中的不同解释、辩论和冲突。这些分裂主要是通过党的路线进行的。在几乎所有东方事件的背后,保守主义者察觉到了俄国和三帝同盟(Dreikaisebund)的插手。这些外来的影响?主要归咎于俄罗斯和塞尔维亚,如所谓的俄罗斯?美国在巴尔干半岛的工具。因此,根据保守党的说法,塞尔维亚人和俄罗斯人应该为保加利亚人在土耳其人手中遭受的苦难负责。此外,他们还重申土耳其的罪行是出于自卫,受害者的人数被俄罗斯、塞尔维亚和保加利亚的宣传机构以及英国的自由主义报刊大大夸大了。保守党对土耳其人在东塞尔维亚、波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那犯下的暴行也持类似态度。另一方面,自由党坚持认为,这些起义和战争的主要原因是民族感情、经济问题和土耳其人的暴政。他们的义愤不仅指向土耳其人,也指向英国政府。根据自由党的说法,通过在奥斯曼帝国首都附近派遣英国舰队,英国政府鼓励了土耳其人,并使英国对保加利亚、塞尔维亚和波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那的暴行负有共同责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The eastern question in the parliament of the United Kingdom in 1876
This article scrutinizes the attitude of the British political elites towards the Eastern question, in the year of the beginning of the Serbian liberation and unification wars of 1876-1878. It is based on diverse sources, Hansard?s Parliamentary Debates being the most important one. The Eastern question, as geopolitical problem of the future of the Balkan and Levantine lands from which the Ottoman Empire was gradually retreating, has been considered through the confrontation of Great Britain and Russia on the wider Eurasian stage, especially in relation to their conflict in the Central Asia. The article is mainly devoted to the different interpretations, debates and conflicts in the British Parliament and public opinion, provoked by the Serbian uprising in Herzegovina and Bosnia, atrocities in Bulgaria, and the beginning of the Serbian-Turkish Wars. The divisions went mainly through the party lines. Behind almost all events in the East, the Conservatives perceived the hand of Russia and League of the Three Emperors (Dreikaisebund). These ?foreign influences? were attributed mainly to Russia and Serbia, as the alleged Russia?s tool in the Balkans. Thus, according to the Conservatives, the Serbs and Russians were to blame for the sufferings of Bulgarians in the hands of the Turks. Additionally, they were repeating that Turkish crimes were committed in self-defence, and that the numbers of victims were hugely exaggerated by the Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda and the British liberal press. The Conservatives had similar attitudes towards the atrocities committed by the Turks in the Eastern Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Liberals, on the other hand, were insisting that the main causes of these uprisings and wars were national feelings, economical problems, and the misrule of the Turks. They were directing their moral indignation not only to the Turks, but to the British government as well. According to the Liberals, by despatching of the British fleet in the vicinity of the Ottoman capital, the British government encouraged the Turks and made Great Britain co-responsible for the atrocities committed in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Bank performance analysis and identification of key determinants of electronic banking customer satisfaction - balanced scorecard approach Competition among interest group - mechanism and consequences The selection of topics in good practice of teaching the holocaust in England and Republica Srpska: A case study Development, state and perspectives of urban geography with special review of Serbia Ideal fundaments of the history of education as teaching disciplines in Serbia in the 19th century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1