The international political development of Europe over the past two decades has demonstrated very stable dynamics, both intraregional and of the system of international relations as a whole. Moreover, European development leads to an adjustment of the very structure of the modern world system.
Dynamics of European political and economic processes due to a number of circumstances, which primarily include maximum maturity European system and most of its regional and subregional components, is not immediate, but strategic in nature.
Interconnected logic of various trends European development can be clearly traced from the very beginning of the 1990s, where the Paris Charter for new Europe.
The stage of European development that began two decades ago organically accumulated changes that took place in several important dimensions of the continental structure. The evolution of these dimensions, ultimately leading to the overcoming of their original characteristics, represents the essence of the dynamics of the European system.
The Yalta-Potsdam, or historical and legal, dimension. It was in the geographical zones and functional areas of greatest localization of the decisions of Yalta and Potsdam that the most significant changes. The breakdown of “border” agreements as a result of the unification of Germany, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia; erosion has long been decorative, associated with the early post-war period the phenomenon of European neutrality; the beginning of convergence, and then the self-liquidation of one of the two socio-economic systems - all this led to the marginalization of the original Yalta-Potsdam dimension by the beginning of the 1990s.
Let us make a reservation that the Yalta-Potsdam dimension introduced at least three elements into the treasury of European politics that remain to this day. Often they are understood as those values that Russia supposedly does not share, although surprisingly it took an active part in their formation.
The first is the inevitability of punishment of the military aggressor, including through positive collusion of the most powerful participants in the system, and the rejection of large-scale military actions in Europe. This is why the bombing of Belgrade or the events of 2008 in Transcaucasia caused such a serious resonance.
Secondly, Yalta gave birth to Helsinki and the pan-European process, one of the key elements of which was voluntary consent former winners, which have reached a dead end in bipolar confrontation, to democratize the system of multilateral relations in Europe. Democracy, as far as possible, is beyond nation state became characteristic feature European system. Many European institutions are representative in form and often in essence.
Third, the international legal doctrine and historical and political logic of the Yalta-Potsdam regulations became guarantors of stability even for those borders that they did not directly affect. This concerns, first of all, state-territorial demarcation in post-Soviet space, boundaries between the former proto-sovereign entities that were part of Soviet state.
The next background dimension at the time of the adoption of the Charter of Paris existed as one of the successful paradigms, but had a significantly greater variability of competing alternatives. It's about about Western European (at that time) integration, which later became one of the central and even dominant directions of continental development. Compared to today, the then twelve-nation European Communities look like a geopolitical dwarf.
At the same time, it was the Communities that were the very phenomenon that emphasized the special identity of the European system in world economic relations. It was the existence of the EU that made possible the emergence of the phenomenon of centro-power relations in Western world and pluralistic multipolarity - in a post-confrontational world.
Over the past two decades, political ambitions European Union have gone beyond their original geographical and conceptual limits, thanks both to their own efforts and to a supportive international context.
The third dimension of the European situation is related to US policy in Europe and Euro-Atlantic relations, the core element of which was, and partly remains, NATO. The maturity of the European system, combined with more or less regular manifestations of opposition from European partner-competitors; the elimination of the European theater as the main arena of potential military confrontation; involvement in new geographical and functional spheres of world politics and economics - all this reduced the role of the United States on the continent. This trend strengthened in subsequent years. Deviations from it in the form of ad hoc intervention in European affairs (attempts to Americanize the elites of small post-socialist countries, Kosovo, “color revolutions”, missile defense) cannot be underestimated. However, they cannot be compared with the level of extremely close and attentive US guardianship over European policy, which was characteristic of several post-war European decades. Without equating the US and NATO, we can state that it is largely due to changes in US policy that the loss of NATO’s clear identity and the permanent search for the Alliance’s place in modern world have become so obvious.
Institutional landscape modern Europe, especially “big” Europe, which includes part of geographical Asia, is extremely mosaic, absorbing multidirectional trends, as well as giving rise to many proposals for their systematization. One of these proposals was the well-known Russian initiative on a new European security architecture.
In the series of European security institutions, the OSCE still nominally occupies first place. This is partly a tribute to tradition, and partly the result of the intensification of this direction, the manifestation of which was primarily the Corfu process and the summit in Astana. The OSCE faces two fundamental tasks. The first is internal consolidation. The second is a significant update of the content of traditional “baskets”. Thus, if the humanitarian “basket” demonstrates enviable dynamics, then the problems that fall into the first and second “baskets” run up against the procedural and legal ineffectiveness of the OSCE and often the lack of political will of the leading players in the European system.
At the same time, issues such as conflict management, peacebuilding, and the problems of the emergence of new state or quasi-state entities in the post-Soviet space are associated with these areas.
The third “basket” largely contains potential related to issues of economic security and its energy segment. In other words, the OSCE, from an organization with de facto reduced functions, can, if desired, turn into a full-fledged dialogue mechanism on a wide range of topics.
Regardless of subjective desires, it is the OSCE that remains the structure of the most complete European participation.
The Atlantic dimension of European politics, symbolized by NATO, has in the last two years demonstrated increasing pragmatism and a tendency towards self-criticism regarding extensive expansion, including into the “new Eastern Europe”. This was confirmed by the adoption of the new strategic concept of the Alliance and the Russia-NATO summit in Lisbon.
In the meantime, the bid for a de facto expansion of NATO's responsibility faces extreme difficult situation in Afghanistan and throughout the political area at the junction of Central and South Asia. NATO's activity in other segments of the “greater” Middle East is limited by the difference in approaches and real interests of the Alliance member countries. Complexes and prejudices that have accumulated over decades hinder the Alliance’s interaction both with Russia and with other significant regional actors, including institutional ones - the SCO, the CSTO.
Improving the general political climate still has little added value in practical dimension relations between Russia and the Alliance. Obvious, but constantly postponed “for later” topics here are the issues of the European segment of missile defense, conventional weapons and armed forces, a coordinated understanding of military-strategic threats, legal registration mutual interests of the Alliance and post-Soviet security structures.
The logic of the development of the European Union and the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty position the EU in a completely different way in the new security architecture. Already, EU activities almost completely fill the “soft security” niche. The EU’s activity provokes discussions about security in the “common neighborhood”/“Eastern Partnership” space and the nature of relations with Russia.
It is in relations with the European Union that Russia and its neighbors in the CIS may be able to find a consensus on energy aspects of security, on the movement of citizens, and issues related to the reliability and at the same time transparency of borders will be resolved. Russia's accession to the WTO has actually brought our country closer to the scenario of economic functioning of the European Union.
Most EU states do not feel the need to abandon a system of stability and security that relies exclusively on the growing capabilities of the European Union in the field of foreign policy and defense and on the traditional resources of NATO. However, we must remember that modern “greater” Europe is wider than West Side continent. If countries that, for one reason or another, are not associated with the EU and NATO are dissatisfied with the parameters of the current situation, it is necessary to look for options for mutual adaptation of interests and institutions.
The European security system, which is not comprehensive, becomes a palliative that tends to provoke political tension when trying to solve real problems with its help both in its own geographical area and in neighboring regions - in the Greater Middle East or South Asia.
It is in this regard that Europeans are faced with the task of collecting, creating an “intermodal” scheme of institutions of a large European space. This scheme should include various regional and subregional structures (from the “classical” European and Euro-Atlantic - EU, CE, NATO to the “big” CIS, EurAsEC/Customs Union, CSTO) with the necessary support for niche structures like the BSEC, CBSS, long-term contact mechanisms.
Obviously, one can only dream of complete institutional harmony, but some kind of revision and coordination of actions, at a minimum, can lead to a reduction in cross-waste of time, diplomatic and material resources.
The understanding of European stability and security has traditionally included questions military security, control over arms and armed forces. Many people think that this is a problem of yesterday. But unsolved problem has a chance to “shoot” at the most inopportune moment. This is exactly the situation with the CFE Treaty. It is paradoxical, but on the continent, which is still the most militarized, and at the level of the highest technological standards, there has been no modern rules regulation of military activities.
Additional elements of stability of the European system are various stable bilateral and multilateral configurations interstate relations. These include the traditional axes: Moscow-Paris, Moscow-Berlin, Moscow-Rome. Apparently, the Moscow-Warsaw dialogue channel was starting to work. Traditional are the Franco-German tandem and the slightly less stable Franco-British tandem, which have given rise to a significant number of initiatives in the field of European integration, foreign policy and security of the EU. The Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary), which once had its own integration prospects, has become a mechanism for coordinating the interests of the CEE countries, and the Weimar Triangle (Poland, Germany, France) helps coordinate the positions of the Franco-German motor of Europe with largest country Of Eastern Europe.
The decisive role in European foreign policy belonged to five states; France, England, Russia, Austria and Prussia. The main area of struggle between these powers was the fragmented Italy and Germany, Poland and the countries of the Balkan Peninsula, which were under Turkish rule.
During the 18th century. The main conflicts between the European powers were the struggle of England and France for naval and colonial hegemony, Austria and Prussia for dominance in Germany, Russia for access to the Baltic and Black Seas, which pitted it primarily against Sweden and Ottoman Empire.
North War. Back in the XVI-XVII centuries. Russia tried to take control of the Baltic coast. Its main opponent was Sweden, whose territory included Livonia, Finland and Estland, as well as former Russian possessions - Izhora lands and Karelia. In preparation for war, Peter I entered into an alliance with Denmark, Saxony and Poland in 1699, and in 1700 he signed a truce with Turkey and declared war on Sweden. In 1700, the Northern War began, which lasted until 1721.
Peter I moved a 35,000-strong army to Swedish fortress Narva, but its siege dragged on. The Swedish army was led by the king Charles XII(1697-1718), a young and skilled commander. In November 1700, near Narva, the Russian army was defeated. Charles XII, considering that Russia was finished, moved to Poland to defeat Russia’s ally, the Saxon Elector, and at the same time, from 1697 - Polish king Augusta II (1670-1733).
However, Peter I did not accept defeat and began to reorganize the army. Since 1702, the military initiative passed into the hands of Peter I. By the spring of 1703, the Russian army liberated the entire river basin. Neva and reached the shores of the Baltic Sea.
At this time, the Swedes captured Warsaw and Krakow. In 1704, the Polish Sejm deposed Augustus II and proclaimed Stanisław I Leszczynski (1677-1766) king. In 1704-1706. The Swedes inflicted a number of defeats on the Saxon, Polish and Russian troops and forced Poland to withdraw from the war (Treaty of Altranstadt 1706).
Russia was left alone with Sweden; the search for allies led to nothing. The Swedes attempted to recapture the Izhora lands, but failed. The main forces of Charles XII concentrated on Ukraine, he intended to move them to Moscow. In April 1709, the Swedes besieged Poltava. June 27 (July 8) occurred Battle of Poltava. Swedish army was destroyed.
Charles XII with the remnants of his army fled to Turkey. A turning point in the war has come. Resumed Northern Union, which Prussia joined. On March 31, 1710, Russia and Sweden signed a commitment in The Hague not to conduct military operations in Swedish possessions in Germany; England and Holland insisted on this. In the same year, Livonia and Estonia were occupied, Russian troops captured Vyborg, Kexholm and Vilmanstrand - the exit from Gulf of Finland was free.
In 1712-1714. Russia's allies, with its support, won a number of victories in European theater military actions. In 1713-1714 Russia occupied part of the territory of Finland. On July 27 (August 7), 1714, the Russian galley fleet defeated the Swedish one at Cape Gangut. On land, the Russian army reached Luleå.
In 1718, Charles XII died in Norway. In 1719, Russia transferred military operations to the territory of Sweden, whose human and financial resources were depleted. In January 1720, Sweden concluded an alliance with England and peace with Prussia, and in June with Denmark. In May 1720, an English squadron entered the Baltic Sea, but its attempts to attack Revel were unsuccessful. In 1720, the Russian fleet won a victory near the island of Grengam. On August 30 (September 10) a peace treaty with Sweden was signed in Nystadt.
As a result of the military victory, Russia gained access to the Baltic Sea and thereby solved one of the most important tasks of its foreign policy. 11 (October 22) 1721 Senate and Holy Synod Peter I is given the titles of “Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia” and “Great”, and Russia becomes an empire.
Between the “Glorious English” of 1688 and the Great French Revolution, about 35 years were spent in wars between France and England. War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), War of the Polish Succession (1733-1738), War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), Seven Years' War(1756-1763). Moreover, other states were drawn into the orbit of these wars.
- Wars of succession
- Seven Years' War
- Russo-Turkish War 1768-1774
- Foreign policy Catherine II in the 80s.
1. What is the essence of absolutism?
Under absolutism, all power (legislative, executive and judicial) is in the hands of the monarch. However, it differs from eastern despotism. Firstly, the absolute monarch most often was not also the head of the church. Secondly, despite its absolute power, the monarch had to take into account certain rights estates (for example, the nobility), as well as other restrictions, formally confirmed by documents on behalf of the monarch himself (for example, in France, special orders of the king confirmed many norms of local law).
2. What are the reasons for the transition of European countries to absolutism? What are the prerequisites for strengthening central government developed in Western European countries?
Reasons and prerequisites:
In the conditions of religious wars, the church could no longer be a factor of stability; only the central government could become such, especially since it was often required to unite adherents of different faiths;
Increased efficiency regular armies weakened the influence of the feudal militia, and therefore the local nobility;
Many layers of society that had already gained influence were interested in strengthening the central government (petty nobility, including junior branches of noble families, merchants and other financial elite);
The growth of colonial trade and the policies of mercantilism provided the monarchs with significant financial support;
Inflow precious metals and other valuables from the New World also financed the activities of certain monarchs.
3. Name the features of absolutism in England and France. Why did resistance to him take religious forms?
Peculiarities:
All real power was concentrated in the hands of government bodies completely controlled by the king (in England - Privy Council and the Star Chamber, in France - the Great Royal Council);
The main opposition to absolutism was the large feudal nobility;
The bodies of class representation continued to meet, but no longer played the same role;
The kings did not want to resort to the help of class authorities, so they sought alternative means of replenishing the treasury, relied heavily on financial circles and generally pursued a policy of mercantilism;
During the formation of absolutism, persecution was observed royal power to the large feudal nobility, many of whose representatives were subjected to executions, exile and other punishments with confiscation of property.
Resistance to absolutism took religious forms because the religious doctrine of the Middle Ages already contained ideological justification for the struggle against power. Even according to the teachings of F. Aquinas, a monarch who did not rule righteously was deprived of the right to the throne. Protestants included the same provision in their doctrine from their first speech against Charles V, using essentially a ready-made Catholic model.
4. Tell us about the essence of the Edict of Nantes. Did he ensure real equality for Catholics and Huguenots? What consequences did it have?
The Edict of Nantes in 1598 equalized the rights of Catholics and Protestants in France. He even left the latter a certain autonomy, including control over some fortresses. However, in conditions of absolutism, the main role is played by the policy of the monarch. The actions of subsequent rulers were aimed at actually revising the provisions of the edict until its complete abolition in 1685.
5. List the contradictions of European politics early XVII V. Which ones mattered most?
Controversies:
The struggle against Habsburg hegemony in Europe;
Confessional conflict in Europe.
Of greatest importance was religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Participated as a third force in this contradiction Orthodox Russia, but its actions were limited to the neighboring Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden. By this point, European countries abandoned the idea of a broad coalition against the threat of the Ottoman Empire with the involvement of Russia as an ally (this idea was periodically returned to later), so this node of conflict remained on the periphery.
The main one remained the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, because it included many contradictions back in the 16th century, and also continued to divide not only states, but the subjects of one monarch (for example, the Holy Roman Emperor of the German nation), and served as the reason for the disobedience of subjects to the monarch.
6. Name the main stages of the Thirty Years' War. What were the results of the Thirty Years' War?
Bohemian-Palatinate period (1618-1624);
Danish period (1625-1629);
Swedish period (1630-1635);
Franco-Swedish period (1635-1648).
The second part of the question is the same as the next question.
7. What were the results of the Thirty Years' War?
Confessional affiliation has almost ceased to be a factor in European politics;
Along with dynastic interests, economics began to play a greater role than before in European politics;
The principle of state sovereignty was finally established, also in religious matters;
Has developed new system international relations - Westphalian;
The Habsburgs retained most their lands, but their positions in Europe weakened;
France received whole line lands along the Rhine;
Sweden received lands on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea;
Protestantism in the Czech Republic was completely destroyed, but Germany continued to be divided along religious lines;
The lands of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, where most of the fighting took place, were completely devastated by the war, and the empire for a long time ceased to play an important role in the economy, politics, etc.
8. What were the features? Westphalian system international relations? Are its principles still relevant today?
The Westphalian peace system was aimed at ending the decades-long conflict. Many of its mechanisms were aimed at minimizing religious conflicts. Today in a secular society they are not relevant. But some principles enshrined then are still in effect, for example, the sovereignty of the government of an independent state.
Having defeated Napoleonic France, the leaders of leading European states came to the conclusion that the optimal solution to the problems facing post-war Europe would be to convene a pan-European congress, where all problems could be discussed and a consensus version of a post-war settlement could be developed. In the spring of 1814, Russia was the first to propose the idea of a congress, but the Allies sought to delay its start until the fall.
The conference opened on the first of October 1814 and continued until July 1815.
During difficult discussions, it was possible to agree on general principles on which a new model of international relations was built.
Firstly, it was necessary to create a barrier around France, which would allow it to be isolated in case of any complications.
Thirdly, it was decided that members of the anti-French coalition should receive compensation for their participation in the fight against Napoleon.
Fourthly, the principle of legitimism was the basis for interstate relations.
On the basis of these general principles, specific issues of the post-war settlement were resolved.
On July 9, the “Final Act” was signed Congress of Vienna, consisting of 121 articles and 17 appendices, the essence of which was as follows.
France was deprived of all conquered territories, and its borders returned to those that existed in 1790. The Bourbon dynasty was restored in France and Allied troops remained for a while.
Austria regained Lombardy and received Venice. The Rhineland, Pomerania and North Saxony were annexed to Prussia. England expanded its colonial empire to include Tobago, Trinidad, Ceylon, Malta, Guiana and the Cape Colony.
The Polish issue was resolved in favor of Russia. On the site of the Duchy of Warsaw, the Kingdom of Poland was formed, to which Alexander I granted a constitution. Earlier acquisitions of Bessarabia and Finland were also recognized for Russia.
Belgium was included in Holland. Schleswig and Holstein went to Denmark. The Papal States, the Kingdom of Naples and Switzerland, which was declared a neutral country, were restored.
The possessions of the Sardinian kingdom expanded somewhat. The union of Sweden and Norway was sanctioned.
There were no particular contradictions on the German question: all the great powers wanted to consolidate the fragmentation of Germany. The so-called German Confederation of 38 independent states. All-German affairs were decided by the German Diet, which included both Prussia and Austria, but the leading role in this formation still belonged to Austria. According to Metternich, the union was supposed to become an obstacle to the expansionist aspirations of France. The Diet was located in Frankfurt am Main, and was presided over by an Austrian. The votes were distributed in such a way that Austria decided everything. Thus, the goal of the union was not the consolidation of the German people, but, on the contrary, the preservation of its disunity.
In addition to territorial problems, a number of economic and diplomatic issues were considered at the Congress of Vienna. Thus, a decision was made to prohibit the slave trade (“Declaration on the Prohibition of the Negro Trade” of February 8, 1815), a convention on freedom of navigation on European rivers was signed, and an agreement was reached on respecting the property rights of foreign citizens. On March 19, 1815, the “Regulations on the ranks of diplomatic representatives” was signed. It is still in effect and has put an end to disputes over diplomatic confessions. Diplomatic ranks were established according to it:
ambassador, papal legate and nuncio;
envoy (from 1818 the rank of resident minister was also introduced); 30 chargé d'affaires.
Also at the congress, Russia tried to raise the issue of relations with the Ottoman Empire. Mahmud II was not admitted to either the congress or the Holy Alliance. No one except Russia was interested in the situation of Christian peoples in Turkey. In February 1815, Alexander I issued a note about the plight in the Balkans. The Russian emperor proposes to discuss the Balkan question at the congress in Vienna, as well as the question of the brutal treatment of the Ottoman Empire towards its Orthodox subjects and proposed to introduce the right of European states to intervene in the affairs of Turkey. Russian diplomats assumed that this circular would strengthen Russia's position in the Balkans, but the other powers refused to discuss this issue.
While the great powers were deciding the post-war fate of Europe, events took an unexpected turn. Napoleon fled the island of Elba, ended up in Paris and restored the French Empire. Napoleon's 100 days began (March 20 - June 18, 1815). Louis XVIII fled Paris. On June 18, 1815, the Battle of Waterloo took place, where the Anglo-Austro-Prussian army defeated Napoleon, after which the 2nd Bourbon restoration took place in France.
A special place at the congress was occupied by the problem associated with the proposal to create the Holy Alliance - an organization of monarchical states to protect Europe from revolutionary ideas.
September 26, 1815 education agreement Holy Alliance was signed in Paris by Alexander, Franz I and Frederick William III.
Initially, the Holy Alliance was a treaty of mutual assistance between Russia, Prussia and Austria. Other countries were also invited to join the Union. Ultimately, only Turkey and Great Britain did not join the Holy Alliance, since the Prince Regent was bound by constitutional obligations. Nevertheless, England assured Alexander I of its agreement with the principles of the Holy Alliance.
The model of international relations created in Vienna had both strong and weak sides. The Vienna system turned out to be quite stable and sustainable. Thanks to it, Europe was spared for several decades from head-on clashes between great powers, although military conflicts arose from time to time, but the mechanism developed by the Congress made it possible to resolve controversial issues quite quickly and without large losses.
On the other side, Vienna system took little account of the influence of ideas french revolution on European civilization. The principle of legitimism increasingly came into conflict with the liberal idea, with the growth of national self-awareness.
The creation of the Holy Alliance did not resolve the contradictions that existed between the leading European states.
Firstly, Austro-Russian. Metternich was afraid of both the revolutionary movement and Russia, with the latter posing an even greater danger to Austria. The Austrians were also concerned about the Franco-Russian alliance. When Charles X became King of France and Nicholas I Emperor of Russia, this alliance became even closer. Russia also feared the revolutionary movement (the Decembrist uprising and the Polish uprisings) and the strengthening of other participants in the Holy Alliance (including Austria).
Secondly, Prussia's position was not stable. There, too, they feared the possibility of revolutions and a Franco-Russian alliance, so Prussia began to draw closer to Austria and move away from Russia.
All members of the union were afraid of Russia, as they believed that it could spread its hegemony over the entire European continent. Thus, contradictions appeared from the first years of the Holy Alliance and distracted it from its original goals. Subsequent events seriously tested the strength of the Vienna system of international relations.
In 1818, the first congress of the Holy Alliance took place in Aachen. There, France achieved the withdrawal of allied troops from the territory of the country and joined the four victorious powers. Heated debates flared up around the issue of joint actions to help Spain in its fight against the rebel colonies. France and Austria were ready to help the Spanish king, but much depended on the position of England.
Great Britain, although not a signatory to the protocol, has always been on the side of the union, but recently it has chosen to follow own interests. There the democratic movement for complete reform in Great Britain grew stronger. The national bourgeoisie demanded universal suffrage. The ruling circles, represented by Lord Castlereagh and Prince Regent George, supported the position of the national bourgeoisie. England was not interested in preserving the Spanish colonial empire, because itself sought to penetrate Latin America, and in the strengthening of Austria and France. As a result, England managed to block the decision to help Spain.
The 2nd congress took place in 1820 in Troppau. At this time, revolutions broke out on the periphery of Europe (Spain, Naples, Piedmont). After a long negotiation process, a protocol was adopted that, in principle, justified intervention in countries where the revolution was taking place. Based on this document, Austria organized an intervention in the Apennine Peninsula.
At the 3rd Congress in Laibach on May 12, 1821, the same issues were discussed. If in the Italian states it was possible to suppress revolutionary uprisings, then in Spain and Portugal the revolutions continued. The situation in these countries was the subject of discussion at the Congress in Verona in November 1822. On December 1, the Verona Protocol was signed, with the exception of England, on providing armed assistance to the Spanish monarch. In 1823, French troops invaded Spain and restored the monarchy there.
The special position of Great Britain was the following: repressive measures cannot stop revolutionary wave, the national liberation movement should not be fought, but, on the contrary, supported. In accordance with this thesis, England recognized the new Latin American countries and resolutely refused to support intervention in Spain. A rift has emerged in relations between the great powers. But paradoxically, it did not expand, as a new complex problem appeared. In 1821, the Greek uprising against the Ottoman yoke began. The Turks brought down the most severe repressions on the rebels. The Great Powers could not ignore the Greek question, although it was quite controversial. On the one hand, the Greeks rebelled against their legitimate monarch and thus violated the principle of legitimacy. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire entered a period of crisis and could not control its periphery. The question arose about the division of her inheritance.
In 1823, England recognized the Greeks as a belligerent. Austria opposed it because considered the rebels to be rebels. Russia's position was twofold. Russia had serious interests in the Balkans, and real state interests spoke in favor of the Greeks, but ideological dogmas spoke against them.
In the spring of 1826, the new Russian emperor proposed his interpretation of the eastern question: the situation in the Balkans, with the exception of Greece, was declared the matter of Russia, the Greek question - the matter of all powers, on this basis there was a rapprochement of the positions of England, France and Russia on the Greek question. In October 1827, a joint squadron at Navarino defeated the Turkish fleet.
In May 1828, the Russian-Turkish war began, which ended in Russian victory. In September 1829, the Treaty of Andrianople was signed. According to it, Serbia, Wallachia and Moldova received autonomy, and Greece became an independent state and was recognized by the European community.
The leading states of Europe understood that the main threat to the stability of the Vienna system came from eastern question. However, in 1830 a revolution began in France. In the same year, revolutions took place in Belgium and Poland. Despite this, the stability of the Vienna System was maintained.
From September 1, 1814 to June 9, 1815, a congress was held in Vienna
press with the participation of 216 delegates from all European countries. Here
the flower of the European aristocracy and diplomacy gathered. On
against the backdrop of magnificent receptions, balls and festivities, there was a tense
work on documents designed to change the political
create a map of the continent in accordance with the results of the war and
work on new principles of international relations. Key
representatives played a significant role during the Congress of Vienna
Russia led by Alexander I, the British delegation under
leadership of Keslreagh, and then Wellington, Austrian Kan-
Minister Metternich (formally Austria was represented by the Emperor himself)
Rator Franz I), Prussian diplomats led by Hardenberg,
and Talleyrand, who represented France.
At the initiative of Talleyrand, the work of the congress was based on
the principle of legitimism is false - recognition of exceptional
the rights of those ruling houses and dynasties that exist
get out of Europe before the start revolutionary wars. In interpretation
Metternich’s period, the principle of legitimism became more pronounced.
to a pronounced ideological and legal character - speech
was about preserving the “eternal”, “sanctified by history” legitimate
law of monarchs and estates, as the most important basis of social
civil order and tranquility. But, in reality,
The decisions of the Congress of Vienna were subordinated to the desire to clearly
to delimit the spheres of influence of the great powers during the formation
development of a stable and, if possible, balanced political
maps of the continent.
Based on the principle of legitimism, the congress participants
stood for the preservation of the fragmentation of Germany. Wherein,
At the suggestion of Metternich, it was decided to create Hermann-
union of 38 small German states, as well as
Austria and Prussia. This union was to be governed by the Sejm,
whose seat was chosen Frankfurt am May
Not. The most acute disagreements between the participants of the congress were
sa caused the Polish-Saxon question. Prussia is counting
la to annex Saxony and most of the Polish lands
to your territory. Alexander I was ready to support the re-
giving Saxony to the Prussians, but Polish lands saw in the composition
ve Russian Empire like the Duchy of Warsaw. Austria,
as well as France and England tried to counteract the strengthening
leniya of Russia and Prussia. Talleyrand achieved Metter's agreement
Nikha and Keslereagh conclude an alliance between England, Austria and France
against Prussia and Russia. On January 3, 1815, a secret agreement was signed.
agreement, according to which the three powers pledged not to
allow any redistribution of existing gra-
prostrate, including preventing Saxony from joining
Prussia on any terms. Yes was achieved
same agreement on joint military action in case
violent attempts to change borders.
At the height of the discussions of the Congress of Vienna in France,
walked coup d'etat. Having landed on the coast with
a small group of dedicated soldiers and officers, Napoleon
On March 19, 1815 he triumphantly entered Paris. Trying to make
split in the coalition, he handed over to Alexander I the secret text
th Treaty of the Three Powers. However, the threat of recovery resembles
Leon's empire turned out to be stronger. Without interrupting work
Congress, the allies formed a new one - already the seventh
account - the anti-French coalition. It included An-
glia, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, Spain, Portugal-
Leah, Holland.
Percussion military force coalitions represented 110 thousand
Wellington's Anglo-Dutch army advancing from
Brussels. Its left flank was supported by 117,000 Prussian troops.
Blucher's army, and the right one is the 210,000-strong Austrian
Schwarzenberg's army. As a strategic reserve for
The Riviera was preparing a 75,000-strong Austro-Italian army
Fremont, and in the central Rhineland - 150 thousand
naya Russian army of Barclay de Tolly. Napoleon managed to
only about 280 thousand soldiers. His only chance
was the defeat of the British and Prussian troops even before the end
of the redeployment of Russians and Austrians. June 16 in the battle
At Ligny, Napoleon managed to defeat Blue
fuck, but lack of strength prevented the pursuit of the Prussians and
their complete destruction. The French met with Wellington's army
fought near Waterloo on June 18. Napoleon had in this battle
We have 72 thousand people against 70 thousand of the enemy. Franz-
they fought desperately, but unexpectedly appeared on the battlefield
Prussian corps allowed Wellington to win the battle
tion. Soon Napoleon was forced to again renounce his
table. On July 6-8, the Allies entered Paris and restored
Bourbon power.
June 9, 1815, a few days before the Battle of Waterloo,
representatives of Russia, Austria, Spain, France, Great Britain
Britain, Portugal, Prussia and Sweden signed the
the final General Act of the Congress of Vienna. Fran-
nation lost all its conquests. Belgium and Holland
were united into the Kingdom of the Netherlands, comprising
Luxembourg also included. The Vienna Treaty legitimized the creation
tion of the German Confederation. The Rhineland was annexed to Prussia
region, Westphalia and Swedish Pomerania. Switzerland
“eternal neutrality” was guaranteed, and the boundaries of its dis-
expanded to include provinces on the right bank of the Rhine. Norway
gia, which was dependent on Denmark, transferring
Sweden. The Sardinian Kingdom was restored
which again included Savoy and Nice, 81 T8.KZh6 Ge-
Well, I. Lombardy and Venice became part of Austria, and the Dukes
the Twa of Parma, Tuscany and Modena came under control
various representatives of the House of Habsburg. Secular power
Pope of Rome was restored, and the boundaries of the papal state
The states were expanded to include Ravenna, Ferrara and Bologna.
England received the Ionian Islands and Malta, as well as
secured the captured Dutch colonies in Asia.
Polish lands with Warsaw were annexed to Russia. On
This territory was created by the Kingdom (Kingdom) of Poland,
connected by dynastic union with Russia. In addition, for Russia
this recognized earlier acquisitions - Finland
and Bessarabia.
The General Act of the Congress of Vienna contained special provisions
ties that concerned the relationship between European-
mi countries. Rules were established for the collection of duties and su-
revenues on the border and international rivers Meuse,
Rhine and Scheldt. The principles of free shipping were determined
progress. The annex to the General Act spoke about the
prohibition of the slave trade. In Vienna it was also achieved
agreement on unification diplomatic service. Us-
There were three classes of diplomatic agents. To the first
The first group included ambassadors and papal legates (nuncios), the second group included
envoys, to the third - chargés d'affaires. Was determined
and a unified procedure for the reception of diplomats. All these innovations
(“Vienna Regulation”), included in the annex to the General
new act of Congress have become the norm international law And
entered into diplomatic practice for a long time.
The decisions of the Congress of Vienna formalized the principles of the new
system of international relations based on the ideas of
political balance, collective diplomacy and legitimacy
misism. The Vienna system did not lead to the elimination of contradictions
between the great powers, but contributed to the accession
there is relative calm and stability in Europe. Since the creation
with the end of 1815, the Holy Alliance, she received a bright
expressed ideological and even ethical justification. But,
in general, this political construction was very contradictory
the stormy and social processes, which developed in
European society. The rise of national liberation
and revolutionary movements doomed the Vienna system to everything
new crises and conflicts.
Vienna system of international
relations (1815-1870)