New system of international relations. European system of international relations: basic components and sources of dynamics
Purpose of the lesson: studying the formation, features, contradictions and growing crisis of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century.
Knowledge and skills acquired by the student as a result of mastering the topic, developed competencies or parts thereof:
Know:
- basic historical information on individual problems of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;
Techniques for compiling reviews and bibliographies on individual problems of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;
Be able to:
Understand, critically analyze and use basic historical information on selected issues of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;
Compile reviews and bibliographies on specific issues of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century;
Own:
Ability to understand, critically analyze and use basic historical information on selected issues of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century.
The ability to compile reviews and bibliographies on selected problems of the Vienna system of international relations in Europe in the 19th century.
Relevance of the topic
In the period from the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX centuries. profound changes are taking place in the forms and methods of noble-dynastic diplomacy of European states. Diplomacy of absolute monarchies of the 18th century. underwent changes under the influence of the American bourgeois revolution and the War of Independence of 1775-1783. and finally received a crushing blow from the Great French Revolution of 1789-1794.
The emerging bourgeoisie put forward as a basic principle the principle of the supremacy or sovereignty of the nation, which was first proclaimed in the field of diplomacy in the United States of America during the struggle for independence, and was further developed within the framework of French diplomacy during the French Revolution of the late 18th century. In the struggle against the feudal-monarchical forces, the French bourgeoisie proclaimed the slogans of the equality of peoples, their freedom and brotherhood. She demonstratively rejected the policy of conquest and secret treaties. However, the new foreign policy thus proclaimed was not always implemented in practice and often remained within the framework of verbal declarations, not counting individual attempts to apply it in France in the period before the Thermidorian coup on July 27, 1794.
The leadership of foreign policy was affected by the strengthening of the parliamentary system (primarily in Great Britain) and bourgeois-democratic freedoms in the advanced countries of Europe. Political parties and the press are beginning to have a certain influence on the formation of the foreign policy course of their country. More transparency is being introduced into diplomatic relations. The activities of foreign ministers and ambassadors are beginning to be subject to control. Communication means are being improved, which has an impact on the organization of foreign policy management: greater speed of communication contributes to greater centralization and efficiency of diplomatic leadership.
New methods of diplomacy are also emerging, differing from the period of diplomacy of absolute monarchies. Thus, exchanges of territories between dynasties are becoming rare. Issues of dynastic marriages and inheritances no longer play the same role in international relations. The dynastic wars that were characteristic of the first half of the 18th century are also becoming a thing of the past. in the history of international relations and European diplomacy. During this period, the problem of movements for national liberation became very acute - in Europe and Latin America. The importance of issues of customs policy and trade agreements, the struggle of the industrial bourgeoisie for markets for their goods is increasing.
The European bourgeoisie put forward a new principle of foreign policy - the “principle of non-interference”, which stemmed from the idea of the supremacy of the nation, and opposed the proclaimed feudal-absolutist principle of open interference in the internal affairs of other powers in order to suppress revolutions, and the principle of legitimism, which justifies the restoration of overthrown monarchies. The struggle between the principles of noble-dynastic diplomacy and the diplomacy of the rising bourgeoisie is a characteristic feature of international relations of the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries.
The most important events of this period were such as the French bourgeois revolution, in which new foreign policy principles were proclaimed, the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna and the formation of the Holy Alliance. These events led to a new territorial division in Europe and in the colonies and to a regrouping of political forces in Europe - the final assertion of English hegemony on the seas and in the colonies, the loss of France's former influence in Europe, the formation of a close union of European monarchs who established control over the political situation on the continent up to 1830
The most important stages in the development of international relations at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. the following can be distinguished:
1) 1789-1794, when the defining event was the struggle of the French Revolution with the counter-revolutionary coalition led by England;
2) 1794-1815, when the main phenomenon of international life was the struggle of bourgeois France with England - in Europe, on the seas and in the colonies. On the European continent, Russia became the main and most powerful enemy of France, striving to subjugate all of Europe to its dominion. A new system of international relations was created - the Vienna System
3) 1815-1830, when with the formation of the “Holy Alliance” and a new regrouping of forces in Europe, the dominance of the great powers was established - the main participants in the Congress of Vienna. After France was accepted, there were five of these powers - England, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France. Until the middle of the 19th century. The first three powers played a decisive role in international relations.
Theoretical part
Preparation of question 1. Congress of Vienna 1814-1815.
Soon after the victory over Napoleon, representatives of all European powers, with the exception of Turkey, gathered in the capital of Austria to resolve issues related to the restoration of feudal orders in Europe and some of the former dynasties overthrown during the Napoleonic wars. All participants in the congress were also united by another common task - the fight against revolutionary and democratic movements. In addition, the Congress had to provide stable guarantees that would not allow the restoration of the Bonapartist regime in France and attempts to conquer Europe, as well as satisfy the territorial claims of the victorious powers.
On September 23, a week before the opening of the congress, scheduled for October 1, 1814, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Louis XVIII, Prince Charles Maurice Talleyrand-Périgord, arrived in Vienna along with other French diplomats. Alexander I knew him well. It was not for nothing that he asked and received money from the king so many times, not being very offended if he was refused. But the brilliant mind of Sh.M. Talleyrand, inimitable dexterity, resourcefulness, knowledge of people - all this made him a very dangerous opponent. The weakness of his position was that at the Congress of Vienna he was the representative of a defeated country. He needed to show maximum intelligence and ability to maneuver.
When Sh.M. Talleyrand arrived in Vienna, he already knew which problem would take more attention of the Congress - the so-called key Polish-Saxon question. Alexander I, whose troops occupied the Duchy of Warsaw after Napoleon's retreat, declared quite openly that he would not yield the duchy to anyone. And since it consisted mainly of lands captured by Prussia through three more divisions of Poland and only taken from it by Napoleon in 1807, the Prussian king Frederick William III claimed compensation in the form of annexing the kingdom of Saxony to Prussia. Alexander I agreed with this condition, and planned to take away his possessions from the Saxon king under the pretext of punishment for the fact that he had been a loyal ally of Napoleon for so long. Sh.M. Talleyrand immediately saw that it was most advantageous to fight on this basis. And a diplomatic battle was necessary to achieve its main goal: to break the Chaumont Union, i.e. in other words, to drive wedges between Austria, England, Russia and Prussia.
In April-May 1814, Russia, in terms of its military forces, which at that moment were at the disposal of the Russian government, was undoubtedly stronger than all other states of devastated and bloodless continental Europe. That is why the Austrian Foreign Minister K. Metternich did everything possible to postpone the congress until the fall and allow Austria to recover somewhat. Alexander I agreed to such a delay, despite the fact that he could not stand K. Metternich and well understood his intrigues and the game of politicians hostile to Russia, although touchingly flattering the tsar in the eyes - Lord R. Castlereagh and the French king Louis XVIII.
They all looked with concern to see if Alexander I would want to play the role of the new ruler of Europe. Alexander I did not really want the accession of Louis XVIII to the vacant French throne. When he finally reigned, the Russian Tsar resolutely insisted on the need to grant France a constitutional charter. Not, of course, because he liked constitutional institutions. The Tsar was convinced that the Bourbon dynasty would be swept away by a new revolution if a constitutional system was not established in France as a lightning rod. Alexander I had a negative attitude towards King Louis XVIII and his brother Charles of Artois, and they, in turn, were afraid of him and were ready to use all sorts of tricks to get rid of his tutelage.
Arriving in Vienna, Sh.M. Talleyrand was invited to take part in a meeting of representatives of the four “great” powers. He did not come there as a representative of a defeated nation. In an arrogant and very self-confident tone, he immediately asked the audience why other members of the French delegation had not received an invitation to this meeting, while Prussia, for example, was represented at it not only by K.A. Hardenberg, but also W. Humboldt. Referring to the fact that the Treaty of Paris was signed by representatives of not four, but eight powers, he demanded that, in addition to representatives of France, representatives of Spain, Portugal and Sweden also be involved in the preliminary meetings. In the end, he achieved that he was admitted to the steering committee and thereby got the opportunity to intrigue in order to push and quarrel the recent allies with each other.
At the beginning of October 1814 Sh.M. Talleyrand came to Emperor Alexander I and put forward his notorious “principle of legitimism.” The Russian Tsar must give up parts of Poland that did not belong to Russia before the revolutionary wars, and Prussia must not lay claim to Saxony. “I put rights above benefits!” - said Sh.M. Talleyrand in response to the Tsar's remark that Russia should receive from its victory the benefits it deserves. Apparently, this blew up Alexander, who, generally speaking, knew how to control himself, but in this case declared - “War is better!”
Negotiations followed with Lord R. Castlereagh. Alexander I told him that he did not set himself the task of immediately, right there, at the Congress of Vienna, to reunite all parts of the former Poland. For now, he can only talk about the Polish territory that is now, in 1814, occupied by his troops. He will create the Kingdom of Poland from this part of Poland, where he himself will be a constitutional monarch. He will not only restore the Kingdom of Poland from areas that, by right of conquest, he could simply annex to Russia; he will even donate to this constitutional kingdom the Bialystok district, acquired by Russia in 1807, as well as the Tarnopol district, acquired by it in 1809.
Lord R. Castlereagh recognized the proposed constitution that the Tsar wants to give to Poland as too “liberal” and therefore dangerous for Austria and Prussia. He expressed fear that the Austrian and Prussian Poles would become agitated, jealous of their fellows enjoying the constitution. The Tsar so stubbornly argued that he cared about the independence and freedom of Poland that the minister of bourgeois England tried to convince him not to be so liberal. The Austrian government, even more than the British, feared the creation of a liberal regime in Poland and, as it seemed to them, an exorbitant increase in the power of Russia by annexing most of the Polish lands. The Austrian Chancellor then offered Lord R. Castlereagh the following solution: to let the Prussian Commissioner K.A. know. Hardenberg that Austria and England agree to give all of Saxony to the Prussian king. But Prussia must immediately betray Alexander I, join Austria and England, and together with him prevent the Tsar from taking possession of the Duchy of Warsaw. Thus, Saxony was supposed to serve as payment to the king for betraying Alexander.
King Frederick William III nevertheless decided to abandon this plan. It was clear that it was not without reason that Prince K. Metternich and Lord R. Castlereagh did not attract S.M. Talleyrand to the intended deal. For the King of Prussia, the full danger of his position was suddenly revealed: what would happen if Talleyrand told Alexander I about everything, and most importantly, he himself proposed joint diplomatic, and perhaps not only diplomatic actions of France and Russia against Prussia? The nightmare of the Franco-Russian alliance, the bitterness of the Tilsit and post-Tilsit times were all too vivid. In the end, King Frederick William III recognized it as good to inform Alexander I about everything in order to prove the nobility of his own intentions. The Tsar called K. Metternich and had a clear conversation with him. Regarding this, Sh.M. Talleyrand gloatingly informed Louis XVIII that even with a guilty lackey they did not speak the same way as Alexander I talked with K. Metternich.
The work of the Congress did not move forward due to persistent internal struggle. Then Sh.M. Talleyrand changed tactics, maintaining the same goal: to deepen the split in the ranks of the winners. France was interested not so much in preventing the strengthening of Russia as in preventing Prussia, France's immediate neighbor and enemy, from strengthening. And so Talleyrand makes it clear to Alexander I that France will not support England and Austria in their opposition against the creation of the Kingdom of Poland within Alexander’s empire; however, France will under no circumstances agree to the transfer of Saxony to the Prussian king. Frederick William III himself, as well as his diplomatic representatives K.A. Hardenberg and W. Humboldt played a very minor role at the congress. He was promised Saxony. Alexander I called the Saxon king a traitor, said that he would send him to Russia, assured that Prussia would receive Saxony in exchange for the part of Poland it had lost, and so on. the king was calm for some time. Talleyrand's activities were facilitated by the acute contradictions of his recent allies and, above all, by the active opposition to the plans of Russia and Prussia on the part of English and Austrian diplomacy. Trying by any means to prevent the strengthening of Russia and limit its influence achieved as a result of the victory over Napoleon, Lord R. Castlereagh and K. Metternich even went so far as to conclude a secret alliance with France. Sh.M. Talleyrand, of course, did not miss the opportunity to separate the recent victors of France.
The Congress of Vienna cemented Germany's political fragmentation. Alexander I, like K. Metternich, considered it expedient to consolidate the feudal fragmentation of Germany. England was completely indifferent to this issue, and Prussia was powerless, even if it wanted to join the fight. The entire state of mind of the leaders of the Vienna Congress testified to the reluctance of the parties, at least in some way, to meet the aspirations of the rising bourgeoisie; the failure of the German people's hopes for the unification of Germany was another characteristic stroke in the picture of the complete triumph of reaction.
According to the plan of K. Metternich, the congress outlined the creation of an organization called the “German Confederation”. To conduct the affairs of this union, the so-called “German Diet” was created. Austria, Prussia and other German states (38 in total) were included in the union. The task of the German Confederation, according to the plans of K. Metternich, included creating a barrier against a possible future advance of France towards the Rhine and at the same time ensuring Austria a leading position in Germany.
The presidency of the Diet, whose seat was the city of Frankfurt am Main, was entrusted to the Austrian representative, and the votes at the Diet were distributed in such a way that Austria was given the final say. Of course, this ugly creation was not at all designed to unite the German people, but, on the contrary, to perpetuate its fragmentation and preserve small feudal monarchies. Germany thereby found itself fragmented again.
The Congress had already begun to sum up the results of its work, when suddenly its participants were shocked by unexpected news. March 1, 1815 Napoleon landed in France. And three weeks later, on March 20, Napoleon had already entered Paris. The Empire was restored. Undoubtedly, rumors about the disagreements that tore apart the Congress of Vienna played a significant role in Napoleon’s decision to leave Fr. Elba. An amazing surprise awaited him in Paris. In the office of the king, who fled Paris only a day before Napoleon's entry, he found that same secret agreement on January 3, 1815, one of three copies of which was sent to Louis XVIII. Napoleon immediately ordered this document to be sent to Vienna and presented to Emperor Alexander I.
Alexander I, having read the secret treaty directed against him, blushed with anger, but restrained himself. When K. Metternich came to him, who since the return of Napoleon had been waiting mainly for the salvation of Europe from the tsar, the tsar silently handed him the secret fruit of the Austrian chancellor's diplomatic creativity. K. Metternich was so confused that, apparently, for the first and last time in his life he couldn’t even find something to lie about. The surprise was very great.
However, the fear of Napoleon took over, and Alexander I immediately felt forced to tell K. Metternich that, despite everything, they had a common enemy - namely Napoleon. Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo on June 18, 1815, inflicted by the troops of the Seventh Coalition under the command of Duke A.W. Wellington and Marshal G.L. Blucher, completed the history of the Napoleonic wars.
A few days before Waterloo, June 9, 1815, the last meeting of the Congress of Vienna took place, as well as the signing of its Final Act, which consisted of 121 articles and 17 separate annexes. It seemed to the congress participants that they had created something very lasting. However, the reactionary utopia of the congress was to, regardless of either the new relations of production or the twenty-five-year storm that destroyed the old foundations of feudalism and absolutism in Europe, to keep this part of the world within the framework of an outdated system. This utopia underlay all the activities of the Congress.
Belgium was given to the new Dutch king; Denmark was approved, in addition to the Duchy of Schleswig, and German Holstein; Austria was given the purely Italian population of Lombardy and Venice; Germany remained fragmented into 38 independent states. Poland was again divided into three parts, and from the lands of the former Duchy of Warsaw a new Kingdom of Poland was created, which, according to the decision of the congress, was supposed to be “in inextricably linked with Russia”, and was governed by a constitution granted by the Russian Tsar. Poznan, Gdansk (Danzig) and Torun were left to Prussia, and Western Ukraine (Galicia) was left to Austria. The city of Krakow “with the region belonging to it” was declared “for eternity a free, independent and completely neutral city” under the patronage of Russia, Austria and Prussia.
Prussia, in compensation for the Polish territories it lost, received, in addition to the northern part of Saxony, also about. Rügen and Swedish Pomerania, and in the west - the Rhine-Westphalia region. As a result, the Hohenzollern kingdom, despite resistance from S.M. Talleyrand and K. Metternich, strengthened largely as a result of support from the tsar, as well as the position taken by British diplomats at the congress. Despite the fact that Prussia remained torn into two parts - the old, eastern, and the new, western, - soon after 1815 it began to gain strength and become dangerous for its neighbors.
Austria also gained significant strength, gaining the Tyrol, Valtelina, Trieste, Dalmatia and Illyria. In Modena, Tuscany and Parma, the closest relatives of Emperor Francis I were placed on the throne, binding themselves to close alliance treaties with Austria. The same treaties connected the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies with Austria, where Bourbon power was restored, and with the Papal States. Thus, in fact, the power of the Habsburgs extended to almost the entire territory of Italy, which remained in a state of political fragmentation.
The two most powerful European powers - England and Russia - emerged from long wars with France significantly stronger and stronger. England expanded its already huge colonial possessions. She remained in full measure the “mistress of the seas,” having achieved the elimination of her main rival, France, and, forcing other countries to recognize the essentially predatory “law of the sea” established by herself, i.e., the “right” to stop on the high seas and inspect trade ships of neutral countries for the purpose of confiscating goods sent to enemy harbors. The establishment of British rule on the island was especially important. Malta and the Ionian Islands, turned into naval bases, into outposts of the English bourgeoisie on the approaches to the countries of the Near and Middle East. Tsarist Russia emerged from the wars with Napoleonic France having significantly expanded to include the lands of the former Duchy of Warsaw, Finland and Bessarabia. On the European continent, Russia no longer had rivals quite equal to it.
In addition to resolving basic political and territorial issues. The Congress of Vienna adopted a number of special additional regulations in the form of acts attached to the main treatise. Among them, a special place is occupied by the “Declaration of the Powers on the Elimination of Trade in Negroes,” signed on February 8, 1815, as well as the “Regulations on the Ranks of Diplomatic Representatives,” adopted by Congress on March 19, 1815.
The latter for the first time established uniformity in the ranks of various diplomatic representatives, which then entered diplomatic use for many years as a norm of international law. This resolution put an end to the endless quarrels and conflicts over issues of seniority that were common in the diplomatic practice of the 18th century. The ranks were established as follows: 1) Ambassador, papal legate and nuncio; 2) Messenger; 3) Chargé d'affaires. Later, in 1818, to these three ranks was added the rank of minister-resident, placed between envoys and chargés d'affaires.
The victorious sovereigns, who gathered in Vienna in September 1814, set themselves three main goals: to create guarantees against a possible repetition of aggression from France; satisfy their own territorial claims; destroy all the consequences of the French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century. and restore the old feudal-absolutist order everywhere.
But only the first of these goals was actually fully achieved. As for the second - the satisfaction of territorial claims - only a few victorious countries emerged from the long and bloody wars with France having actually expanded at the expense of other, weaker states of Europe. The third goal of the Congress of Vienna - the eradication of revolutionary principles and the complete establishment of the principles of legitimism - could not be achieved by its participants. The Holy Alliance of European monarchs, created to suppress the national liberation movement in Europe, symbolized the onset of reaction.
The Congress of Vienna decided the fate of France, secured the redistribution of colonies and territories of European countries in the interests of the victorious states. Thus, a new system of international relations, called the Vienna system, was established in Europe and in the world as a whole, consolidating new approaches and forms of relations and laying down new nodes contradictions on the continent.
Preparation of question 2. Congresses of the Holy Alliance - Aachen, Troppau, Laibach, Verona.
The people's struggle against Napoleon ended with the collapse of the French Empire. The victory over Napoleon was used to its advantage by a coalition of monarchical, feudal-absolutist states. The destruction of the Napoleonic Empire led to the triumph of the noble-monarchist reaction in Europe.
The peace treaty with France, the renewed Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance and the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna formed the basis of international relations after the Napoleonic era, which went down in history as the “Viennese system”. The interests of the victorious powers were contradictory. But at the final stage of the Congress of Vienna, members of the anti-Napoleonic coalition had to overcome mutual contradictions and make compromise decisions. The decisions of the Congress of Vienna contributed to the strengthening of the noble-monarchist reaction in Europe. To intensify the fight against revolutionary and national liberation movements, the reactionary governments of European states concluded a Holy Alliance among themselves.
The Holy Alliance entered the history of European diplomacy as an organization with a clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the idea of suppressing the revolutionary spirit and political and religious love of freedom, wherever they manifest themselves. The Holy Alliance of the victorious countries became the stronghold of the new international political system established by the Congress of Vienna. The act of this union, drawn up by the Russian Emperor Alexander I, was signed on September 26, 1815 by the Austrian Emperor Franz I, the Prussian King Frederick William III, and was sent on their behalf to other European powers. In November 1815, the French king Louis XVIII joined the Holy Alliance. Subsequently, almost all European states joined it, with the exception of England, which was not formally part of it, but its government often coordinated its policies with the general line of the Holy Alliance.
The Pope did not sign the act, fearing discontent among Catholics in different countries. The text of the document stated that by the sacred bonds of true brotherhood and the principles of the Christian religion they undertake to provide each other with assistance, reinforcement and assistance. The goal of the participants was to preserve the European borders established by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and to fight against all manifestations of the “revolutionary spirit”.
In the Holy Alliance, especially in the first years of its existence, the main role was played by the major diplomat and Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich, and the entire policy of the Holy Alliance is sometimes called “Metternichian”. Russian Emperor Alexander I also played a major role in the union. The participants of the Holy Alliance adhered to the principles of legitimism in their policies, i.e. the most complete restoration of the old dynasties and regimes overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon's armies, and proceeded from the recognition of an absolute monarchy. The struggle of the Holy Alliance, as an organ of pan-European reaction against any liberal, much less revolutionary and national liberation aspirations, was expressed in the resolutions of its congresses.
In the political life of the Holy Alliance, three periods should be distinguished.
The first period - the period of actual power - lasted seven years - from September 1815, when the union was created, until the end of 1822, when the fourth congress of the Holy Alliance took place. This period of his activity is characterized by the greatest activity.
The second period of activity of the Holy Alliance begins in 1823, when it achieves its last victory by organizing an intervention in Spain. At the same time, the consequences of the coming to power of the British Foreign Minister George Canning in mid-1822 began to appear. This period lasted until the July Revolution of 1830 in France, after which the Holy Alliance was already in ruins.
The third period of activity of the Holy Alliance 1830-1856. - the period of its formal existence in the presence of serious disagreements among its participants.
In total, four congresses of the Holy Alliance took place: the Aachen Congress in 1818, the Troppau Congress in 1820, the Laibach Congress in 1821, the Verona Congress in 1822. In addition to the heads of the three powers - the founders of the Holy Alliance, representatives of England and France took part in them.
The first congress of the Holy Alliance took place in Aachen in 1818. It was convened in order to further strengthen the political balance in Europe. A proposal to meet the allied courts to discuss the situation in France was made by the Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich in March 1817. He had far-reaching goals; he sought, firstly, to weaken the political opposition to the Bourbons and stop the growth of revolutionary sentiment in Europe; secondly, by advocating the return of France to the ranks of the great powers, to reduce Russia’s influence on it; thirdly, by tying France with treaty obligations with England, Austria and Prussia, to prevent the strengthening of Russian-French influence in Europe. It was he who proposed choosing the quiet German town of Aachen as the meeting place for the allies, where the German rulers could not influence the course of the meeting.
During the preparation of the Aachen Congress, disagreements emerged between the Allied powers regarding the agenda of the congress and the composition of its participants. All the Allied powers understood that French problems would take center stage at the upcoming meeting.
The Russian side believed that such a meeting should help strengthen the “Vienna system” and sought to bring up a wide range of European problems for discussion. According to the St. Petersburg cabinet, most European countries could take part in its work. But Alexander I agreed to limit the number of participants in the meeting if only one issue was considered - the withdrawal of allied troops from France. Alexander I considered it necessary to quickly withdraw foreign troops from France, which, after their evacuation, would take its proper place in the European community.
Austrian Chancellor Metternich argued that the main purpose of the meeting should be to consider the internal political situation in France. The Austrian court expected to hold the meeting only on the basis of the Quadruple Alliance, which limited the number of its participants and did not give Russian diplomacy the opportunity to maneuver. If the St. Petersburg court sought to avoid the principle of excluding small states when holding a future meeting, the governments of Austria, Prussia and England were of the opposite opinion.
During the preparations for the Congress of Aachen, Austrian memoranda of 1818 stated that the four Allied powers had the exclusive right to change the conventions and treaties of 1815, as well as to reject requests from European countries to participate in the meeting. However, this program could undermine the political balance in Europe. Therefore, K. Metternich was forced to make changes to it. The new version indicated that all questions, except for questions about the timing of the end of the occupation of France and its role in the “Vienna system,” should have been considered with the direct participation of interested parties.
On the eve of the Congress of Aachen, diplomats from the allied countries met in the allied town of Carlsbad. The last round of diplomatic preparations for the Congress took place here, the main purpose of which was to try to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the programs with which the allies and rivals were going to the upcoming meeting. By the beginning of the congress, the program of the Russian delegation had not changed. Austria's position also remained the same, but changes were made to the program of the British delegation. The memorandum, drawn up by Lord R. Castlereagh and approved as instructions for English representatives, noted the advisability of the complete withdrawal of allied troops from France while fulfilling its financial obligations. It was further emphasized that it was necessary to preserve the Quadruple Alliance in its original form, and, therefore, France could not become its full member.
The Aachen Congress opened on September 20, 1818, in which Russia, Austria, England, Prussia and France took part. The participants of the congress were respectively represented by the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs K.V. Nesselrode, Chancellor of Austria K. Metternich, Foreign Minister of England Lord R. Castlereagh, Foreign Minister of Prussia K.A. Hardenberg, Prime Minister of France, Duke of Richelieu. The delegations of Russia, Austria and Prussia were headed by Emperors Alexander I, Franz I and Friedrich Wilhelm III. In addition to them, many English, Austrian, Prussian, Russian and French diplomats of lower ranks gathered in Aachen.
During the work of the congress, French and Spanish issues, problems of prohibiting the slave trade and protecting merchant shipping, and a number of others were considered. The first to be resolved was the withdrawal of occupation forces from France. On September 27, 1818, conventions were signed between France and members of the Quadruple Alliance on the withdrawal of all allied troops by November 30, 1818 and the timely payment of indemnity in the amount of 260 million francs.
The Duke of Richelieu insisted on turning the Quadruple Alliance into an alliance of five powers, however, at the request of Lord R. Castlereagh and the German courts, a special convention of the four powers was signed on November 1, 1818, which confirmed the Quadruple Alliance, created to preserve the order established in France. Only after this, on November 3, 1818, the Allies invited France to join the four powers in maintaining state borders and the political system established by the Congress of Vienna.
The Declaration of November 3, 1818, signed by all participants in the congress, proclaimed their solidarity in maintaining the principles of “International law, tranquility, faith and morals, the beneficial effect of which has been so shaken in our times.” Behind this phrase was hidden the desire of the five monarchies to jointly strengthen the absolutist system in Europe and combine their forces to suppress revolutionary movements.
Despite the fact that officially there were only two issues related to French problems on the agenda of the meeting, other aspects of international relations were simultaneously considered at the congress: the issue of mediation of powers in the conflict between Spain and its colonies, issues of freedom of merchant shipping and the cessation of the slave trade. A specific decision was made only on the issue of protecting merchant shipping from piracy. It was recommended that England and France contact the North African regencies with a warning that piracy was damaging world trade and could lead to dire consequences for them.
The Congress of Aachen was the first major event in the history of European diplomacy after the creation of the “Vienna System”. His decisions strengthened it and showed that the great powers were interested in preserving their alliance. The decisions of the Aachen Congress were aimed at preserving the Restoration order in Europe.
The second congress of the five allied powers - Austria, Russia, Prussia, France and England, opened in Troppau on October 11, 1820 (Silesia). The Congress was convened on the initiative of K. Metternich in connection with the revolution of 1820 in the Kingdom of Naples, which posed a threat to Austrian rule in Lombardy and Venice.
The Congress took place in an atmosphere of intense diplomatic struggle. At the first meeting, Chancellor K. Metternich presented a “Note”, which substantiated “the right of the Allied powers to intervene in the internal affairs of states in order to suppress revolutions in them.” He sought moral support for the Austrian proposals and emphasized that there was no other way to fight the Neapolitan revolution other than military intervention.
The Russian delegation proposed to take joint moral action against the Neapolitan revolution. Prussian representatives supported the Austrian point of view, and the representatives of England and France refused to take part in the formalization of any decisions. On November 7, 1820, Russia, Austria and Prussia signed the Preliminary Protocol and its amendments, which proclaimed the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states (without an invitation from their governments) to suppress revolutionary uprisings there.
The representatives of England and France were familiarized with the texts of the Preliminary Protocol and its additions. They recognized the right of the Allies to intervene in the Neapolitan events, but refused to officially accede to these documents. Thus, despite the formal refusal to approve the decisions taken at Troppau, neither the British nor the French representatives condemned the very right of intervention in the internal affairs of an independent state. The protocol signed by the participants of the congress authorized the occupation of the Kingdom of Naples by Austria. At the insistence of Alexander I, the protocol ensured the preservation of the integrity of the kingdom and the possibility for the Neapolitan king to voluntarily grant a constitution to his people. Discussion of the issue of combating revolutions in Europe continued at the third congress of the Holy Alliance in Laibach, which opened on January 11, 1821.
Representatives of the Italian states invited to the congress sought to suppress the Neapolitan revolution and thought little about the consequences of the Austrian intervention for the whole of Italy. England was outwardly neutral, but in fact approved the Austrian plan, as did Prussia. France supported the very idea of intervention. In February 1821, the campaign of Austrian troops against Naples began.
The official closing of the congress in Laibach took place on February 26, and in fact on May 12, 1821. Most of the participants remained in Laibach, monitoring the actions of the Austrian troops and the Viennese court in Piedmont. After the suppression of the Italian revolutions, the representatives of Austria, Prussia and Russia signed a declaration to extend the occupation of Naples and Piedmont and confirmed their determination to use violent methods to restore the power of legitimate monarchs. The Declaration, together with the Preliminary Protocol and its amendments, reflected the ideological principles of the Holy Alliance.
The situation in Europe after the suppression of the Italian revolutions continued to remain turbulent. In the spring of 1822, participants in the Troppau-Laibach Congress began a diplomatic probe in order to find out each other’s positions on the fight against the revolution in Spain. The next meeting of the monarchs of the allied powers was envisaged at the congress in Laibach. A proposal to convene a new meeting was made by Emperor Francis I to Russian Tsar Alexander I at the beginning of June 1822. Verona was chosen as the venue for the new congress. The monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, Italian sovereigns, and numerous diplomats gathered in this ancient city. England was represented by a prominent statesman, Duke Arthur of Wellington.
The Congress in Verona took place from October 20 to November 14, 1822. It was the last and most representative among the diplomatic congresses of the Holy Alliance. The main role was played by five great powers who called themselves allies. Representatives of Italian states were assigned a secondary role: they participated in the discussion of Italian problems. Formally, the alliance of the five powers still existed, but there was no longer unity between them. The beginning of the Eastern crisis led to deepening contradictions. England was the first to retreat. France pursued a cautious policy. The program of the Russian delegation was conservative in nature.
The main problem at the congress was the preparation, on the initiative of the French king, of intervention to suppress the revolution in Spain. At a meeting of the plenipotentiaries of the Five Powers on October 20, 1822, the French Foreign Minister asked for “moral support” for his government to intervene in Spain in order to protect France from the influence of the revolution. Representatives of England, Prussia and Russia reacted positively to this initiative. A. Wellington stated that the French proposal contradicts the English position of non-intervention, so it cannot be approved.
Behind this statement lay the fear of the British side that France would strengthen its position in Spain and in the Mediterranean as a whole. On November 19, 1822, a protocol was signed, which was a secret agreement between the four powers on measures to overthrow the revolutionary government in Spain. A. Wellington refused to sign it under the pretext that it could create a danger to the life of the Spanish king.
Preparation of question 3. Polish and German questions. Creation of the German Confederation
The French Revolution of 1830 also gave impetus to the Polish movement, and an uprising broke out in Warsaw late that year. The entire Polish army joined the uprising. The Polish Sejm, meeting in Warsaw, declared the Romanov dynasty deprived of the Polish throne and established a provisional revolutionary government. The history of the Polish uprising can be divided into two periods.
The first period of the uprising from its beginning, that is, from November 29, 1830 to January 25, 1831, when, by a resolution of the Warsaw Sejm, Emperor Nicholas I was declared dethroned from the throne of the Kingdom of Poland. During this period, European diplomacy had a formal basis to inquire from Nicholas I whether he intended, despite the fact of the uprising, to recognize the state structure of the Kingdom of Poland, which was granted by Alexander I at the Congress of Vienna, and which Nicholas I himself swore to protect in the Manifesto to the Poles. accession to the throne on December 13, 1825
During the second period of the uprising, foreign representatives could only speak privately with the tsar about Polish affairs. Having deposed Nicholas I from the throne, the Poles, in the opinion of European diplomacy, themselves destroyed the constitution of 1815. From now on, that is, after January 25, 1831, there was a war between the Russian Empire and the Polish state, which arose in a revolutionary way and was not recognized by any of the European powers . None of the European powers considered it possible for themselves to intervene in this war diplomatically or with weapons in their hands, and all of them remained only in the position of spectators until the end of the uprising.
The government of Nicholas I had to enter into an armed conflict with Poland. Polish patriots were not satisfied with the constitution of 1815 and could not come to terms with the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; they sought to restore the complete state independence of Poland, and, moreover, within the borders of 1772. However, disagreements and discord soon began among the leaders of the revolution, and the Polish army was not strong enough to fight the Russian one. In 1831 the uprising was suppressed.
After the suppression of the uprising, the constitutional charter of 1815 was canceled, a separate Polish army was destroyed, and Polish universities in Warsaw and Vilna were closed. The Kingdom of Poland was divided into provinces and subordinated to the imperial governor, who ruled the country with the help of a council of the main officials of the region. In the Western Russian regions, many lands that belonged to participants in the uprising were confiscated and transferred to the hands of the Russian government.
Thus, in 1830-1831. A wave of revolutions swept across Europe, which had a decisive impact on the pan-European situation in Europe. The three "glorious days" of the July 1830 uprising in Paris brought an end to the Restoration regime in France. It took no more than four months for all members of the European Areopagus to recognize in principle the rebellious Belgium’s right to secede from the Kingdom of the Netherlands and to exist independently, thereby allowing for the revision of one of the “inviolable” resolutions of the Congress of Vienna. The Holy Alliance ceased to be a pan-European security system. Under the new monarch, the “bourgeois king” Louis Philippe, France could no longer be part of the conservative alliance. The difference in the nature of the state system between the two parliamentary monarchies of the West - Great Britain and France, on the one hand, and the absolutist powers of Eastern Europe - Russia, Austria and Prussia, on the other, affected their approaches to solving the problems brought by the revolutionary wave, and, ultimately, In general, it determined the composition of the unions into which the European pentarchy was breaking up at this time.
Preparation of question 4. Second Peace of Paris (1815).
On January 3, 1815, a secret agreement was signed by representatives of the three powers. It was directed against Russia and Prussia and obliged Austria, France and England, in the event “if... one of the high contracting parties were in danger from one or more powers,” to come to the aid of each other, deploying armies of 150 each for this purpose. thousand soldiers each. All three participants pledged not to conclude separate peace treaties with their opponents. Of course, the agreement had to be kept in the strictest confidence from Alexander I and from anyone else in general.
This secret agreement so strengthened the energy of resistance to the Saxon project that Alexander I could either decide to break and, perhaps, go to war, or give in. Having received everything he wanted in Poland, Alexander I did not want to quarrel over Prussia, much less fight with the three great powers. He conceded: Prussia was given only part of Saxony. The Saxon king finally settled in his possessions, which, however, were significantly curtailed.
Preparation of question 5. Features of the Vienna system of international relations (“European concert”)
In the mid-70s. XIX century The national liberation movement in the Balkans flared up with renewed vigor. It was caused by the strengthening of the economic and political oppression of the Turks and the socio-economic development of the peoples under their control. The July uprising of 1875 in Herzegovina and the anti-Turkish uprising in August of the same year in Bosnia marked the beginning of a powerful liberation movement of the Balkan peoples. The Eastern crisis began.
In an effort to help the rebels, but not wanting to bring the matter to a military conflict, Russia proposed that Austria-Hungary jointly demand that Turkey grant autonomy to the rebels. Austria-Hungary feared the spread of the national liberation movement to its territory, which threatened its imperial foundations. However, she failed to maintain this position. There were influential elements in Austria who hoped to resolve the South Slav question differently: they thought of incorporating the South Slav areas of the western half of the Balkans into the Habsburg state, starting with the seizure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Supporters of this plan were ready to agree that Russia would receive the eastern part of the Balkans. Emperor Franz Joseph really wanted to at least somehow compensate himself for the losses suffered in Italy and Germany. Therefore, he listened with great sympathy to the voice of the annexationists. These politicians energetically encouraged the anti-Turkish movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Russia advocated supporting the uprising, but without entering into conflict with Austria-Hungary. A. Gorchakov decided to intervene in Balkan affairs in contact with Austria-Hungary. This policy was also consistent with the principles of the agreement of the three emperors. In August 1875, the European powers offered the Turkish Sultan their mediation in resolving relations between the Porte and the rebels. Moreover, A. Gorchakov insisted that Turkey fulfill all its obligations regarding the Christian population of its regions. D. Andrássy, with the consent of A. Gorchakov, prepared a note containing a draft reform for Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to this project, it was provided for the provision of complete freedom of religion to the population, the abolition of the tax farming system, the use of regional income for local needs, the establishment of a mixed commission of Christians and Muslims to monitor the implementation of reforms, and the provision of land to the Christian population.
On December 30, 1875, Andrássy presented to the governments of all powers that had signed the Treaty of Paris of 1856 a note outlining this project of reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All powers expressed their agreement with D. Andrassy's proposals. On January 31, 1876, D. Andrássy’s project in the form of the Vienna Ultimatum was presented by Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, England, France and Italy to the Turkish government. The Porte gave its consent to the introduction of the reforms proposed in D. Andrássy’s note. But the rebels put forward a number of more radical demands: an immediate truce, the transfer of a third of the land to the peasants, a guarantee from the powers on the issue of reforms. The Turkish government rejected these demands. Thus, D. Andrássy’s diplomatic enterprise failed.
Then Russian diplomacy appeared on the scene again. A. Gorchakov suggested that Andrássy and Bismarck arrange a meeting of the three ministers in Berlin, timed to coincide with the upcoming visit of the Tsar. In May 1876 the meeting took place. A. Gorchakov’s project, in contrast to D. Andrássy’s note, demanded not reforms, but autonomy for individual Slavic regions of the Balkan Peninsula. However, D. Andrássy failed Gorchakov's plan, making so many amendments to it that it lost its original character. The finally agreed proposal of the three governments, called the Berlin Memorandum of 1876, provided that if the steps outlined in it did not produce the desired results, the three imperial courts would agree to take “effective measures to prevent the further development of evil.”
So, the Berlin Memorandum, adopted on May 13, 1876 by Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany and France and Italy who joined them, was transferred to the Turkish government. The Berlin Memorandum demanded that the Turkish government conclude a two-month truce with the rebels, provide them with assistance in restoring their homes and farms, and recognize the rebels’ right to retain weapons. The goal of the three imperial courts was to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, however, this was conditioned by easing the lot of Christians, in other words, by “improving” the status quo. This was the new diplomatic term with which A. Gorchakov expressed the main idea of the Berlin Memorandum.
France and Italy agreed with the program of the three emperors. The British government, represented by B. Disraeli, disagreed with the Berlin Memorandum, spoke out against new interference in Turkish affairs and thereby supported the struggle of the Turkish Sultan. In addition, England did not want Russia to establish itself in the straits and increase its influence in the Balkans.
England saw the Balkans as a springboard from which to threaten Constantinople. At the same time, she began to take possession of the Suez Canal and establish English dominance in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. With the passage of the straits into Russian hands, the main lines of communication of the British Empire could be threatened by the Russian fleet. Therefore, England sought to bring under its control not only Egypt, but also Turkey. In the event of a conflict over the Balkans, she could count on Turkey and Austria-Hungary. Therefore, it was more profitable for England to start a fight with Russia not in Central Asia, where it alone stood face to face with Russia, but in the Middle East. By his refusal to accept the Berlin Memorandum, B. Disraeli gained dominant influence in the Turkish capital, upset the European “concert” in Constantinople and encouraged Turkey to resist the demand of the three emperors.
Preparation of question 6. Creation of a new European order based on the principle of legitimism.
Sh.M. Talleyrand, even before the start of the Lieutenant Congress, understood well that from the point of view of the interests of France, it was most rational to put forward the so-called “principle of legitimism.” This principle was as follows: Europe, which gathered in the person of its sovereigns and diplomats at the Congress of Vienna, must, when redistributing lands and changing territorial boundaries, leave inviolate what legally existed before the outbreak of revolutionary wars, i.e. until 1792
If this principle had been accepted and implemented, not only would France have gained confidence in the integrity of her territory, which she was not at that moment in a position to defend by military force, but also Prussia and Russia would have been curbed in their desires for territorial expansion. Sh.M. It would, of course, be beneficial for Talleyrand to first come to an agreement with K. Metternich, who also did not want to give Poland to Russia, and Saxony to Prussia, and with Lord R. Castlereagh, who held the same opinion on this issue as K. Metternich. But such a general conspiracy had not yet taken place, and it was rather difficult to establish. Both Prince K. Metternich and Lord R. Castlereagh belonged to Sh.M. Talleyrand with suspicion, admitting the possibility of new betrayal on his part.
Preparation of question 7. Formation of the “Holy Alliance”, the pentarchy as guarantors of the Vienna system of international relations
Almost simultaneously with the appearance of the Berlin Memorandum, the Turks brutally suppressed the uprising in Bulgaria. B. Disraeli tried to somehow gloss over the Turkish atrocities. Meanwhile, Serbia and Montenegro were already preparing for armed intervention in favor of the Slavic rebels. Representatives of Russia and Austria in Belgrade officially warned against this. But on June 30, 1876, the war of Serbia and Montenegro against Turkey began. Under these conditions, the delivery of the Berlin Memorandum was delayed, and soon it lost all meaning and was no longer put forward.
There were about 4 thousand Russian volunteers in Serbia, including many officers. In addition, financial assistance came from Russia. By secretly encouraging both the rebels and the Serbian government, Russian tsarism risked a conflict with the great powers, for which Russia was not prepared either militarily or financially. Although the tsarist government feared such a conflict and, nevertheless, pursued such a policy.
The Serbo-Turkish war increased the danger of a pan-European explosion. If Turkey had won, Russia would inevitably have had to intervene and would have had to face Austria-Hungary. If Serbia had won, it most likely would have caused the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In this case, it would hardly have been possible to prevent a brutal fight between the great powers over the Turkish inheritance. The policy of Russian diplomats in the second half of 1876 tried to solve a difficult diplomatic task: to provide support to the Balkan Slavs, but not to clash with Austria-Hungary. The Serbian-Turkish War confronted the Russian government with the need to secure an agreement with Austria-Hungary in the event of an expansion of the political crisis in the Balkans. The meeting of Alexander II and A. Gorchakov with Franz Joseph and D. Andrássy in Bohemia, at Reichstadt Castle, on July 8, 1876, was devoted to the solution of this problem.
The Russian government achieved an agreement with Austria-Hungary, although no formal convention or even a protocol was signed at Reichstadt. The results of the Austro-Russian conspiracy on behalf of A. Gorchakov and D. Andrássy were recorded. According to both records, it was agreed at Reichstadt that both powers would for the time being adhere to the “principle of non-intervention.” If the Turks were successful, both sides pledged to act by mutual agreement, to demand the restoration of the pre-war situation in Serbia, as well as reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the event of a Serbian victory, the parties pledged that “the powers will not assist in the formation of a large Slavic state.” Due to discrepancies in the records of Russian and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, the Reichstadt Agreement harbored the seeds of many misunderstandings and conflicts.
At this time, Turkey's atrocities in Bulgaria were made public in England, which forced the government of B. Disraeli to somewhat change its foreign policy course. The predicament of the British government could not have come at a more opportune time for Russia. Russian diplomacy needed to save Serbia, since already in August 1876, Prince Milan turned to representatives of the powers in Belgrade with a request for mediation to end the war. All powers agreed. During the Constantinople Conference, the English ambassador conveyed to the Porte the proposal of the powers to grant Serbia a truce for a period of one month and immediately begin peace negotiations. Türkiye announced its agreement. However, at the same time, she put forward very strict conditions for the future peace treaty. European powers rejected Turkish demands. The ensuing discussion did not advance the issue of ending the Serbo-Turkish war. Meanwhile, the successes of the Turks forced Russia to rush to save Serbia.
In order to achieve an agreement with Austria-Hungary, Alexander II undertook a diplomatic probe to clarify Germany’s position in the event of a Russian-Turkish war. The aggravation of the “Eastern Question” came in very handy for O. Bismarck. These complications were supposed to quarrel between Russia and England and Austria. As a result, the Chancellor hoped to deprive France of those allies that had emerged for it in 1874-1875. and thus consolidate its diplomatic isolation. The Eastern crisis posed some danger for O. Bismarck, which consisted in a possible Russian-Austrian war. He really wanted a Russian-Turkish, and even more - an Anglo-Russian war, but he was afraid of a complete break between both of his partners in the alliance of the three emperors
In these diplomatic negotiations, more clearly than anywhere else, the balance of power that gradually began to be determined as a result of the Franco-Prussian War was outlined: Russia and France, on the one hand, Germany and Austria-Hungary, on the other. In 1876, both of these groups had not yet found their formalization in any treaties, but they had already become quite clearly visible in the international arena.
Chancellor Bismarck's refusal to force Austria-Hungary to become Russia's ally in the event of a Russo-Turkish war convinced the Russian government of the need to ensure Austria-Hungary's neutrality. On January 15, 1877, a secret convention was signed in Budapest, stipulating that in the event of a Russian-Turkish war, Austria-Hungary would maintain benevolent neutrality towards Russia. In exchange, she was given the right to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina with her troops. Thus, in January 1877, the tsarist government secured the neutrality of Austria-Hungary, and in March, Romania’s consent to allow Russian troops to pass through its territory.
After the failure of the Constantinople Conference, Russian-Turkish relations deteriorated sharply. Things were heading towards war. Nevertheless, the Russian government made another attempt to force Turkey to make some concessions to the great powers. The success of this diplomatic attempt depended on the position of the British government. In February 1877, Ignatiev was sent to European governments on a special mission, who was tasked with persuading them to sign a protocol that would confirm the decisions of the Constantinople Conference. On March 31, 1877, representatives of Russia, England, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy signed the London Protocol. Despite the fact that the British government signed this protocol, it encouraged Turkey to reject it. In response, on April 12, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey.
Preparation of question 8. Problems and contradictions of the Vienna system
The five “great powers” - England, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France constituted an important stronghold of the “Viennese system” of 1815. But over the course of three decades (1815-1848), the interests of these powers increasingly diverged.
In the 40s XIX century There was a sharp deterioration in relations between Prussia and Austria, and even more between Prussia and Russia. Until the early 40s, the tsar favored Prussia, not Austria, and was in the closest relations with the Berlin court. There were no disputes between Prussia and Russia that would lead to disagreements. But, starting in 1840, the center of the bourgeois-liberal movement in Germany began to move to Prussia. Among the Prussian bourgeoisie, the desire for the unification of Germany under the leadership of Prussia intensified.
These new facts have caused concern in Russia. It was more profitable for Nicholas I for Germany to remain fragmented, for it to have a system of counterbalance between Prussia and Austria, which mutually neutralized each other and allowed tsarism to play the role of arbiter in German affairs. By 1848, the unity of the three “northern courtyards” was shaken. In Vienna and St. Petersburg, distrust of Prussia grew. Nicholas I drew closer and closer to Austria, seeing in it a counterbalance to the liberal and national unification aspirations of the German bourgeoisie.
The foreign policy of the French government at this time was consistently reactionary in nature. Peace at all costs, peace based on unquestioning compliance with the treaties of 1815 was one of the foundations of French foreign policy.
The British bourgeoisie in 1848 still benefited from preserving the treaties of 1815. “System of 1815” excluded the possibility of dangerous domination of any one power on the mainland for England and provided England with the opportunity to exert significant influence on European affairs by intervening in the mutual struggle of Russia, Austria, France and Prussia.
England's main opponents were Russia and France. The British Foreign Minister G. Palmerston opposed French influence in the Italian states, Switzerland, and Spain. Protecting the neutrality of Belgium and Switzerland from encroachments by France was one of the foundations of his policy. He tried to prevent armed French intervention in Italian affairs. Strengthening the Kingdom of Sardinia as a barrier between France and Austria, strengthening Prussia as a counterweight to France and Russia - these were the few significant changes in the “Viennese system” that G. Palmerston found in 1848-1849. acceptable and desirable in the interests of the traditional British policy of “European balance”.
Preparation of question 9. The growing crisis of the Vienna system
Revolutions of 1848-1849 flared up not only against internal reaction, but also threatened to radically undermine the entire European system of international relations, which had developed on the basis of the reactionary Viennese treaties of 1815.
In France, the revolution of 1848 put the French bourgeois class in power, whose circles pursued an aggressive policy, a policy of expanding colonial possessions, which sooner or later was bound to lead to international clashes.
The revolutions in Italy and Germany were aimed at eliminating feudal fragmentation and creating strong national states: a united Italy and a united Germany.
The Italian and Hungarian revolutions led to the collapse of the Austrian Empire. The Polish revolutionary movement, whose goal was the restoration of an independent Poland, threatened not only the Austrian Empire, but also the Prussian monarchy and Tsarist Russia.
In international relations 1848-1849. The central question was whether the system of 1815 would survive or whether it would collapse and the reunification of Germany and Italy into independent states would take place. Creation
The formation of a new system of international relations in Europe began after the end of the Cold War (the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the unification of Germany in 1990).
The main dilemmas of the formation of a new Europe:
1. The unification of Germany and the removal of the last formal restrictions on its sovereignty contributed to the revival in a number of countries of fears about Germany’s possible claims to a dominant role in Europe. The CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe marked the end of the era of confrontation and division in Europe
2. For centuries, Russia’s relations with Europe, conceptually and practically, have been characterized by both mutual attraction and mutual repulsion. Gradual integration of Russia into the new system of European and global relations based on partnership.
3. The gap in the levels of socio-economic development between the countries of Western and Eastern Europe. Decades of communist domination and a planned economy slowed down the development of CEE and threw it to the margins of the world and European economy.
4. After the end of the Cold War, Europe did not avoid the emergence of local and regional conflicts, including armed ones. Massive use of force in the former Yugoslavia. Most modern conflicts in Europe have taken the form of military confrontation in those countries that, for various reasons, have not gone through the stage of formation of national states (or nation-states), which most European peoples went through in the 19th century.
5. NATO's military intervention in the conflict in Kosovo (FRY) in March - June 1999 presented Europe with a number of new problems. The first of these is NATO's demonstrated claim to the right of military intervention without the sanction of the UN Security Council or the OSCE outside its area of responsibility in the event (as happened in the FRY) of gross violations of human rights and national minorities.
6. New security challenges made it possible in the 90s to talk about non-traditional dimensions of security policy, which can no longer be reduced to the policy of defense, arms limitation and arms control. Security challenges: mass migration of the population; drug trafficking and arms trafficking; terrorism and organized crime becoming international in nature.
35. The end of the Cold War and directions for revising the system of international relations by leading Western countries.
November 19-21, 1990 in Paris - meeting of heads of state and government of 34 CSCE participating states. The Charter of Paris was signed - it stated for the new Europe the end of the era of confrontation and division of Europe, and the states of the Warsaw Pact (Warsaw Pact) and NATO declared in a joint declaration that they were no longer adversaries.
Building a unified democratic Europe, according to the Charter, was based on:
Ø institutionalization of political dialogue and interaction within the CSCE;
Ø reform of multilateral organizations countries of the East (CMEA, Warsaw Warsaw) and West (NATO, EU, WEU);
Ø establishing cooperation between NATO, the EU, the WEU, the Council of Europe, on the one hand, and the states of Eastern Europe- with another;
Emergence Yugoslav crisis, the beginning in 1991 of a military confrontation between Serbia and Croatia and Slovenia, which declared secession from the federation, and since 1992 - the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ; collapse of the USSR in at the end of 1991 - all this led to a decrease in the controllability of domestic and international processes in the post-communist space in the absence of effective regional and subregional mechanisms.
In the new conditions, the institutions of Western European (EU, WEU, Council of Europe) and Euro-Atlantic cooperation (NATO) retained their role, not on the basis of the “rapprochement” of East and West, but as a result of the gradual expansion of Western organizations. The most significant in this regard is the expansion of the EU and NATO to the East. At the same time, the diversity of European processes does not boil down to the expansion of these organizations, but leads to the formation of a “concert” of European institutions.
The victory of the Allied powers over Napoleonic France ended a turbulent period in European history that began with the French Revolution of the 18th century. Peace has come. The winners had to resolve many issues regarding the political structure of post-war Europe. To do this, they organized a large diplomatic congress (congress), which consolidated the new balance of power in Europe that had developed by that time.
Principles and objectives of the Congress of Vienna
This was the first international congress of representatives from all European countries (except Turkey). It opened in September 1814 in the Austrian capital of Vienna.
The Congress of Vienna was guided by the principles of legitimacy and political balance. Legitimism (legality) meant the restoration of the rights of legitimate dynasties overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon. It was also assumed that there would be at least a partial restoration of the previous positions of the nobility and feudal order. European balance meant preventing the rise of any one great power to the detriment of others.
Based on these principles, the congress solved specific problems: what borders to define for France; to whom and what lands to transfer; which dynasties to restore.
Conflicts between great powers
The main role in the negotiations was played by meetings of representatives of the four great victorious powers: England, Austria, Russia and Prussia. Later, a representative of France, also a great but defeated power, managed to enter this committee of four. A committee of five was formed - the leadership headquarters of the congress. The opinions of other state representatives did not matter much.
From the very beginning, many controversial issues arose. The most important of them is Polish-Saxon. Russia wanted to get almost all of the Polish lands, and Prussia wanted all of Saxony. Austria, England and France strongly objected, citing a violation of the European balance in favor of Russia and Prussia. Disagreements between the powers became so acute that in January 1815 England, Austria and France entered into a secret treaty of alliance directed against Russia and Prussia. Therefore, the latter had to abandon their intentions and make concessions.
Final Act
On June 9, 1815, the main document was signed - the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, which consisted of 121 articles. This was the most extensive agreement of all international agreements that have been concluded so far.
It provided for the territorial redistribution of Europe in the interests of the victorious powers. Defeated France was deprived of all conquests and returned to the pre-war borders of 1792. Most of the Polish lands with Warsaw went to Russia. Prussia received the northern part of Saxony, the richest German regions - the Rhine Province and Westphalia, as well as Swedish Pomerania and western Polish lands with the city of Poznan.
North-Eastern Italy (Lombardy, Venice) was transferred to Austria. Sovereigns from the Austrian House of Habsburg were placed on the thrones of the small Italian duchies. The Duchy of Parma, for example, was given for life to the daughter of the Austrian emperor, Napoleon's second wife Maria Louise. Austria gained predominant influence in Italian affairs.
England received nothing on the European continent, but it retained the island of Malta and the recently captured possessions of other countries - the Cape Colony in southern Africa and the island of Ceylon.
In distributing lands and drawing new borders, the main participants in the Congress of Vienna paid no attention to religion, nationality, or the desires of peoples. The main thing for them was the number of square kilometers and inhabitants. Catholic Belgium united with Protestant Holland into a single Kingdom of the Netherlands. Norway was taken from Denmark, which supported Napoleon, and given to Sweden. Contrary to the aspirations of the Germans and Italians for unification, the fragmentation of Germany and Italy was maintained. The non-German population of the multinational Austrian Empire (Hungarians, Slavs, Italians) found itself in an unequal position with the German one and was subjected to national oppression.
The new international order established by the Vienna and some other agreements was called the “Vienna system”. This was the first attempt to establish peace in Europe on the basis of a collective agreement, the principles of legitimacy and balance.
Creation of the Holy Alliance
The “Viennese system” was reinforced by the act of creating the Holy Alliance (1815-1833), signed in September 1815 by the Russian and Austrian emperors and the Prussian king. Soon almost all the monarchs of Europe joined him. It was a semi-religious association of sovereigns who pledged to be guided in their relations with each other and with their people by the “commandments of love, truth and peace” and to establish true Christian brotherhood.
European sovereigns pursued very specific political goals: to provide each other with mutual assistance always and everywhere. What kind of help were you talking about? First of all, about the joint struggle against revolutions and any upheavals that could change the existing order of things. The main goal of the Holy Alliance is to preserve everything in Europe as it is and, above all, the thrones, to prevent significant changes in the internal life of states. Many European rulers were well aware that changes and reforms in economics and politics were inevitable and even desirable, but they wanted to reduce them to a minimum and carry them out with their own hands.
Thus, the “Viennese system” and the Holy Alliance gave Europe a completely new look. Its political map has changed. The nature of relations between states has changed. An attack began on the ideas and slogans of the French Revolution (freedom, equality, fraternity), on the Napoleonic bourgeois heritage.
In Europe, political reaction triumphed, openly manifested in the desire to forcibly return the old orders, morals and customs.
In the first years after Napoleon's defeat, the great powers acted in concert. To discuss pressing problems, congresses of representatives of the participating countries of the Holy Alliance met several times. In accordance with their decisions in the early 20s. XIX century Austrian troops suppressed anti-absolutist uprisings in the Italian states of Naples and Piedmont, and the French army strangled the Spanish revolution. In Italy and Spain, absolutist orders were restored and measures were strengthened against supporters of constitutional government. In 1820, the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia signed a joint declaration on the right of sovereigns to armed intervention in the internal affairs of other countries without the consent of their governments to combat the revolutionary movement.
The aggravation of relations between the participants of the Holy Alliance in the 20-40s. XIX century
After the reprisal of the Italian and Spanish revolutions, relations between the great powers began to deteriorate. During this period, the eastern question intensified, that is, the question of the fate of the Balkan peoples who were under Turkish rule, and of control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, which connected the Black Sea with the Mediterranean and belonged to Turkey.
The struggle of the Greek people for independence inspired the work of many famous Europeans. In E. Delacroix’s painting “The Greek Revolt,” Greece appears in the form of a simple peasant girl, symbolizing freedom. In the background is an exotic figure of a Turk, representing centuries of enslavement
In 1821-1829. In the Balkans, a national liberation revolutionary uprising of the Greeks against Turkish rule took place. The rules of the "Vienna System" and the Holy Alliance required European monarchs to consider the uprising as a rebellion against the rightful sovereign. But each of the great powers sought to take advantage of the events in Greece primarily to strengthen their positions in the Middle East and weaken the influence of other countries there. Ultimately, an agreement was reached to recognize the independence of Greece, but a monarchical system was imposed on it.
In the early 30s. There was a new aggravation of the international situation in Europe in connection with the revolutions in France and Belgium, which was then part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Disagreements between European states did not allow organizing a joint action and maintaining the previous regimes and borders. The Holy Alliance actually disintegrated; it was impossible to convene new congresses. As a result of the revolution, Belgium became an independent kingdom. This meant that the system of boundaries established by the Congress of Vienna began to collapse.
The next blow to the “Viennese system” was dealt by the revolutions of 1848-1849. It was not possible to cope with them at the very beginning. Only at the final stage was Russia able to provide military assistance to the Austrian Habsburgs against the rebel Hungary, and France and Austria took part in the defeat of the revolution in Italy.
THIS IS INTERESTING TO KNOW
During the congress of representatives of Napoleon's victorious powers, Vienna became the main city of all monarchical Europe, to which the attention of all governments and the public was attracted. 2 emperors (Russian and Austrian), 4 kings, 2 crown princes and 3 grand duchesses gathered here. 450 diplomats and officials with numerous support staff arrived at the congress. The negotiations were accompanied by solemn and magnificent balls. Congress was jokingly called "dancing". At the same time, hard work was carried out, complex issues were resolved.
References:
V. S. Koshelev, I. V. Orzhekhovsky, V. I. Sinitsa / World History of Modern Times XIX - early. XX century, 1998.
Having defeated Napoleonic France, the leaders of leading European states came to the conclusion that the best option for solving the problems facing post-war Europe would be to convene a pan-European congress, where all problems could be discussed and a consensus version of a post-war settlement could be developed. In the spring of 1814, Russia was the first to propose the idea of a congress, but the Allies sought to delay its start until the fall.
The conference opened on the first of October 1814 and continued until July 1815.
During difficult discussions, it was possible to agree on general principles on which a new model of international relations was built.
Firstly, it was necessary to create a barrier around France, which would allow it to be isolated in case of any complications.
Thirdly, it was decided that members of the anti-French coalition should receive compensation for their participation in the fight against Napoleon.
Fourthly, the principle of legitimism was the basis for interstate relations.
On the basis of these general principles, specific issues of the post-war settlement were resolved.
On July 9, the “Final Act” of the Congress of Vienna was signed, consisting of 121 articles and 17 annexes, the essence of which was as follows.
France was deprived of all conquered territories, and its borders returned to those that existed in 1790. The Bourbon dynasty was restored in France and Allied troops remained for a while.
Austria regained Lombardy and received Venice. The Rhineland, Pomerania and North Saxony were annexed to Prussia. England expanded its colonial empire to include Tobago, Trinidad, Ceylon, Malta, Guiana and the Cape Colony.
The Polish issue was resolved in favor of Russia. On the site of the Duchy of Warsaw, the Kingdom of Poland was formed, to which Alexander I granted a constitution. Earlier acquisitions of Bessarabia and Finland were also recognized for Russia.
Belgium was included in Holland. Schleswig and Holstein went to Denmark. The Papal States, the Kingdom of Naples and Switzerland were restored, which was declared a neutral country.
The possessions of the Sardinian kingdom expanded somewhat. The union of Sweden and Norway was sanctioned.
There were no particular contradictions on the German question: all the great powers wanted to consolidate the fragmentation of Germany. The so-called German Confederation of 38 independent states. All-German affairs were decided by the German Diet, which included both Prussia and Austria, but the leading role in this formation still belonged to Austria. According to Metternich, the union was supposed to become an obstacle to the expansionist aspirations of France. The Diet was located in Frankfurt am Main, and was presided over by an Austrian. The votes were distributed in such a way that Austria decided everything. Thus, the goal of the union was not the consolidation of the German people, but, on the contrary, the preservation of its disunity.
In addition to territorial problems, a number of economic and diplomatic issues were considered at the Congress of Vienna. Thus, a decision was made to prohibit the slave trade (“Declaration on the Prohibition of the Trade in Negroes” of February 8, 1815), a convention on freedom of navigation on European rivers was signed, and an agreement was reached on respecting the property rights of foreign citizens. On March 19, 1815, the “Regulations on the ranks of diplomatic representatives” was signed. It is still in effect and has put an end to disputes over diplomatic confessions. Diplomatic ranks were established according to it:
ambassador, papal legate and nuncio;
envoy (from 1818 the rank of resident minister was also introduced); 30 chargé d'affaires.
Also at the congress, Russia tried to raise the issue of relations with the Ottoman Empire. Mahmud II was not admitted to either the congress or the Holy Alliance. No one except Russia was interested in the situation of Christian peoples in Turkey. In February 1815, Alexander I issued a note about the plight in the Balkans. The Russian emperor proposes to discuss the Balkan question at the congress in Vienna, as well as the question of the brutal treatment of the Ottoman Empire towards its Orthodox subjects and proposed to introduce the right of European states to intervene in the affairs of Turkey. Russian diplomats assumed that this circular would strengthen Russia's position in the Balkans, but the other powers refused to discuss this issue.
While the great powers were deciding the post-war fate of Europe, events took an unexpected turn. Napoleon fled the island of Elba, ended up in Paris and restored the French Empire. Napoleon's 100 days began (March 20 - June 18, 1815). Louis XVIII fled Paris. On June 18, 1815, the Battle of Waterloo took place, where the Anglo-Austro-Prussian army defeated Napoleon, after which the 2nd Bourbon restoration took place in France.
A special place at the congress was occupied by the problem associated with the proposal to create the Holy Alliance - an organization of monarchical states to protect Europe from revolutionary ideas.
On September 26, 1815, the treaty establishing the Holy Alliance was signed in Paris by Alexander, Francis I and Frederick William III.
Initially, the Holy Alliance was a treaty of mutual assistance between Russia, Prussia and Austria. Other countries were also invited to join the Union. Ultimately, only Turkey and Great Britain did not join the Holy Alliance, since the Prince Regent was bound by constitutional obligations. Nevertheless, England assured Alexander I of its agreement with the principles of the Holy Alliance.
The model of international relations created in Vienna had both strengths and weaknesses. The Vienna system turned out to be quite stable and sustainable. Thanks to it, Europe was spared for several decades from head-on clashes between great powers, although military conflicts arose from time to time, but the mechanism developed by the Congress made it possible to resolve controversial issues quite quickly and without large losses.
On the other hand, the Vienna system took little account of the influence of the ideas of the French Revolution on European civilization. The principle of legitimism increasingly came into conflict with the liberal idea, with the growth of national self-awareness.
The creation of the Holy Alliance did not resolve the contradictions that existed between the leading European states.
Firstly, Austro-Russian. Metternich was afraid of both the revolutionary movement and Russia, with the latter posing an even greater danger to Austria. The Austrians were also concerned about the Franco-Russian alliance. When Charles X became King of France and Nicholas I Emperor of Russia, this alliance became even closer. Russia also feared the revolutionary movement (the Decembrist uprising and the Polish uprisings) and the strengthening of other participants in the Holy Alliance (including Austria).
Secondly, Prussia's position was not stable. There, too, they feared the possibility of revolutions and a Franco-Russian alliance, so Prussia began to draw closer to Austria and move away from Russia.
All members of the union were afraid of Russia, as they believed that it could spread its hegemony over the entire European continent. Thus, contradictions appeared from the first years of the Holy Alliance and distracted it from its original goals. Subsequent events seriously tested the strength of the Vienna system of international relations.
In 1818, the first congress of the Holy Alliance took place in Aachen. There, France achieved the withdrawal of allied troops from the territory of the country and joined the four victorious powers. Heated debates flared up around the issue of joint actions to help Spain in its fight against the rebel colonies. France and Austria were ready to help the Spanish king, but much depended on the position of England.
Great Britain, although not a signatory to the protocol, has always been on the side of the union, but recently it has preferred to follow its own interests. There the democratic movement for complete reform in Great Britain grew stronger. The national bourgeoisie demanded universal suffrage. The ruling circles, represented by Lord Castlereagh and Prince Regent George, supported the position of the national bourgeoisie. England was not interested in preserving the Spanish colonial empire, because itself sought to penetrate Latin America, and in the strengthening of Austria and France. As a result, England managed to block the decision to help Spain.
The 2nd congress took place in 1820 in Troppau. At this time, revolutions broke out on the periphery of Europe (Spain, Naples, Piedmont). After a long negotiation process, a protocol was adopted that, in principle, justified intervention in countries where the revolution was taking place. Based on this document, Austria organized an intervention in the Apennine Peninsula.
At the 3rd Congress in Laibach on May 12, 1821, the same issues were discussed. If in the Italian states it was possible to suppress revolutionary uprisings, then in Spain and Portugal the revolutions continued. The situation in these countries was the subject of discussion at the Congress in Verona in November 1822. On December 1, the Verona Protocol was signed, with the exception of England, on providing armed assistance to the Spanish monarch. In 1823, French troops invaded Spain and restored the monarchy there.
The special position of Great Britain was the following: it is impossible to stop the revolutionary wave with repressive measures; the national liberation movement should not be fought, but, on the contrary, supported. In accordance with this thesis, England recognized the new Latin American countries and resolutely refused to support intervention in Spain. A rift has emerged in relations between the great powers. But paradoxically, it did not expand, as a new complex problem appeared. In 1821, the Greek uprising against the Ottoman yoke began. The Turks brought down the most severe repressions on the rebels. The Great Powers could not ignore the Greek question, although it was quite controversial. On the one hand, the Greeks rebelled against their legitimate monarch and thus violated the principle of legitimacy. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire entered a period of crisis and could not control its periphery. The question arose about the division of her inheritance.
In 1823, England recognized the Greeks as a belligerent. Austria opposed it because considered the rebels to be rebels. Russia's position was twofold. Russia had serious interests in the Balkans, and real state interests spoke in favor of the Greeks, but ideological dogmas spoke against them.
In the spring of 1826, the new Russian emperor proposed his interpretation of the eastern question: the situation in the Balkans, with the exception of Greece, was declared the matter of Russia, the Greek question - the matter of all powers, on this basis there was a rapprochement of the positions of England, France and Russia on the Greek question. In October 1827, a joint squadron at Navarino defeated the Turkish fleet.
In May 1828, the Russian-Turkish war began, which ended in Russian victory. In September 1829, the Treaty of Andrianople was signed. According to it, Serbia, Wallachia and Moldova received autonomy, and Greece became an independent state and was recognized by the European community.
The leading states of Europe understood that the main threat to the stability of the Vienna system came from the Eastern question. However, in 1830 a revolution began in France. In the same year, revolutions took place in Belgium and Poland. Despite this, the stability of the Vienna System was maintained.
The decisive role in European foreign policy belonged to five states; France, England, Russia, Austria and Prussia. The main area of struggle between these powers was the fragmented Italy and Germany, Poland and the countries of the Balkan Peninsula, which were under Turkish rule.
During the 18th century. The main conflicts between the European powers were the struggle of England and France for naval and colonial hegemony, Austria and Prussia for dominance in Germany, Russia for access to the Baltic and Black Seas, which pitted it primarily against Sweden and the Ottoman Empire.
North War. Back in the XVI-XVII centuries. Russia tried to take control of the Baltic coast. Its main opponent was Sweden, whose territory included Livonia, Finland and Estland, as well as former Russian possessions - the Izhora lands and Karelia. In preparation for war, Peter I entered into an alliance with Denmark, Saxony and Poland in 1699, and in 1700 he signed a truce with Turkey and declared war on Sweden. In 1700, the Northern War began, which lasted until 1721.
Peter I moved a 35,000-strong army to the Swedish fortress of Narva, but its siege dragged on. The Swedish army was led by King Charles XII (1697-1718), a young and skilled commander. In November 1700, near Narva, the Russian army was defeated. Charles XII, considering that Russia was finished, moved to Poland to defeat Russia’s ally, the Saxon elector and, at the same time, since 1697, the Polish king Augustus II (1670-1733).
However, Peter I did not accept defeat and began to reorganize the army. Since 1702, the military initiative passed into the hands of Peter I. By the spring of 1703, the Russian army liberated the entire river basin. Neva and reached the shores of the Baltic Sea.
At this time, the Swedes captured Warsaw and Krakow. In 1704, the Polish Sejm deposed Augustus II and proclaimed Stanisław I Leszczynski (1677-1766) king. In 1704-1706. The Swedes inflicted a number of defeats on the Saxon, Polish and Russian troops and forced Poland to withdraw from the war (Treaty of Altranstadt 1706).
Russia was left alone with Sweden; the search for allies led to nothing. The Swedes attempted to recapture the Izhora lands, but failed. The main forces of Charles XII concentrated on Ukraine, he intended to move them to Moscow. In April 1709, the Swedes besieged Poltava. On June 27 (July 8) the Battle of Poltava took place. The Swedish army was defeated.
Charles XII with the remnants of his army fled to Turkey. A turning point in the war has come. The Northern Alliance was renewed and Prussia joined. On March 31, 1710, Russia and Sweden signed a commitment in The Hague not to conduct military operations in Swedish possessions in Germany; England and Holland insisted on this. In the same year, Livonia and Estonia were occupied, Russian troops captured Vyborg, Kexholm and Vilmanstrand - the exit from the Gulf of Finland was free.
In 1712-1714. Russia's allies, with its support, won a number of victories in the European theater of operations. In 1713-1714 Russia occupied part of the territory of Finland. On July 27 (August 7), 1714, the Russian galley fleet defeated the Swedish one at Cape Gangut. On land, the Russian army reached Luleå.
In 1718, Charles XII died in Norway. In 1719, Russia transferred military operations to the territory of Sweden, whose human and financial resources were depleted. In January 1720, Sweden concluded an alliance with England and peace with Prussia, and in June with Denmark. In May 1720, an English squadron entered the Baltic Sea, but its attempts to attack Revel were unsuccessful. In 1720, the Russian fleet won a victory near the island of Grengam. On August 30 (September 10) a peace treaty with Sweden was signed in Nystadt.
As a result of the military victory, Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea and thereby solved one of the most important tasks of its foreign policy. October 11 (October 22), 1721 The Senate and the Holy Synod assign Peter I the titles of “Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia” and “Great”, and Russia becomes an empire.
Between the “Glorious English” of 1688 and the Great French Revolution, about 35 years were spent in wars between France and England. War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), War of the Polish Succession (1733-1738), War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), Seven Years' War (1756-1763). Moreover, other states were drawn into the orbit of these wars.
- Wars of succession
- Seven Years' War
- Russo-Turkish War 1768-1774
- Foreign policy of Catherine II in the 80s.
Loading...
