The Growth of Tension in Europe, 1905-14 ยป The Balkan Wars, 1912-13

What you'll learn this session

Study time: 30 minutes

Edexcel spec: Paper 2 Section A, Investigation A1, Key topic 2

  • How the Balkan League defeated Turkey in the First Balkan War, 1912-13
  • Why the winners fought each other in the Second Balkan War, 1913
  • How the wars left Serbia much bigger and more confident
  • Why Austria-Hungary now saw Serbia as a threat that had to be dealt with

๐Ÿ”’ Unlock Full Course Content

Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!

Unlock This Course

The Balkan League

In 1911 Italy went to war with Turkey to seize Libya in North Africa. The Balkan states watched Turkey struggle and saw their chance to drive the Turks out of Europe.

In 1912 Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro formed the Balkan League. Russia encouraged them. Its diplomats helped to bring Serbia and Bulgaria together in March 1912, hoping the League would be a barrier against Austria-Hungary. The Balkan states planned to attack Turkey instead.

Key terms:

  • Balkan League: the alliance of Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro, formed in 1912 to take Turkey's remaining land in Europe
  • Armistice: an agreement to stop fighting while peace terms are discussed
  • Ultimatum: a final demand, with a time limit and a threat of force if it is refused

The First Balkan War, 1912-13

Montenegro declared war on Turkey on 8 October 1912, and the other three members of the League joined in within days. The Turkish armies were beaten on every front in a matter of weeks.

  • The Serbs won a major battle at Kumanovo in October and overran much of Macedonia. In November Serbian troops crossed Albania and reached the Adriatic Sea.
  • The Bulgarians pushed almost to Constantinople, the Turkish capital, before they were stopped.
  • The Greeks took the port of Salonika.

An armistice was signed in December 1912. It broke down, and fighting went on into 1913 before Turkey gave in.

The great powers step in. Serbia had no coastline. A port on the Adriatic would free its trade from Austrian control, and Austria-Hungary was determined to stop it. Both Austria-Hungary and Russia built up their troops, and for a few months a wider war looked possible.

The danger passed because the great powers talked. Their ambassadors met in London from December 1912, with the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, in the chair. Britain and Germany worked together to hold back their partners. Russia told Serbia it would not fight for a port, so Serbia had to pull its troops back from the coast.

The Treaty of London was signed on 30 May 1913. Turkey gave up almost all of its land in Europe. The powers also agreed, as Austria-Hungary demanded, to create a new independent state, Albania, along the Adriatic. Its real purpose was to keep Serbia away from the sea.

The Second Balkan War, 1913

The winners quickly fell out over the land they had taken. Serbia had lost its hoped-for coastline, so it wanted a bigger share of Macedonia instead. Bulgaria believed most of Macedonia should be Bulgarian. Serbia and Greece made an alliance against it.

At the end of June 1913 Bulgaria attacked the Serbian and Greek armies in Macedonia. Serbia and Greece held firm, and then Romania and Turkey joined in against Bulgaria as well. Within about a month Bulgaria was beaten.

The Treaty of Bucharest was signed on 10 August 1913. Serbia and Greece kept most of Macedonia. Romania took land from Bulgaria in the north. Turkey had already taken back the city of Adrianople during the fighting.

The impact of the Balkan Wars

🏆 Winners

Serbia almost doubled in size, and its population rose from about 3 million to about 4.5 million. Greece, Montenegro and Romania all gained land.

📉 Losers

Turkey was left with only a small corner of Europe around Constantinople. Bulgaria lost most of what it had won and was left bitter towards Serbia.

A bigger, more confident Serbia. Serbia had won two wars in less than a year. A British diplomat in Belgrade reported in September 1913 that the country was 'passing through a phase of extreme self satisfaction'. With the Turks gone, the South Slavs still under foreign rule lived in Austria-Hungary, and many Serbs saw freeing them as the next task. Even so, Serbia's government knew the country was worn out and needed time to recover.

Russia. Russia had backed down again over the Adriatic port, as it had in the Bosnian Crisis. Bulgaria now blamed Russia for failing to help it. That left Serbia as Russia's only reliable friend in the Balkans, so Russia could not afford to abandon it in a future crisis.

Why Austria-Hungary now wanted to deal with Serbia

📈 A stronger enemy

The state Austria-Hungary most wanted kept small and weak had grown hugely, with a proven army and Russia behind it.

🔥 A magnet for Slavs

Serbia's victories thrilled many South Slavs inside the empire. Austria's leaders feared they would want to join Serbia, and that the empire would start to break up.

💪 Threats worked

Talks had not stopped Serbia growing. Only force seemed likely to.

The proof came in October 1913. Serbian troops were still inside northern Albania. On 18 October Austria-Hungary sent Serbia an ultimatum: leave within eight days or face military action. Germany backed its ally. Russia did not step in, and Serbia withdrew.

Austria-Hungary's leaders drew a dangerous lesson. Diplomacy had let Serbia double in size, but an ultimatum had made it back down in a week. Force, or the threat of it, seemed the only thing Serbia listened to. Austria-Hungary's generals argued that Serbia should be crushed before it grew any stronger. Many in Vienna now believed that the next quarrel with Serbia should be settled by force.

The other powers drew a lesson too, and it made them less careful. Two Balkan wars had been kept local, so they assumed the next Balkan crisis could be handled in the same way. You will see how wrong that was in the lesson The Assassination at Sarajevo.

Common mistakes

Don't mix up the two wars. In the first, the Balkan League fought Turkey. In the second, Bulgaria fought its former partners and lost. Don't say Austria-Hungary or Russia fought in the Balkan Wars either. No great power fired a shot.

Exam-style question

Source A: From a private letter by Sir Fairfax Cartwright, the British ambassador in Vienna (the capital of Austria-Hungary), to Sir Arthur Nicolson at the British Foreign Office, 31 January 1913. 'Servia' is an old spelling of Serbia.

'Servia will some day set Europe by the ears and bring about a universal war on the Continent ... I cannot tell you how exasperated people are getting here at the continual worry which that little country causes to Austria under encouragement from Russia.'

Source B: From a report by Dayrell Crackanthorpe, a British diplomat in Belgrade (the capital of Serbia), to the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, 7 September 1913. 'Pashitch' is Nikola Pašić, the Serbian prime minister. The 'Dual Monarchy' is Austria-Hungary.

'One of the assurances given by Monsieur Pashitch ... was that it would not be part of Servia's policy to agitate in Bosnia. I imagine this assurance to have been quite genuine ... But the real difficulty seems to lie in the probability ... that, in the absence of any concessions to their aspirations within the Dual Monarchy, the Austro-Hungarian South Slavs will be more and more irresistibly drawn towards a greater democratic Servia'.

Study Sources A and B. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about the threat that Serbia posed to Austria-Hungary in 1913? Explain your answer. [8 marks]

Model answer

Source A supports Source B in showing that Serbia was a serious problem for Austria-Hungary. Source A describes 'the continual worry which that little country causes to Austria'. Source B agrees that there is a 'real difficulty', because the South Slavs inside Austria-Hungary will be 'more and more irresistibly drawn' towards Serbia. Both sources suggest the problem is getting worse: in Source A people are 'getting' more exasperated, and in Source B the pull of Serbia grows 'more and more'.

However, the sources differ about how the threat arises. Source A presents Serbia itself as the troublemaker. It says Serbia 'will some day set Europe by the ears and bring about a universal war', and that it acts 'under encouragement from Russia'. Source B does not show Serbia's government as looking for trouble. Pashitch has promised that Serbia will not 'agitate in Bosnia', and the writer thinks this promise is 'quite genuine'. In Source B the danger comes from the feelings of the Slavs inside the empire, and Russia is not mentioned at all.

Overall, Source A supports Source B only to some extent. They agree that Serbia was a growing danger to Austria-Hungary, but they disagree about the kind of danger. Source A sees an aggressive state that will cause a war, while Source B sees a state that attracts Austria-Hungary's Slavs without meaning to stir them up.

What lifts this to the top level: it matches short quotations from both sources for the agreement and for the difference, then makes a clear judgement about how far Source A supports Source B.

Exam tip

This question is about what the two sources say, so you do not need facts of your own or comments on who wrote them. Go through Source B point by point and ask of each one: does Source A agree, disagree or say nothing? Quote a few words from both sources every time, and finish with a phrase that measures the support, such as 'to some extent' or 'strongly'. For more help, see the Exam Skills lesson Paper 2 Section A Question (b): How Far Does Source A Support Source B?

Test Your Knowledge
Chat to History tutor