International relations in the 19th century. "Vienna system" in the first half of the XIX century. Holy Alliance in the fight against the revolutionary movement in Europe. The loosening of the "Viennese system"
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Introduction
The Congress of Vienna is a unique phenomenon for its time. As a result of the work of the congress, not only a territorial redistribution was carried out in Europe, but also those principles were developed that formed the basis of diplomatic practice throughout the world, and not only in Europe.
The role of the Congress of Vienna can hardly be overestimated. The comprehension of the consequences of the reshaping of Europe took place in Vienna in 1814-1815. The Congress of Vienna brought together representatives of all the great European powers for a joint discussion of problems of mutual interest. At the same time, two emperors, Franz I and Alexander I, took an active part in the work of the congress. Before that, even bilateral summit meetings were a rarity.
As a result of the Congress of Vienna, most of Poland went to Russia. It received the name of the Kingdom of Poland. Alexander I promised to grant him a constitution and proclaim him an autonomous entity within the Russian Empire. Prussia received only part of Saxony. Instead of a united Germany, a vague German Confederation was created from four dozen independent small German principalities. The Austrian emperor was to preside over this union. By decision of the Congress of Vienna, Italy also remained politically fragmented, as European monarchs were terribly afraid of revolutions and did everything to prevent them. They sought to erase from the map of Europe all the consequences of the French Revolution. To unite all the forces of traditional Europe with Russia at the head to fight this danger - this is what Alexander saw as his most important task in Vienna in 1814.
At the legal level, the Vienna Congress introduced such fundamental terms of geopolitics on the plane into political use as balance and balance of power, the transformation of the power of the state; means of curbing the aggressor or dominant power; coalition of powers; new borders and territories; bridgeheads and fortresses; strategic points and borders.
The study of the Vienna Congress, the identification of the reasons for its holding and the impact on the further development of international relations, in fact, is the topic of this work.
The purpose of this work is to study the Congress of Vienna as an important stage in the formation of a pan-European system of international relations, to determine its historical significance for the development of Europe.
In accordance with the goal, we have identified the following research objectives:
· study the political situation in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century;
· identify the prerequisites for convening the Congress of Vienna;
· characterize the Vienna treaty system of international relations;
· indicate the impact of the Congress of Vienna on the development of international relations in general.
When writing this work, a number of sources were used, in particular, the text of the "Act of the Congress of Vienna". This document is a clear result of the diplomatic efforts and long-term struggle of the participating states.
A fascinating source are excerpts from the memoirs of Talleyrand. Prince Charles-Maurice Talleyrand-Périgord (1754 - 1838) is one of the key figures in French history, an outstanding diplomat and a cunning courtier. He survived the Old Regime, the Revolution, the Empire and the Restoration. And he not only survived, but constantly remained a man on whose will the fate of France and the future of Europe depended. His name has become almost a household name to denote cunning, dexterity and unscrupulousness.
When Talleyrand retired, he sat down for memories. They wrote five volumes. Memoirs of Sh.-M. Talleyrand were first published in an appendix to E. Tarle's work Talleyrand. Naturally, speaking of Talleyrand's memoirs, one should not forget that the memoirs of figures who played a very paramount role are rarely at all true. This is quite understandable: the author, knowing his historical responsibility, strives to construct his story in such a way that the motivation of his own actions is as lofty as possible, and where they can in no way be interpreted in favor of the author, one can try to completely renounce complicity in them. Therefore, memories are always subjective, and any researcher must take this into account.
This work is also based on the monograph by E. Tarle, Talleyrand. M., 1993. This work is a classic for Russian historiography and is of world significance. It examines in detail the biography of this politician, his diplomatic activities, analyzes the prerequisites for certain actions and decisions.
Diplomatic training, goals and objectives of each of the powers are described in detail by A. Debidur in his own “Diplomatic History of Europe”.
Of particular interest is the recently published in Russia monograph by E. Saunders "Napoleon's Hundred Days". In the first chapter, the author analyzes the results of the Congress of Vienna by the time Napoleon returned to power; in conclusion, he draws conclusions regarding the influence of the "100 days of Napoleon" on the further diplomacy of the member states of the congress.
The book of the famous Soviet historian E. V. Tarle tells about one of the most controversial figures in world history - Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte. Published more than once in our country, translated into many European languages, it belongs to the best examples of world and domestic historiography about Napoleon. Until now, the book of E. V. Tarle, which has not lost its scientific significance, is distinguished by its exquisite literary style, fascinating presentation, and subtle psychological characteristics of the protagonist and his era.
All this makes the work of E. V. Tarle attractive both for professional historians and for the general reading public. The monograph covers the entire life of the commander, from childhood spent in Corsica to the last days of Napoleon's life on the island of St. Helena.
When writing this work, the book by Vladlen Sirotkin "Napoleon and Russia" was also used. The main subject of scientific interest of the doctor of historical sciences, professor Vladlen Georgievich Sirotkin is the relations between Russia and France in the late 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, the center of which is the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812. The author, based on documentary evidence, shows the relationship French emperor with the Russian state in 1801-1815, tells a fascinating story about the mysteries of the Patriotic War of 1812, interprets the consequences of Napoleon's army campaign in Russia in his own way, explores the phenomenon of changing the assessment of his personality, analyzing the work of famous Russian writers. He managed to comprehensively cover various issues related both to the war itself and to its causes and consequences, using primary sources - the memories of participants and eyewitnesses, official documents, etc. V. Sirotkin's book "Napoleon and Russia" is intended to clarify a number of previously overlooked issues.
Manfred's Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the best monographs ever written on Napoleon Bonaparte. In it, the author examines in detail the objective reasons for the rapid rise of Napoleon and his tragic fall.
This is an attempt to comprehend Napoleon as a person, as a person. What was he like? Good or evil, human or inhuman - these questions concern the author. In this book you can find many accurate and unexpected facts from the life of the great emperor.
1. Features of the development of international relations in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century
International relations in Europe on the eve of the Patriotic War of 1812.
Back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the general line of international politics was the struggle of the feudal-serf states of Europe against revolutionary France. It was initiated by Austria and Prussia and England behind them. Russia also joined this struggle, but all coalitions collapsed under the blows of the French troops. As you know, the contradictions between Russia and France in the early 19th century continued to deepen. A clash between Russia and France was becoming inevitable, because Napoleon himself was going to unleash a war, having openly declared in 1810 his desire for world domination: “In five years I will be the master of the world. Only Russia remains, but I will crush it. Ultimately, Napoleon's plan was to deprive Russia of the importance that it had in Europe, weaken it and turn it, in fact, into its vassal. That is, for Russia itself, it was about maintaining its state independence.
After the defeat of the Russian troops in the battle of Friedland in June 1807, Emperor Alexander I concluded the Treaty of Tilsit with Napoleon, according to which he pledged to join the continental blockade of England. By agreement with Napoleon, in 1808 Russia took Finland from Sweden and made a number of other territorial acquisitions; Napoleon unleashed his hands to conquer all of Europe with the exception of England and Spain. In 1810, Napoleon married Marie-Louise of Austria, daughter of the Austrian emperor Franz, thus strengthening his rear and creating a foothold in Europe. French troops, after a series of annexations, moved close to the borders of the Russian Empire.
In 1810 in Russia they started talking about a new war with Napoleon. The French infringed on the interests of Russians in Europe, threatened to restore an independent Poland; the Russians did not respect the continental blockade and taxed French goods. Russia demanded the withdrawal of French troops stationed there from Prussia in violation of the Treaty of Tilsit; Napoleon demanded that the emperor tighten the blockade of England. Both sides were preparing for the inevitable war. Preparing for war with Russia, Napoleon sought to create a broad anti-Russian coalition, including Austria, Prussia, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire, but he managed to implement this plan only partially. In February and March 1812, he entered into secret alliances with Austria and Prussia, promising them territorial acquisitions at the expense of the western territories of Russia, however, out of the 330 thousand soldiers promised to him by Austria and Prussia, he received only 80 thousand.
Russia was also preparing for the war, which was quite well aware of Napoleon's preparations for the war thanks to the Russian ambassador in Paris A.B. Kurakin, as well as Napoleon's ministers Talleyrand and Fouche2. As a result of secret negotiations in the spring of 1812, the Austrians made it clear that their army would not go far from the Austrian-Russian border and in general would not be zealous for the good of Napoleon. In April of the same year, on behalf of Sweden, the former Napoleonic Marshal Bernadotte (future King Charles XIV of Sweden), who was elected crown prince in 1810 and actually headed the Swedish aristocracy, gave assurances of his friendly position towards Russia and concluded an alliance treaty. On May 22, 1812, the Russian ambassador Kutuzov (the future field marshal and winner of Napoleon) managed to conclude a profitable peace with Turkey, ending the five-year war for Moldavia. In the south of Russia, the Danube army of Chichagov was released as a barrier against Austria, forced to be in alliance with Napoleon.
On May 19, 1812, Napoleon left for Dresden, where he held a review of the vassal monarchs of Europe. From Dresden, the emperor went to the "Great Army" on the Neman River, which separated Prussia and Russia. On June 22, Napoleon wrote an appeal to the troops, in which he accused Russia of violating the Tilsit agreement and called the invasion a second Polish war3. The liberation of Poland became one of the slogans that made it possible to attract many Poles to the French army. Even the French marshals did not understand the meaning and goals of the invasion of Russia, but they habitually obeyed.
Foreign campaigns of the Russian army and their significance.
Napoleon's defeat in Russia dealt a heavy blow to his power. However, the French emperor still had considerable resources and could continue the fight. The liberation of Russian territory from Napoleonic troops did not mean the cessation of hostilities. Their continuation already outside the country was determined both by the need to eliminate the threat to the security of Russia that remained under the rule of Napoleon in Western Europe, and by the ambitions of the autocracy, which sought to strengthen its influence on the continent and, in particular, to seize the Duchy of Warsaw. The peoples of Europe aspired to liberation from Napoleonic domination. At the same time, the absolutist regimes in European states, with a greater or lesser degree of activity, sought not only the elimination of French hegemony, but also the restoration in France of the Bourbon dynasty overthrown by the revolution.
Having driven the enemy out of Russia, on January 1, 1813, Russian troops entered the territory of the Duchy of Warsaw and Prussia. Thus began the foreign campaigns of the Russian army. The commander of the Prussian troops in the Napoleonic armies, General York, back in December 1812, stopped hostilities against Russia. The advance of Russian troops across Prussian territory, the rise of the national liberation movement in the country forced the Prussian king in February 1813 to conclude an alliance with Russia. In the spring of 1813, Napoleon, having gathered, despite the depletion of France's human resources, large forces, appeared in the theater of operations. By this time (in April 1813) M.I. Kutuzov had died. Napoleon managed to achieve certain successes, having won victories at Luzen and Bautzen, after which a truce was concluded. The position of Napoleon, despite the successes achieved, was very difficult. Austria opposed him. The forces of the anti-Napoleonic coalition grew. True, in August 1813, after the termination of the truce, the French won a new major victory near Dresden. However, the balance of power was not in favor of France. On October 4-7, 1813, a grandiose battle took place near Leipzig, which was called the "battle of the peoples"4, since the armies of almost all European countries took part in it. By the beginning of the battle, the allies had 220 thousand people, and Napoleon had 155 thousand. During the bloody battles, Napoleon was defeated and was forced to retreat. The losses of the French army amounted to 65 thousand people. The troops of the anti-Napoleonic coalition, the core of which was the Russian army, lost 60 thousand people. Napoleon retreated to the Rhine, and almost the entire territory of Germany was cleared of the French. Military operations were transferred to the territory of France. The bitter struggle, however, continued. Napoleon even managed to win several victories over the allies. The latter conducted peace negotiations with him, which, however, did not lead to any result. In general, France was no longer able to continue the war. On March 19, 1814, the coalition troops entered Paris. Napoleon abdicated and was exiled to the island of Elba. In France, the Bourbon dynasty came to power, and Louis XVIII, the brother of Louis XVI, who was executed during the revolution, became king. However, the restoration of the former order in full was impossible. The new monarch was forced to grant the country a fairly liberal constitution, which Alexander I especially actively insisted on.
Activities of anti-French coalitions.
Anti-French Coalitions are temporary military-political alliances of European states that sought to restore the Bourbon monarchy in France during the French Revolution of 1789-1799. A total of 7 coalitions were created. The beginning of the first coalition (1791-1797) was laid by the signing on August 27, 1791 between Austria and Prussia of the Pilnitz Declaration on joint actions to assist the French king Louis XVI.
The second coalition existed in 1798-1799. as part of Russia, England, Austria, Turkey, the Kingdom of Naples. On June 14, 1800, French troops defeated the Austrian troops near the village of Marengo. Soon after Russia left it, the coalition ceased to exist.
In 1805-1806. A third coalition was formed consisting of England, Russia, Austria and Sweden. In 1805, the English fleet in the battle of Trafalgar defeated the combined Franco-Spanish fleet. But on the Continent, in 1805, Napoleon defeated the Austrian army in the battle of Ulm, then inflicted a heavy defeat on the Russian and Austrian troops in the battle of Austerlitz.
In 1806 -1807. acted fourth coalition consisting of England, Russia, Prussia, Sweden. In 1806, Napoleon defeated the Prussian army in the Jena-Auerstedt battle, in 1807, in the Friedland battle, he defeated the Russian army. Russia was forced to sign the Treaty of Tilsit with France (1807).
Spring-October 1809 there was a fifth coalition consisting of England and Austria. After Russia joined it, then Sweden, the sixth coalition appeared (1813 - 1814). In 1813, the French troops were defeated in the Battle of Leipzig. March 31, 1813 the Allies entered Paris. Despite the fact that Russia, Austria, Prussia and England fought Napoleon together, the contradictions between the governments of these countries gradually grew: the allies saw the structure of post-war Europe too differently. As long as Napoleon remained a common enemy, these contradictions were obscured by the primary task of fighting France: each European monarch had his own personal scores with Napoleon. Thus, the Russian Emperor Alexander I liked to repeat: “Napoleon or I, I or Napoleon, but together we cannot reign”5. Alexander I hated Napoleon and sought to overthrow him from the French throne. The rulers of the other states of the coalition generally agreed with him, who, not without reason, feared that if Napoleon remained in power in France, he would continue to pose a constant threat to their well-being. After the defeat of Napoleon and his abdication, all contradictions came to the surface. It became clear that the strongest power in Europe is Russia. Alexander I, having gained fame as the winner of Napoleon himself and relying on a powerful army, was sure that he would be able to dictate his conditions to all European countries. However, other states of the coalition, primarily England and Austria, did not want to put up with such a development of events. The first clash occurred back in February - March 1814 on the issue of the post-war structure of France. All the monarchs agreed that, firstly, Napoleon Bonaparte should be removed from the French throne and, secondly, the territory of France should be reduced to the borders of 1792 (that is, before the start of the wars waged by revolutionary France from all over Europe). But then the divergence began. Alexander I opposed the return to power in France of the Bourbon dynasty overthrown during the revolution. He also demanded that France should have a constitution and an elected parliament. The Russian emperor feared a new revolution as a result of the restoration of an absolute monarchy in France. However, all other powers, mainly Austria, which insisted more than others on the so-called principle of legitimism (that is, on the return of Europe to the state that existed before the French Revolution), did not support this proposal of Alexander I. As a result, the Bourbons returned to Paris, Louis XVIII became the king of France, and Napoleon was sent into exile on the island of Elba. True, the new king promised to “grant” France a constitution.
However, on March 1, 1815, Napoleon suddenly landed on the southern coast of France. The members of the Congress of Vienna formed the seventh coalition. On June 18, 1815, near the village of Waterloo, the French army was defeated. After the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaty on November 1, 1815, the seventh anti-French coalition broke up.
2. Congress of Vienna 1814-1815 and its decisions
Goals and objectives of the Congress of Vienna.
On October 1, 1814, an international congress opened in Vienna, which was supposed to determine the structure of post-war Europe. Representatives of all European states formally took part in it, even tiny German and Italian principalities. But in reality, all decisions were made by the great powers: Russia, Austria, Prussia and England. The rest of the participants in the Congress of Vienna mostly indulged in secular amusements, so contemporaries often called the congress "dancing".
However, the apparent ease of mutual communication for verification turned into serious diplomatic disagreements and international intrigues. “The Allies easily found a common language while they were connected with each other in order to defeat Napoleon, but now that the danger had passed, their interests were divided, each of them felt the need to pursue their own goals, and the meetings were stormy”6.
According to E. Saunders, “it was a meeting of representatives of dynasties in search of a compromise, on the basis of which future diplomacy could protect their ruling houses from the dangers of war and revolution”7. The Congress of Vienna brought together representatives of all the great European powers for a joint discussion of problems of mutual interest. At the same time, two emperors, Franz I and Alexander I, took an active part in the work of the congress.
Prior to this, even bilateral summit meetings (like the meeting between Napoleon and Alexander in Tilsit) were very rare.
Although, for obvious reasons, the great victorious powers in the war with Napoleon (England, Austria, Prussia and Russia) set the tone at the congress, nevertheless, the defeated power (France) and second-rate powers (Sweden, Spain) were also involved in the work of the congress. , Portugal).
1814 opened in the history of European diplomacy one extremely indicative trend, which was repeatedly repeated with mirror accuracy later8. As soon as the battles of the Napoleonic Wars died down, which we can safely call the first "world war" in the history of mankind, the political elite of the then world (we are talking about Europe, other continents at the beginning of the 19th century could not even dream of the status of "civilized space of the Earth ”) found it necessary to hold its own congress at the highest level. The purpose was declared the most good: to get to the root cause of the terrible wars that disturbed and flooded Europe with blood for two decades and, by the joint mind of the monarchs of the victorious countries, to establish in the world such a device that would once and for all make it impossible to repeat such a nightmare. In the autumn of 1814, Vienna lavishly welcomed the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain.
The positions of the parties.
On September 23, 1814, the French delegation arrived in Vienna. France, represented by the experienced and resourceful diplomat Talleyrand, who betrayed Napoleon and became the foreign minister of the new royal government, managed to influence the decisions of the great powers from the very beginning of the Congress of Vienna. She achieved this by exploiting the differences of former members of the coalition.
By that time, Talleyrand's program of action had already been quite clearly developed, but at the same time his position remained unenviable: a personally despised representative of the defeated power. He made three main demands before Congress. First, France recognizes only those decisions of the Congress that were adopted at plenary sessions in the presence of representatives of all powers. Secondly, France wishes Poland to be restored either to the state of 1805 or to its state before the first partition. Thirdly, France will not agree either to the dismemberment, or, even more so, to the deprivation of the independence of Saxony. At the same time, the minister spread a wide network of intrigues aimed at turning Russia and Prussia against Austria and England. These agitations were aimed at spreading anxiety among the countries participating in the congress about the supposedly impending threat to the hegemony of the Russian emperor.
Despite the obvious weakness, France, in the person of its minister, decided to take the most active position in the congress, clearly exaggerating its capabilities. But all attacks on Alexander over Poland were resolutely repulsed. Realizing that the issue with Poland was lost completely and irrevocably, Talleyrand actively engaged in resolving the Saxon issue, which interested France much more. However, the diplomat failed to defend his position on the inadmissibility of the dismemberment of Saxony. The territory of Saxony was divided in half. True, under the rule of the Saxon king, the best part remained with the cities and the richest industrial places.
Having lost the Polish cause, and, in fact, “failed” the Saxon one, Talleyrand, nevertheless, completely won his main bet: bourgeois France was not only not snatched to pieces by the feudal-absolutist great powers, but also entered the environment of the great European powers with equal rights. . In addition, a formidable coalition for the French was defeated. These are the main results of the intense activity of Foreign Minister Talleyrand during this period in the international arena.
On October 8, 1814, the four victorious powers signed a declaration according to which the preparatory committee of the Congress of Vienna was to include not only Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia, but also France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden. Only during the plenary sessions of the congress could final decisions be made; finally, future rulings must comply with the principles of international law11. In fact, it was a victory for French diplomacy.
This was the first, but not the only success of an outstanding diplomat: by March 1815, he managed to completely upset the anti-French coalition; the victorious powers, and, above all, Austria and Great Britain, very soon realized that they could not do without France. Indeed, Austria needed a strong France to keep the Prussian claims on Saxony and the Russians on Poland. In turn, London needed a partner on the continent capable of countering Russia's excessive rise in the East. Finally, although the Congress of Vienna was a kind of diplomatic duel between Alexander I and Talleyrand, nevertheless, the Russian tsar was aware that he might need a force in the west of Europe that could balance the overpowered Prussia.
The recent allies pursued completely different goals at the Congress of Vienna. Emperor of Russia Alexander I sought to increase his possessions. To do this, he wanted to create the Kingdom of Poland as part of the Russian Empire, uniting all Polish lands, including those belonging to Prussia. As compensation, Alexander offered to transfer the kingdom of Saxony to Prussia.
However, this plan did not suit Austria, England and France. Austria, striving for dominance in Germany, did not want Saxony to join Prussia, realizing that in this case Prussia would become a very dangerous rival. England, pursuing its traditional policy of maneuvering, was afraid of the excessive strengthening of Russia. France, in the person of Talleyrand, opposed the aspirations of Alexander I, since they contradicted the principle of legitimism, and only this principle prevented the dismemberment of France: it remained within its pre-revolutionary borders.
Based on common interests, Austria, England and France entered into a secret alliance against Russia and Prussia. As a result, most of Poland went to Russia. It received the name of the Kingdom of Poland. Alexander I promised to “grant” him a constitution and proclaim him an autonomous entity within the Russian Empire. Prussia received only part of Saxony. Thus, the plan of Alexander I was only partially successful. This was a serious defeat for Russian diplomacy.
Among other questions discussed in Vienna, the most important was the German problem. The people of Germany, inspired by the liberation struggle against Napoleon, hoped for the unification of the country. However, instead of a united Germany, a vague German Confederation was created from four dozen independent small German principalities. The Austrian emperor was to preside over this union. By decision of the Congress of Vienna, Italy also remained politically fragmented. European monarchs were terribly afraid of revolutions and did everything to prevent them. They sought to erase from the map of Europe all the consequences of the French Revolution.
The Russian Empire entered the Congress of Vienna with the firm and majestic steps of the most influential power in Europe. Three main factors were responsible for this:
Moral: Russia was deservedly crowned with the glory of the savior of Europe from Napoleonic domination - it was her victorious troops who brought freedom to both Berlin and Vienna, it was she who swallowed Napoleon's Grand Army with a nationwide feat of resistance and the boundlessness of her expanses.
Military: In 1814, Russia had the most powerful land army on the European continent - the most numerous, well-disciplined, battle-hardened and, most importantly, used to winning.
Personal and diplomatic: Emperor Alexander I was for Russia a figure not only of national but also of global significance. The inspirer and organizer of the coalition that crushed Napoleon, he was convinced of the special mission of Russia as the hegemon of Europe and the guarantor of security on this continent. The Congress of Vienna can rightfully be called its brainchild on the way to achieving these goals.
Russia went to the congress in Vienna with its clear program of preserving and strengthening peace in Europe. Emperor Alexander saw the cause of the Napoleonic wars that shook the world much deeper than in the "demonic" personality of Napoleon himself. He considered the "Corsican usurper" the brainchild of the French Revolution, which crushed the foundations on which the status quo of the world to which Alexander belonged rested for centuries: the Christian faith, the monarchical structure of states. The stability of the social order. It is impossible to judge Alexander from modern positions: the achievements of the French Revolution in the field of universal rights and freedoms are really great, but it brought these fruits only decades later, and in the 10s. 19th century its only obvious results were bloodshed and lawlessness. A perspicacious analyst, Alexander was well aware that with the fall of Napoleon, the trunk of the tree of violence was cut down, but its roots were not uprooted. Revolutionary ideas, according to the Russian emperor, continued to excite minds throughout Europe, indirectly preparing new potential Napoleons. To unite all the forces of traditional Europe with Russia at the head to fight this danger - this is what Alexander saw as his most important task in Vienna in 1814.
At the Congress of Vienna, Russia faced an enemy who turned out to be much more dangerous for her than Napoleon with his Grand Army. This adversary was Great Britain, its weapon was secret diplomacy (in which the British know no equal), and the battlefield was some kind of genetic fear of European states in front of their great eastern neighbor - with its vast expanses, many millions of people and an original soul unknowable by European pragmatism.
As for Great Britain, the latter did not claim any territories in Europe. All the territorial acquisitions that the British made during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars - and, above all, in India (Bengal, Madras, Mysore, Carnatic, the Delhi region, and many others) - were carried out far beyond the continent15. The British had achieved their goal by crushing the former colonial power of France in India and the West Indies, and now they also needed a strong France as the most important factor in European balance.
Great Britain also claimed to be the hegemon of Europe. Acting behind the scenes intrigue, maneuvering trade and credit policies, not disdaining direct bribery, she held in her hands many threads of control of pre-Napoleonic Europe. "Divide and rule" was the main slogan of British foreign policy. Russia, with its concept of being united by an alliance of the greatest monarchies of Europe, left no chance for British hegemony.
It should be noted that even in the course of the military and diplomatic struggle of the summer and autumn of 1813, Anglo-Austrian rapprochement was taking place. British diplomacy seeks to draw Austria into the anti-Napoleonic coalition and use it as a counterweight to France (especially in Italy). Without Austria, from the English point of view, the German problem could not be solved. Castlereagh reiterates the long-standing English demand for a large Kingdom of the Netherlands to form part of the anti-French barrier, and insists that the territory of the Austrian Netherlands be included in it.
In August 1813, after the end of the armistice, hostilities between Napoleon and the Allies, joined by Austria, resumed. Castlereagh noted with satisfaction that the new coalition against Napoleonic France meant the unification of all Europe "against the unbridled ambition of a man without conscience and faith"16.
The improvement in Anglo-Austrian relations found expression in the Anglo-Austrian Treaty of Teplitz (October 3, 1813). Austria received the subsidy even though it already had a significant debt that it was unable to pay. The base of the coalition increased significantly, fears about the "family union" of Austria and France fell away.
The British representative at the Congress of Vienna, Lord Castlereagh, skillfully probed the ground for subversion. By the way, the very fact that Castlereagh was forced to leave for negotiations made a real sensation. Metternich wrote: "... The Minister of Foreign Affairs, heading to the continent, is, without a doubt, an exceptional event in the history of Great Britain"17.
The English delegation arrived in Vienna on September 13, 1814. Castlereagh personally conducted the main work, allowing the rest of the delegation members only to minor issues. At the congress, the British minister acted as a defender of a "fair balance of power", a mediator who cares about the good of "all Europe". In fact, in their foreign policy, the European monarchies of the early 19th century were accustomed to be guided not by global and long-term ideological principles (which the Russian Emperor Alexander offered them), but by national interests interpreted in a momentary manner. These immediate interests - the realization of territorial claims, the division of the "legacy" of the Napoleonic empire - were undoubtedly hindered by the hegemony of Russia for the sake of a larger one - a long-term system of peace and security in Europe. British diplomacy operated with categories of "selfish" interests, but in 1814 - 1815. Europe was ready to rally around Great Britain for the same reasons that it rallied a couple of years earlier around Russia - a force appeared on the continent that limited the independence of European states.
British diplomacy did not fail to take advantage of the fact that the Austrian emperor Franz and the Prussian king Wilhelm were absent from the congress: connected with the Russian tsar by a long history of personal relationships during the Napoleonic wars, they could prevent a conspiracy against Russia - sometimes, friendly sympathy turns out to be higher than political expediency, and Emperor Alexander knew how to inspire sympathy. Behind-the-scenes negotiations were conducted by British Prime Minister Pitt with the cautious Prussian Baron Hardenberg and the unprincipled Austrian Metternich. Napoleon said of him: "He knows how to lie so well that he can almost be called a great diplomat." As for Talleyrand, this comrade-in-arms of Napoleon had not yet left the thought of a historical revenge for the defeat in Russia, and not only drew France into the conspiracy as an active member, but also skillfully incited the anti-Russian sentiments of the Austrians and Prussians. Of course, an atmosphere of heightened secrecy surrounded the European conspiracy: the invincible Russian regiments were a constant warning of secrecy, but they did not spur Europe's aggressive fear.
The position of England was of particular importance in solving the German problem. Castlereagh developed two different plans for the organization of Europe. The original plan was to form an alliance between Austria and Prussia, supported by England; this alliance, together with the small and medium-sized German states and the sharply strengthened Netherlands, was to form a reliable barrier against France. Castlereagh considered it necessary to strengthen the territory of Prussia, as well as the Netherlands, to repel a possible attack from France; in addition, he hoped that territorial acquisitions would satisfy Prussia and contribute to its rapprochement with Austria. Therefore, Castlereagh agreed to expand the territory of Prussia at the expense of land on the left bank of the Rhine.
By the end of 1814, it was clear that Castlereagh's plan was unworkable. Prussia was clearly drawing closer not to Austria, but to Russia, with which she managed to agree on the Polish and Saxon issues. Her relations with Austria became more and more aggravated because of Saxony. Therefore, Castlereagh had to abandon the original plan and turn to the second, which provided for an alliance of Austria, France and the South German states with the active support of England, directed primarily against Russia.
In January 1815, England entered into a secret alliance with the opponents of any form of German unity - Austria and France. In the English Parliament, Castlereagh was forced to explain his change of position on the question of Saxony. He referred to the fact that public opinion in England, in the German states and in other countries was alarmed by the violation of the rights of such an ancient dynasty as the Saxon, and that the seizure of Saxony by Prussia would cause hostility to this German power everywhere. But, despite the rejection of the original project, Castlereagh advocated the expansion and strengthening of Prussia on the Rhine.
Talleyrand correctly understood the changed nature of relations in the victorious anti-French coalition, and, above all, the desire of Vienna and London to oppose a reliable barrier to the emerging "axis" St. Petersburg - Berlin. The French minister had no doubt that Paris' support for Vienna's position on the Saxon question would predetermine Franco-Austrian rapprochement. Therefore, throughout the autumn of 1814, his main efforts were aimed at restoring Franco-British relations.
The stubborn reluctance of the British to move closer to France was largely due to the ongoing war with the United States. The signing of the Anglo-American peace treaty in Ghent on December 24, 1814, however, unleashed the hands of the British, and on January 3, 1815, Talleyrand, Metternich and Castlereagh signed the "Secret treatise on a defensive alliance concluded in Vienna between Austria, Great Britain and France , against Russia and Prussia". In accordance with this treaty, in the event of an attack on any of the powers that signed the treaty, they all undertake to field 120,000 infantry and 30,000 cavalry, with an appropriate amount of artillery, on the battlefield. There was a proviso that if the UK did not field the agreed number of soldiers, it would pay £20 for each missing soldier.
This treaty was directed against the growing influence of Russia in Europe. The conspiring countries pledged to act as a united front against Russia in the event that the latter intervened in the interests of one or more of them, if this "would entail the opening of hostilities." Nominally, it was enough for one of these powers to declare war on Russia - and the Russians would have to face a coalition equal in strength to the anti-Napoleonic one.
This agreement, no doubt, was the crowning achievement of the diplomatic art of Prince Beneventsky. Of course, he did not intend to fight either with Russia or with Prussia; he was only going to destroy the anti-French coalition - and he did it. “Now, sir, the [anti-French] coalition is destroyed, and destroyed forever,” Talleyrand wrote to Louis XVIII. “Not only is France no longer isolated in Europe, but Your Majesty finds herself in a system of alliances that even fifty years of negotiations could not give.”19
"Napoleon's Hundred Days" and further work of the congress.
In the spring of 1815 The congress had already begun to sum up the results, when suddenly its participants were shocked by unexpected news: Napoleon Bonaparte secretly fled from the island of Elba and landed in France on March 1. As E. Saunders notes, “Napoleon’s return from the island of Elba in 1815 was the most desperate undertaking in his entire career”20. At the same time, this event shook the whole of Europe.
March 1, 1815, when, according to a Parisian newspaper, the Corsican monster landed in the Bay of Juan. Napoleonic "100 days" began. After 20 days - according to the same newspaper - His Imperial Majesty deigned to arrive in Paris to the enthusiastic cries of his loyal subjects. During this time, on the one hand, a new anti-French coalition was formed, and on the other, almost all of Talleyrand's successes were nullified21.
The return of Napoleon and the stampede of the Bourbons took Talleyrand by surprise. Having again taken a place on the throne, Bonaparte let the prince know that he was again taking him into service. But Talleyrand remained in Vienna, because he did not believe in the emperor's gracious disposition towards himself and the strength of the Napoleonic reign. On the contrary, he actively persuades Alexander to help the Bourbons in expelling the impostor.
All the detachments sent by the French king, who were supposed to capture Napoleon, went over to his side. During the short reign of the Bourbons, the French people managed to hate them again. In fact, without a single shot on March 20, Napoleon entered Paris. King Louis XVIII and his entourage fled in horror. A curious fact in the history of diplomacy - Louis XVIII was in such a hurry to get away from Bonaparte approaching Paris that he left on his desktop in the Tuileries the text of this very “Secret Treatise on a Defensive Alliance” dated January 3, 1815. And the first thing Napoleon did was sent this the most ill-fated text to Emperor Alexander. One can imagine with what boundless confidence Alexander treated Talleyrand after that.
On March 13, 1815, representatives of the eight powers, gathered at the Congress of Vienna, declared Napoleon "outside of civil and social relations", "an enemy and a disturber of world peace." Napoleon was doomed. Although the empire was restored, the ensuing period turned out to be in history under the name "Hundred Days", since Napoleon this time managed to hold out on the French throne for only one hundred days: from March 20 to June 22, 1815.
Napoleon understood that a new unified coalition of all European states would inevitably overthrow him from the throne. And so he tried to deepen the already existing contradictions between the allies. He sent to Russia a copy of the secret treaty he discovered, concluded by the royal government of France with Austria and England against Russia. Emperor Alexander I was furious, but considered that under the current conditions, the allies should forget past differences and unite again against a common enemy. This position of Russia made it possible to create the 7th coalition of European powers against Napoleon.
The Russian army had already set out on a campaign in France, but on June 18, 1815, the French troops under the command of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo suffered a crushing defeat from the combined Anglo-Prussian army. Napoleon again abdicated and was exiled to the distant island of Saint Helena.
The return of Napoleon had an effect on the participants in the Congress of Vienna. They tried their best to resolve any disputes as soon as possible. On June 9, the Final Act was signed, which recorded all the decisions made23.
As for Great Britain, in the fall of 1815, after Napoleon's unsuccessful attempt to return to power, the Allies concluded the Quadruple Alliance, which was based on the Treaty of Chaumont. Castlereagh made every effort to give this union a European color, that is, to take it beyond the narrow framework of obligations towards France. Article 6 of the treaty, adopted in the English version, provided for conferences of monarchs and their ministers to discuss issues “which, at the time of each of these meetings, will be considered the most useful for the tranquility and prosperity of the peoples and the preservation of the peace of all Europe”24. The Quadruple Alliance, and especially Article 6, is the ultimate embodiment of Castlereagh's idea of close British contact with the Continental Powers.
The question of Poland was also resolved - one of the problems that "divided them most of all"25. Tsar Alexander I, supported by Friedrich Wilhelm III, King of Prussia, wanted to make Poland unified under his patronage. He was sharply opposed by the Austrian emperor Franz I and the British commissioner Castlereagh. Fuel to the fire energetically added Talleyrand, who hoped to improve the position of France, speaking on the side of Great Britain and Austria.
According to the act of the Congress of Vienna, this issue was resolved as follows in the very first article: “Art. I. The Duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of those regions and districts assigned otherwise in the following articles, shall permanently join the Russian Empire. By virtue of its Constitution, it will be inextricably linked with Russia and in the possession of His Majesty the Emperor of All Russia, His Heirs and Successors for all eternity. His Imperial Majesty intends to grant, at His discretion, internal expansion to this State, which has to be under a special administration. His Majesty, in accordance with the custom and order existing in the discussion of His other titles, will add to them the title of Tsar (King) of Poland. The Poles, as Russian subjects, as well as Austrian and Prussian ones equally, will have people's representatives and national State institutions that agree with the way of political existence, which each of the above-named Governments will recognize as the most useful and decent for them, in the circle of His possessions "26 .
Significance of the Congress of Vienna for the development of international relations in Europe.
The main result was that the Congress of Vienna created a new system of international relations in Europe, based on the dominance of the four "great powers" (Russia, England, Austria, Prussia), which France joined in 1818 after the withdrawal of the allied troops. For the first time after the Congress of Vienna, the decisive role in this system was played by Russia, which had no equal in the international arena after the Napoleonic wars. England and Austria also had a significant influence on European politics. Prussia was just beginning to strengthen, and France was significantly weakened by the terms of the peace treaty, according to which the independence of France was recognized, but only "to the extent that it is compatible with the security of the allies and the general tranquility of Europe"27. In fact, this meant the possibility of interference in the internal affairs of France by other great powers. So, in France until 1818 the troops of the allies were stationed.
However, the "Vienna system" proved to be fragile. The common enemy disappeared, and the sharpest disagreements between different countries persisted. None of the powers was completely satisfied with the results of the Congress of Vienna: old contradictions were replaced by new ones.
England, having received a significant part of the French colonies, intensified its expansion around the world, which inevitably led it into conflicts with other powers. The interests of Austria, which had achieved dominance in Germany, came into conflict with the interests of Prussia. And all states were afraid that the Russian emperor would become the sole ruler of Europe. To prevent a possible conflict, the great powers needed a common goal that would unite them. And such a goal was the struggle against revolutions and the liberation movement in Europe. The initiator of such a union was Alexander I. On September 14, 1815, he sent a declaration to the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria, in which he called on them “in all cases and in every place”28 to defend absolute monarchical power and fight against revolutions and popular movements. This was beneficial to all monarchs, who gladly supported the initiative of the Russian emperor and created the so-called Holy Alliance. Officially, it included the rulers of Russia, Austria and Prussia, who undertook, in the event of a threat to any of them, “to give each other benefits, reinforcements and assistance”29. In fact, England also participated in the activities of the Holy Alliance. The creation of the Holy Union did not completely remove the contradictions between its members. They manifested themselves as the political situation in Europe became more complicated.
Russia's policy in Europe at that time was ambivalent, which is connected with the personality and political views of Emperor Alexander I.
On the one hand, Russia was an active participant in the Holy Alliance, supporting its measures to suppress liberation movements. On the other hand, there were elements of liberalism in the international policy of Alexander I. So, Alexander I introduced a constitution in the Kingdom of Poland, which became part of Russia after the Congress of Vienna. The policy of Alexander I was also uncertain in relation to the national liberation movement that flared up in Greece, which sought to overthrow Turkish oppression and become an independent state. In terms of the principles of the Holy Alliance, Russia had to support the Turkish government. But the difficulty was that the Greeks were Orthodox, and the Turks were Muslims, and the struggle of the Greeks for independence enjoyed great popularity and support in Russian society. In addition, it was politically beneficial for Russia to support the Greeks, since the liberation of Orthodox Greece could strengthen Russian influence in the Balkan Peninsula. In 1820-1821. in the Austrian cities of Troppau (now the city of Opava in the Czech Republic) and Laibach (now Ljubljana), a congress of the Holy Alliance was held. It took place in the atmosphere of the upsurge of the revolutionary movement in Europe. In 1820 there were uprisings in Spain and Italy. The struggle of the Greeks for independence continued. Even in Russia, just during the work of the congress, unrest of soldiers broke out in the Semyonovsky Guards Regiment. All this rallied the great powers for a time, and they unanimously condemned the rebellious Greeks. Alexander I, contrary to the interests of Russia, supported this opinion, but after a few years he changed his position: the Greeks were provided with diplomatic support, which contributed to their liberation from the Turks. But the contradictions between the great powers were again not eliminated, and subsequently they only aggravated. The Holy Alliance turned out to be a fragile formation. The political order in Europe, based on the monarchical principles of the Holy Alliance, did not last long.
Conclusion
The Congress of Vienna was the first attempt to establish a lasting peace in Europe on the basis of a collective agreement of all European states. The concluded contracts could not be terminated unilaterally, but they could be changed with the consent of all participants.
The Congress determined the new alignment of forces in Europe that had developed by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, designating for a long time the leading role of the victorious countries - Russia, Austria and Great Britain in international relations. As a result of the congress, the Vienna system of international relations was formed, which ensured a long period of peace and relative stability in Europe. However, it was vulnerable, because it proceeded more from a political-dynastic rather than a national principle and ignored the essential interests of many European peoples (Belgians, Poles, Germans, Italians).
...Similar Documents
The beginning of foreign campaigns, the provisions and decisions of the Congress of Vienna in the framework of the political reorganization of Europe and the formation of an anti-Russian coalition. "100 days" of Napoleon and the idea of the Holy Alliance initiated by Alexander I for the sake of "eternal peace" in Europe.
abstract, added 12/12/2016
Beginning of the Congress of Vienna (1814). Escape of Napoleon from Elba and further work of the congress. Territorial redistribution in Europe. Expanding the borders of France to the size of Europe under Napoleon I. Principles of diplomatic practice.
term paper, added 12/18/2006
The foreign policy situation in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. The beginning of the Patriotic War of 1812 Preparation of the parties for the war. Battle of Borodino, the role of Kutuzov as a commander. The retreat of the Russian army and the fire in Moscow. Partisan movement and the defeat of Napoleon
abstract, added 03/05/2011
General periodization of the main events of the European continent, which ultimately led to the convening of the Congress of Vienna. Analysis of the goals, participants and results of the Vienna Congress. The formation of the Holy Union as the main result of the Congress of Vienna in 1815.
term paper, added 04/16/2011
Characteristics of international relations in Europe in the XVI century. Organization of a permanent diplomatic mission. Causes and sources of political and military conflicts. Features of relations between the leading European countries - Spain, France, England in the XVI century.
control work, added 11/21/2010
The political situation on the eve of the war. The reason for the start of the war. The armed forces of the opponents. Strategic plans of the parties. Directions of Napoleon's advance. Retreat of Napoleon from Moscow. Results of the Patriotic War of 1812. The number of prisoners killed.
presentation, added 10/06/2010
Organization of the consulate. Concordat. Establishment of an empire. Napoleonic Codes. The nature and purpose of the Napoleonic wars. Defeat of Prussia. Preparation for war with Russia. Battle of Borodino and the capture of Moscow. Restoration of the Bourbons. Convocation of the Congress of Vienna.
abstract, added 11/19/2008
The struggle for the expansion and redistribution of spheres of influence in Europe in the 19th century, the relationship of its participants, the features and directions of military operations. The final design of hostile blocks. Aggravation of international relations on the eve of the World War.
presentation, added 12/19/2014
Results, features and historical significance of the Patriotic War of 1812. Geopolitical situation on the eve of the war. The balance of forces and military plans of the parties. Strategy and tactics of the Russian army in the course of hostilities. Borodino: the grave of the French cavalry.
test, added 01/24/2010
Franco-Prussian war and its consequences and changes in the system of international relations. Strengthening of the Anglo-German contradictions, the creation of the Entente, the transition of Germany to world politics. International crises and conflicts at the beginning of the 20th century, the arms race.
Description of the presentation on individual slides:
1 slide
Description of the slide:
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT THE END OF THE XIX CENTURY Textbook General History. New time. Grade 9 (Medyakov A.S., Bovykin D.Yu.) History teacher GBOU secondary school No. 456 Morozova A.A.
2 slide
Description of the slide:
EUROPE TO THE LAST DECADES OF THE XIX CENTURY Wars of the late 1860s and early 1870s led to the emergence of two new great powers - Germany and Italy. The emergence of the first was especially important. For centuries, the center of Europe has been a conglomeration of many weak states. Now there was a powerful state with the second largest population in Europe, a developed economy and a strong army. Italy was the weakest of the great powers. But her very appearance increased their number to 6, which changed the usual layouts.
3 slide
Description of the slide:
As a result of the same wars, Austria not only lost its centuries-old leadership in the German world, but was simply thrown out of it. From now on, the Habsburgs were left with the only possible direction of foreign policy - the Balkans. The acuteness of the national problem also pushed there. Realizing that this could lead to a clash with Russia, Vienna hoped for German help. "Stretch out your hand to Germany and show your fist to Russia" - that's what became the motto of Austria-Hungary. Russia took advantage of the Franco-German war to abandon the humiliating decisions of the Congress of Paris in 1856, and also stepped up its eastern policy. England continued to pursue a policy of "brilliant isolation", although many politicians were worried about the growth of German power. France was defeated and lost Alsace and Lorraine. From now on, she sought revenge, dreaming of taking revenge on Germany and regaining the lost provinces. The system of international relations could not fail to respond to all these innovations.
4 slide
Description of the slide:
THE CRISIS OF THE VIENNA SYSTEM The main goal of the Vienna system was the preservation of peace, stability and monarchical order in Europe. It sought to contain revolutionary and national movements and prevent wars between the great powers. By the last decades of the XIX century. all this remained in the past: from now on, revolutions no longer led to wars on a European scale, and the “principle of nationalities” made its way and led to the emergence of new states. Therefore, the need for cooperation against revolutions and national movements disappeared. The Crimean War opened the era of wars in which all the great powers took part without exception. The “European concert” and readiness for compromises were replaced by real politics, which demanded to be guided solely by the interests of one's own state. But a return to the times of the Old Order, when an unstable balance was spontaneously born from the clashes of selfish states, did not happen. Bismarck's system of alliances acted as a regulator of international relations.
5 slide
Description of the slide:
BISMARCK'S SYSTEM OF UNIONS Bismarck understood that the huge empire he created was an alien body in the center of Europe and a disturber of its balance. According to all previous canons, those who disturbed the balance should have been wary of a coalition of other states against themselves, especially since France did not hide its desire for revenge. But the German chancellor played ahead of the curve. He himself began to create alliances in order to prevent France from getting allies and not only to find a united Germany a place in Europe, but also to achieve its leadership.
6 slide
Description of the slide:
THE BISMARCK SYSTEM OF ALLIANCES In 1879, Germany concluded a defensive alliance with Austria-Hungary against Russia and France. In 1882, Italy joined him - this is how the Tripartite Alliance arose. The year before, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia had formed the Three Emperors Alliance, promising each other neutrality in the event of war with a non-alliance power. In the early 1880s. Romania and Serbia were included in Bismarck's system of alliances. In 1887, Austria-Hungary, England and Italy signed an agreement on the inadmissibility of changes in the Mediterranean basin, directed against France and Russia.
7 slide
Description of the slide:
BISMARCK'S SYSTEM OF ALLIANCES As a result, Germany found itself at the center of a complex system of alliances that, in one way or another, linked all the great powers, leaving only France isolated. This system was full of contradictions. The anti-Russian Triple Alliance contradicted the Union of the Three Emperors, of which Russia was a member. Within the Triple Alliance, Italy laid claim to the Austrian lands inhabited by Italians, and in the Alliance of the Three Emperors, Austria-Hungary and Russia competed over the Balkans. But it was precisely these contradictions that Bismarck needed.
8 slide
Description of the slide:
"WORLD POLITICS" Meanwhile, other times began in Germany itself. If Bismarck wanted to defend what he had conquered, then the new Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1918) found such a policy old-fashioned, he wanted more. In 1890, Bismarck was dismissed, and then the Kaiser announced that Germany was moving to "world politics": henceforth, German interests were not concentrated only in Europe, as under Bismarck, but extended to the entire globe. A lot has changed immediately.
9 slide
Description of the slide:
"WORLD POLITICS" In 1890, Germany refused to renegotiate the "reinsurance pact" with Russia. Having lost a longtime ally and warring with Austria-Hungary, Russia had no choice but to get closer to France, especially since she supplied her with large loans. In 1891-1894. a Russo-French alliance was concluded. Thus, along with the Triple Alliance, a second pole of power arose in Europe. Previously, alliances were formed on the threshold of war and with specific goals. Bismarck initiated a completely new phenomenon - long-term alliances concluded in peacetime. But for him, alliances were a tool for regulating international relations. Now the split of Europe into two opposing camps has begun.
10 slide
Description of the slide:
ANGLO-GERMAN CONTRADICTIONS Gradually, not only Russia began to draw closer to France, but also England, which Germany's "world policy" touched in the first place. Since Germany was late to the division of the world, its claims to "world politics" meant its redistribution, and England had the strongest positions outside Europe. In addition, English industry suffered the most from German competition. Particularly painful in London was perceived by the Germans for the construction of a railway from Constantinople to Baghdad (1899). If successful, the Germans could extend their influence up to the approaches to India, which the British sharply opposed. However, the last straw was the accelerated construction of the German fleet, which began in 1898. In order to carry out "world politics", the Germans wanted to catch up with the British in terms of the power of their fleet. In England, it was believed that the whole British Empire was being challenged, the main condition for the existence of which was unhindered maritime communications between its parts. An unbridled naval arms race between England and Germany was launched.
11 slide
Description of the slide:
All these frictions between the two countries soon turned into antagonism (an irreconcilable contradiction), which pushed the British to abandon their “brilliant isolation” and draw closer to France and Russia. Anglo-German antagonism became the main international contradiction of the era. To prevent the growing threat of war, on the initiative of Russia, in 1899 the Peace Conference was held in The Hague. It was proposed to resolve conflicts between countries peacefully through the creation of a special international court, and in the event of war to abandon especially cruel types of weapons. However, Germany agreed with this only for appearances. Wilhelm II declared to his close associates that he had signed "this nonsense", but in practice he would rely "only on God and his sharp sword."
12 slide
Description of the slide:
ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE XX CENTURY Powers entered the new century in an atmosphere of growing contradictions. The long-term alliance between Russia and Germany was replaced by enmity. Having abandoned the "reinsurance agreement", Germany tightly tied itself to its only true ally - Austria-Hungary - and together with it opposed Russia in the Balkans. Ideas about an imminent "racial war" with Russia were spreading in German public opinion. The situation in the Balkans was aggravated not only because of the rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia, but also in connection with the growing contradictions between the Balkan states themselves and their often irresponsible policies. Having received support in the face of an alliance with Russia, revanchist sentiments in France strengthened. Against the backdrop of an alarming international situation in society, moods of the “end of the century” arose: everyone felt that the old era was ending, and they were waiting for the onset of a new one not only with hope, but also with fear. The First World War was approaching.
13 slide
Description of the slide:
Friction between individual countries distracted them from the main problem for Bismarck - the revanchism of France. In addition, they provided Germany with an extremely advantageous position. Quarreling among themselves, various countries involuntarily provided Germany with the position of a kind of judge, conciliator, who had the final say in European affairs. Therefore, Bismarck kindled the rivalry between England and France in colonial affairs, and between Russia and Austria-Hungary in the Balkans, never taking it to the extreme. But this did not always work out. After another crisis in the Balkans, Austria-Hungary and Russia refused to renew the Union of the Three Emperors. It was replaced by the "reinsurance agreement" of 1887 with approximately the same conditions, but only between Germany and Russia.
14 slide
Description of the slide:
SUMMING UP In the last decades of the XIX century. in many Western countries there was a successful industrialization - the transformation of industry into the leading sphere of the economy. During the Second Industrial Revolution, new industries appeared - chemical, electrical, automotive. This progress has been uneven. Germany and the United States achieved the greatest success, where modern technologies developed most rapidly. In them, the most widespread were monopolies that restrained free competition. At the same time, England lost its former leadership, the pace of France's economic development was moderate, Austria-Hungary and Italy were just beginning the path of industrialization.
15 slide
Description of the slide:
SUMMING UP Gradually, the position of the lower classes of the population improved. This was due both to the growth of the economy as a whole, and to the struggle of workers and peasants for their rights. In Germany, the social security system has taken the first steps. The rise in living standards began to reduce the severity of social conflicts. New parties appeared, suffrage expanded, but electoral qualifications remained in a number of countries. In Germany and the United States, despite the breadth of suffrage, democratization was hampered by flaws in the political system. Tension grew in the international arena. Germany made claims to the redistribution of the already divided world, contradictions deepened in the Balkans, Europe split into two camps. The threat of war grew.
International order, wars and diplomatic relations in the middle of the 19th century
Despite the collapse of the foundations of the Vienna system by the 1840s, many of its elements were still preserved, and only the revolutions of 1848-1849. dealt her the final blow. The place of legitimism as the basis of foreign policy began to be occupied by various national aspirations, which was now characteristic of many European countries. It was under the sign of nationalism in 1850-1860. unification of Germany and Italy unfolded. At the same time, the Eastern Question remained the central problem around which the diplomats of the great European powers fought.
A serious indicator of the change in the balance of power in the European arena was the Crimean War, when the claims of Nicholas I to establish Russian hegemony in the Middle East and Turkey ran into resistance from Great Britain and France and met with the disapproval of Austria. The conflict began in 1850 with disputes over which of the Christian churches, Orthodox or Catholic, should be the guardian of especially revered churches in Palestine. Already in 1852, France managed to inflict a moral defeat on Russia by the fact that its president, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, prompted the sultan to recognize Catholic, and not Orthodox, priests as such. Nicholas I demanded that the Sultan dismiss his foreign minister. However, having received assurances of the support of the Western powers, Istanbul refused the king, which became a direct pretext for starting a war between Russia and Turkey. The Russian emperor, who believed in the military superiority of his empire, intended to use the opportunity to strengthen the strategic position of Russia by eliminating the problem of the Black Sea straits and further strengthening his influence in the Balkans.
Attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict failed. Nicholas I, counting on the hostility of Great Britain to Emperor Napoleon III, decided to inflict a mortal blow on Turkey by bringing his troops into the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which were vassals of the Ottoman Empire. At the same time, the king demanded that the Sultan recognize him as the patron of all Orthodox living in Turkey. In response, the British and French squadrons entered the Sea of Marmara. This was the main miscalculation of Nicholas I. Worried about the growth of Russian influence, London moved closer to Paris. Inspired by the support, the Sultan declared war on Russia in October 1853.
Initially, the Turks planned to inflict the main blow on Russia in the Transcaucasus, taking advantage of the fact that in the Caucasus active military operations under the leadership of Shamil were carried out by the highlanders. But these plans were thwarted. October 18/30, 1853 the Russian Black Sea Fleet under the command of Admiral P.S. Nakhimov inflicted a crushing defeat on the Turkish fleet in Sinop, disrupting the landing in Georgia. Then the Russian troops inflicted a series of defeats on the Turks in Transcaucasia, at the same time repelling the highlanders who had broken through to the village of Tsinandali. The threat of defeat hung over Turkey. However, the consequences of these victories were fatal for Russia. The British government now began to seriously fear that the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the strengthening of Russia's position in the Middle East region would upset the existing balance, jeopardizing British rule in India. Serious concern was also expressed in Paris. In January 1854, the Anglo-French squadron moved into the Black Sea. An ultimatum was sent to Russia demanding that the Danubian principalities be cleared. In response, St. Petersburg withdrew its ambassadors from France and Great Britain, and in March, Russian troops crossed the Danube.
On March 12, 1854, an allied treaty was concluded in Istanbul between Great Britain, France and Turkey, directed against Russia. The Western powers agreed to assist the Ottoman Empire in the war, recognized the need to preserve the “independence” of the Sultan’s power of the throne and the former borders of Turkey, and undertook to send a fleet and ground forces to help the latter, which they had to withdraw within forty days after the conclusion of the peace treaty. The Sultan, for his part, gave an obligation not to conclude a separate peace with Russia. After signing this treatise, Queen Victoria on March 27, 1854 declared war on Russia. Napoleon III followed suit. On April 10, 1854, an agreement was signed in London between Great Britain and France on assistance to Turkey in the war against Russia, supplementing the Treaty of Constantinople. It was envisaged that the allies would jointly conduct military operations against Russia, would not agree to the proposals of the latter or mediators on the cessation of hostilities, and would not enter into negotiations with her without prior consultations with each other.
The Treaty of Constantinople of Great Britain and France with Turkey and the London Anglo-French Treaty were intended to strengthen Turkey's determination to continue the war against Russia, since after the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldavia and Wallachia in June-July 1854, beyond the river. The Prut Turkish elite began to lean towards peace with Russia. The British and French fleets appeared on the Black Sea and the Baltic, where they blockaded the Russian fortresses of Kronstadt, Sveaborg and Bomarsund. On the White Sea, the British bombarded the Solovetsky Monastery, on the Murmansk coast they burned the city of Kola, and in the Far East, the Anglo-French squadron tried to capture Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Nevertheless, the development of hostilities outside the Black Sea region did not have a significant impact on the course of the war as a whole.
The main hostilities now unfolded on the Crimean peninsula, when a powerful landing of the British, French and Turks landed at Feodosia. The 60,000-strong allied army immediately moved to the main naval base - Sevastopol. September 8, 1854 at the river. Alma's path was unsuccessfully tried to block the 35,000-strong Russian army. Having abandoned the idea of a lightning-fast assault on Sevastopol, the allied army bypassed the city, choosing Balaklava as its main base.
The Russian command during the defense of Sevastopol managed to organize the construction of fortifications and block the entrance to the Sevastopol Bay. On October 5, the Allies undertook the first bombardment of Sevastopol. In October 1854, the Russian army attempted to unblock Sevastopol, inflicting an unexpected blow on Balaklava. The Turks covering the allied base were driven back, but its offensive impulse was stopped by the British. Success at Balaklava did not receive further development. A new battle near Inkerman ended in defeat, in which the technical backwardness of the Russian army was especially disastrous. The war began to take on a protracted character.
The hopes of Nicholas I for the help of Austria were in vain. Moreover, Vienna had its own reasons for not wanting a Russian conquest of the Balkans and the collapse of Turkey. Austria mobilized its army and occupied Wallachia and Moldavia, from where the Russian troops were forced to evacuate in order to avoid a collision with a new enemy. Russia was forced to keep a whole army in the southwest. Diplomatically, Russia found itself in a state of isolation, although the allies did not succeed in uniting all the European powers against it. On December 2, 1854, a defensive and offensive alliance was concluded between Austria, France and Great Britain against Russia. Austria signed this treaty in the hope of gaining control over Moldavia and Wallachia after Russia's defeat in the war. The treaty obligated the parties not to enter into any separate agreement with Russia. Austria took over the defense of Moldavia and Wallachia from Russian troops. Soon Prussia also joined the treaty. Now Austrian diplomacy has stepped up pressure on Russia. On March 16, 1855, Sardinia also joined the anti-Russian treaty of Constantinople, hoping to enlist the support of Paris in the unification of Italy and sent an 18,000-strong corps to the Crimea.
The main forces of the Russian field army in the Crimea lay dormant while the heroic defenders of Sevastopol bled and the Allies continued to build up their forces. By the summer of 1855, the 75,000-strong garrison was already opposed by the 170,000-strong Allied army. On June 6, a new, especially strong assault was repulsed with great difficulty. On August 24, a new bombardment was launched, and on the 27th, the Allies managed to capture the main defense center - Malakhov Kurgan, and the Russians were forced to retreat from the city. Thus ended the 349-day heroic defense of Sevastopol, the fall of which predetermined the outcome of the war. Warriors gave way to diplomats.
As early as July 30, 1854, the anti-Russian coalition put forward preliminary “four conditions” for peace: 1) Moldavia and Wallachia were to pass under the common protectorate of France, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia and temporarily remain under Austrian occupation; 2) these five powers were declared patrons of all Christian subjects of the Sultan; 3) they received the right of collective control over the mouth of the Danube; 4) Russia must agree to a revision of the London Straits Convention of 1841.
In the spring of 1855, a meeting of representatives of Russia, neutral Austria and members of the coalition - Great Britain, France and Turkey was held in Vienna in order to clarify the terms of peace. Now the allies demanded, in addition to the conditions presented, the disarmament of Sevastopol by Russia, its guarantee of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and consent to limit the Russian navy in the Black Sea. The mediation of Austrian diplomacy did not bring results, it was not possible to agree on peace, the war continued, and the Vienna Conference was declared closed.
From February 25 to March 30, 1856, the congress that ended the Crimean War was held in Paris, in which Russia and Great Britain, France, Turkey and Sardinia, which were at war with it, as well as Austria and Prussia, took part. The allies, contrary to expectations, did not put forward new conditions unacceptable for Russia. The negotiations were based on the so-called "four conditions" of the peace treaty put forward by the anti-Russian coalition in the summer of 1854, as well as the Allied demand for the neutralization of the Black Sea added to them after the fall of Sevastopol on September 8, 1855. In the course of the work of the congress, Russian diplomacy managed to somewhat soften the terms of peace, using the Anglo-French contradictions and drawing somewhat closer to France. The treaty proclaimed the restoration of peace between the participants in the war and provided for the return of Russia to Turkey by the city of Kars with a fortress in Transcaucasia in exchange for Sevastopol and other cities in the Crimea occupied by the allies. The Black Sea was declared neutralized, Russia and Turkey were forbidden to have a navy and arsenals, freedom of navigation along the Danube was proclaimed under the control of two international commissions. Russia was supposed to transfer to the Principality of Moldavia the mouth of the Danube and the part of Southern Bessarabia adjoining it. The right of Russia to “speak in favor” of Moldavia and Wallachia, established back in 1774, was cancelled. The internal autonomy of Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia under the supreme authority of the Ottoman Empire was guaranteed.
Three conventions were annexed to the Treaty of Paris. The first confirmed the London Convention on the Straits of 1841, which prohibited the passage of military ships of the European powers through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The second set restrictions on the number and displacement of light military vessels of Russia and Turkey, intended for guard duty in the Black Sea. The third - introduced the demilitarization of the Aland Islands in the Baltic Sea, forbidding Russia to build fortifications on them and maintain troops.
In the course of the Paris Congress, Russia managed to use the contradictions between the victors and, on the basis of some rapprochement with France, achieve a softening of the peace conditions. The peace treaty was signed on March 18 (30), 1856. According to Article XI of the Treaty, the status of the Black Sea was determined: it “is declared neutral: the entrance to the ports and waters of it, open to merchant shipping of all peoples, is formally and forever forbidden to military vessels, both coastal and all other powers." From this it followed, according to Article XIII, that “the All-Russian Emperor and ... the Sultan undertake not to start or leave any naval arsenal on these shores,” that is, Russia could no longer have a navy on the Black Sea. A separate convention was also signed establishing the demilitarized status of the Aland Islands located in the Baltic, which belonged to Russia. This provision continues to be in effect to this day. In 1871, after the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War, the Russian Foreign Minister A.M. Gorchakov announced Russia's refusal from the terms of the Paris Treaty, which limited the naval presence in the Black Sea.
The issue of transferring patronage over the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire to the European powers was resolved by the Sultan's firman on February 18, 1856, which declared freedom for all Christian denominations. In accordance with the decisions of the Paris Congress of 1856, from May 22 to August 19, 1858, a special conference of representatives of Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria, Turkey, Prussia and Sardinia was held in the French capital in order to determine the status of the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which sought to unite into a single state. During this conference, the Russian Empire, which was supported by Sardinia, advocated the unification of the principalities, but Austria, Great Britain and Turkey opposed this. On August 19, the conference participants signed a convention providing for the formation of the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia under the suzerainty of the Turkish Sultan, while maintaining in each of them the power of its prince, who was to be elected for life by the assemblies of the principalities. In accordance with the convention, a common law-making body and a supreme court were created for both principalities. In the event of war, the militia corps of the principalities were to be united into a single army. The inviolability of the principalities was guaranteed by the parties to the convention. At the beginning of 1859, the electoral meetings of Moldavia and Wallachia, despite the opposition of Turkey, elected a common ruler A. Cuza, completing the unification of both principalities. The new state took the name "Romania". With the support of the principalities by Russia and France, Turkey was forced to agree with the election of Cuza. In 1861, Romania was recognized by European powers as guarantors of the Paris Convention of 1858.
An important consequence of the new international situation created as a result of the Crimean War and the Peace of Paris was the collapse of the Anglo-French coalition and the transition of Great Britain to a policy of "brilliant isolation", consisting in the rejection of long-term alliances with other states and maintaining complete freedom of action in international affairs.
The Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 significantly changed the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe as a whole. The struggle to restore its authority and influence, to get out of international isolation became for a long period one of the main directions of Russia's foreign policy. Nevertheless, the neutralization and demilitarized status of the Black Sea guaranteed safe trade for Russia by sea and straits. The coalition of Russia's opponents disintegrated almost immediately after the end of the Paris Conference, and Russia's absolute isolation did not occur.
In other regions of the world, the diplomacy of the European powers after the revolutionary upheavals of 1848–1849. proceeded from different strategic plans, was closely linked with colonial projects, and often cooperation in areas of common interests grew into rivalry.
Both the Europeans and the US continued to explore the North Pacific. In 1854, the result of the US military expedition to Japan was the signing of an agreement on the opening of two Japanese ports for foreign trade. Shortly thereafter, a similar treaty was signed by the Japanese authorities and with Great Britain. In 1858, Japan granted broad rights and privileges in trade to the USA, the Netherlands, France, Russia, and Great Britain. The opening of the Japanese islands for foreign trade contributed to the rapid modernization of the country and the beginning of deep reforms.
Napoleon III, striving to create a new colonial empire, subordinated his diplomacy to expansionist interests, which entailed the deterioration of France's relations with a number of states. A striking example of the Franco-British rivalry in Egypt was the construction, mainly on French capital, of the navigable Suez Canal in 1859-1869. Thanks to the canal, the length of the waterway between Europe and India was reduced by almost 8000 km, and Great Britain, which did not want to give control over the strategic artery to other countries, bought a 44% stake in the canal from the Khedive.
The interaction of French and British forces in China was successful. Anglo-French-Chinese War 1856–1860 entered the history of international relations under the name of the second "opium" war. Taking advantage of the powerful Taiping uprising that was taking place in China, England in 1856 began military operations against China in the Guangzhou region, and in early 1857 France joined it. In December 1857, Anglo-French troops captured Guangzhou. In the spring of 1858, hostilities continued in the territory of the capital province of Zhili. In May 1858, the Anglo-French army, threatening to attack Tianjin and Beijing, forced the Chinese government to sign the unequal Tianjin treaties with England and France. The opium trade was completely legalized. The United States, although it did not take part in the military conflict, also concluded an agreement with China, receiving the same trading conditions as France and England. A year later, England and France, counting on new concessions from China, resumed hostilities. In August 1860, their troops captured Tianjin, in October 1860 - Beijing. As a result, the Beijing Anglo-Chinese and Franco-Chinese treaties (1860) were imposed on the Chinese government.
The French foreign policy ambitions of the period of the Second Empire led to a sharp deterioration in relations with the United States, which only began in 1861. The Civil War temporarily weakened the influence of this state on international relations in the New World. The actual default of Mexico on debts to Great Britain, Spain and France served as a pretext for the signing of the Anglo-Spanish-French convention in October 1861, which provided for their joint intervention in Mexico. France sent an army of forty thousand to Mexico, and after the withdrawal of foreign contingents of other powers, hostilities in this country turned into a Franco-Mexican conflict. The brother of the Austrian Emperor Maximilian in July 1863 was proclaimed Emperor of Mexico by the French, but the military goals set by Napoleon III in Mexico were not achieved, and the French troops left it in February 1867, and Emperor Maximilian, deprived of military support, ended up in the hands of Mexican patriots and was shot.
The fiasco of the French Mexican military expedition and the complication of international relations in Europe, the growth of the military and political importance of Prussia forced France to abandon its plans to strengthen influence in America and affected its colonial policy as a whole.
The expansion of the Russian Empire in the east, which took place progressively over the centuries, by the middle of the 19th century. led to the need for a diplomatic settlement and the establishment of permanent borders with China, Japan and the United States. The common border with China was established by the Aigun (1858) and Beijing (1860) treaties, and the dispute with Japan over the ownership of the islands in the Sea of Japan and the Sea of Okhotsk was resolved by mutual agreement of the parties in 1875. According to the Russian-Japanese treaty of On April 25 (May 7), 1875, the countries exchanged territories: Japan abandoned Sakhalin, and in return received the Kuril Islands from Russia.
Another region whose fate had to be determined was Alaska. The Crimean War showed that the Russian colonies in America were extremely vulnerable, since they bordered on British Canada. For the first time, the idea of selling Alaska was raised in 1857. Not having the necessary means to protect its interests on the American continent, the Russian cabinet preferred to cede all American possessions to the US government for $7.2 million. territories. However, another conflict still came to the fore in international relations in the 1860s - the rivalry for spheres of influence and territories in Asia between Great Britain and Russia. The scale of expansion of the Russian Empire in this region was quite comparable to the scale of the English advance. If Russia was inferior to Britain in the level of economic development and the power of its military fleet, then in the vastness of Central Asia it had an advantage due to its geographical position. The colonies of Russia in Asia were actually a single entity with the metropolis. Already in the middle of the XIX century. it became obvious that the main direction of Russia's external expansion in Asia was becoming Central Asian. By 1846, Russia completed the annexation of the Kazakh lands, and in the mid-1860s, significant forces were sent to conquer the states of Central Asia. Military operations in the region stretched over two decades. In 1868, the Emirate of Bukhara came under the protection of Russia, in 1873 the Khiva Khanate lost its independence, and in 1876 the Khiva Khanate was annexed to Russia. Thus, the borders of the Russian empire reached the borders of Afghanistan.
The British government carefully and fearfully followed the advance of the Russian Empire in Asia. In the late 1870s, the Turkmen tribes accepted Russian citizenship. In 1885 there was an armed clash between detachments of Afghan and Russian troops near Kushka. It was at this time that Britain began to talk about the threat to its colonial interests in India coming from Russia. The 50,000 soldiers stationed in this region were brought to full combat readiness, reservists began to be called up in England, and plans were developed to move British troops to the most important points of the British Empire.
The decades that have passed since the signing of the Peace of Paris in 1856 have led to results that are exactly the opposite of what was expected in the capitals of Western Europe: instead of strengthening the power of the Sultan in the Balkans, its most significant weakening took place in this region. The Muslim population did not accept hasty reforms. The publication in the Ottoman Empire in 1856 of the Hatt-i-Humayun (August style) contributed to destructive social processes.
In August 1856, Russian Foreign Minister A.M. Gorchakov signed a circular that determined the strategic line of the empire's foreign policy. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states was declared, including the renunciation of military efforts to strengthen legitimate dynasties. Gorchakov considered the main task of his department to be the maintenance of a long and lasting peace, but the strategic goal remained the abolition of the neutralization of the Black Sea and the strengthening of Russian positions in the Balkans, excluding methods of forceful pressure. Gorchakov pursued prudent and cautious tactics in the Balkans. Local performances were brutally suppressed, bringing only suffering and blood; he did not believe in the success of a general uprising without Russian intervention, and the latter would inevitably entail a new edition of the Crimean War. Gorchakov correctly assessed the prospects of the new Balkan states, believing that they would not remain loyal allies of Russia, freed from Ottoman dependence, and "follow the path of their material interests."
Another major diplomat, Ambassador to Constantinople N.P. Ignatiev, on the contrary, believed in the success of the united Slavs and was involved in the creation of the Balkan Union of 1866–1869. This plan ran into mutually exclusive territorial claims of the members of the union. Thus, Gorchakov's cautious course - to encourage the manifestation of the independence of the inhabitants of the Balkans and thereby undermine the power of the Sublime Porte - remained the general line of Russian diplomacy. The “Post-Crimean Twenty Years” has brought considerable results along this path. The power of the Porte weakened, the principalities adopted their own laws, built railways, acquired industry, concluded postal and telegraph conventions and trade agreements.
In the 50-60s of the XIX century. the process of uniting Italy around Piedmont and the Savoy dynasty that ruled there was nearing completion. Piedmont relied at first on the support of the French Empire, and Austria acted as an opponent of the unification of Italy. On July 21, 1858, between Napoleon III and the prime minister of the Sardinian kingdom, Cavour, a secret agreement was signed in Plombier on a war against Austria. Napoleon III promised the Kingdom of Sardinia military assistance to liberate Lombardy and Venice from Austrian rule and create a northern Italian state led by the Savoy dynasty. For this, Cavour promised to transfer Savoy and Nice to France. During the war of the Kingdom of Sardinia and France against Austria in April 1859, the French emperor, frightened by the growth of the national liberation and revolutionary movement in Italy, betrayed his ally and in July 1859 concluded the Truce of Villafranca, under which Venice remained under the rule Austrians, despite their defeat in the war.
On October 16, 1859, a peace conference opened in Zurich, as a result of which peace treaties were signed on November 10: Austro-French, Franco-Sardinian and general Austro-Franco-Sardinian. According to these treaties, Lombardy departed from Austria to Sardinia (except for the fortresses of Peschiera and Mantua). The Dukes of Modena, Parma and the Grand Duke of Tuscany were given back their possessions. From the Italian states it was supposed to create a confederation under the chairmanship of the pope. In fact, this could consolidate the fragmentation of Italy. Austria was left with Venice, which was to become part of the confederate entity as an equal member. Sardinia pledged to pay France 60 million florins. The treaties concluded in Zurich were an attempt to reduce all changes to the transfer of Sardinia to Lombardy alone. But on March 24, 1860, an agreement was signed in Turin between the Kingdom of Sardinia and France, which provided for the transfer of Savoy and Nice to France. In turn, France recognized the accession of the states of Central Italy to Sardinia, which was contrary to the Zurich treaties of 1859.
In the first half of the 1860s, international relations in Europe were overshadowed by the tense situation in Poland, which aroused the sympathy of public opinion in Great Britain and France, especially since Emperor Napoleon III sought to restore French influence there.
The uprising in the Russian part of Poland began ahead of schedule, at the end of January 1863, as a reaction to the recruitment announced by the authorities. The Provisional Government proclaimed by the insurgents began its activities with a decree on the transfer of the allotments cultivated by them to the peasants, with subsequent compensation at the expense of the state.
Meanwhile, France declared its readiness to "defend" the oppressed nation. In this she was supported by Great Britain and less decisively by Austria. However, when in June 1863 the governments of France, Great Britain and Austria demanded from Russia certain guarantees for Poland, the Russian Foreign Minister refused to discuss this issue. Alexander II believed that Poland's independence was "practically impossible". Russia was supported only by the Prussian Chancellor and Foreign Minister Bismarck. On January 27, 1863, the Prussian ambassador to Russia, Alvensleben, signed an agreement with Gorchakov that provided assistance to the Russian troops operating in Poland. In practice, it was not applied, but it consolidated the friendly Russian-Prussian relations, which were important for Bismarck, who planned to begin the unification of Germany. An important factor that contributed to the rapid rise of Prussia in the early 1860s was the fact that Bismarck was inclined to disregard the generally accepted norms in international relations and his choice of means to achieve goals depended entirely on the degree of their effectiveness. Such principles of the Prussian government in the international arena were assessed by contemporaries as "realpolitik".
By the summer of 1863, the uprising engulfed almost the entire Kingdom (Tsardom) of Poland, as well as part of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. However, the conservative Polish circles, having headed the government, did not start implementing agrarian legislation and creating a people's militia, relying on the military support of the European powers. Differences between conservatives and radical democrats contributed to the defeat of the uprising. By May 1864, the uprising was almost completely suppressed by the Russian authorities, the Kingdom of Poland was included in Russia with the complete elimination of national institutions, but, despite the massacre of the participants in the uprising, Petersburg was still forced to satisfy some of their demands. In 1864, an agrarian reform began on the Polish lands, the peasants became owners of their lands, redemption payments were levied in taxes in the amount of 2/3 of the previous rent, landless peasants also received allotments.
The Prussian kingdom abolished the national characteristics of the Polish lands that were part of Prussia, and then the German Empire, and their administrative institutions. In order to massively acquire Polish lands by the Germans, a special Colonization Commission was created. Both in Prussia and in Russia, the national-cultural autonomy of the Polish territories was also infringed. In the former lands of the Commonwealth, ceded to Austria-Hungary, the situation differed markedly from the orders introduced by Prussia and Russia. So, Galicia had broad autonomy, and the rights of the local Sejm were expanded.
In 1863 the Schleswig-Holstein question escalated again. In January 1852, the Danish government published a decree on the basic provisions of a common constitution for all three parts of the state. Agreeing with the position of Denmark, Prussia and Austria withdrew their troops from Holstein. However, in the Danish parliament, the decree caused great discontent, as it created a dangerous precedent for the intervention of the German states in the internal affairs of the monarchy. The German states told Copenhagen that the general constitution did not correspond to those adopted in 1851-1852. decisions and unfair to the German minority. The All-German Federal Assembly demanded from Denmark the abolition of the constitution under the threat of the occupation of Holstein. The frightened Danish government made concessions. Britain recommended that the Danish government repeal the language decrees and give Schleswig a separate constitution.
The constant interference of the German powers in the internal politics of the triune state and the threat to occupy Holstein repeatedly created the threat of a new war. Danish public opinion also leaned towards a military solution to the problem of establishing a state before Eider, since the euphoria of victory had not yet subsided in the country.
The Danish government overly optimistically counted on the support of Napoleon III in the conflict with Germany and on the benevolent position of Great Britain. However, the political situation in Europe at that time was changing not in favor of Denmark. Therefore, when in November 1863 the Danish parliament adopted a constitution common to Denmark and Schleswig, opponents of this decision in Denmark itself spoke of a violation of the legal foundations of the Danish monarchy, which the neutral powers considered necessary to maintain European balance. Breaking the agreements 1851–1852 could lead to war, the conquest of Holstein and the occupation of Danish ports by Prussia. According to the new constitution, a bicameral parliament was introduced - rigsrod, in which the deputies from Denmark provided a majority. The constitution was to come into force in 1864 after it was signed by the king. This document was a clear challenge to the German states.
Christian IX of Glucksburg, who ascended the Danish throne, despite the requests of France and Russia to postpone the signing of the new constitution of Denmark and Schleswig, on November 18, under pressure from his government and public opinion, nevertheless signed a new text of the basic law. In response, Bismarck claimed that this constitution was a violation of the agreements of 1851–1852, but, preferring to directly annex the duchies to Prussia, he needed the support of his plans from other leading powers. In order to obtain such support, Prussia approved the proposal of Napoleon III on November 5, 1863, to convene a congress to settle the fate of Poland and replace the Vienna system with new agreements. For the same purpose, Bismarck also supported Russia during the Polish uprising of 1863-1864.
Prussia and Austria put forward the abolition of the November constitution as a condition for the recognition of Christian IX, the Frankfurt Federal Assembly on December 7, 1863 decided to occupy Holstein. France, Britain and Russia also supported the demand for the abolition of the new constitution through a joint demarche of their extraordinary envoys in Copenhagen.
During the government crisis in Denmark, Holstein was occupied by German troops, and on December 30, the Duke of Augustenburg entered Kiel. These events led Britain to propose on December 31, 1863, that a peace conference be called. Bismarck, knowing about the isolation of England and the fact that France and Russia did not support her, first demanded the abolition of the constitution. On January 16, 1864, Prussia and Austria sent an ultimatum to the Danish government, which was rejected by them, and on February 1, 1864, Austrian and Prussian troops of 60 thousand people occupied Schleswig. A new war began between Denmark and the German states, for which Denmark itself was poorly prepared. In Copenhagen, high hopes were placed on the Danevirke fortified line, but its defense by the forces of a small Danish army in winter conditions turned out to be an impossible task. By March 1864, the 40,000-strong Danish army retreated through Flensburg to fortified positions near the city of Dubel, while another part of the Danish army retreated to the north of Jutland to the fortress of Fredericia. On April 18, 1864, the Prussian-Austrian troops defeated the Danes at Dubel, where the latter held out for about 10 weeks, suffering significant losses. On April 29, Danish troops were forced to leave Fredericia and evacuate to the islands of Als and Funen.
The prospects for military assistance to Denmark from England and France were minimal. Under these conditions, Russia managed to achieve the convening of a conference in London in the spring of 1864 to resolve the conflict. On April 25, 1864, in London, with the participation of Great Britain, France and Russia, peace negotiations began between the representatives of the warring states. After a series of military successes, the goal of Prussia was formulated openly - the annexation of the duchies. Bismarck succeeded in getting the conference to decide to divide Schleswig. The Danish government refused to consider any border that excluded the city of Flensburg and mixed territory from its territory, insisting on the Schlei-Danevirke line. The mediation of England and France did not lead to anything, the idea of a plebiscite in mixed areas after the withdrawal of the Austro-Prussian troops was also not accepted by the Danes. The unsuccessful outcome of the London conference meant the loss of Schleswig for Denmark. The conference also revealed the antagonism between England and France, which was disastrous for Denmark, which became the prologue to the inevitable hegemony of Germany.
On June 25 hostilities between Denmark and the German states resumed. The Germans managed to take about. Als, the Austrian fleet approached Danish waters, Jutland was already occupied as far as Skagen. Counting on the help of Great Britain or France turned out to be unrealistic. Under these conditions, the new Danish government immediately began negotiations with Prussia and Austria, which led to the Treaty of Vienna on October 30, 1864. The King of Denmark left Holstein, Lauenburg and Schleswig to the Prussian King and the Austrian Emperor.
On August 14, 1865, in Gastein, Austria and Prussia signed a convention to settle the issue of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, according to which the ownership of the entire territory of both duchies belonged to Austria and Prussia, but their administration was declared separate. An Austrian administration was created in Holstein, and a Prussian one in Schleswig.
Having resolved the Schleswig-Holstein problem, Bismarck took the next step towards the unification of Germany "with iron and blood" - ousting Austria from Germany. The new expansionist move was prepared diplomatically. Bismarck managed to secure the neutrality of Napoleon III, promising not to interfere with the annexation of part of Belgium and even the left bank of the Rhine to France. In April 1866, Bismarck concluded a secret agreement with Italy, promising her not to interfere with the annexation of Venice. After that, the Prussian Chancellor went straight to the offensive. He invited Vienna to discuss the issues of reforming the German Confederation, created by the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, and to review the status of Holstein, where Prussian troops were introduced in June 1866. The posing of these provocative questions for Austria caused the war. The Bundestag of the German Confederation, at the suggestion of Austria, decided to start mobilization. In response to this, on June 16, Prussian troops entered Saxony, Hanover, Hesse-Kassel and crossed the Austrian border. Bavaria and some other South German states took the side of Austria, but their military forces were insignificant. The position of Austria deteriorated sharply due to the fact that Italy attacked it from the south, which forced the Austrians to wage war on two fronts. In military operations against the Italian troops, the Austrians were lucky, they defeated the Italians in the battle of Custozza. The actions of the Austrian navy in the Adriatic were successful. However, in the main theater of operations, the Austrian troops were forced to retreat. Unexpectedly for all of Europe, the campaign here was resolved in almost a month. On July 3, 1866, near the village of Sadova (in the Czech Republic), the Prussians inflicted a decisive defeat on the Austrian army. The Prussian army invaded the territory of Austria proper, and the Allied troops also failed. The way to Vienna was opened. However, the sober-minded Bismarck, fearing that the continuation of the war would lead to the intervention of France, and this could frustrate the plans for the unification of Germany under the auspices of Prussia, insisted on an immediate conclusion of peace.
On July 26, the Nikolsburg Preliminary Peace Treaty was signed between Austria and Prussia, the territory of the Austrian Empire, with the exception of Venice, which was transferred to Italy, remained untouched. Moreover, Prussia undertook, after the conclusion of the final peace, to withdraw troops from the Austrian possessions. Austria recognized the "new organization of Germany without the participation of the Austrian Empire" and agreed to the creation of a union of German states north of the river. Mine. The territory of the Saxon kingdom remained unchanged, and its future position in the North German Confederation was to be determined in a separate peace treaty.
Finally, the results of the war between Prussia and Austria were secured by a peace treaty of August 23, 1866. Austria transferred to Prussia all rights to Schleswig and Holstein, on the condition that Northern Schleswig would be reunited with Denmark if its population wished in a referendum. For its part, Prussia undertook to withdraw troops from the territory of Austria no later than three months after the ratification of the treaty. The validity of all treaties concluded between Austria and Prussia before the war was renewed, the German Confederation was abolished. Austria was actually ousted from Germany, the unification of which now finally went according to the "Little German" model.
The military defeat put the Habsburgs in front of a serious problem, especially since relations with subjugated Hungary escalated. A day after the signing of the Peace of Prague, on August 25, 1866, negotiations between Vienna and the Hungarian opposition began, as a result of which the country was transformed into a kind of confederate state on a dualistic basis, with two centers, which became known as Austria-Hungary.
Thanks to the defeat of Austria, the process of completing the unification of Italy accelerated. On October 3, 1866, a peace treaty was signed in Vienna between Austria and Italy, which confirmed the transfer of the Venetian region to Italy and established a new border. The process of German unification around Prussia was in full swing. Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau, Frankfurt am Main were soon attached to it, and Bismarck needed considerable diplomatic skill to induce Alexander II to refuse to interfere under the pretext of protecting the "legitimate" rights of the German monarchs. At the beginning of 1867, the North German Confederation was formed, in which, under the leadership of Prussia, all German lands to the north of the river were united. Mine. The German states south of the Main were forced to conclude defensive and offensive treaties with the North German Confederation. Now only France remained on the way to complete the unification.
In the second half of the 1860s, relations between France and Prussia worsened over Luxembourg. Concerned about the strengthening of Prussia, Napoleon III turned to the King of the Netherlands and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, William III, with a proposal to buy the duchy, which occupied an important strategic position. The Duke agreed, but Bismarck opposed it. An anti-French campaign began in the Prussian press. There was a real threat of war. Then the Russian Chancellor A.M. Gorchakov suggested that an international conference be convened to resolve the issue of Luxembourg. In April 1867, the Russian ambassador in London, F.I. Brunnow asked the British Prime Minister Lord Derby to formally propose the convening of such a conference and gave him a draft treaty on the status of Luxembourg, which provided for a guarantee of the Duchy's neutrality. At first, the British government objected to the neutrality clause, but even before the conference began, the Russian ambassador managed to win over the representatives of Austria-Hungary, France and Prussia. The conference was attended by representatives of Russia, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Prussia, France, Luxembourg, and on April 29 (May 11) the participants signed an agreement according to which the crown of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was recognized for the house of Nassau. The duchy within the borders of 1839 was declared a "perpetually neutral" state. The guarantors of neutrality, as envisaged by the Russian project, were all signatory states, except for Belgium, which itself was declared neutral. Luxembourg was declared an open city, all fortifications were to be demolished, and Prussia undertook to withdraw its troops from the territory of the duchy.
Bismarck's pretext for settling scores with Napoleon III was the Spanish problem. In 1869, the Spanish government invited Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern, a Prussian officer and close relative of King Wilhelm I of Prussia, to the vacant throne. With the consent of the king, the prince gave a positive answer. Then the government of Napoleon III protested, demanding that Prussia forbid the prince to occupy the throne of Spain. On July 12, 1870, the prince declined an invitation from Spain, but this incident served as the basis for a deeper conflict. Neither Napoleon III nor Bismarck were satisfied with the settlement of the issue, and each of them sought to extract more significant benefits from it.
By order of the emperor, the French envoy in Berlin, Benedetti, conveyed to Wilhelm I, who was in the town of Ems, a demand for guarantees “for all future times” not to give consent to the candidacy of Leopold Hohenzollern as king of Spain. Wilhelm I refused the proposal of the French diplomat. A summary of Benedetti's conversation with the king was sent on July 13, 1870 by telegraph to Chancellor Bismarck in Berlin, who deliberately shortened the text of this message so that it took on a sharp, even insulting meaning for the French government. This distorted text of the Ems Dispatch was transmitted by Bismarck to the press and to all Prussian missions abroad, and the next day it became known in Paris, causing a scandal. July 19, 1870 Napoleon III declared war on Prussia. A war began, which received the name Franco-Prussian in historiography, although Prussia was supported not only by the rest of the states of the North German Union, but even by four states that previously oriented towards France - Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg and Hesse-Darmstadt.
Napoleon III found himself in a state of diplomatic isolation: Great Britain now saw him as a rival in colonial conquests, Russia could not forget the Crimean War, the humiliating terms of the Peace of Paris and the French moral support for the Polish uprising of 1863, and reunited Italy could forgive the emperor for resisting inclusion Papal States in its composition. Recently defeated by Prussia, Denmark and Austria did not want to take risks. France turned out to be poorly prepared for modern warfare, while the troops of the German states were completely mobilized and outnumbered twice the French army.
F.R. Hartwich. Franco-Prussian War. Capture of Napoleon III. Lithography. 1870
From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich From the book Rus' and the Horde. Great empire of the Middle Ages author7.2. The second period: from the middle of the IX century to the middle of the XII century - Kievan Rus from Rurik to Yuri Dolgoruky (Rostov) This is the era of Kievan Rus. In parentheses, we indicate the duration of the reigns of the Grand Dukes of Kyiv, with their options in the presence of co-reigns. Note that in
From the book King of the Slavs. author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4. All celestial flashes, marked by Russian chronicles in the time interval from the beginning of AD. e. until the beginning of the 13th century, are reflections of a single outburst of a supernova from the middle of the 12th century. All of them are “tied” to reflections of the story of Jesus Christ from the 12th century.
From the book Book 1. New Chronology of Rus' [Russian Chronicles. "Mongol-Tatar" conquest. Kulikovo battle. Ivan groznyj. Razin. Pugachev. Defeat of Tobolsk and author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich7.2. The second period: from the middle of the IX century to the middle of the XII century - Kievan Rus from Rurik to Yuri Dolgoruky (Rostov) This is the era of the great princes of Kievan Rus. See Radzivilov Chronicle. In parentheses, we indicate the duration of the reigns, with their options, if available.
From the book New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichPeriod 2: from the middle of the 9th century to the middle of the 12th century - Kievan Rus from Rurik to Yuri Dolgoruky (Rostov) This is the era of the great princes of Kievan Rus (see Radzivilov Chronicle). In parentheses, we indicate the duration of the reigns (with options in the case of co-reigns).
From the book The Third Project. Volume I `Immersion` author Kalashnikov MaximThe Crisis of the Middle of the 19th Century After the shameful defeat in the Crimean War (1853-1856), our country entered a period of a most dangerous crisis. The project "Northern Palmyra" has become like a ship caught in a cruel storm - when the masts crack and the waves flood the deck. Already on the eve of the war, everything
From the book A Complete Course of Lectures on Russian History author Platonov Sergey FyodorovichMoscow principality until the middle of the 15th century
From the book Subject to disclosure. USSR-Germany, 1939-1941. Documents and materials author Felshtinsky Yuri GeorgievichA NOTE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR HANDED ON THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1939 TO THE AMBASSADORS AND EMBASSANS OF THE STATES HAVING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE USSR Mr. Ambassador, in the name of the Polish Ambassador in Moscow, I have
author Potemkin Vladimir PetrovichAttempts by Congress to establish diplomatic relations with European states. According to generally accepted rules of diplomacy, an ambassador to a country can be appointed only with the consent of its government. Adams suggested that Congress should ignore these
From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir PetrovichCHAPTER FOUR. EUROPEAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS UNDER NAPOLEON (1799? 1814
From the book King of the Slavs author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich4. ALL SKY FLASHES RECORDED BY RUSSIAN CHRONICLES IN THE TIME INTERVAL FROM THE BEGINNING OF AD BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE XIII CENTURY, THEY ARE REFLECTIONS OF A SUPERNOVA FLASH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE XII CENTURY. THEY ALL ARE "LINKED" TO THE REFLECTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST FROM THE XII CENTURY They may try to object as follows:
From the book History of Korea: from antiquity to the beginning of the XXI century. author Kurbanov Sergey Olegovich§ 2. Diplomatic relations between Goryeo and the Mongols. Subjugation of Koryo to the Mongol Yuan Dynasty of China
From the book Ecumenical Councils author Kartashev Anton VladimirovichEnd of Consta (668). Diplomatic relations between Rome and Constantinople Such terror temporarily silenced the entire empire. Even in Rome the clergy fell silent. Pope Eugene died in 657. His successor Vitaly decided to humbly send his synodika not only to
From the book Russia and the West on the swing of history. Volume 1 [From Rurik to Alexander I] author Romanov Petr Valentinovich From the book Russia and the West on the swing of history. From Paul I to Alexander II author Romanov Petr ValentinovichThe Holy Alliance - the strangest international treatise of the 19th century Many people in Russia and other European countries know about the Holy Alliance, created on the initiative of Alexander I. Quite well known is the final assessment given to this union by history. Talk about
From the book Formation of the Russian Centralized State in the XIV-XV centuries. Essays on the socio-economic and political history of Rus' author Cherepnin Lev VladimirovichChapter V Unification of Russian lands around Moscow and the process of political centralization in the period from the 80s of the XIV century to the middle of the XV century § 1. Rus' after the Battle of Kulikovo By the beginning of the 80s of the XIV century. the leading role of Moscow in the process of formation of the Russian
EUROPE TO THE LAST DECADES OF THE XIX CENTURY EUROPE TO THE LAST
DECADES OF THE XIX CENTURY
Wars of the late 1860s and early 1870s led to the emergence
two new great powers - Germany and Italy. Especially
the emergence of the first was important. For centuries
the center of Europe was a conglomeration of many
weak states. Now there was a powerful
country with the second largest population in Europe,
developed economy and strong military. Italy was the most
weakest of the great powers. But her very appearance increased
their number is up to 6, which changed the usual layouts.
centuries of leadership in the German world, but also turned out to be simply
thrown out of it. From now on, the Habsburgs have only one
a possible direction of foreign policy is the Balkans. Same way
pushed by the acuteness of the national problem. Realizing what it is
could lead to a clash with Russia, in Vienna they hoped for
help from Germany. "Give your hand to Germany and show your fist
Russia" - that's what became the motto of Austria-Hungary. Russia
took advantage of the Franco-German war to abandon
humiliating decisions of the Paris Congress of 1856, and also
intensified its eastern policy. England continued
pursue a policy of "brilliant isolation", although many politicians
worried about the growth of Germany's power. France suffered
defeated and lost Alsace and Lorraine. From now on, she wanted
to revenge, dreaming of taking revenge on Germany and returning the lost
provinces. The system could not but respond to all these innovations.
international relations.
THE CRISIS OF THE VIENNA SYSTEM
The main goal of the Vienna system was to preserve peace, stability andmonarchical order in Europe. She sought to contain the revolutionary and
national movements and prevent wars between the great powers. TO
last decades of the 19th century. all this is in the past: from now on the revolution
no longer led to wars on a European scale, but the "principle of nationalities"
forged its own path and led to the emergence of new states.
Therefore, the need for cooperation against revolutions and national
movement disappeared.
The Crimean War opened the era of wars in which everyone took part without exception
great powers. In place of the "European concert" and willingness to compromise
realpolitik came, demanding to be guided exclusively
the interests of their own state. But a return to the days of the Old Order,
when out of the clashes of selfish states an unstable
balance, didn't happen.
The system of unions acted as a regulator of international relations
Bismarck.
BISMARCK'S SYSTEM OF UNIONS
Bismarck understood that the huge empire he createdis an alien body in the center of Europe and an intruder
her balance. According to all previous canons, violators
equilibrium had to be feared by a coalition of others
states against themselves, especially since France did not hide
desire for revenge. But the German chancellor played on
advance.
He himself began to create alliances in order to prevent France from
get allies and not only find a united germany
place in Europe, but also to achieve its leadership.
BISMARCK'S SYSTEM OF UNIONS
In 1879, Germany concluded with Austria-Hungarydefensive alliance against Russia and France.
In 1882, Italy joined him - this is how
Triple Alliance. The year before Germany, Austria-Hungary
and Russia created the Union of Three Emperors, promising a friend
neutrality to a friend in case of war with a non-alliance
power. In the early 1880s. to Bismarck's system of alliances
Romania and Serbia were included.
In 1887 Austria-Hungary, England and Italy signed
agreement on the inadmissibility of changes in the basin
Mediterranean Sea, directed against France and Russia.
BISMARCK'S SYSTEM OF UNIONS
As a result, Germany was at the center of a complex systemunions, which one way or another connected all the great
powers, leaving only France isolated. This
the system was full of contradictions. Anti-Russian
The triple alliance was contrary to the alliance of three
emperors, which included Russia. Inside
Triple Alliance, Italy made claims to
Austrian lands inhabited by Italians, and in the Union
three emperors Austria-Hungary and Russia competed
because of the Balkans. But it was precisely these contradictions that were needed
Bismarck.
"GLOBAL POLITICS"
Meanwhile, in Germany itself, othertime. If Bismarck sought to protect
conquered, then to the new Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1918) such a policy seemed old-fashioned, he wanted
more.
In 1890, Bismarck was dismissed, and then
The Kaiser declared that Germany was moving towards a "world
politics": from now on, the interests of Germany are not
concentrated only in Europe, as under Bismarck,
and spread over the entire globe. Straightaway
a lot has changed.
"GLOBAL POLITICS"
In 1890, Germany refused to renegotiate the "treaty ofreinsurance” with Russia. Lost an old ally and
warring with Austria-Hungary, Russia had no choice but to
to get closer to France, especially since she supplied her with large
loans. In 1891-1894. was concluded Russian-French
union.
Thus, along with the Triple Alliance, a second pole arose
forces in Europe. Previously, alliances were formed on the threshold of war and with
specific goals. Bismarck initiated a completely new
phenomenon - long-term alliances concluded in peacetime.
But for him, unions were an instrument of regulation.
international relations. Now the division of Europe into
two opposing camps.
ANGLO-GERMAN CONTRADICTIONS
Gradually, not only Russia, but also England began to draw closer to France,which the "world politics" of Germany hurt in the first place. Because the
Germany was late to the division of the world, her claims to "world politics" meant
its redistribution, and England had the strongest positions outside Europe. Besides
it was precisely from German competition that the English suffered most of all
industry.
The construction project by the Germans was especially painful in London
railroad from Constantinople to Baghdad (1899). If successful, the Germans
could spread their influence up to the approaches to India, against which sharply
the British acted. However, the last straw was the accelerated construction
German fleet, which began in 1898. To conduct "world politics" the Germans
wanted to catch up with the British in terms of the power of their fleet. In England, it was believed that he was abandoned
a challenge to the entire British Empire, the main condition for the existence of which
were unhindered maritime communications between its parts. The start was given
unrestrained naval arms race between England and Germany. All these frictions between the two countries
soon turned into antagonism
(irreconcilable contradiction)
encouraged the British to abandon
"brilliant isolation" and rapprochement with
France and Russia
Anglo-German antagonism
main international
contradiction of the era.
To prevent the growing threat of war on the initiative of Russia in 1899.
The Peace Conference took place in The Hague. It was proposed to resolve conflicts between
countries peacefully through the creation of a special international court, and in the case of
war to abandon especially brutal types of weapons However, Germany agreed with
this is just for looks. Wilhelm II declared to his close associates that he had signed "this nonsense",
but in practice will rely "only on God and his sharp sword."
ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE XX CENTURY
Powers entered the new century in an atmosphere of growing contradictions.The long-term alliance between Russia and Germany was replaced by enmity.
Having abandoned the "reinsurance agreement", Germany tightly tied
himself to his only true ally - Austria-Hungary - and together with
she opposed Russia in the Balkans.
Ideas about an ambulance were spreading in German public opinion
"race war" with Russia. The situation in the Balkans was aggravated not only because of
rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia, but also due to the growing contradictions between
by the Balkan states themselves and their often irresponsible policies.
Having received support in the form of an alliance with Russia, the revanchist
mood in France. Against the backdrop of the alarming international situation in
“end of the century” mood arose in society: everyone felt that the old era
ends, and waited for the onset of a new one, not only with hope, but also with fear.
The First World War was approaching. Friction between individual countries distracted them from
Bismarck's main problem was the revanchism of France. TO
In addition, they provided Germany with an extremely advantageous
position.
Quarreling among themselves, various countries involuntarily
provided Germany with the position of a kind of judge,
conciliator, who had the final say in
European affairs.
Therefore, Bismarck kindled the rivalry between England and France.
in colonial affairs, and Russia and Austria-Hungary on
Balkans, never taking it to the extreme. But it is not
always succeeded. After another crisis in the Balkans
Austria-Hungary and Russia refused to renew the Union
three emperors.
It was replaced by the "reinsurance agreement" of 1887.
approximately the same conditions, but only between
Germany and Russia.
SUMMING UP
In the last decades of the XIX century. in many Western countriessuccessful industrialization - the transformation of industry into
leading sector of the economy. During the Second Industrial Revolution
new industries emerged - chemical, electrical,
automotive industry.
This progress has been uneven. The greatest success has been
Germany and the United States, which developed the most modern
technologies. In them, the most widespread
monopolies that hindered free competition. In the same time
England has lost its former leadership, the pace of economic development
France were moderate, Austria-Hungary and Italy had just begun
the path of industrialization.
SUMMING UP
Gradually, the position of the lower classes of the population improved. It wasconnected both with the growth of the economy as a whole and with the struggle of workers and
peasants for their rights. In Germany, the system took the first steps
social protection. Rising living standards began to reduce the severity
social conflicts.
New parties appeared, suffrage expanded,
however, electoral qualifications remained in a number of countries. in Germany and
United States, despite the breadth of suffrage, democratization
hampered by the shortcomings of the political system.
Tension grew in the international arena. Germany
made claims for the redistribution of the already divided world,
contradictions deepened in the Balkans, Europe split into
two camps. The threat of war grew.
Features of a new stage in the development of Western countries - monopoly capitalism - could not but be reflected in international relations. After the defeat of Napoleon by a coalition of European monarchs, the so-called Vienna system of international relations developed, a temporary political balance of power in Europe, the basis of which was the cooperation of England, Russia, Prussia and Austria.
However, it should be noted that very quickly the Vienna system begins to fall apart. European revolutions 1848-49 yy, Crimean War 1853-56 y., the formation of the German Empire and the unified Kingdom of Italy, Russian-Turkish war 1877-78 y.y. and solutions Berlin Congress 1878 d. violated balance of power in Europe. Under these conditions, the most important directions of the foreign policy of the great powers are the completion of the colonial division of the world and the struggle for the creation of military-political coalitions in order to prepare for a future war, as a result of which a new balance of forces would be established, reflecting the real influence of this or that country.
Germany was the first to embark on the path of creating such a bloc. Striving for European hegemony, relying on a powerful military and economic potential, led by Bismarck German diplomacy was able to 1879 d. conclude alliance with Austria-Hungary, directed against Russia. This was the first step towards a future world war. IN 1882. Italy, which was defeated in the colonial rivalry with France in North Africa (Tunisia), joined the Austro-German bloc. This is how the Triple Alliance arose, an aggressive bloc directed against Russia and France, whose members sought to establish the order they needed in Europe through the use of force.
The frankly anti-Russian policy of the German leadership, especially in the Balkans, the aggravated relations due to customs duties are pushing the Russian government in search of an ally. Speaking about the creation of the Franco-Russian alliance in 1891-1893 Mr., it is necessary to keep in mind both the obstacles and the prerequisites that contribute to the rapprochement of these two powers. The brakes on this path were the differences in the political regimes of autocratic Russia and republican France, as well as the long-standing, close dynastic ties between Russia and Germany. But other factors were more significant:
1) economic- Russia needed financial support and could get loans and credits on the Parisian money market. The French government and bankers willingly went for it;
2) political- the interests of Russia and France did not directly collide anywhere. On the contrary, they had a common enemy - Germany and the Triple Alliance created by it.
Both powers needed each other. Therefore the government Alexander III went to the conclusion with France, first of a political and then a military convention, which formalized the alliance of these two countries, directed against Germany and its allies. Franco-Russian alliance turned out to be a solid diplomatic combination. It existed, despite certain disagreements and contradictions, until October 1917
Early 20th century characterized by a sharp aggravation of international tension. Regional conflicts involve all the great powers in their orbit. Out of blocs and coalitions, England, the strongest maritime and colonial power, remained in Europe, but it became increasingly difficult for her to pursue her traditional policy. at the "brilliant isolation". Speaking about the reasons for this, it is necessary to note the sharp deterioration in relations between Britain and Germany, which is becoming the most dangerous competitor of British imperialism. Anglo-German controversy manifested themselves particularly clearly in three directions:
1) intensified competition between the two powers in world markets;
2) rivalry in the colonial sphere due to German demands to increase their possessions;
3) the naval arms race.
Concluded in 1902. an alliance treaty with Japan and having strengthened its position in the Far East after the defeat of Russia, England is heading for rapprochement with France. Having settled mutual colonial differences, England and France in April 1904 d. entered into an agreement called Entente (Consent of the Heart). Although, under this agreement, France only recognized the protectorate of England over Egypt, and England - the prevailing rights of France in Morocco, in fact, it was about the rapprochement of these two countries against a common enemy - Germany.
The final stage in the creation of the anti-German coalition - the Entente - was Anglo-Russian agreement signed in August 1907
The path to it was rather complicated and difficult due to the disagreements that divided both powers in Asia. Having suffered a defeat in the war with Japan, Russia needed to improve its foreign policy position. The Anglo-Russian agreement dealt with the settlement of contradictions in the Middle East. In Persia (Iran), Russian and British spheres of influence were determined, Afghanistan was recognized as the sphere of influence of England, Tibet remained outside the limits of Russian and British influence. The main point of these agreements is Russia's joining the British-led anti-German coalition. The creation in Europe of two opposing military-political blocs inevitably led to a war between them.
The last decade before the outbreak of the First World War is characterized by the constant replacement of one international conflict by another. They were either direct clash of the Entente and the Triple Alliance in order to test the strength of the opposing coalition, or attempts to expand the sphere of influence of their bloc in a particular region. Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905, two Moroccan crises (1904 and 1911), Bosnian crisis of 1908, Anglo-Turkish war of 1911, two Balkan wars of 1912-1913. - all this testified to the approach of world war.
To start it, a reason was needed, which was the murder June 28, 1914 in the territory of Bosnia occupied by the Austrians, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
"July Crisis" 1914. convincingly showed that the stake was not on appeasing the conflict, but on unleashing a war. A particularly tough position was taken by Germany, which prepared better than other states for war.
