kryzys bułgarski (9)

CHAFTER 9

the Serb treaty in its form; it was chiefK a dynastie arrangement with King Charles (Carol) and h»s chief ministers, while the remainder ot" the Romanian cabinet was kept in the dark, This se-eretive feature was retained wben the treaty was renewed in 1892, 1902, and 1913.

The Austro-Serb and Austro-Romanian treaties, coupled with Battenberg's anti-Russian dnrt catapulted Austria to the height ot its influence in the Balkans. It is little wonder then that Austria turned a deafear to Bismarck^ repeated entreaties that. in order to compose its differ-ences with Russia, Austria shouid consent to a division of the Balkans into a western (Aus-trian), and an eastem (Russian), sphere of influence.³⁹

The importance of the Austro-Romanian-German treaty went beyond the Balkans. If Russia attaeked Romania and Austria honored its treaty commitment by striking back at Russia, Germany would have to intervene on Austriak side against Russia—even though Austria, in a pureh bilateral Austro-Russian conte\t. w as the attacking party, This scenario expanded Germany $ commitment under the Austro-German Dual Alliance (Document 9.13) and, moreli w contradicted Bismarck s ott-stated assurance that Germany had no interests—certainly nonę worth a Russo-German war—in the Balkans.

. Art. 2. If Rumami. without any piwocation on ker part, shouid be attaeked, Austria-Hungary is bound to bring her in ample time help and assistance against the aggrcssor. If Austria-Hungary be attaeked under the same circumstances in a portion of her States bordering on Rumania. the casus foederis will immediately arise for the latter.

Art. 3 If one of the High Contracting Parties shouid find itself threatened by an aggression under the abovc mentioned conditions, the respective Goremments shall put themselves in agreement as to the measures to be taken with a view to coopera-tion of their armies____

—Hurst, 2:630-32; Pribram, 1:79-89

9.18

CONVENTIONS OF PRETORIA AND LONDON

Pretoria Conoention, 3 August 1881 • London Conrention, 27 February 1884

In 1880-1881, a Boer revolt sought to undo the British annexation of the Transvaal of 1877. The Boer insurgents were remarkably successful and, in February 1881 at Majuba Hill, handed a British lorce a devastating defeat. Rather than fight on to reverse this fiasco, the Gladstone goyemment agreed to redefine the status of the Transvaal in a convention signed in August 1881 at Pretoria, the Capital of this Boer nepublic. After the Pretoria convention, the 1ransvaal—a landlocked quasi State under the "suzerainty of Her Majesty"—continued to be at the men. \ ot Britain, but the Boers sought to overcome the constraints imposed on them by geography by expanding into Bechuanaland to the west and toward the Indian Ocean. Bod» ertorts were trusuated by the British. In the London convention of 1884, the Boers at least managed to trade their territorial claims to Bechuanaland for an improvement of their legał

"Cl.    s insłnictions and marginalia ot June and luly 1884. CP. 3*36-39

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

OTTOMAN

EMPIRE

port^H

6UINEA ” SIERRA LEi

tOMAULANI

tT Eouator

GOLO TOGOLAND CO A ST

RIO MUNI

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

INDIAN

OCEAN

J*WCA

AMSIOUE ITUGUESE r AFRICA)

HT.(>an»\o Manjucs

Boundaiy of the Congo Free Trade Area

Lape Tourł

J Ottomen Empire

MAP 8 THE PAR Tl Tl ON OF AFRICA

Status. In omitting any mention of the 'suzerainty of Her Ma/esty’ over the Transsaal, the London convention on the surface appeared as a victory for the Boers. But by nullifying Boer ter-ritorial claims, the convention madę illusory the possibility, hovvever remote, ot a territorial link between the Transvaal and German South-West Atrica (Document 9.20). The Boers' at-tempt to reach the Indian Ocean also came to naught: British opposition blocked e\pansion through Zululand; similarly, all hope ot establishing a a /o/nt border with the colonial outpost