When the wars related to the Eastern question took place. USE
History of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries Milov Leonid Vasilyevich
§ 4. Eastern question
§ 4. Eastern question
Ottoman Empire and European Powers. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Eastern Question did not play a significant role in Russia's foreign policy. The Greek project of Catherine II, which provided for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe and the creation of a Christian empire in the Balkans, the head of which the Empress saw as her grandson Constantine, was abandoned. Under Paul I, the Russian and Ottoman empires united to fight revolutionary France. The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were open to Russian warships, and the squadron of F.F. Ushakov successfully operated in the Mediterranean Sea. The Ionian Islands were under the protectorate of Russia, their port cities served as a base for Russian warships. For Alexander I and his "young friends" the Eastern question was the subject of serious discussion in the Private Committee. The result of this discussion was the decision to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, to abandon the plans for its division. This was contrary to Catherine's tradition, but was fully justified in the new international conditions. The joint actions of the governments of the Russian and Ottoman empires ensured relative stability in the Black Sea region, the Balkans and the Caucasus, which was important against the general backdrop of European upheavals. Characteristically, the opponents of a balanced course in the Eastern Question were F. V. Rostopchin, who came forward under Paul I, who proposed detailed projects for the division of the Ottoman Empire, and N. M. Karamzin, who was considered the leader, who considered the collapse of the Ottoman Empire "beneficial for reason and humanity."
At the beginning of the XIX century. for the Western European powers, the Eastern question was reduced to the problem of the "sick man" of Europe, which was considered the Ottoman Empire. From day to day they expected her death, and it was about the division of the Turkish inheritance. England, Napoleonic France and the Austrian Empire were especially active in the Eastern Question. The interests of these states were in direct and sharp contradiction, but in one they were united, seeking to weaken the growing influence of Russia on affairs in the Ottoman Empire and in the region as a whole. For Russia, the Eastern Question consisted of the following aspects: the final political and economic establishment in the Northern Black Sea region, which was basically achieved under Catherine II; recognition of her rights as the patroness of the Christian and Slavic peoples of the Ottoman Empire and, above all, the Balkan Peninsula; the favorable regime of the Black Sea straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, which ensured its trade and military interests. In a broad sense, the Eastern Question also concerned Russian policy in the Transcaucasus.
Accession of Georgia to Russia. The cautious approach of Alexander I to the Eastern Question was to a certain extent due to the fact that from the first steps of his reign he had to solve a long-standing problem: the annexation of Georgia to Russia. The protectorate of Russia over Eastern Georgia, proclaimed in 1783, was largely formal. Severely affected by the Persian invasion in 1795, Eastern Georgia, which constituted the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, was interested in Russian patronage and military protection. At the request of Tsar George XII, Russian troops were in Georgia, an embassy was sent to St. Petersburg, which was supposed to achieve that the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti "belonged to the Russian state." At the beginning of 1801, Paul I issued a Manifesto on the accession of Eastern Georgia to Russia on special rights. After certain hesitation caused by disagreements in the Indispensable Council and the Unspoken Committee, Alexander I confirmed his father's decision and on September 12, 1801 signed the Manifesto to the Georgian people, which liquidated the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti and annexed Eastern Georgia to Russia. The Bagration dynasty was removed from power, and a Supreme Government was created in Tiflis, composed of Russian military and civilians.
P. D. Tsitsianov and his Caucasian policy. In 1802, General P. D. Tsitsianov, a Georgian by origin, was appointed the chief administrator of Georgia. Tsitsianov's dream was to liberate the peoples of Transcaucasia from the Ottoman and Persian threat and unite them into a federation under the auspices of Russia. Acting energetically and purposefully, he in a short time obtained the consent of the rulers of Eastern Transcaucasia to join the territories subject to them to Russia. Derbent, Talysh, Cuban, Dagestan rulers agreed to the patronage of the Russian tsar. In 1804, Tsitsianov undertook a successful campaign against the Ganja Khanate. He began negotiations with the Imeretian king, which later ended with the inclusion of Imereti in the Russian Empire. In 1803, the ruler of Megrelia passed under the protectorate of Russia.
The successful actions of Tsitsianov displeased Persia. The Shah demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Azerbaijan, which was ignored. In 1804 Persia started a war against Russia. Tsitsianov, despite the lack of forces, led active offensive operations - the Karabakh, Sheki and Shirvan khanates were annexed to Russia. When Tsitsianov accepted the surrender of the Baku Khan, he was treacherously killed, which did not affect the course of the Persian campaign. In 1812, the Persian crown prince Abbas Mirza was utterly defeated by General P. S. Kotlyarevsky near Aslanduz. The Persians had to clear all of Transcaucasia and negotiate. In October 1813, the Gulistan Peace Treaty was signed, according to which Persia recognized Russian acquisitions in the Transcaucasus. Russia received the exclusive right to keep warships on the Caspian Sea. The peace treaty created a completely new international legal position, which meant the approval of the Russian border along the Kura and Araks and the entry of the peoples of Transcaucasia into the Russian Empire.
Russo-Turkish War 1806–1812 Active actions of Tsitsianov in Transcaucasia were perceived with caution in Constantinople, where French influence noticeably increased. Napoleon was ready to promise the Sultan the return of the Crimea and some Transcaucasian territories under his rule. Russia found it necessary to agree to the proposal of the Turkish government on the early renewal of the union treaty. In September 1805, a new treaty of alliance and mutual assistance was concluded between the two empires. Of great importance were the articles of the treaty on the regime of the Black Sea straits, which during the hostilities Turkey undertook to keep open to the Russian navy, while at the same time not letting the military ships of other states into the Black Sea. The treaty did not last long. In 1806, instigated by Napoleonic diplomacy, the sultan replaced the pro-Russian lords of Wallachia and Moldavia, to which Russia was ready to respond by bringing its troops into these principalities. The Sultan's government declared war on Russia.
The war, started by the Turks in the hope of weakening Russia after Austerlitz, was fought with varying success. In 1807, having won a victory near Arpachai, Russian troops repelled an attempt by the Turks to invade Georgia. The Black Sea Fleet forced the Turkish fortress of Anapa to surrender. In 1811, Kotlyarevsky stormed the Turkish fortress of Akhalkalaki. On the Danube, hostilities took on a protracted character until, in 1811, M. I. Kutuzov was appointed commander of the Danube army. He defeated the Turkish forces near Ruschuk and Slobodzeya and forced Porto to conclude peace. This was the first huge service rendered by Kutuzov to Russia in 1812. Under the terms of the Bucharest Peace, Russia received the rights of the guarantor of the autonomy of Serbia, which strengthened its position in the Balkans. In addition, she received naval bases on the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus and part of Moldavia between the Dniester and Prut rivers retreated to her.
Greek question. The system of European equilibrium established at the Congress of Vienna did not extend to the Ottoman Empire, which inevitably led to an aggravation of the Eastern Question. The Holy Alliance implied the unity of European Christian monarchs against the infidels, their expulsion from Europe. In reality, the European powers waged a fierce struggle for influence in Constantinople, using the growth of the liberation movement of the Balkan peoples as a means of putting pressure on the Sultan's government. Russia widely used its opportunities to provide patronage to the Christian subjects of the Sultan - Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians. The Greek question became especially acute. With the knowledge of the Russian authorities in Odessa, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece and Bulgaria, Greek patriots were preparing an uprising, the goal of which was the independence of Greece. In their struggle, they enjoyed the broad support of the progressive European public, which regarded Greece as the cradle of European civilization. Alexander I showed hesitation. Based on the principle of legitimism, he did not approve of the idea of Greek independence, but did not find support either in Russian society or even in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where I. Kapodistria, the future first president of independent Greece, played a prominent role. In addition, the tsar was impressed by the idea of the triumph of the cross over the crescent, of expanding the sphere of influence of European Christian civilization. He spoke of his doubts at the Congress of Verona: “Nothing, without a doubt, seemed more in line with the public opinion of the country than a religious war with Turkey, but in the unrest of the Peloponnese I saw signs of a revolution. And he refrained."
In 1821, the Greek national liberation revolution began, led by the general of the Russian service, aristocrat Alexander Ypsilanti. Alexander I condemned the Greek Revolution as a rebellion against the legitimate monarch and insisted on settling the Greek question through negotiations. Instead of independence, he offered the Greeks autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. The rebels, who hoped for direct assistance from the European public, rejected this plan. The Ottoman authorities did not accept him either. The forces were clearly unequal, the Ypsilanti detachment was defeated, the Ottoman government closed the straits for the Russian merchant fleet, and advanced troops to the Russian border. To settle the Greek question, at the beginning of 1825, a conference of great powers met in St. Petersburg, where England and Austria rejected the Russian program of joint actions. After the Sultan refused the mediation of the conference participants, Alexander I decided to concentrate troops on the Turkish border. Thus, he crossed out the policy of legitimism and switched to open support of the Greek national liberation movement. Russian society welcomed the determination of the emperor. A firm course in the Greek and, more broadly, the Eastern question was defended by such influential dignitaries as V.P. Kochubey, M.S. Vorontsov, A.I. Chernyshov, P.D. Kiselev. They were concerned about the possible weakening of Russian influence among the Christian and Slavic population of the Balkan Peninsula. A.P. Yermolov argued: “Foreign cabinets, especially English, put us guilty of patience and inaction in front of all peoples in a disadvantageous form. It will end with the fact that in the Greeks, who are committed to us, we will leave just anger at us.
A.P. Ermolov in the Caucasus. The name of A.P. Yermolov is associated with a sharp increase in the military-political presence of Russia in the North Caucasus, a territory that was ethnically heterogeneous and whose peoples were at various levels of socio-economic and political development. There were relatively stable state formations - the Avar and Kazikumyk khanates, the Shamkhalate of Tarkov, in the mountainous regions patriarchal "free societies" dominated, the prosperity of which largely depended on successful raids on the plain neighbors engaged in agriculture.
In the second half of the XVIII century. The northern Ciscaucasia, which was the object of peasant and Cossack colonization, was separated from the mountainous regions by the Caucasian line, which stretched from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea and ran along the banks of the Kuban and Terek rivers. A mail road was built along this line, which was considered almost safe. In 1817, the Caucasian cordon line was transferred from the Terek to the Sunzha, which caused discontent among the mountain peoples, because in this way they were cut off from the Kumyk plain, where cattle were driven to winter pastures. For the Russian authorities, the inclusion of the Caucasian peoples in the orbit of imperial influence was a natural consequence of the successful establishment of Russia in the Transcaucasus. In military, trade and economic terms, the authorities were interested in eliminating the threats that the raiding system of the highlanders concealed. The support that the highlanders received from the Ottoman Empire justified Russia's military intervention in the affairs of the North Caucasus.
Appointed in 1816 to the post of chief administrator of the civilian unit in Georgia and the Caucasus and at the same time commander of the Separate Corps, General A.P. Yermolov considered his main task to ensure the security of Transcaucasia and the inclusion of the territory of mountainous Dagestan, Chechnya and the North-Western Caucasus into the Russian Empire. From the policy of Tsitsianov, which combined threats and monetary promises, he moved on to a sharp suppression of the raiding system, for which he widely used deforestation and the destruction of recalcitrant auls. Yermolov felt like a "proconsul of the Caucasus" and was not shy about using military force. It was under him that the military-economic and political blockade of the mountainous regions was carried out, he considered the demonstration of force and military expeditions the best means of putting pressure on the mountain peoples. On the initiative of Yermolov, the fortresses Groznaya, Vnepnaya, Burnaya were built, which became the strongholds of the Russian troops.
Yermolov's military expeditions led to opposition from the highlanders of Chechnya and Kabarda. Yermolov's policy was rebuffed by "free societies", the ideological basis for uniting which was muridism, a kind of Islam adapted to the concepts of the mountain peoples. The teaching of muridism demanded from every true believer constant spiritual improvement and blind obedience to a mentor, a student, whose murid he became. The role of the mentor was exceptionally great; he combined spiritual and secular power in his person. Muridism imposed on its followers the obligation to conduct a "holy war", ghazavat, against the infidels until they were converted to Islam or completely exterminated. Calls for ghazavat, addressed to all the mountain peoples who professed Islam, were a powerful incentive to resist Yermolov's actions and at the same time contributed to overcoming the disunity of the peoples inhabiting the North Caucasus.
One of the first ideologists of muridism, Muhammed Yaragsky, preached the transfer of rigid religious and moral norms and prohibitions to the area of social and legal relations. The consequence of this was the inevitable clash of Muridism, based on the Sharia, a body of Islamic law, relatively new to the Caucasian peoples, with adat, the norms of customary law, which for centuries determined the life of “free societies”. The secular rulers were wary of the fanatical preaching of the Muslim clergy, which often led to civil strife and bloody massacres. For a number of peoples of the Caucasus who professed Islam, Muridism remained alien.
In the 1820s the opposition of previously disparate "free societies" to Yermolov's straightforward and short-sighted actions grew into organized military-political resistance, the ideology of which was Muridism. We can say that under Yermolov, events began that contemporaries called the Caucasian War. In reality, these were actions of separate military detachments, devoid of a general plan, which either sought to stop the attacks of the highlanders, or undertook expeditions deep into the mountainous regions, without representing the enemy’s forces and without pursuing any political goals. Military operations in the Caucasus took on a protracted character.
From the book The Truth about Nicholas I. The slandered emperor author Tyurin AlexanderThe Eastern question between the wars The Gunkyar-Skelessi Treaty of 1833 The Egyptian crisis put the Ottoman Empire on the brink of life and death, and determined its short-term rapprochement with Russia. The ruler of Egypt, Megmed-Ali (Mohammed Ali) came from Rumelia,
author Milov Leonid Vasilievich§ 4. Eastern question Ottoman Empire and European powers. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Eastern Question did not play a significant role in Russia's foreign policy. The Greek project of Catherine II, which provided for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe and the creation of a Christian empire in the Balkans,
From the book History of Russia XVIII-XIX centuries author Milov Leonid Vasilievich§ 2. Eastern question. Russia in the Caucasus The problem of the Black Sea straits. Based on the Petersburg Protocol of 1826, Russian diplomacy forced the Ottoman authorities to sign the Akkerman Convention in October of the same year, according to which all states received the right to
From the book Russia and Russians in World History author Narochnitskaya Natalia AlekseevnaCHAPTER 6 Russia and the World Eastern Question The Eastern Question is not one of those that are subject to resolution by diplomacy. N. Ya. Danilevsky. "Russia and Europe" The transformation of Russia into Russia took place by the second half of the XVIII century, and by the second half of the next, XIX century in
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures LXII-LXXXVI) authorEastern question So, in the continuation of the XIX century. Russia's southeastern borders are gradually being pushed back beyond their natural limits by the inevitable confluence of relations and interests. Russia's foreign policy on the southwestern European borders takes a completely different direction. I
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures XXXIII-LXI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichThe Eastern Question The already dying Bogdan and then stood in the way of both friends and enemies, both states, and the one to which he had betrayed, and the one to which he swore allegiance. Frightened by the rapprochement between Moscow and Poland, he entered into an agreement with the Swedish king Charles X and the Transylvanian
From the book of Attila. Scourge of God author Bouvier-Agent MauriceVII EASTERN QUESTION Attila's course of action at the walls of Constantinople has always raised many questions. And indeed, even if the prospect of a brutal war with Aspar was more than likely, even if the assault on the city promised to be extremely difficult, despite Edekon's successes in business
From the book History of Romania the author Bolovan IoanThe Romanian Principalities and the "Eastern Question" The evolution of the "Eastern Question", the progress brought about by the French Revolution, and the spread of the revolutionary spirit in South-Eastern Europe also affected the political situation in the Romanian principalities. At the end of the 18th century, in close
From the book History of Romania the author Bolovan Ioan"Eastern question" and the Romanian principalities "Eteria" and the revolution of 1821 under the leadership of Tudor Vladimirescu. There is no doubt that the French Revolution and especially the Napoleonic Wars gave at the beginning of the 19th century. "Eastern question" a new meaning: upholding the national idea,
From the book of writings. Volume 8 [Crimean War. Volume 1] author Tarle Evgeny Viktorovich From the book of Alexander II. Spring of Russia author Helene Carrer d'EncausseThe Eternal "Eastern Question" The "Union of the Three Emperors" concluded in 1873 revealed its fragility in the face of the Balkan issue. The fate of the Slavic peoples under the heel of the Ottoman Empire was the subject of constant concern for Russia. A significant contribution to
From the book Volume 4. Reaction time and constitutional monarchies. 1815-1847. Part two author Lavisse Ernest From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown54. "EASTERN QUESTION" The term "Eastern Question" means a group of contradictions in the history of international relations to. XVIII - early. XX century, in the center of which were the peoples who inhabited the Ottoman Empire. The solution of the "Eastern Question" as one of the main
From the book Russian Istanbul author Komandorova Natalya IvanovnaThe Eastern Question The so-called "Eastern Question" was in fact the "Turkish Question" in relation to Russia, many scientists and researchers believe, since starting from the 15th century, its main content was Turkish expansion in the Balkan Peninsula and in the eastern
From the book Russia and the West on the swing of history. From Paul I to Alexander II author Romanov Petr ValentinovichThe Eastern question that spoiled everyone Nicholas I remained in history as a man who lost the Crimean (or Eastern) War that broke out in 1853, in which Russia was opposed by a powerful coalition of European states, which included England, France, Turkey, Sardinia and
From the book General History [Civilization. Modern concepts. Facts, events] author Dmitrieva Olga VladimirovnaThe Eastern Question and Problems of Colonial Expansion While the European political elite was comprehending the new realities that arose after the Franco-Prussian war, the unification of Germany and the formation in the center of Europe of a powerful and aggressive empire, clearly claiming leadership in
The most complex international problem of the second half of the 19th century. arose in connection with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. What will be in her place? In diplomacy, this problem is known as the Eastern Question. The most complex international problem of the second half of the XIX century. arose in connection with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. What will be in her place? In diplomacy, this issue is known as the Eastern Question.
By the end of the 18th century, it became clear that the once formidable state of the Ottoman Turks was in decline. Russia and Austria benefited the most from this process in the 18th century. Austria conquered Hungary and Transylvania and penetrated the Balkans. Russia expanded its borders to the shores of the Black Sea, hoping to advance into the Mediterranean. Many Balkan peoples were brother Slavs, Bulgarians and Serbs were also brothers in faith, and the Russians considered their liberation a completely justified matter.
But by the 19th century, expelling the "Turk" was no longer so easy. All countries, including Austria and Russia, were hostile to revolutions directed against the established order, and were worried about the possibility of a complete collapse of the Turkish state. Britain and France, which had their own interests in the region, sought to prevent Russian expansion, fearing that the liberated Slavs might become Russian satellites. However, public opinion was outraged by the frequent massacres committed by the Turks, and it was not easy for Western governments to support the Sultan. The situation was also complicated by the growing unrest among the Balkan peoples. Lacking sufficient power to expel the Turks themselves, they could very well create a crisis that would require international intervention.
Revolt in Greece
Initially, such a crisis arose in connection with the uprising in Greece in 1821. Public support for the Greeks and reports of Turkish atrocities forced the West to act. When the Sultan refused to accept the solution of the problem that was forced upon him, an Anglo-French-Russian expedition destroyed the Egyptian and Turkish fleets in the Battle of Navarino (1827), and the Russian invasion (1828-29) forced the Turks into submission. According to the treaty signed in London in 1830, Greece was recognized as an independent kingdom. Three other Balkan provinces - Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia - received autonomy (self-government) within the Ottoman Empire.
In the 30s of the 19th century, the Ottoman Middle Eastern possessions were at the center of the Eastern Question. The ruler of Egypt, Mehmet Ali, won Syria from the Ottoman Empire (his nominal overlord), but the intervention of Britain restored the status quo. In the course of events, another important issue arose - the right to pass through the narrow straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, controlled by Turkey, connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean. An international agreement (the Straits Convention of 1841) provided that no state had the right to pass its warships through the straits while Turkey was at peace. This restriction was increasingly opposed by Russia. But it continued to operate until 1923.
Since the middle of the 19th century, Russia has twice waged victorious wars against Turkey, imposing harsh terms on it, but other European powers forced their revision. This was first done during the conclusion of the Peace of Paris in 1856, after the Crimean War (1854-56), in which Russia was defeated by Britain and France. The second agreement was reached at the Berlin Congress (1878) after a general conflict had narrowly been avoided. However, the great powers were only able to slow down the formation of the Balkan states, which, moving from autonomy to independence, sometimes defied agreements reached at international congresses. So, in 1862, Wallachia and Moldavia united, forming the Romanian Principality, the full independence of which was recognized in 1878 simultaneously with the independence of Serbia. Although the Congress of Berlin provided for the formation of two Bulgarian states, they united (1886) and eventually achieved full independence (1908).
Balkanization
By that time, it became clear that Turkish possessions in the Balkans would break up into several separate states. This process made such an impression on politicians that any comparable fragmentation of a large state is still called balkanization. In a sense, the Eastern Question was resolved after the First Balkan War (1912), when Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece formed an alliance to drive the Turks out of Macedonia, leaving only a patch of land under their rule in Europe. The borders have been redrawn. A new state appeared - Albania. Balkanization is over. But the region did not come close to stability, and the fragmentation of the Balkans pushed the great powers into intrigues. Both Austria and Russia were deeply involved in them, since Austria-Hungary in two steps (1878, 1908) swallowed up the Serbo-Croat provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Over time, the indignation of the Serbs will serve as a spark from which the First World War of 1914-18 will flare up, causing the fall of the Austrian, Russian and Ottoman empires. But even after that, as the Yugoslav events of the 1990s showed, the Balkan contradictions were not resolved.
KEY DATES
1821 Greek uprising begins
1827 Battle of Navarino
1830 Recognition of Greek independence
1841 London Straits Convention
1854-56 Crimean War
1862 Founding of Romania
1878 Congress of Berlin decides to create two Bulgarian states. Independence of Serbia and Romania. Austria gains control over Bosnia and Herzegovina
1886 Unification of two provinces to form Bulgaria
1908 Bulgaria becomes independent. Austria annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina
1912 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914 Assassination of Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo leads to World War I
Causes
CRIMEAN WAR (1853–1856), Russia's war with a coalition of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, France and Sardinia for dominance in the Middle East.
The war was caused by the expansionist plans of Russia in relation to the rapidly weakening Ottoman Empire. Emperor Nicholas I (1825–1855) tried to take advantage of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples in order to establish control over the Balkan Peninsula and the strategically important Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. These plans threatened the interests of the leading European powers - Great Britain and France, constantly expanding their sphere of influence in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Austria, which sought to establish its hegemony in the Balkans. The reason for the war was the conflict between Russia and France, associated with a dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic churches for the right of custody over the holy places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, which were in Turkish possessions. The growth of French influence in the Sultan's court caused concern in St. Petersburg. In January-February 1853, Nicholas I proposed to Great Britain to agree on the division of the Ottoman Empire; however, the British government preferred an alliance with France. During his mission to Istanbul in February-May 1853, the tsar's special representative, Prince A. S. Menshikov, demanded that the sultan agree to a Russian protectorate over the entire Orthodox population in his possessions, but he, with the support of Great Britain and France, refused. June 21 (July 3) Russian troops crossed the river. Prut and entered the Danubian principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia); The Turks protested strongly. Austria's attempt to reach a compromise agreement between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in July 1853 was rejected by the Sultan. On September 2 (14), the combined Anglo-French squadron approached the Dardanelles. On September 22 (October 4), the Turkish government declared war on Russia. In October, Turkish detachments tried to gain a foothold on the left bank of the Danube, but were driven out by General P. A. Dannenberg. On October 11 (23), English and French ships anchored on the Bosphorus. On November 18 (30), PS Nakhimov destroyed the Turkish fleet in the Sinop Bay. A separate Caucasian corps under the command of V. O. Bebutov stopped the offensive of the Ottoman army on Tiflis and, shifting military operations to Turkish territory, defeated it on November 19 (December 1) in the battle of Bashkadyklar (east of Kars). In response, the Anglo-French squadron on December 23, 1853 (January 4, 1854) entered the Black Sea in order to impede the operations of the Russian fleet. It consisted almost entirely of propeller-driven steamships; the Russians, on the other hand, had only a small number of such vessels. The Black Sea Fleet, unable to oppose the allies on an equal footing, was forced to take refuge in the Sevastopol Bay.
The result of the war was the weakening of the naval power of Russia and its influence in Europe and the Middle East. The positions of Great Britain and France in the Eastern Mediterranean were greatly strengthened; France has become the leading power of the European continent. At the same time, Austria, although she succeeded in driving Russia out of the Balkans, lost in her person her main ally in the inevitable future clash with the Franco-Sardinian bloc; thus the way was opened for the unification of Italy under the rule of the Savoy dynasty. As for the Ottoman Empire, its dependence on the Western powers increased even more.
The Eastern question is the question of the fate of Turkey, the fate of the peoples in the Balkans, Africa and Asia that were enslaved by it and fought for their national independence, as well as the attitude of the European powers towards these fates and the international contradictions that arose in this.
By the end of the 16th century, the Turkish Empire had reached its greatest power, based on territorial conquests and feudal robbery of enslaved peoples. However, already at the beginning of the 17th century, the process of losing the conquered lands by Turkey and the fall of its power began.
The reasons for this process lay in the growth of the economic influence of large feudal landowners in connection with the development of commodity-money relations in Turkey; this led to a weakening of the military power of the Turkish state, to feudal fragmentation and to intensified exploitation of the working masses of the enslaved peoples.
The emergence of capitalism in Turkey in the middle of the 18th century only accelerated this process. The peoples enslaved by Turkey began to form into nations and began to struggle for their national liberation; the unbearable exploitation of the working masses of the Turkish Empire retarded the capitalist development of the peoples subject to Turkey and strengthened their desire for national liberation.
Economic stagnation and degradation, the inability to overcome feudal fragmentation and create a centralized state, the national liberation struggle of the peoples subject to Turkey, the aggravation of internal social contradictions led the Turkish empire to disintegration and weakening of its international positions.
The ever-increasing weakening of Turkey fanned the predatory appetites of the major European powers. Turkey was a profitable market and source of raw materials; in addition, it was of great strategic importance, being located at the junction of routes between Europe, Asia and Africa. Therefore, each of the "great" European powers sought to grab more for itself from the legacy of the "sick man" (this is how Turkey began to be called from 1839).
The struggle of the Western European powers for economic and political dominance in the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire began in the 17th century and continued into the 18th and 19th centuries.
By the end of the third quarter of the 19th century, a new struggle began between the European powers, which was called the "Eastern Crisis".
The Eastern crisis arose as a result of the armed uprising of the Slavic population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1875-1876) against the Turkish oppressors. This uprising, which had an anti-feudal character, was a progressive national liberation struggle of the Slavic people against the backward and wild Turkish feudalism.
What was the position of the main European powers during the Eastern crisis?
Germany hoped to use the Eastern crisis to weaken Russia and gain freedom of action against France. Defeated in 1871 by Prussia, it quickly recovered and revanchist sentiments grew in it. Bourgeois-Junker Germany looked anxiously at the revival of the might of France and made plans for her new defeat. For Germany, this was possible only on the condition that no European power would intervene in a new Franco-German war on the side of France; in this respect, it could fear most of all the unfavorable intervention of Russia. The German Chancellor Bismarck hoped to weaken Russia by drawing her into a war with Turkey; at the same time, Bismarck sought to push Russia in the Balkans against Austria-Hungary and thereby finally bind Russia, deprive her of the opportunity to support France.
In Austria-Hungary, the military-clerical German party, headed by Emperor Franz Joseph, hoped to use the Bosno-Herzegovina uprising to seize Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which it was secretly urged by Germany. The capture was conceived as an amicable deal with the Russian tsar, since at that time Austria-Hungary did not consider it possible for itself to fight with Russia. At the beginning of the Eastern crisis, the Austro-Hungarian government circles even believed that it was necessary to put out the uprising and thereby eliminate the crisis.
Russia, weakened by the Crimean War and not yet fully recovered from its consequences, at the beginning of the Eastern crisis was forced to limit itself, caring only about maintaining its positions in the Balkans and maintaining its prestige among the Balkan Slavs. The tsarist government tried to help the rebels, but did not want to get involved in any actions that could involve Russia in the war. This led to the fact that the Russian government was ready to take the initiative to help the rebels, but only in agreement with other powers.
The British government, headed by Prime Minister Disraeli, sought to take advantage of Russia's difficult situation in order to further weaken it. Disraeli understood that only weakness forced the Russian government to limit itself in its predatory goals in relation to Turkey and that the tsarist government considered such a restriction as a temporary measure.
To deprive Russia of the opportunity to pursue an active policy in the Balkans, Disraeli adopted a plan to push Russia into a war with Turkey, and, if possible, with Austria-Hungary. According to Disraeli, such a war would weaken all its participants, which would give England freedom of action to carry out aggressive plans in Turkey, would eliminate any threat to England from Russia in Central Asia, where Russia was already approaching the borders of India, and in the Balkans, where England feared the seizure of the Black Sea straits by Russia. Disraeli began to unleash a war between Russia and Turkey under the hypocritical slogan of non-interference in Balkan affairs.
Such was the international alignment of forces of the European powers at the beginning of the Eastern crisis.
The first steps of the European powers still gave hope for a peaceful settlement of the Eastern crisis. On December 30, 1875, the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrássy, on the initiative of Russia and according to a project agreed with her, handed over a note to all major European powers. Its essence was to eliminate the uprising with the help of modest administrative reforms for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The powers agreed with the proposals of the note and, through their ambassadors, began to seek from Turkey the implementation of the demands proposed by the note. In February 1876, Sultan Abdulaziz agreed to the demands of the note. It would seem that the Eastern crisis, having barely begun, ends.
But then English diplomacy entered the scene. The peaceful resolution of the Eastern crisis did not suit her.
The closest obstacle to deepening the crisis was Sultan Abdulaziz himself and his Russophile cabinet headed by Mahmud Nedim Pasha. As a result of a palace coup organized by the English ambassador to Turkey, Elliot, Murad V was elevated to the Sultan's throne.
In the meantime, the heroic struggle of the Bosnians and Herzegovinians hastened the open action of Serbia and Montenegro. At the end of June 1876, Serbia declared war on Turkey. The successful struggle of 13-14 thousand Bosno-Herzegovina rebels against the 35 thousand Turkish troops gave hope for a successful outcome of the Serbo-Turkish war. In order to be ready to meet any outcome of this war and not be drawn into it itself, the Russian government decided in advance to agree with Austria-Hungary on all possible occasions.
On this basis, the Reichstadt Agreement was born, concluded on July 8, 1876 between Alexander II and the Russian Chancellor Gorchakov, on the one hand, Franz Joseph and Andrassy, on the other.
The first option, calculated on the defeat of Serbia, provided only for the implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina of the reforms outlined by Andrássy's note. The second option, calculated on the victory of Serbia, provided for the increase in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and some annexations for Austria-Hungary at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina; According to this option, Russia received Batumi; the part of Bessarabia that was torn away after the Crimean War was returned to it. The third version of the agreement, designed for the complete collapse of Turkey and ousting it from Europe, provided, in addition to measures under the second version, also the creation of an autonomous or independent Bulgaria, some strengthening of Greece and, presumably, the declaration of Constantinople as a free city.
Meanwhile, hopes for a successful outcome of the war for Serbia did not come true. The Serbian army suffered a number of setbacks, and already on August 26, the Serbian prince Milan asked the powers for mediation in order to end the war. The Powers agreed and turned to Turkey with a request to inform them under what conditions peace could be granted to Serbia; Officially, England also took part in this, while unofficially it prompted Turkey to present conditions to Serbia that were completely unacceptable for the latter.
In response, the powers instructed England to obtain a month-long truce from Turkey. Disraeli could not openly refuse to carry out this order. Gladstone, who led the opposition in England against Disraeli's policy, developed a hypocritical campaign in England against the arbitrariness prevailing in Turkey and wild Turkish atrocities, and managed to amass political capital on this basis - to set public opinion in England against Disraeli. In order to calm the minds and reconcile the British public with Turkey, Disraeli came up with a new move: he decided to make Turkey at least fictitiously constitutional.
At the behest of the English ambassador, a new palace coup was organized, Murad V was overthrown and a new sultan Abdul-Hamid, who was a supporter of England and formally did not object to the proclamation of the constitution, was installed in his place.
Following this, Disraeli, who had already received the title of Lord and was called Beaconsfield, fulfilling the order of the powers, officially proposed to Turkey to conclude peace with Serbia on the basis of the situation that existed before the war; at the same time, British diplomats conveyed to the new sultan a secret "friendly advice" to do away with Serbia.
Abdul-Hamid followed this advice. Under Dyunish, the ill-prepared Serbian army was defeated. She was threatened with death.
In this situation, the tsarist government could not but speak out in favor of Serbia, without risking forever losing its influence in the Balkans. On October 31, Russia issued an ultimatum to Turkey to declare a truce with Serbia within 48 hours. The Sultan was not prepared by his English prompters for such a move, he was confused and on November 2 accepted the demand for an ultimatum.
Beaconsfield rattled his weapons, delivered a warlike speech. All this sounded menacing, but in essence England was not ready for a land war. The Russian government understood this and did not back down. Moreover, Alexander II, incited by the militant court party, headed by his brother Nikolai Nikolaevich and son Alexander Alexandrovich, on November 13 ordered the mobilization of twenty infantry and seven cavalry divisions. After that, Russia, without losing prestige, could no longer abandon its demands on Turkey, even if even the latter did not fulfill them.
In order to surely drag Russia into a war with Turkey, Beaconsfield proposed to convene the ambassadors of the six powers in Constantinople and once again try to agree on a "peaceful" settlement of the Eastern crisis, on peace between Serbia and Turkey, and on reforms for the Balkan Slavs.
The conference of ambassadors worked out the conditions for ending the eastern crisis and on December 23 had to present these conditions to the sultan.
However, on December 23, a representative of the Sultan's government, to the thunder of cannon salutes, announced at the conference that the Sultan had granted a constitution to all his citizens and that in connection with this all the conditions worked out by the conference were becoming redundant.
This statement of the Sultan's minister, inspired by British diplomats, clearly provoked Russia to go to war with Turkey. For the majority in the Russian government, it became increasingly clear that war was inevitable. By that time, a new agreement had been concluded with Austria-Hungary in Budapest, now in case of a war between Russia and Turkey. This agreement was less beneficial for Russia than the Reichstadt. Russia was forced to agree to the occupation by Austria-Hungary of almost all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and promised not to create a strong Slavic state in the Balkans. In return for this, tsarism received only the "friendly" and unreliable neutrality of Austria-Hungary.
Although on February 28, 1877, Turkey made peace with Serbia, the war with Montenegro continued. The threat of defeat hung over her. This circumstance, together with the failure of the Constantinople Conference, pushed tsarist Russia to war with Turkey; however, the disadvantage of the Budapest Convention was so obvious that there were fluctuations in the tsarist government; there were even opinions about the need to make concessions to Turkey and demobilize the army.
In the end, a decision was made: not to demobilize the army and make another attempt to negotiate with the Western European powers for a joint impact on Turkey.
As a result of this attempt, the so-called "London" proposals were born, demanding from Turkey even more curtailed reforms for the Slavic peoples than before.
On April 11, these proposals, at the instigation of Beaconsfield, were rejected, and on April 24, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey.
Thus, the British government succeeded in achieving its immediate goal in exploiting the Eastern crisis: to drag Russia into a war with Turkey. Germany also achieved its immediate goal by forcing Austria-Hungary to take a direct part in resolving the Eastern Question; in the future, there was a possible clash between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans.
It would be completely wrong to attribute the entire success of the British and German foreign policy in fomenting the Eastern crisis only to Beaconsfield and Bismarck. Of course, they played an important role, but the main reason for the success of England and Germany was the economic and political backwardness of tsarist Russia.
Introduction
1. Essence of the Eastern Question
2. Background to the Eastern Question
3. Conclusion
4. List of references and sources
Introduction
Relevance
The relevance of the topic of this essay lies in the fact that the Eastern Question, as a phenomenon, has affected most of the European countries of different regions. Moldova did not remain aloof from these conflicts, which experienced the full power of this series of wars between great powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, etc.
Historiography
The Eastern question at that time worried many Russian philosophers, publicists and historians, which is quite understandable. We can meet a variety of points of view on the content of the Eastern Question and its historical framework. Among the scientists who paid attention to this problem, we especially note S.M. Solovyov and N.Ya. Danilevsky (1). CM. Solovyov overgeneralized the concept of the Eastern Question, introducing into it motives and facts of a world-historical nature, which will not change and remain in full force even after the resolution of those historical and cultural gaps that occurred as a result of the Turkish conquest of the peoples of South-Eastern Europe. N.Ya. Danilevsky, on the other hand, brought to the fore the struggle of the Romano-Germanic and Greek-Slavic worlds and, extremely sharpening the historical claims inherent in both, excluded from the problem posed the most essential elements, without which the Eastern Question would never have received the significance with which it appears in the history of the XIX century. - the beginning of the 20th century. First of all, this refers to the question of the Byzantine inheritance, the fate of Christians enslaved by Muslims, and in general the various interests of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, who lost their freedom of statehood along with the Turkish conquest. In Soviet historiography, E.V. Tarle, A.L. Narochnitsky, V.A. Georgiev, N.S. Kinyapina, S.B. Okun, M.T. Panchenkova, O.B. Shparo, A.V. Fadeev, V.Ya. Grosul, I.G. Grosul, I.G. Gutkina, V.G. Karasev, N.I. Khitrova, I.F. Iovva, S.S. Landa, O.V. Orlik, B.E. Syroechkovsky and others. Soviet historians criticized Western scientists for the lack of unity in defining the problems and chronological framework of the Eastern Question. Indeed, in Western historiography there is no generally accepted opinion on this issue. However, one way or another, its content mainly boils down to relations between the Ottoman Empire and European states.
Goals
The objectives of this abstract are:
2) Identification of the prehistory of the emergence of the Eastern Question.
Tasks
To achieve the intended goals, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
1) Learn the essence of the Eastern question.
2) Reveal the prehistory of the Eastern Question.
Essence of the Eastern Question
The Eastern question, which consisted in the struggle of European countries for control over Asia, for Russia included the struggle for the Black Sea area and the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. In addition, Russia, as the only Orthodox state in Europe, considered protecting the interests of fellow believers - the southern Slavs, subjects of Turkey - its sacred task.
The first military clashes of the XIX century. within the framework of the Eastern question took place during the Russian-Iranian war of 1804-1813. for dominance in the Transcaucasus and the Caspian. The cause of the conflict was the aggression of feudal Iran against Georgia and other lands of Transcaucasia, which were part of Russia at the beginning of the century. Iran and Turkey, incited by Great Britain and France, sought to subjugate the entire Transcaucasus, dividing the spheres of influence. Despite the fact that from 1801 to 1804, individual Georgian principalities voluntarily joined Russia, on May 23, 1804, Iran presented Russia with an ultimatum on the withdrawal of Russian troops from the entire Transcaucasus. Russia refused. Iran in June 1804 launched hostilities to capture Tiflis (Georgia). Russian troops (12 thousand people) moved towards the Iranian army (30 thousand people). Russian troops fought decisive battles near Gumry (now Gyumri, Armenia) and Erivan (now Yerevan, Armenia). The battles have been won. Then the fighting moved to the territory of Azerbaijan. The war went on with long interruptions and was complicated for Russia by parallel participation in other hostilities. However, in the war with Iran, Russian troops won. As a result, Russia expanded its territory in the Transcaucasus, adding Northern Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Dagestan.
The reason for the start of the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812, which Turkey unleashed with the support of Napoleon, was the violation by the Turks of the agreement on the free passage of Russian ships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. In response, Russia sent troops to the Danubian principalities - Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the control of Turkey. Great Britain supported Russia in this war. The main battles were the combat operations of the squadron of Vice Admiral D.N. Senyavin. He won victories in the Dardanelles naval and Athos battles in 1807. Russia provided assistance to the insurgent Serbia. In the Balkan and Caucasian theaters of operations, Russian troops inflicted a number of defeats on the Turks. Before the war with Napoleon, M.I. became the head of the Russian army. Kutuzov (since March 1811). In the Ruschuk battle and in the battle of Slobodzeya in 1811 on the territory of Bulgaria, he forced the Turkish troops to capitulate. The war has been won. The result of the war was the annexation of Bessarabia, Abkhazia and part of Georgia to Russia and the recognition by Turkey of the right of self-government for Serbia. In Turkey, Napoleon lost an ally just before the start of the French invasion of Russia.
In 1817, Russia entered the protracted Caucasian War with the aim of conquering Chechnya, Mountainous Dagestan and the North-Western Caucasus. The main hostilities unfolded in the second quarter of the 19th century. during the reign of Nicholas I.
Background to the Eastern Question
The appearance of the Turks in Europe and the formation of a powerful Muslim state on the Balkan Peninsula seriously changed the relationship between Christians and Islam: the Turkish state became one of the factors in the international political life of Europe; they feared him and at the same time sought an alliance with him. The beginning of diplomatic relations with Turkey was laid by France at a time when other European powers were averse to having any relations with Turkey. The equally hostile attitude of France and Turkey towards the Austrian Empire in the person of Charles V contributed to the conclusion in 1528 of the first alliance between France and Turkey. Soon the political union was joined by the question of religion. The French King Francis I wished that one church in Jerusalem, converted into a mosque, be returned to the Christians. The Sultan refused this, but in his solemn letter he gave the king a promise to preserve and support all Christian churches and chapels built on Turkish territory. In 1535, capitulations were concluded that ensured religious freedom for French subjects in Turkey, as well as unhindered access to the Holy Places not only by the French, but also by all foreigners under the protection of France. By virtue of these capitulations, France was for a long time the only representative of the Western European world in Turkey. In the middle of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire entered a period of long-term decline. After the defeat of the Turks by the Austrians and Poles near Vienna in 1683, their advance into Europe was stopped. The weakening of the empire contributed to the rise of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples (Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Serbs, Montenegrins), mostly Orthodox. On the other hand, in the 17th century, the political and economic positions of France and Great Britain strengthened in the Ottoman Empire, which, wanting to maintain their influence and prevent the territorial acquisitions of other powers (especially Austria and Russia), began in their real policy to advocate the preservation of its territorial integrity and against the liberation of conquered Christian peoples. From the middle of the 18th century, the role of the main opponent of the Ottoman Empire passed from Austria to Russia. The victory of the latter in the war of 1768-1774 led to a radical change in the situation in the Black Sea region. The Treaty of Kuchuk-Kaynarji of 1774 established for the first time the beginning of Russian intervention in the affairs of Turkey. Under article 7 of this treaty, the Porta promises firm protection to the Christian law and its churches; likewise allows the Russian ministers "to make, in all circumstances, in favor of both the church erected in Constantinople and those who serve it, different ideas. The Port promises to accept these representations, as if they were made by a trusted special neighboring and sincerely friendly power. "In addition, by paragraph 10 of Article 16 of the Treaty, Turkey agreed that, under the circumstances of the principalities of the Moldavian and Wallachian, the ministers of the Russian court at the brilliant Porte could speak in favor of Catherine II (1762-1796) had a project to completely expel the Turks from Europe, restore the Greek (Byzantine) Empire (she planned to put her grandson Konstantin Pavlovich on its throne), transfer the western part of the Balkan Peninsula to Austria and create a buffer state from the Danube principalities Dacia At the same time, Porta (Ottoman government), hoping to take revenge for the defeat in the war of 1768-1774, with the active support of Great Britain and France, began a new war against Russia (Russian-Turkish war of 1787-1792), on the side of which in 1788 Austria spoke in. In 1788, Anglo-French diplomacy managed to provoke an attack on Russia Sweden (Russian-Swedish war 1788-1790). But the actions of the anti-Russian coalition were unsuccessful: in 1790, Sweden withdrew from the war (Verelsky peace), and in 1791 Turkey had to agree to the conclusion of the Iasi peace, which confirmed the terms of the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhi agreement and pushed the Russian-Turkish border to the Dniester; The Porte renounced its claims to Georgia and recognized Russia's right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Danubian Principalities. Subsequent treatises: Bucharest (1812) and others confirmed the special rights of Russia. The sole protectorate of Russia over Christians in Turkey could not be pleasing to other European powers, although in the last century Russia never used this right, but having previously done everything possible to encourage other European powers to jointly influence Turkey. Even at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which, among other things, banned the trade of blacks, Emperor Alexander I believed that the Eastern Question equally deserved the attention of the great powers, who took it upon themselves to establish lasting calm in Europe. A circular note on this subject (February 1815) had no effect, however. The uprising of the Greeks that broke out soon after and the terrible barbarism of the Turks during its suppression prompted Russia to intervene in this war, together with other powers. Thanks to Canning's policy, it was possible to reach, albeit not for long, an agreement between England, Russia and France. After the Peace of Adrianople, Emperor Nicholas I ordered a special secret committee, chaired by Prince Kochubey, to study the position of Turkey and find out the position of Russia in the event of the collapse of Turkey. John Kapodistrias proposed at that time to form five secondary states from the Turkish Empire: namely 1) the Principality of Dacia - from Moldavia and Wallachia; 2) the Kingdom of Serbia - from Serbia, Bosnia and Bulgaria; 3) the kingdom of Macedonia - from Thrace, Macedonia and several islands: Propontis, Samothrace, Imbros, Tazos; 4) the kingdom of Epirus - from upper and lower Albania, and finally 5) the kingdom of Greece, in the south of the Balkan Peninsula from the river and the city of Arta. Constantinople - the key to the Dardanelles and the Bosporus - he proposed to declare a free city and the center of a confederation, which was to be made up of the aforementioned five states. Whether the committee was involved in the consideration of this project is unknown; but the committee unanimously found that maintaining the existence of the Turkish Empire in Europe is much more beneficial for Russia than its abolition and the formation of a free city from Constantinople. Emperor Nicholas I, at the beginning of his reign, carried away by the hope of fulfilling the cherished dream of Catherine II - to expel the Turks from Europe - abandoned this idea and not only did not contribute to the speedy death of the "sick man of Europe" (this is how Emperor Nicholas called Turkey in an intimate conversation) and the decomposition his remains, but he himself supported and guarded its existence. When the uprising of the Egyptian Pasha Megmet Ali almost crushed Turkey, Russia in 1833 entered into a defensive alliance with her and sent her army and fleet to help the Sultan. In his conversation with the Austrian envoy Ficquelmont, Emperor Nicholas said "that he would come to the aid of Turkey if necessary, but that it was not in his power to give life to the dead." "If Turkey falls, I don't want anything from her ruins; I don't want anything." The Unkiar-Skelessi Treaty of 1833, which ensured intervention in Turkish affairs for Russia alone, gave way to the London Treaty of 1840, which established a joint protectorate of Russia, England, Austria and Prussia (to which France soon joined). The followers of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have long been at enmity with each other in the East and have competed for various privileges and advantages for Christians visiting holy places. The solution of these disputes often made it difficult for the Port, which, in a matter alien to it, incurred the displeasure of one of the parties, and sometimes both. As early as 1740, France managed to apply for certain privileges for the Latin Church to the detriment of Orthodoxy. Later, the followers of the Greek confession managed to get several firmans from the Sultan, who restored their ancient rights. The beginning of new complications was in 1850 the note of the French envoy, in which, based on the treaty of 1740, he sought the return to the Catholic clergy of some Holy places in Jerusalem and its environs. The Russian government, for its part, presented demands that were incompatible with French harassment. A firman favorable for Russia was prepared; but Turkey was slow to publish it. Hence the break of Russia, first with Turkey (1853), and then with the Western powers, and the war, which ended with the Peace of Paris on March 18, 1856. One of its main conditions was the abolition of Russia's sole protectorate over Christians in Turkey; instead of it, there was a collective patronage of all the great powers over Christian Turkish subjects. Thus, the European powers followed the path outlined by Russia in the past century, and recognized for their representatives in the East the right that was first proclaimed by Empress Catherine II in favor of Russian agents in 1774. Reasons for intervention were not slow to present themselves. Already in 1860, the Muslims carried out a terrible massacre of Christians in Syria. The five great powers decided to intervene in this matter not only through diplomatic notes, but also with weapons in their hands. A French army was sent to the East, and the Porte recognized that such intervention by the powers in its internal affairs was neither an attack on its independence nor an insult to its dignity. The uprising in Candia of 1866, which broke out shortly afterwards, again caused European intervention, and, however, not one of the powers took up arms, leaving the people of Candia entirely to the victim of the excited fanaticism of the Turks. The intervention of the Powers in the uprising of Herzegovina in 1875 and then Serbia in 1876 befell the same failure; all the ideas, advice, insistent demands of the European cabinets (the European concert) were unsuccessful due to the lack of a decisive and energetic will to force Turkey, if necessary, by force of arms to fulfill the demands made, as well as due to the lack of agreement between the powers. From the very beginning of the uprising in Herzegovina, Russia loudly announced her intention to do everything she could, with the common consent of the signatories of the Treaty of Paris, to alleviate the suffering of Christians in Turkey and to put an end to the shedding of blood. Russia's intention to act in concert with other powers was taken by the Porte as an equivalent decision not to resort to arms in any case. This assumption was not justified: the war of 1877-1878 broke out. The exploits of the Russian troops led them to Constantinople itself. By the Treaty of San Stefano, the Porte recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; from Bulgaria it was decided to form a self-governing, tribute-paying principality with a Christian government and a zemstvo army; in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey undertook to introduce the proposals of the European powers, communicated to the Turkish government even earlier (at the first meeting of the Constantinople Conference), with the changes to be established by mutual agreement between the Porte, the Russian and the Austro-Hungarian government. These regulations were substantially modified by the Berlin Treaty. The protection of the interests of the Christian population was recognized by this treatise as a pan-European affair.
Conclusion
Thus, I have established that the Eastern Question is a complex of problems connected with the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the uprisings of the oppressed Balkan peoples and the intervention of the European great powers. In short, this concept hides the contradictions of the European powers in the competition for control over the crumbling Ottoman Empire located on three continents.
The Eastern question was put on the agenda by the struggle of the powers for the emerging world market and the possession of colonies, its contours, as a European problem, were determined at the end of the 18th century, or rather, when, under the terms of the Kyuchuk-Kaynarji Treaty (1774), which ended the Russian-Turkish war ) Russia went to the Black Sea and received a protectorate over the Danubian principalities and the right to protect the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. This issue appeared in European diplomacy in the second decade of the 19th century. and played a leading role until the conclusion of the peace treaties that ended the First World War.
It was also established that the Eastern Question was not a sudden outbreak of conflict between the great powers, but a historically predetermined phenomenon.
List of Literature and sources.
1) Vasiliev "History of the East Volume 2"
2) Rodriguez A.M. "New History of Asia and Africa" part 2.
3) Rodriguez A.M. "New History of Asia and Africa" part 3.
4) Internet - Wikipedia.
5) Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
20. The Eastern question in Russia's foreign policy in the first half of the 19th century. Crimean War.
Essence of the Eastern question. " The Eastern Question is the name of a group of contradictions and problems in the history of international relations in the last third of the 18th century - the beginning of the 20th century. The emergence of the "Eastern Question" is associated with the decline of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Starting from the end of the XIII century. and in the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire was already a weak state. The Ottoman Empire included: the Balkan Peninsula, the Middle East and North Africa.
In resolving the "Eastern Question", each side pursued its own plans: The major European powers wanted to divide the territory of the Ottoman Empire among themselves. Russia wanted:
ensure the free navigation of Russian merchant ships, warships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles;
acquire territories at the expense of Turkey.
The peoples under the Turkish yoke wanted to create their own states and launched a national liberation movement for independence.
Western countries have always sought to play Turkey against Russia. With the hands of Turkey, they sought to weaken Russia, not to allow her to conduct active trade in the Black Sea. Solving the "Eastern question", the tsarist government always covered itself with slogans of assistance and patronage to the Balkan peoples, the brothers of the Slavs. Relations between Russia and Turkey developed very unevenly. Periods of peaceful relations were suddenly replaced by a tense situation, which turned into separate military clashes, and then into wars. Crimean War (1853-1856) Causes of the war: Russia's desire to resolve the "Eastern question" in its favor. Western countries knew that Russia was striving for a war with Turkey, and while Russia did not have time to prepare for this war, they provoked its start. Reason for war. The reason for the war was the dispute over the "holy places" in Palestine (it was part of Turkey). In Palestine, on the birthplace of Jesus Christ stands the Bethlehem temple. This Christian temple can be visited by all Christians of the world. European countries asked the Turkish Sultan to hand over the keys to the Bethlehem Church to the Catholic community in Turkey. The Turkish Sultan complied with the request. In turn, Nicholas I demanded that the Sultan give the keys to the Orthodox community in Turkey, but this proposal was rejected by the Sultan. The religious dispute escalated into a diplomatic conflict. In 1853 diplomatic relations with Turkey were severed. Demanding the keys to the temple, Nicholas I decided to scare Turkey and in June 1853 brought the Russian army into the territory of Moldavia and Wallachia. The Sultan in an ultimatum demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops, but to no avail. Then three months later, in October 1853, Turkey began hostilities. England and France declared Russia an aggressor. NicholasI mistakenly assessed the situation, believing that Europe would not interfere with the war with Turkey. He did not expect that England and France would come out against Russia on the side of Turkey. He also misjudged the capabilities of the Russian army. The Crimean War is divided into two stages: 1) October 1853 - April 1854 - Russia and Turkey fought. 2) April 1854 - February 1856 - England and France opposed Russia on the side of Turkey. At the first stage Russia and Turkey fought one on one. Despite the numerical superiority of the Turks, the Russian troops won a number of battles and a naval battle in the Sinop Bay off the coast of Turkey. The Russian squadron was commanded by Vice Admiral P.S. Nakhimov, a talented officer of the Black Sea Fleet. At the second stage after the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Sinop Bay, England and France joined the war. They understood that Turkey would not defeat Russia on its own. England and France entered their navy into the Black Sea and besieged the city of Sevastopol in the Crimea (it was the main naval base and fortress of Russia on the Black Sea). The siege of Sevastopol lasted 11 months. In addition to the siege of Sevastopol, hostilities began on the Danube, in the Transcaucasus, in the Baltic and White Seas and in the Kamchatka region. But the main hostilities unfolded in the Crimea. To capture Sevastopol, the British and French used 360 different ships. The enemy had the latest steam fleet, and Russia had a sailing one. Most of the Russian sailors went ashore. Sailing ships were flooded to block the enemy fleet approaches to Sevastopol. The war dragged on. On the Caucasian front, the war was more successful for Russia. Military operations have crossed into Turkish territory. Since her army was defeated, England and France began to think about ending the war, and to lean towards peace negotiations, especially since they achieved their main goal - weakening Russia's positions in the Black Sea. Both belligerents needed peace. Nicholas I died in the midst of the siege of Sevastopol. The Paris Peace Congress opened in February 1856. Representatives of Russia, England, France, Turkey, Sardinia, Austria and Prussia took part in it. The new tsar, already Alexander II, signed the Paris Peace Treaty, which was very difficult for Russia (March 1856). The Black Sea was declared neutral, that is, open to merchant ships of all countries; Russia and Turkey were forbidden to have a navy and fortresses on the Black Sea; The acquired territories in Transcaucasia had to be exchanged for Sevastopol and other cities in the Crimea. Russia was deprived of the right to "speak in favor" of the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Outcome . The war revealed the economic backwardness of Russia. The serf system hindered the development of the country. There were not enough railways for the rapid transfer of troops. The army was formed in the old way, at the expense of recruiting sets. They served 25 years. The armament of the army lagged behind the armament of European countries. Russian artillery, which became so famous in the war of 1812, was noticeably inferior to the English and French. The Russian fleet continued to be predominantly sailing, while the Anglo-French fleet consisted almost entirely of steam ships with screw engines.
