Which countries were part of the holy alliance. Formation of the “Holy Alliance” of the monarchs of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany for mutual assistance in the fight against the revolution

In 1814, a congress was convened in Vienna to decide the post-war system. The main roles at the congress were played by Russia, England and Austria. The territory of France was restored to its pre-revolutionary borders. A significant part of Poland, along with Warsaw, became part of Russia.

At the end of the Congress of Vienna, at the suggestion of Alexander I, the Holy Alliance was created to jointly fight the revolutionary movement in Europe. Initially, it included Russia, Prussia and Austria, and later many European states joined them.

Holy Alliance- a conservative union of Russia, Prussia and Austria, created with the aim of maintaining the international order established at the Congress of Vienna (1815). The statement of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed on September 14 (26), 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all the monarchs of continental Europe, except the Pope and the Turkish Sultan. Not being, in the exact sense of the word, a formalized agreement between the powers that would impose certain obligations on them, the Holy Alliance, nevertheless, went down in the history of European diplomacy as “a cohesive organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of revolutionary sentiments, wherever they never showed up."

After the overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of pan-European peace, among the powers that considered themselves completely satisfied with the distribution of “rewards” at the Congress of Vienna, the desire to preserve the established international order arose and strengthened, and the means for this was the permanent union of European sovereigns and the periodic convening of international congresses. But since the achievement of this was contradicted by the national and revolutionary movements of peoples seeking freer forms of political existence, such aspiration quickly acquired a reactionary character.

The initiator of the Holy Alliance was the Russian Emperor Alexander I, although when drawing up the act of the Holy Alliance, he still considered it possible to patronize liberalism and grant a constitution to the Kingdom of Poland. The idea of a Union arose in him, on the one hand, under the influence of the idea of becoming a peacemaker in Europe by creating a Union that would eliminate even the possibility of military clashes between states, and on the other hand, under the influence of the mystical mood that took possession of him. The latter also explains the strangeness of the very wording of the union treaty, which was not similar either in form or in content to international treaties, which forced many specialists in international law to see in it only a simple declaration of the monarchs who signed it.

Signed on September 14 (26), 1815 by three monarchs - Emperor Francis I of Austria, King Frederick William III of Prussia and Emperor Alexander I, at first it did not arouse anything other than hostility towards itself in the first two.

The content of this act was extremely vague and flexible, and the most varied practical conclusions could be drawn from it, but its general spirit did not contradict, but rather favored, the reactionary mood of the then governments. Not to mention the confusion of ideas belonging to completely different categories, in it religion and morality completely displace law and politics from the areas that undoubtedly belong to the latter. Built on the legitimate basis of the divine origin of monarchical power, it establishes a patriarchal relationship between sovereigns and peoples, and the former are charged with the obligation to rule in the spirit of “love, truth and peace,” and the latter must only obey: the document does not at all talk about the rights of the people in relation to power mentions.

Finally, obliging sovereigns to always “ give each other aid, reinforcement and help", the act does not say anything about exactly in what cases and in what form this obligation should be carried out, which made it possible to interpret it in the sense that assistance is obligatory in all those cases when subjects show disobedience to their “legitimate” sovereigns.

This is exactly what happened - the very Christian character of the Holy Alliance disappeared and only the suppression of the revolution, whatever its origin, was meant. All this explains the success of the Holy Alliance: soon all other European sovereigns and governments joined it, not excluding Switzerland and the German free cities; Only the English Prince Regent and the Pope did not sign to it, which did not prevent them from being guided by the same principles in their policies; only the Turkish Sultan was not accepted into the Holy Alliance as a non-Christian sovereign.

Signifying the character of the era, the Holy Alliance was the main organ of the pan-European reaction against liberal aspirations. Its practical significance was expressed in the resolutions of a number of congresses (Aachen, Troppaus, Laibach and Verona), at which the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of other states was fully developed with the aim of forcibly suppressing all national and revolutionary movements and maintaining the existing system with its absolutist and clerical-aristocratic trends.

74. Foreign policy of the Russian Empire in 1814–1853.

Option 1. In the first half of the 19th century. Russia had significant capabilities to effectively solve its foreign policy problems. They included the protection of their own borders and expansion of territory in accordance with the geopolitical, military-strategic and economic interests of the country. This implied the folding of the territory of the Russian Empire within its natural borders along the seas and mountain ranges and, in connection with this, the voluntary entry or forcible annexation of many neighboring peoples. The Russian diplomatic service was well-established, and its intelligence service was extensive. The army numbered about 500 thousand people, was well equipped and trained. Russia's military-technical lag behind Western Europe was not noticeable until the early 50s. This allowed Russia to play an important and sometimes decisive role in the European concert.

After 1815, the main task of Russian foreign policy in Europe was to maintain the old monarchical regimes and fight the revolutionary movement. Alexander I and Nicholas I were guided by the most conservative forces and most often relied on alliances with Austria and Prussia. In 1848, Nicholas helped the Austrian emperor suppress the revolution that broke out in Hungary and strangled revolutionary protests in the Danube principalities.

In the south, very difficult relations developed with the Ottoman Empire and Iran. Türkiye could not come to terms with the Russian conquest at the end of the 18th century. Black Sea coast and, first of all, with the annexation of Crimea to Russia. Access to the Black Sea was of particular economic, defensive and strategic importance for Russia. The most important problem was to ensure the most favorable regime for the Black Sea straits - the Bosporus and Dardanelles. The free passage of Russian merchant ships through them contributed to the economic development and prosperity of the vast southern regions of the state. Preventing foreign military vessels from entering the Black Sea was also one of the tasks of Russian diplomacy. An important means of Russia's intervention in the internal affairs of the Turks was the right it received (under the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi and Yassy treaties) to protect Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Russia actively used this right, especially since the peoples of the Balkans saw in it their only protector and savior.

In the Caucasus, Russia's interests collided with the claims of Turkey and Iran to these territories. Here Russia tried to expand its possessions, strengthen and make stable the borders in Transcaucasia. A special role was played by Russia’s relationship with the peoples of the North Caucasus, whom it sought to completely subordinate to its influence. This was necessary to ensure free and safe communication with the newly acquired territories in Transcaucasia and the lasting inclusion of the entire Caucasian region within the Russian Empire.

To these traditional directions in the first half of the 19th century. new ones were added (Far Eastern and American), which at that time were of a peripheral nature. Russia developed relations with China and the countries of North and South America. In the middle of the century, the Russian government began to look closely at Central Asia.

Option 2. In September 1814 – June 1815, the victorious powers decided on the issue of the post-war structure of Europe. It was difficult for the allies to come to an agreement among themselves, as sharp contradictions arose, mainly over territorial issues.

The resolutions of the Congress of Vienna led to the return of old dynasties in France, Italy, Spain and other countries. The resolution of territorial disputes made it possible to redraw the map of Europe. The Kingdom of Poland was created from most of the Polish lands as part of the Russian Empire. The so-called “Viennese system” was created, which implied a change in the territorial and political map of Europe, the preservation of noble-monarchical regimes and European balance. Russian foreign policy was oriented towards this system after the Congress of Vienna.

In March 1815, Russia, England, Austria and Prussia signed an agreement to form the Quadruple Alliance. He was aimed at implementing the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, especially as it related to France. Its territory was occupied by the troops of the victorious powers, and it had to pay a huge indemnity.

In September 1815, Russian Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz and Prussian King Frederick William III signed the Act of Formation of the Holy Alliance.

The Quadruple and Holy Alliances were created due to the fact that all European governments understood the need to achieve concerted action to resolve controversial issues. However, the alliances only muted, but did not remove the severity of the contradictions between the great powers. On the contrary, they deepened, as England and Austria sought to weaken the international authority and political influence of Russia, which had increased significantly after the victory over Napoleon.

In the 20s of the XIX century. The European policy of the tsarist government was associated with the desire to counteract the development of revolutionary movements and the desire to shield Russia from them. Revolutions in Spain, Portugal and a number of Italian states forced members of the Holy Alliance to consolidate their forces in the fight against them. Alexander I's attitude towards revolutionary events in Europe gradually changed from restrained wait-and-see to openly hostile. He supported the idea of collective intervention of European monarchs in the internal affairs of Italy and Spain.

In the first half of the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire was experiencing a severe crisis due to the rise of the national liberation movement of its peoples. Alexander I, and then Nicholas I, were put in a difficult situation. On the one hand, Russia has traditionally helped its coreligionists. On the other hand, its rulers, observing the principle of preserving the existing order, had to support the Turkish Sultan as the legitimate ruler of their subjects. Therefore, Russia’s policy on the eastern question was contradictory, but, ultimately, the line of solidarity with the peoples of the Balkans became dominant.

In the 20s of the XIX century. Iran, with the support of England, was actively preparing for war with Russia, wanting to return the lands it had lost in the Peace of Gulistan of 1813 and restore its influence in Transcaucasia. In 1826, the Iranian army invaded Karabakh. In February 1828, the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty was signed. According to it, Erivan and Nakhichevan became part of Russia. In 1828, the Armenian region was formed, which marked the beginning of the unification of the Armenian people. As a result of the Russian-Turkish and Russian-Iranian wars of the late 20s of the 19th century. The second stage in the annexation of the Caucasus to Russia was completed. Georgia, Eastern Armenia, Northern Azerbaijan became part of the Russian Empire.

1815, subsequently all the monarchs of continental Europe gradually joined, except the Pope and the Turkish Sultan. Not being in the exact sense of the word a formalized agreement of the powers that would impose certain obligations on them, the Holy Alliance, nevertheless, went down in the history of European diplomacy as “a close-knit organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of the revolutionary spirit and political and religious free-thinking, wherever they appear."

History of creation

Castlereagh explained England's non-participation in the treaty by the fact that, according to the English constitution, the king does not have the right to sign treaties with other powers.

Congresses of the Holy Alliance

Aachen Congress

Congresses in Troppau and Laibach

Typically considered together as a single congress.

Congress in Verona

Collapse of the Holy Alliance

The post-war system of Europe created by the Congress of Vienna was contrary to the interests of the new emerging class - the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois movements against feudal-absolutist forces became the main driving force of historical processes in continental Europe. The Holy Alliance prevented the establishment of bourgeois orders and increased the isolation of monarchical regimes. With the growth of contradictions between the members of the Union, there was a decline in the influence of the Russian court and Russian diplomacy on European politics.

By the end of the 1820s, the Holy Alliance began to disintegrate, which was facilitated, on the one hand, by a retreat from the principles of this Union on the part of England, whose interests at that time were very much in conflict with the policy of the Holy Alliance both in the conflict between the Spanish colonies in Latin America and metropolis, and in relation to the still ongoing Greek uprising, and on the other hand, the liberation of the successor of Alexander I from the influence of Metternich and the divergence of interests of Russia and Austria in relation to Turkey.

“As for Austria, I am confident in it, since our treaties determine our relations.”

But Russian-Austrian cooperation could not eliminate Russian-Austrian contradictions. Austria, as before, was frightened by the prospect of the emergence of independent states in the Balkans, probably friendly to Russia, the very existence of which would cause the growth of national liberation movements in the multinational Austrian Empire. As a result, in the Crimean War, Austria, without directly participating in it, took an anti-Russian position.

Bibliography

For the text of the Holy Alliance, see Complete Collection of Laws, No. 25943.
For the French original, see Part 1 of Vol. IV “Collections of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers” by Professor Martens.
"Mémoires, documents et écrits divers laissés par le prince de Metternich", vol. I, pp. 210-212.
V. Danevsky, “Systems of political balance and legitimism” 1882.
Ghervas, Stella [Gervas, Stella Petrovna], Réinventer la tradition. Alexandre Stourdza et l’Europe de la Sainte-Alliance, Paris, Honoré Champion, 2008. ISBN 978-2-7453-1669-1
Nadler V.K. Emperor Alexander I and the idea of the Holy Alliance. vol. 1-5. Kharkov, 1886-1892.

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Thunder
EDSAC

See what “Holy Alliance” is in other dictionaries:

HOLY UNION- an alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815, after the fall of the empire of Napoleon I. The goals of the Holy Alliance were to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815. In 1815, France and... ... joined the Holy Alliance. Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

HOLY UNION- THE SACRED ALLIANCE, the union of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815, after the fall of Napoleon I. The goals of the Holy Alliance were to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814 15. In 1815, the Holy Alliance was joined by... ... Modern encyclopedia

Holy Alliance- an alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815, after the fall of Napoleon I. The purpose of the Holy Alliance was to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15. In November 1815, France joined the union,... ... Historical Dictionary

activities congress sacred alliance

After the elimination of the domination of Europe by the Napoleonic Empire, a new system of international relations emerged, which went down in history under the name “Viennese”. Created by the decisions of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), it was supposed to ensure the preservation of the balance of power and peace in Europe.

After the overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of extra-European peace, among the powers that considered themselves completely satisfied with the distribution of “rewards” at the Congress of Vienna, the desire to preserve the established international order arose and strengthened, and the means for this was a permanent Union of Sovereigns and the periodic convening of congresses. Since this order could be threatened by national and revolutionary movements among peoples seeking new, freer forms of political existence, such a desire quickly acquired a reactionary character.

The slogan of the union, called the “sacred union,” was legitimism. The author and initiator of the “Holy Alliance” was the Russian emperor. activities congress sacred alliance

Alexander I, brought up in a liberal spirit, full of faith in his chosenness of God and not alien to good impulses, wanted to be known not only as a liberator, but also as a reformer of Europe. He was impatient to give the continent a new world order that could protect it from cataclysms. The idea of a Union arose in him, on the one hand, under the influence of the idea of becoming a peacemaker in Europe by creating a Union that would eliminate even the possibility of military clashes between states, and on the other hand, under the influence of the mystical mood that took possession of him. This explains the strangeness of the very wording of the union treaty, which was not similar either in form or in content to international treaties, which forced many international law specialists to see in it only a simple declaration of the monarchs who signed it.

Being one of the main creators of the Vienna system, he personally developed and proposed a scheme for peaceful coexistence, which provided for the preservation of the existing balance of power, the inviolability of forms of government and borders. It was based on a wide range of ideas, primarily on the moral precepts of Christianity, which gave many reasons to call Alexander I an idealist politician. The principles were set out in the Act of Holy Alliance of 1815, drafted in Gospel style.

The Act of the Holy Alliance was signed on September 14, 1815 in Paris, by three monarchs - Francis I of Austria, Frederick William III of Prussia and Russian Emperor Alexander I. According to the articles of the Act of the Holy Alliance, the three monarchs intended to be guided by “the commandments of this holy faith, the commandments of love, truth and peace,” they “will remain united by the bonds of real and indissoluble brotherhood.” It was further said that “considering themselves as if they were foreigners, they, in any case and in every place, will begin to give each other assistance, reinforcement and help.” In other words, the Holy Alliance was a kind of mutual assistance agreement between the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was extremely broad in nature. The absolute rulers considered it necessary to affirm the very principle of autocracy: the document noted that they would be guided by “the commandments of God, as autocrats of the Christian people.” These wordings of the Act on the Union of the Supreme Rulers of the Three Powers of Europe were unusual even for the terms of the treaties of that time - they were affected by the religious beliefs of Alexander I, his belief in the sanctity of the treaty of monarchs.

At the stage of preparation and signing of the act of the Holy Alliance, disagreements appeared between its participants. The original text of the Act was written by Alexander I and edited by one of the prominent politicians of that era, Kapodistrias. But later it was edited by Franz I, and in fact by Metternich. Metternich believed that the original text could serve as a reason for political complications, since under the formulation of Alexander I “subjects of the three contracting parties,” subjects were, as it were, recognized as legal bearers along with the monarchs. Metternich replaced this formulation with “three contracting monarchs.” As a result, the Act of Holy Alliance was signed as amended by Metternich, taking a more frank form of protecting the legitimate rights of monarchical power. Under the influence of Metternich, the Holy Alliance became a league of monarchs against nations.

The Holy Alliance became the main concern of Alexander I. It was the tsar who convened the congresses of the Union, proposed issues for the agenda and largely determined their decisions. There is also a widespread version that the head of the Holy Alliance, the “coachman of Europe” was the Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich, and the tsar was supposedly a decorative figure and almost a toy in the hands of the chancellor. Metternich really played an outstanding role in the affairs of the Union and was its (and not the whole of Europe) “coachman,” but in this metaphor, Alexander must be recognized as a rider who trusted the coachman while he was driving in the direction the rider needed.

Within the framework of the Holy Alliance, Russian diplomacy in 1815 attached the greatest importance to political relations with two German states - the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia, hoping with their support to solve all other international problems that remained unresolved at the Congress of Vienna. This does not mean that the St. Petersburg cabinet was completely satisfied with relations with Vienna and Berlin. It is very characteristic that in the preamble of the two drafts of the Act one and the same idea was conveyed about the need to “completely change the image of relations between the powers, which they previously adhered to,” “to subordinate the subject powers to the image of mutual relations with the lofty truths inspired by the eternal law of God the Savior.”

Metternich criticized the Act of the Union of the Three Monarchs, calling it “empty and meaningless” (verbiage).

According to Metternich, who was initially suspicious of the Holy Alliance, this “even in the thoughts of its culprit to be only a simple moral manifestation, in the eyes of the other two sovereigns who gave their signatures, did not have such a meaning,” and subsequently: “some parties, hostile sovereigns, only referred to this act, using it as a weapon in order to cast a shadow of suspicion and slander on the purest intentions of their opponents.” Metternich also assures in his memoirs that “The Holy Alliance was not at all founded in order to limit the rights of peoples and favor absolutism and tyranny in any form. This Union was the only expression of the mystical aspirations of Emperor Alexander and the application of the principles of Christianity to politics. The idea of a sacred Union arose from a mixture of liberal ideas, religious and political." Metternich considered this treaty to be devoid of all practical meaning.

However, Metternich subsequently changed his mind about the “empty and boring document” and very skillfully used the sacred Union for his reactionary purposes. (When Austria needed to gain Russian support in the fight against revolution in Europe and, in particular, to strengthen the position of the Habsburgs in Germany and Italy. The Austrian Chancellor was directly involved in the conclusion of the Holy Alliance - there was a draft document with his notes, the Austrian court approved it).

Article No. 3 of the Act of the Holy Alliance states that "all powers who wish to solemnly acknowledge these principles will be admitted with the greatest readiness and sympathy into this Holy Alliance."

In November 1815, the French king Louis XVIII joined the Holy Alliance, and later most of the monarchs of the European continent joined him. Only England and the Vatican refused to sign. The Pope viewed this as an attack on his spiritual authority over Catholics.

And the British cabinet greeted Alexander I's idea of creating a Holy Alliance of European monarchs with him at its head. And although, according to the king’s plan, this union was supposed to serve the cause of peace in Europe, the unity of monarchs, and the strengthening of legitimacy, Great Britain refused to participate in it. She needed "free hands" in Europe.

The English diplomat, Lord Castlereagh, stated that it was impossible “to advise the English regent to sign this treaty, since the parliament, consisting of positive people, can only give its consent to some practical treaty of subsidies or alliance, but will never give it to a simple declaration biblical truths that would take England into the era of St. Cromwell and round heads."

Castlereagh, who made a lot of efforts to ensure that Great Britain remained aloof from the Holy Alliance, also named the leading role of Alexander I in its creation as one of the reasons for this. In 1815 and in subsequent years, Great Britain - one of Russia's main rivals in the international arena - did not at all contribute to the strengthening of the Holy Alliance, but skillfully used its activities and the decisions of its congresses to its advantage. Although Castlereagh continued to verbally condemn the principle of intervention, in reality he supported a harsh counter-revolutionary strategy. Metternich wrote that the policy of the Holy Alliance in Europe was reinforced by England's protective influence on the continent.

Along with Alexander I, an active role in the Holy Alliance was played by the Austrian Emperor Franz I and his Chancellor Metternich, as well as the Prussian King Frederick William III.

By creating the Holy Alliance, Alexander I wanted to unite European countries into a single structure, to subordinate relations between them to moral principles drawn from the Christian religion, including fraternal mutual assistance of sovereigns in protecting Europe from the consequences of human “imperfections” - wars, unrest, revolutions.

The goals of the sacred alliance were to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1814 - 1815, as well as to wage a struggle against all manifestations of the “revolutionary spirit”. The Emperor declared that the highest purpose of the Holy Alliance was to make such "protective precepts" as the "principles of peace, concord and love" the foundation of international law."

In fact, the activities of the Holy Alliance focused almost entirely on the fight against the revolution. The key points of this struggle were the periodically convened congresses of the heads of the three leading powers of the Holy Alliance, which were also attended by representatives of England and France. Alexander I and Clemens Metternich usually played the leading role at the congresses. Total congresses of the Holy Alliance. there were four - the Aachen Congress of 1818, the Troppau Congress of 1820, the Laibach Congress of 1821 and the Verona Congress of 1822.

The powers of the Holy Alliance stood entirely on the basis of legitimism, that is, the most complete restoration of the old dynasties and regimes overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon's armies, and proceeded from the recognition of an absolute monarchy. The Holy Alliance was the European gendarme that kept the European peoples in chains.

The agreement on the creation of the Holy Alliance fixed the understanding of the principle of legitimism as preserving the “old regime” at any cost, i.e. feudal-absolutist orders.

But there was another, de-ideologized understanding of this principle, according to which legitimism essentially became synonymous with the concept of European balance.

This is how one of the founding fathers of the system, French Foreign Minister Charles Talleyrand, formulated this principle in his report on the results of the Congress of Vienna: “The principles of the legitimacy of power must be consecrated, first of all, in the interests of the people, since only some legitimate governments are strong, and the rest , relying only on force, fall themselves as soon as they are deprived of this support, and thus plunge peoples into a series of revolutions, the end of which cannot be foreseen... the congress will crown its labors and replace fleeting alliances, the fruit of transient needs and calculations, with a permanent system of joint guarantees and general balance... The order restored in Europe would be placed under the protection of all interested countries, which could... by joint efforts suppress all attempts to violate it at their very beginning."

Without officially recognizing the act of the Holy Alliance, which may have had an anti-Turkish connotation (the Union united only three states, whose subjects professed the Christian religion, was considered by the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire as Russia’s intention to capture Constantinople), the British Secretary of State Castlereagh agreed with his general idea of the need for a coordinated policies of European powers to prevent wars. Other participants in the Congress of Vienna shared the same opinion, and they preferred to express it in a more generally accepted and understandable form of an international legal document. This document became the Treaty of Paris on November 20, 1815.

The monarchs abandoned the soil of abstractions and vague mystical phraseology and on November 20, 1815, four powers - England, Austria, Russia and Prussia - signed an alliance treaty, the so-called Second Treaty of Paris. This agreement stated the formation of a new European system, the foundation of which was the alliance of the Four - Russia, England, Austria and Prussia, which assumed control over the affairs of Europe in the name of preserving peace.

Castlereagh played an important role in the development of this agreement. He is the author of Article 6, which provided for the periodic convening of meetings of representatives of the great powers at the highest level to discuss “common interests” and measures to ensure “the peace and prosperity of nations.” Thus, the four great powers laid the foundation for a new “security policy” based on constant mutual contacts.

From 1818 until his resignation in 1848, Metternich sought to maintain the system of absolutism created by the Holy Alliance. He summed up all efforts to expand the foundations or change the forms of government by one yardstick, considering them to be the product of the revolutionary spirit. Metternich formulated the basic principle of his policy after 1815: “In Europe there is only one problem - revolution.” Fear of revolution and the fight against the liberation movement largely determined the actions of the Austrian minister both before and after the Congress of Vienna. Metternich called himself a “doctor of revolutions.”

In the political life of the Holy Alliance, three periods should be distinguished. The first period - actual omnipotence - lasted seven years - from September 1815, when the Union was created, until the end of 1822. The second period begins in 1823, when the Holy Alliance achieved its last victory by organizing an intervention in Spain. But then the consequences of the rise to power of George Canning, who became a minister back in mid-1822, began to appear sharply. The second period lasts from 1823 until the July Revolution of 1830 in France. Canning deals a series of blows to the Holy Alliance. After the revolution of 1830, the Holy Alliance, in essence, already lies in ruins.

During the period from 1818 to 1821, the Holy Alliance showed the greatest energy and courage in pursuing a counter-revolutionary program. But even during this period, his policy did not at all develop the unity of views and cohesion that could be expected from states united under such a loud name. Each of the powers that were part of it agreed to fight the common enemy only at a time convenient for itself, in a suitable place and in accordance with its private interests.

Signifying the character of the era, the Holy Alliance was the main body of pan-European reaction against liberal aspirations. Its practical significance was expressed in the resolutions of a number of congresses (Aachen, Troppaus, Laibach and Verona), at which the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of other states was fully developed with the aim of forcibly suppressing all national and revolutionary movements and maintaining the existing system with its absolutist and clerical-aristocratic trends.

09/14/1815 (09/27). - Formation of the “Holy Alliance” of the monarchs of Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany for mutual assistance in the fight against the revolution

"Holy Alliance" - Russian attempt to save Christian Europe

Holy Alliance monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia arose in 1815 after. The prehistory of the Holy Alliance is as follows.

Thus, the Russian Emperor, being the liberator of Europe and the strongest Sovereign in it, did not dictate his will to the Europeans, annex their lands, but generously offered a peaceful Christian brotherhood to serve God's truth. Such behavior of the winner in a difficult defensive, actually World War (after all, “twelve languages” - all of Europe) also participated in the invasion of Rus' along with the French - is unique in the history of international relations! This high spiritual meaning of the Holy Alliance is reflected in the unusual edition of the union treaty, written by the Russian Emperor himself and not similar in either its form or content to international treatises:

“In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity! Their Majesties, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia and the Emperor of All Russia, as a result of the great events that have marked the last three years in Europe, and especially as a result of the benefits that God's Providence has been pleased to pour out on the states, whose government has placed its hope and respect in the One God, having felt inner conviction of how necessary it is for the present powers to subordinate the image of mutual relations to the higher truths inspired by the eternal law of God the Savior, they solemnly declare that the subject of this act is to reveal to the face of the universe their unshakable determination, both in the management of the states entrusted to them, and in political relations to all other governments, to be guided by no other rules than the commandments of this holy faith, the commandments of love, truth and peace, which were not limited to their application solely to private life, must, on the contrary, directly govern the will of the kings and guide all their actions , as a single means of affirming human decisions and rewarding their imperfections. On this basis Their Majesties have agreed in the following articles:

I. According to the words of the sacred scriptures, commanding all people to be brothers, the three contracting monarchs will remain united by the bonds of real and indissoluble brotherhood, and considering themselves as if they were fellow-countrymen, they will, in any case and in every place, begin to give each other assistance, reinforcement and assistance; in relation to their subjects and troops, they, like fathers of families, will govern them in the same spirit of brotherhood with which they are animated to preserve faith, peace and truth.

II. Therefore, let the one prevailing rule, both between the mentioned authorities and their subjects, be to provide services to each other, to show mutual goodwill and love, to consider all of ourselves as members of a single Christian people, since the three allied sovereigns consider themselves to be appointed by Providence for the strengthening of three single branches of the family, namely Austria, Prussia and Russia, thus confessing that the Autocrat of the Christian people, of which they and their subjects form a part, is truly none other than the One to Whom the power actually belongs, since in Him alone treasures of love, knowledge and endless wisdom are found, i.e. God, our Divine Savior, Jesus Christ, the Verb of the Most High, the Word of Life. Accordingly, Their Majesties, with the most tender care, persuade their subjects to strengthen themselves day by day in the rules and active fulfillment of the duties in which the Divine Savior placed people, as the only means of enjoying the peace that flows from a good conscience, and which alone is durable.

III. All powers who wish to solemnly accept the sacred rules set forth in this Act, and who feel what is necessary for the happiness of the kingdoms that have been shaken for a long time, so that these truths will henceforth contribute to the good of human destinies, can be willingly and lovingly accepted into this Holy Union.”

Alexander I also explained the great mission of the Holy Alliance in the Highest Manifesto on December 25, 1815: “...Having learned from experience about the disastrous consequences for the whole world that the course of previous political relations between the powers was not based on those true principles on which the Wisdom of God in Her Revelation established the peace and prosperity of peoples, We, together with Their Majesties the August Emperor, set out Franz Joseph I and King Frederick William of Prussia, to establish an alliance between us, inviting other powers to do so, in which We mutually undertake, both among ourselves and in relation to Our subjects, to accept the only rule leading to it, drawn from the words and teachings of our Savior Jesus Christ, who preaches the gospel to people to live, like brothers, not in enmity and malice, but in peace and love. We wish and pray to the Almighty to send down His grace, so that this Holy Alliance may be established between all powers, for their common good, and may no one, forbidden by the unanimous consent of all others, dare to fall away from it. For this reason, here is a list of this Union. We command that it be made public and read in churches.”

In fact, the Russian Tsar, inviting European sovereigns to “live, like brothers, not in enmity and malice, but in peace and love,” hoped to make a “reactionary” Christian revolution in European affairs - which was “wild” and unacceptable for “advanced” Europe . After all, the French Revolution was not an accidental breakdown of anti-Christian malice and violence, but grew out of a pan-European process of apostasy, which could not be stopped by the crushing of the “usurper” Napoleon. The European "public", fed by Jewish newspapers, treated the Holy Alliance precisely as a "reaction", suspecting the intrigues of the Russian Tsar in this.

From the very beginning, Austrian and Prussian specialist diplomats reacted to this highly binding and “unprofessional” text with aloofness and even hostility. The European monarchs who signed the Act themselves interpreted it not as a treaty of international law, but only as a simple declaration of the signatories. Frederick William signed the Act out of politeness, so as not to upset Alexander I, the liberator of Prussia; Louis XVIII, who later joined, to equate France with the leading powers of Europe. The Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph openly stated: “If this is a religious document, then this is the work of my confessor; if political, then Metternich,” Minister of Foreign Affairs. Metternich confirmed that this “undertaking”, which was supposed to “even in the mind of its culprit, to be only a simple moral manifestation, in the eyes of the other two sovereigns who gave their signatures, it did not have such significance”. Metternich wrote in his memoirs that “this Union was the only expression of the mystical aspirations of Emperor Alexander and the application of the principles of Christianity to politics”.

Subsequently, Metternich only skillfully used the Holy Alliance for his own selfish purposes. After all, obliging the Sovereigns to always “ give each other aid, reinforcement and help", the document did not specify in what cases and in what form this obligation should be carried out - this made it possible to interpret it in the sense that assistance is obligatory in all those cases when subjects show disobedience to their “legitimate” sovereigns.

The suppression of revolutionary protests took place in Spain (1820–1823) - with the participation of France; in Naples (1820–1821) and Piedmont (1821) - with the participation of Austria. But with the approval of the European powers it was suppressed, and although the Turkish Sultan was not accepted into the Union as a non-Christian sovereign. In this case, Russia’s proposal to support the Christian Greek people against the alien occupiers was not taken into account by the allies (after all, a similar uprising of the enslaved Slavs could have happened in Austria) and Tsar Alexander I was forced to submit to a formal general interpretation, although the Christian spirit of the Union was lost. (Only with.) It seemed that the Union was doomed to failure. However, the overthrow of the monarchy in France in 1830 and the outbreak of revolutions in Belgium and Warsaw forced Austria, Russia and Prussia to return to the traditions of the Holy Alliance. Russia suppressed the revolution in Hungary in 1849.

Nevertheless, the geopolitical and moral contradictions between the members of the Union turned out to be so great that its preservation turned out to be impossible. , in which European states opposed (or refused to help) Russia in an alliance with Muslim Turkey, buried all hopes for the possibility of a Union of Christian Monarchs. Western Christian apostasy civilization and Russian Christian holding civilization have finally diverged. The “land of holy miracles” (), which the first Slavophiles idealized Europe, hoping to save it from destruction by fraternal Russian influence (), ceased to exist for them. The book “Russia and Europe” became a statement of this.

Subsequently, Russian foreign policy was based mainly on the fact that in Europe “Russia has no friends or allies except the Russian Army and Navy” (). Russia’s participation in coalitions of some European powers against others was dictated by pragmatic considerations: to restrain the most aggressive rival (which, ultimately, the Jewish media and money “made” neighboring Germany) in an alliance with less aggressive ones (which looked like territorially distant England and France).

But the “less aggressive” democratic allies turned out to be more crafty and betrayed Russia in order to clash the main European monarchies, former participants in the Holy Alliance. Their mutual destruction and the triumph of Judeo-Masonic power in Europe became an object lesson and a logical “alternative” to the unfulfilled aspiration of the Russian monarchy “ subordinate to the high truths inspired by the law of God the Savior" international relations of Christian powers.

The now democratized and “multiculturalized” united Europe, which has excluded mention of Christianity from its constitution, demonstrates the complete triumph of the Masonic ideas of the French Revolution. The solemn celebration of her 200th anniversary in 1989 in Paris became a surreal performance, a rehearsal for the parade of the accession of the Antichrist. Europe became a colony of its former colony or, as Brzezinski put it, a “vassal” and “geopolitical springboard” of the United States (the prototype of the kingdom of the Antichrist) in the conquest of Eurasia as the “main prize” for America.

M. Nazarov

See also in the book “To the Leader of the Third Rome” (chap. VI-8:)

Discussion: 2 comments

The words “Jew-Mason”, “Jew-fascist”, etc. are written together.

Thanks for correcting the typo.

an alliance of European monarchs concluded after the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire. T.n. The act of S. s., clothed in religious-mystical. form, was signed on September 26. 1815 in Paris Russian imp. Alexander I, Austrian imp. Francis I and Prussian King Frederick William III. 19 Nov 1815 to S. s. French joined. King Louis XVIII, and then most of the monarchs of Europe. England, which did not join the Union, supported the policy of the Socialist Union on a number of issues, especially in the first years of its existence, English. representatives were present at all congresses of the Socialist Union. The most important tasks of S. s. were the struggle against the revolutionaries. and national liberation. movements and ensuring the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814-15. At the periodically convened congresses of Socialist Socialists. (see Congress of Aachen 1818, Congress of Troppau 1820, Congress of Laibach 1821, Congress of Verona 1822) the leading role was played by Metternich and Alexander I. January 19. 1820 Russia, Austria and Prussia signed a protocol proclaiming the right to arm them. interference in internal affairs of other states in order to fight the revolution. The practical expression of S.'s policy. there were Carlsbad resolutions of 1819. In accordance with the decisions of S. s. Austria carried out armament. intervention and suppressed the Neapolitan revolution of 1820-21 and the Piedmontese revolution of 1821, France - the Spanish revolution of 1820-23. In subsequent years, contradictions between S. s. and England due to the difference in their positions regarding the war for Spanish independence. colonies in Lat. America, and then between Russia and Austria on the issue of attitude towards the Greek. national liberation uprising 1821-29. Despite all the efforts of S. S., revolutionary. and will free you. movements in Europe were shaking this alliance. In 1825, the Decembrist uprising took place in Russia. In 1830, revolutions broke out in France and Belgium, and an uprising (1830-31) against tsarism began in Poland. Under these conditions, S. s. actually fell apart. Attempts to restore it (the signing of the Berlin Treaty between Russia, Austria and Prussia in October 1833) ended in failure. During 19 and at the beginning. 20th centuries (except for the period immediately following the formation of the Socialist Union), historiography was dominated by negative assessments of the activities of this reactionary union. monarchs. In defense of S. s. Only a few court and clerical historians spoke, who had only a weak influence on the general development of historiography. In the 20s 20th century the “rewriting” of the history of the village began, which acquired a particularly wide scale after World War II. First of all, the existing history was subject to revision. liter assessment ch. figures of the Congress of Vienna and S. s. (historians - C. Webster, G. Srbik, G. Nicholson), and the role of the “great European” Metternich (A. Cecil, A. G. Haas, G. Kissinger) is especially praised. Congress of Vienna and S. s. are declared to personify the vitality of conservatism, its ability to preserve established social foundations after turbulent societies. shocks (J. Pirenne). To the special credit of S. s. The suppression of the revolution is being carried out. and will free you. movements of peoples. It is emphasized that the leaders of S. s. “for the first time in history” they created “supranational and supraparty” institutions (by which, first of all, socialist congresses are meant), which ensured the creation of an “effective mechanism” “for maintaining order and preventing chaos in Europe” (T. Shider, R. A. Kann). Thus, reaction. the authors see the special value of S. s. in that he carried out an organized “export of counter-revolution,” which today is the most important component of the program of the extreme imperialists. strength Carrying out dubious historical parallels, the latest imperialist. historians consider S. s. as a distant predecessor and herald of the “integration of Europe” and the North Atlantic bloc. It is emphasized that NATO will have to ensure agreement between Ch. capitalist powers. In this regard, attention is paid to the attempts that have taken place to attract villagers to participate in S. USA (Pirenne). It is noteworthy that some historians (Kissinger and others) strive to prove that the experience of S. with. indicates the possibility of peaceful coexistence only of socially homogeneous states. It is characteristic that most of the newest bourgeois. works about S. s. is not research, but based on very meager source data. the basis of socio-political reasoning, the purpose of which is to substantiate the modern ideology and practice of imperialist reaction. Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., Russian note, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 5, p. 310; Marx K., The exploits of the Hohenzollerns, ibid., vol. 6, p. 521; Engels F., The situation in Germany, ibid. vol. 2, p. 573-74; his, Debates on the Polish Question in Frankfurt, ibid., vol. 5, p. 351; Martens F., Collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers, vol. 4, 7, St. Petersburg, 1878-85; Treatise of the Fraternal Christian Union, PSZ, vol. 33 (SPB), 1830, p. 279-280; History of diplomacy, 2nd ed., vol. 1, M., 1959; Tarle E.V., Talleyrand, Soch., t. 11, M., 1961; Narochnitsky A.L., International relations of European states from 1794 to 1830. , M., 1946; Bolkhovitinov N. N., Monroe Doctrine. (Origin and character), M., 1959; Slezkin L. Yu., Russia and the War of Independence in Spanish America, M., 1964; Manfred A.Z., Socio-political ideas in 1815, "VI", 1966, M 5; Debidur A., Diplomatic History of Europe, trans. from French, vol. 1, M., 1947; Nadler V.K., Emperor Alexander I and the idea of the Holy Alliance, vol. 1-5, Riga, 1886-92; Soloviev S., The Age of Congresses, "BE", 1866, vol. 3-4; 1867, vol. 1-4; his, Emperor Alexander I. Politics - diplomacy, St. Petersburg, 1877; Bourquin M., Histoire de la Sainte-Alliance, Gen., 1954; Pirenne J. H., La Sainte-Alliance, t. 2, P., 1949; Kissinger H. A., World restored. Metternich, Castlereagh and the problems of peace 1812-1822, Bost., 1957; Srbik H. von, Metternich. Der Staatsmann und der Mensch, Bd 2, M?nch., 1925; Webster Ch. K., The foreign policy of Gastlereagh 1815-1822. Britain and the European Alliance, L., 1925; Schieder T., Idee und Gestalt des ?bernationalen Staats seit dem 19. Jahrhundert, "HZ", 1957, Bd 184; Schaeder H., Autokratie und Heilige Allianz, Darmstadt, 1963; Nicolson H., The Congress of Vienna. A study in Allied Unity. 1812-1822, L., 1946; Bartlett C. J., Castlereagh, L., 1966; Haas A. G., Metternich, reorganization and nationality, 1813-1818, "Ver?ffentlichungen des Institutes f?r Europ?ische Geschichte", Bd 28, Wiesbaden, 1963; Kann R. A., Metternich, a reappraisal of his impact on international relations, "J. of Modern History", 1960, v. 32; Kossok M., Im Schatten der Heiligen Allianz. Deutschland Und Lateinamerika, 1815-1830, V., 1964. L. A. Zak. Moscow.