Eastern Question

Mavi Boncuk | 

With the proletariat's emergence onto the scene with the 1848 Revolutions, labor movements undertook to expose diplomatic maneuvers in the major events of Europe's political era. But Marx and Engels, from their earliest writings onward, were not content with occasionally addressing the issue. During the Crimean War, the Eastern Question suddenly rose to the top of the world agenda. With this war, which could be called the "world war" of the 19th century, it began to definitively define the polarization of the great powers—the United States was also just becoming involved—that would continue until World War I, some 60 years later.

The difference was that Prussia had not yet achieved German unification and had not yet fully participated in European capitalist competition.

The Ottoman Empire's inclusion in the armed forces of a European alliance and its participation in what is today called the "International Community" is another milestone in the history of the Crimean War.

In an article by Friedrich Engels published in the New York Tribune on March 22, 1853 (signed by Marx-Engels), the excitement created by Prince Menchikov's visit to Istanbul was described as follows:

The problem that arose as soon as the revolutionary storm had momentarily subsided was undoubtedly the eternal 'Eastern Question.'[1]

Indeed, after the storm of the first French Revolution had passed and Tsar Alexander of Russia had divided all of Continental Europe between himself and Napoleon with the Peace of Tilsit, he took advantage of the calm of the time and sent an army against Turkey to 'support' the forces that were tearing the decaying empire apart from within.

Similarly, after the revolutionary movements in Western Europe had been suppressed by the Laibach and Verona congresses, Alexander's successor, Nicholas, launched a new attack on Türkiye. A few years later, when the July Revolution, along with the uprisings in Poland, Italy, and Belgium, had arrived and Europe seemed free from the internal storm it had assumed in 1831, the Eastern Question, a source of discord between the 'great powers.' "And it is on the verge of erupting into a general war. And now, while the short-sightedness of the ruling dwarves boasts and boasts of having successfully saved Europe from the dangers of anarchy and revolution, the eternal issue, the difficulty that has never been slow to reveal itself, once again emerges: What shall we do with Türkiye?" (The Eastern Question, pp. 16-17)

At the height of its power (1683), the Ottoman Empire controlled territory in the Near East and North Africa, as well as Central and Southeastern Europe.

[1] The Eastern question emerged as the power of the Ottoman Empire began to decline during the 18th century. The Ottomans were at the height of their power in 1683, when they lost the Battle of Vienna to the combined forces of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austria, under the command of John III Sobieski. Peace was made much later, in 1699, with the Treaty of Karlowitz, which forced the Ottoman Empire to cede many of its Central European possessions, including those portions of Hungary which it had occupied. Its westward expansion arrested, the Ottoman Empire never again posed a serious threat to Austria, which became the dominant power in its region of Europe. The Eastern question did not truly develop until the Russo-Turkish wars of the 18th century.

According to Karl Marx's writings around the Crimean War, the main factor of the Eastern question was Russian imperialism towards Turkey—with Turkey being a barrier that would protect the rest of Europe, and thus Britain's interests laid with the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War.

Rosa Luxemburg on Eastern Question

Making detailed political predictions about the distant future is wishful thinking. However, it is not impossible that the resistance of a liberated Turkey and the liberated Balkan countries will thwart Russian advances; for in such a case, Russian absolutism, which will be unable to see the final solution to the Istanbul problem and will be unable to participate in the solution of this issue, which attracts the attention of the entire world, will vanish.

Therefore, since our political interests fully coincide with our principled stance, we demand the acceptance of the following proposals for Social Democracy's current position on the Eastern Question:

[1] We must not assume that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire can or should be stopped by accepting it.

[2] We must fully support the tendencies towards autonomy of the Christian nations.

[3] While we welcome these tendencies primarily as a means of struggle against Tsarist Russia, we must persistently defend their independence against Russia, just as we did against the Ottomans. 

It is no coincidence that, in the problems we are addressing here, practical considerations have led to the same conclusions as our general principles. Since the principles and goals of Social Democracy derive from and are dependent on actual social development, it will sooner or later be seen that historical events largely contribute to the mill of Social Democracy, and that we can defend our immediate interests by maintaining our principled stance. Therefore, a deeper look at events always makes it unnecessary for us to consider certain diplomats as the cause of major popular movements and seek refuge in other diplomats—in other words, to adopt a purely coffeehouse policy.

Rosa Luxemburg