conflict, Roumania, fearing Bulgaria's success and domination of the peninsula, entered the conflict against her and made the continuance of the war impossible for Bulgaria. To add to her bad luck, Turkey renewed the struggle and retook Adrianople and a large part of Thrace. The treaty of Bucharest, August 10, 1913, which closed this second war, thus left a totally dissatisfied Bulgaria who was forced to cede to Roumania that portion of the Dobrudja 5 which Treaty of she had demanded in 1913, and to give up the greater Bucharest. part of Macedonia, especially both the ports at Salonica and Kavalla. To Turkey she was forced to cede much of her Thracian conquests, including Adrianople. It is entirely clear that statesmanship in Bulgaria should have found reasons to avoid a second war. Turkey, although disposed of, was not prostrate and could be expected to take any chance offered to win back lost territory. Bulgaria perhaps might have won against Serbia and Greece and fenced off Turkey, if it had not been for Roumania. It has seemed probable if not evident that the Central Powers were behind this sudden attack of Bulgaria. They believed fully that Roumania was still their ally and would be satisfied with the small port of the Dobrudja ceded to her by Bulgaria in 1913. They had, therefore, advised Bulgaria that they would support her in any further conquests that she might make from the two associates. "The net result of the two wars for Bulgaria were: (a) the loss of about 100,000 officers and men, the devastation of a great part of the country and a serious economic crisis; (b) the expenditure Results for of about 40 million pounds; (c) the loss of the greater Bulgaria. part of Macedonia, which she had determined to annex, and the establishment of Greece and Serbia in that Province; (d) the final loss of Adrianople and a great part of the fertile province of Thrace; (e) the loss of 8,000 square miles of Bulgarian territory, which had been handed to Roumania." Altogether, a loss which established her eternal enmity to the rest of the Balkan states and decided later her course when the war of 1914 found its way to her door. This discussion of the Balkan and Turkish affairs has been difficult because of their great complexity and the fact that there is no question which can arise in the peninsula that can be decided on its own merits. Every question is circumscribed by two great series of facts; first, those which have to do with the age-long animosities that have grown up under the Difficulty of treating Balkan Question. The territory lying between the Danube River and the Black Sea from the point where the river bends northward. See an article by Mr. Dillon, Fortnightly Review, May 1915. Turkish attempt to govern a group of nationalities in a small extent of territory, where religion, race, habits and customs are hostile toward the imposed government as well as toward each other. The second series of facts are to be traced to the conditions that have made this small territory the highway to Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean, the very heart and center of all the diplomatic intrigues of the Great Powers of Europe. It became the center of this intrigue because here the lines of policy of the two great Allied groups crossed definitely and finally. No other way was left to Russia to reach the sea. No other way was left to Germany to reach the end of her ambition for world empire. And Great Britain, France, and Italy were forced into the maelstrom because of their relation to their allies or because of the dangers to their own position resulting from the success of one or the other party to the conflict. SUGGESTED READINGS Hayes, A Political and Social History of Modern Europe, Vol. II, 424, 469, 472, 490-539. Hazen, Modern European History, pp. 540-557; 590-618. Hazen, Europe since 1815, pp. 601-644. Robinson and Beard, Development of Modern Europe, Vol. II, Ch. XXIX. Rose, Development of European Nations, Vol. I, pp. 184-224; 299-343. Seignobos, Political History of Europe since 1814, pp. 616-619, 640-648, 657-669 Skrine, Expansion of Russia, pp. 154-178; 245-264. PART IV NATIONALITY AND DEMOCRACY CHAPTER I THE GROWTH OF NATIONALITY 1 The Beginnings of Nationality. WE must go far back in history to find the beginnings of nationality as early, in fact, as man began to be distinguished from the animal. Mr. Giddings says, "The original and elementary fact in society is the consciousness of kind”, 1 and he goes on to explain that by this phrase he means the consciousness by which we recognize another being as like ourselves. We can easily trace the growth of this idea from its beginning in the early society of the world. First came consciousness of the difference between plants and animals, then of the difference between animals and man, then of the difference in men themselves, as black or yellow men or white men; and finally, differences began to be distinguished within the race, marked by variations in language and in physical and mental characteristics. Thus developed the social group out of which grew all the modern forms of society-the village, the church, and, finally, the state. Thus, in its beginnings, nationality is this "consciousness of kind" out of which is to grow as society develops, all those elements that bind together any particular group of people known as a nation. Aids to the Growth of As men came closely into contact, they began to feel less fear of one another; and as time went on, they began to respect and trust one another. This respect and trust grew more rapidly in localities where men were able to communicate easily and still more rapidly, when they found common ideas in religion and in customs. In the tribe, they fought together, held their festivals together, made common cause to secure food and clothing, and little by little, developed a common law which all respected and habits which were moulded by constant intercourse. When the tribal period passed and territorial settlement took its place, it was necessary to start anew to develop this common feeling. Tribes found themselves in possession of land that was already occupied by other people. 1 F. H. Giddings, Principles of Sociology, p. x. Cf. his Introduction, pp. x to end of chapter, for this Paragraph. With these people they had to develop all those feelings of trust and confidence and of unity which heretofore had existed only within the tribe. This process took considerable time, and we call that period of readjustment the Middle Ages. Of course, with the larger group, matters did not work out exactly as they did before. Men found that they could learn languages not their own, that a common religion was not absolutely necessary though they still felt its influence. They found, too, that direct association was not quite so important as before, because now they did not come so intimately into contact as they did when the tribe was constantly on the move. So it was, also, with food and clothing and the necessities of life. Thus, the element which was peculiarly the result of their contact-their common law and custom, their habits, their similarity in thought, their likeness which grew, as a husband and wife grow alike-this element became more important. It must be remembered, however, that not one, but all, of these elements were at work. Language, religion, geography which brought them into close contact, economic needs, and this common law and custom-all worked together to bring about the consciousness of kind which became the basis of nationality. Effects of Generally, when we do things, we are not concerned with the result. Especially is this true when we play, when we make the acquaintance of other people, when we are busy with the this Growth. ordinary routine of our daily lives. So, no one was conscious that this gradual development of peoples would result in building up barriers between nations. Every one was busily aiding to destroy these barriers as far as they came into contact with other people, and naturally, they were not concerned with the effect upon their relation with more distant tribes. Travel was so difficult that only few were aware of their difference from other people, and even the few were very little conscious of it until it had become pronounced. We need only to think of the church or the universities in the Middle Ages to realize how this worked out. The church kept its own language, and worked hard in the later period to stop the increasing differences among peoples. The university generally aided the church. Its language was a world language, its subject a world subject, its sympathy was with the church, so it was unconsciously opposed to the growth of nationality. But in spite of church and university, unlikeness between peoples continued to grow until, finally, both were compelled to recognize it and to throw in their lot with their own peoples. Thus, in the sixteenth century there was a tendency to establish national churches wherever religious revolt took place, and in many instances it was the national ideal that was the determining factor in the revolt against the church of Rome. So, too, the university took on more of a national aspect. The state became conscious of the need of such assistance as the university could give and the people, or the nation, began to see in both university and church an opportunity for their self expression. The Nation and the State. It is not easy to make clear the difference between the two terms the nation and the state. It is, however, necessary to recognize their difference if one is to understand the part that nationality has played in modern society. First of all, let us say that the state is older than the nation and that in its early history it was only slightly interested in the idea of the nation. To be sure, a nucleus for the state had to be found within this conscious group, but only a very small group was essential. The moving principle in the formation of the state was conquest, the subjection of other groups through fear. We recognize at once that this is very different from those things which were drawing men and women into the nation. In the second place, the state was the result of conscious effort. In the Middle Ages, the continual wars finally served to reveal a strong leader who eventually founded a dynasty. In time, this dynasty founded a system of relationships, government which took some of the strain and responsibility from the shoulders of the leader. As this system was perfected, the state emerged. It controlled all the peoples whom it could, or all the territory in which it was interested or which it could conquer. Territory instead of people became its aim, and at last the state was organized upon a territorial basis with no thought of the unity of its people. In examining the treaties of the eighteenth century, we see at once how true this is. This was the century when Poland was divided among Russia, Austria and Prussia, when Sweden under Charles XII tried to found a great European empire, and when Austria tried to found an empire in which Italian territory was added to German, Bohemian, Hungarian and Slavic lands. The Growth of Nationality in England. By the side of this state and very largely independent of it, even sometimes directly opposed to it, the consciousness of unity was slowly forging the nation. The earliest and certainly one of the best illustrations of the growth of nationality is that to be found in England under the Tudor sovereigns from 1485 to 1603. The closing of the civil war by the death of Richard III on Bosworth Field, the union of the two lines that claimed the English throne, the great depletion of the aristocracy who had abetted the civil war to save their privileges, all gave to the new king, Henry |