Talk:Congress of Berlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: criterion met

	Bulgaria Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Congress of Berlin:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents 1 Bismarck as a pacifist 2 Merger 3 Revert war but no talk 4 POV - example 1 5 NPOV problem 6 Misha Glenny 7 Deletion from Final Paragraph 8 Sources 9 International law

[edit] Bismarck as a pacifist

Can he really be described as an ardent pacifist? Surely his politics were more machiavellian than ideological, as this suggests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.185 (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I second this. It is ridiculous to ascribe the motivations of an 'ardent pacifist' or 'seething aggressor' to the greatest statesman of his era playing Realpolitik to achieve the best results for his backers. It is misleading and uninformative to reduce the actors of the highest affairs of state to clichéd millitarist or pacifist caricatures driven by extremes of emotion. The 'Great Game' is indeed greater than that. To deny sophistication to Bismarck's policy is to infantilise history; It is unbecoming of an encyclopaedia article that aims to educate and inform.

The correct words to use are pacific policy and belligerent policy. It should not be difficult to substitute the offending lines with ones that communicate Bismarck's policy of reconciling Austria and Russia, and that in the absence of any German interests in the Near East, any problems there would inevitable threaten to destroy his policy for no gain or advantage, forcing Germany to pick between the two with the other picking France (as would happen in 1914), hence the pacific policy of Bismarck's system in the Near East.

If it is felt necessary because the capacity of Bismarck to wage a belligerent policy is in doubt to the uniformed reader due to his pacific Near East policy, then a quick history tour of Germany's unification can show his ability to orchestrate and lead Prussia/Germany into wars, and the "War in Sight" crises and his many diplomatic threats to Russia over Poland can show his ability to posture belligerency as a diplomatic tool. I think this is unnecessary and superfluous to the scope of this article, but others may find it prudent. It any case in it upon us to give this historical account its proper due by not resorting to uninformative caricature that belie complex people, policy and events. 58.173.51.73 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Where can the original text of the treaty (in French) be found? --Hubertgui (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

Should this really be a separate article from the Treaty of Berlin, 1878? IMHO they should be merged. --romanm (talk) 21:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war but no talk

Why? It seems some people need a lesson in Wikipedia policies - or just need to grow up.

Bring your issues to the talk page instead of this revert war.

And if some people do not think that "russophobia" is POV, they should stop editing Wikipedia!

--itpastorn 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV - example 1

"The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine of the balance of power, which the largest empire in the world often used to further its imperialist ends."

What power in 1878 was not imperialist? Russia was. France was. Germany was. The Ottomans would have been if they had had the power. I see no difference whatsoever between the Brittish and the Russians. Ask the people of Central Asia if they wanted Moscow to rule over them any more than the people of Africa wanted to be under London.

--itpastorn 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the first statement is poorly written. It should read "the UK at once recalled its favourite doctrine: the balance of power. The next part of the sentance is an awefully written short hand for "With peace on the continent the UK was free to persue its interests elsewhere in the globe." I recomend a correction to the effect of "The United Kingdom at once recalled its favourite doctrine - the balance of power. By securing peace on the continent they hoped to persue their imperial interests." The fact of the matter is Russia at this time held Moldavia and Walachia as an imperial interest, as well as much of the Balkans, so it is a valid point. IF someone were to do a rewrite it may be a good idea to include that point. -Schatbot

The statement, while poorly written, does have a distinct ring of truth to it insofar as it is stated policy of the UK maintain hegemony over the Mediterranean and characterizing any challenge to this hegemony as destablizing.

As for Moldavia and Walachia, the common Slavic roots of Russia lend it slightly more legitimacy than English affairs in the Africa and certainly more than the Ottomans. Wrath0fb0b 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not questioned the UK's imperialism. Of course they were trying to rule the World. My point is that all major European powers were imperialist at the time. And Russia was expanding in all directions, not only the Balkans. They had a struggle with the Brittish for Central Asia as well - and the people who had the misfortune of living there were neither brittish or slavic. It's POV to villify one nation and let another receive no blame, when both were equal culprits, as far as intention goes. Then maybe the Brittish were worse when it comes to effect, thanks to industrialisation and some other factors they had a head start and were more effecient empire-builders. --itpastorn 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems that everyone wanted to rule the world. Oddly, the Germans were the best imperialists, as they created an empire in the course of a decade or two the size of which almost two hundred years of British history accomplished. They had interests across the globe, including various islands in South East Asia, etc. In fact, the location of this conference in Berlin indicates they were the best imperial state, as much like Vienna in 1814/15 they were the diplomatic hub of Europe. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the Russians were running large-scale offensive across their borders. At this time they had little interest in future locations such as Afghanistan (where the Brisish were otherwise occupied) and many other middle Eastern Areas. Indeed, Russian foreign policy was largely directed at East Central Europe and Constantinople, following the 1850/60's deals with China regarding Manchuria (which came to a head in the 1910's war over the area) which freed them to follow these policies; as the opening to this article indicates. Overall, I'm very pleased with the revisions that have been made to this article, and it is a credit to the nature of Wikipedia. - Schatbot

[edit] NPOV problem

User:Ghirlandajo feels that my edits to this article were POV, however I believe that using phrases like 'Freeing them from the Muslim Ottoman yoke' is hardly a neutral statement. As such, I am prepared to defend my edits. Should User: Ghirlandajo have further problems with this, I encourage him/her to discuss it with me here rather than revert again. Tev 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to User:Ghirlandajo's feeling that my edits were POV, I have gone through the article and attempted to make it comply further with the NPOV policy. However, I still do not feel that my original edits were POV. Tev 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have this all resolved now. Thanks for everyone involved in reaching a peaceful consensus! Tev 14:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misha Glenny

Does anybody object to a citation of Misha Glenny's The Balkans: 1804-1999? That is, does anyone object to it ante facto? --VKokielov 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that work, could you possibly find a section of the writing, or a summary? Tev 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] --VKokielov 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah sorry, didn't realise you'd replied to that. Mea culpa. Seems fine to me, cite away (unless you already have) Tev 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion from Final Paragraph

I made two changes in the section about the Ottoman Empire and Greece. One was deletion of reference to the Ottoman parliament, which had ben prorogued by 1881 and had nothing to do with the border rectification with Greece.

Second, I deleted the reference to the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, which was very tandentially related to the topic and misleading to the point of POV. While it's true the Ottomans declared war on Greece at that time, this was AFTER Greece had invaded Crete, been ejected by the powers, then invaded Ottoman territory on the mainland.

Also, this was not so much a result of tensions between the two states as a result of the Treaty but rather the Greek government's inability to control nationalist public opinion, which was sympathetic to the cause of Greek rebels on Crete. Relations between Greece and the Ottomans between Berlin an 1897 were actually reasonably harmonious.

Finally, I don't think we need the ubiquitous and gratuitous reference to the Armenian Genocide that seems to accompany every article that includes the words "Ottoman" or "Turkey", particularly in this topic, which seems POV absent an explanation for its inclusion. - John

Update May 26, 2007 - If you have a reason for insisting on factually inaccurate statements or irrlevant asides, please take the time to discuss your position. I am restoring the changes mentioned above. Jpiccone 16:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Where are the sources for this article? Terrifying Angel 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International law

The Treaty of Washington, 1871 was negotiated at Washington, D.C. in 1871. Ratifications occurred at London. In 1872, the United States was awarded an indemnity at Geneva. The conclusions reached and the rules adopted in 1871 had an effect on the Congress of Berlin. Nations were expected to remain neutral and not interfere in wars when extraterritoriality was an issue. Superslum (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)