These passages by Trotsky on the Balkans do not look to me self-evidently
wrong. The problem with the second argument is that it does not deal with
grey situations that fall between one of the two ways he describes.
I am partly amused in view of the level of invective that sometimes comes
my way, but also interested to see the arguments between Hugh, Bob and Dave
now.
Isn't the practical problem that there are grey categories here and that
different people, whether Troskyist or not, see one aspect as primary or
the other as primary, according to context and criterion?
But I would be interested if any Trotskyist now thinks the arguments below
are outdated.
Chris Burford
London.
an article written in 1910, entitled "The Balkan Question and
Social Democracy."
"The frontiers between the dwarf states of the Balkan Peninsula were
drawn not in accordance with national conditions or national demands,
but as a result of wars, diplomatic intrigues, and dynastic interests. The
Great Powers ... have always had a direct interest in setting the Balkan
peoples and states against each other and then, when they have
weakened one another, subjecting them to their economic and political
influence. The petty dynasties ruling in these 'broken pieces' of the
Balkan Peninsula have served and continue to serve as levers for European
diplomatic intrigues."
"State unity of the Balkan Peninsula can be achieved in two ways: either
from above, by expanding one Balkan state, whichever proves strongest,
at the expense of the weaker ones--this is the road of extermination and
oppression of weak nations ... or from below, through the people
themselves coming together--this is the road of revolution..."
The Balkan Wars 1912-13 [New York: 1980]
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
