EASTERN QUESTION
conditional, accepted in diplomacy and East. liter-re, designation of international. controversy con. 18 - beg. 20 centuries, associated with the emerging collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Turkey) and the struggle of the great powers (Austria (since 1867 - Austria-Hungary), Great Britain, Prussia (since 1871 - Germany), Russia and France) for the division of its possessions, first turn - European. V. in. was generated, on the one hand, by the crisis of the Ottoman Empire, one of the manifestations of which was nat. the movement of the Balkan and other non-Turkish peoples of the empire, on the other hand, by strengthening in Bl. East colonial expansion of Europe. state-in in connection with the development of capitalism in them.
The very term "V. in." was first used at the Verona Congress (1822) of the Holy Alliance during a discussion of the situation that arose in the Balkans as a result of the Greek national liberation uprising of 1821-29 against Turkey.
The first period of V. century. covers a period of time from con. 18th century before the Crimean War of 1853-56. It is characterized by the the predominant role of Russia in Bl. East. Thanks to the victorious wars with Turkey 1768-74, 1787-91 (92), 1806-12, 1828-29, Russia secured the South. Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia and the Caucasus and firmly established itself on the banks of the Black Sea. At the same time, Russia achieved bargaining. fleet of the right of passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles (see Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhysky world 1774), as well as for their military. ships (see Russo-Turkish Union Treaties of 1799 and 1805). The autonomy of Serbia (1829), the limitation of the Sultan's power over Moldavia and Wallachia (1829), the independence of Greece (1830), as well as the closing of the Dardanelles to the military. courts of foreign state-in (except Russia; see Unkyar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833) in means. least were the results of the successes of the Rus. weapons. Despite the aggressive goals pursued by tsarism in relation to the Ottoman Empire and the territories departing from it, the formation of independent states on the Balkan Peninsula was a historically progressive consequence of the victories of the Russian army over Sultan's Turkey.
The expansionist interests of Russia clashed at Bl. East with the expansion of other European. powers. At the turn of the 18-19 centuries. ch. role here tried to play post-revolutionary. France. In order to conquer the East. markets and the crushing of the colonial predominance of Great Britain Directory, and then Napoleon I sought terr. conquests at the expense of the Ottoman Empire and the acquisition of land approaches to India. The presence of this threat (and, in particular, the invasion of French troops into Egypt (see Egyptian expedition 1798-1801)) explains the conclusion of an alliance with Turkey in 1799 and 1805 and with Great Britain in 1799. Strengthening the Russian-French. contradictions in Europe and, in particular, in V. century. led in 1807-08 to the failure of negotiations between Napoleon I and Alexander I on the partition of the Ottoman Empire. New aggravation of V. century. was caused by the uprising of the Greeks in 1821 against the tour. dominance and the growth of disagreements between Russia and Great Britain, as well as contradictions within the Holy Alliance. Tur.-Egypt. the conflicts of 1831-33, 1839-40, which threatened the preservation of the Sultan's power over the Ottoman Empire, were accompanied by the intervention of the great powers (Egypt was supported by France). The Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833 on an alliance between Russia and Turkey was the apogee of the political and diplomatic. successes of tsarism in V. century. However, pressure from Great Britain and Austria, who sought to eliminate the predominant influence of Russia in the Ottoman Empire, and especially the desire of Nicholas I for political. The isolation of France resulted in the rapprochement between Russia and Great Britain on the basis of the Great Britain. and the conclusion of the London Conventions of 1840 and 1841, which actually meant diplomatic. British victory. The tsarist administration agreed to cancel the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833 and, together with other powers, agreed to "monitor the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire," and also proclaimed the principle of closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to foreigners. military courts, including Russian ones.
The second period of V. century. opens with the Crimean War of 1853-56 and ends in the end. 19th century At this time, the interest of Great Britain, France and Austria in the Ottoman Empire increased even more, as a source of colonial raw materials and a market for prom. goods. Expansionist policy of Western Europe. state-in, under convenient circumstances, tearing off its outlying territories from Turkey (the capture of Cyprus in 1878 by Great Britain and Egypt in 1882, the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1878 and Tunisia by France in 1881), was masked by the principles of maintaining the "status quo", " integrity" of the Ottoman Empire and the "balance of power" in Europe. This policy was aimed at achieving the English. and French capital of monopoly domination over Turkey, the elimination of Russian influence in the Balkan Peninsula and the closure of the Black Sea straits for Russian. military courts. At the same time, the ongoing West-Europe. by the powers, the course delayed the liquidation of the historically obsolete domination of the aurochs. feudal lords over the peoples subject to them. The Crimean War of 1853-56 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 helped to strengthen the position of the English. and French capital in the Ottoman Empire and its transformation to the con. 19th century to a semi-colonial country. At the same time, the revealed weakness of Russia in comparison with the capitalist. state-you Zap. Europe determined the decline of the influence of tsarism in the international. affairs, including in V. century. This was clearly manifested in the decisions of the Berlin Congress of 1878, when, after the war won with Turkey, the tsarist government was forced to revise the San Stefano Peace Treaty of 1878. Nevertheless, the creation of a single Romanian state (1859-61) and the proclamation of the independence of Romania ( 1877) were achieved thanks to the help of Russia, and the liberation of the Bolg. people from tour. oppression (1878) was the result of Russia's victory in the war with Turkey 1877-73. The desire of Austria-Hungary to economical. and political hegemony in the Balkan Peninsula, where the paths of expansion of the Habsburg monarchy and Tsarist Russia crossed, caused from the 70s. 19th century the growth of the Austro-Russian. antagonism in V. century.
Advance in con. 19th century The era of imperialism opens the third period of the V. century. In connection with the completion of the division of the world, new vast markets appeared for the export of capital and goods, new sources of colonial raw materials, and new hotbeds of world conflicts arose - in the Far East, in Lat. America, in the Center. and Sev. Africa and in other regions of the globe, which led to a decrease in the proportion of V. century. in the system of contradictions in Europe. powers. Nevertheless, the inherent unevenness and spasmodic development of otd. capitalist countries and the struggle for the redistribution of the already divided world led to an intensification of rivalry between them in the semi-colonies, including in Turkey, which also manifested itself in the V. century. Especially rapid expansion was developed by Germany, which managed to oust Great Britain, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary in the Ottoman Empire. The construction of the Baghdad railway and the subordination of the ruling tour. the tops, headed by Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, and somewhat later, the Young Turks military-political. German influence. imperialists ensured Kaiser's Germany predominance in the Ottoman Empire. Germ. expansion contributed to the strengthening of Russian-German. and especially Anglo-German. antagonism. In addition, the activation of the aggressive policy of Austria-Hungary in the Balkan Peninsula (the desire to annex the territories inhabited by the South-Slavic peoples, and to gain access to the Aegean), based on the support of Germany (see the Bosnian crisis of 1908- 09), led to extreme tension in the Austro-Rus. relationships. However, the royal pr-in, postponing in the con. 19th century implementation of their captors. plans in V. century, adhered to a waiting and cautious course. This was explained by the diversion of Russia's forces and attention to the Far East, and then by the weakening of tsarism as a result of the defeat in the war with Japan, and especially thanks to the first Russian. revolutions of 1905-07. The growth of contradictions in V. century. in the era of imperialism and the expansion of its territories. the framework contributed to the further process of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, accompanied, on the one hand, by the further development and expansion of the national liberation. movements of peoples subject to the sultan - Armenians, Macedonians, Albanians, the population of Crete, Arabs and, on the other hand, the intervention of Europe. powers in ext. affairs of Turkey. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the progressive result of which was the liberation of Macedonia, Albania and Greek. islands of the Aegean m. from the tour. oppression, at the same time testified to the extreme exacerbation of V. century.
Turkey's participation in the 1st World War on the side of the German-Austrian. block determined the onset of critical. phases of V. century. As a result of defeats on the fronts, the Ottoman Empire lost b. h. of its territory. At the same time, during the war, the German the imperialists turned the Ottoman Empire "... into their financial and military vassal" (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 23, p. 172). Secret agreements concluded during the war between the members of the Entente (the Anglo-Russian-French agreement of 1915, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, etc.) provided for the transfer of Constantinople and the Black Sea straits to Russia and the division of Asia. parts of Turkey between the allies.
The plans and calculations of the imperialists in the Great Britain. destroyed the victory in Russia Vel. Oct. socialist. revolution. Owls. pr-in resolutely broke with the policy of tsarism and canceled the secret treaties signed by the tsar and the Time. pr-you, including treaties and agreements relating to the Ottoman Empire. Oct. the revolution gave a powerful impetus to the national liberation. struggle of the peoples of the East and among them - the struggle of the tour. people. The victory of the national-liberate. movements in Turkey in 1919-22 and the collapse of the anti-Turks. imperialist Entente interventions were achieved with moral and political. and material support from the Soviets. Russia. On the ruins of the former multinational The Ottoman Empire formed a national bourgeoisie. tour. state-in. So, the new ist. era opened Oct. revolution, forever removed V. century. from the arena of world politics.
Lit.ra about V. v. very large. There is not a single summary work on the history of diplomacy and international affairs. relations of modern times, and especially in the history of Turkey, Russia, and the Balkan states, in which V. v. would not have been affected to a greater or lesser extent. In addition, there is an extensive scientific and journalistic literature, dedicated to various aspects and periods of V. century. or covering certain events related to V. c. (preferably about the problem of the straits and about the Russian-Turkish wars of the 18-19th centuries). Nevertheless generalizing researches about V. of century. extremely little, which to a certain extent is explained by the complexity and vastness of the issue itself, the interpretation of which requires the study of a large number of documents and extensive literature.
Deep characteristic V. century. given by K. Marx and F. Engels in articles and letters, publ. on the eve and during the Crimean War and the Bosnian (Eastern) crisis of 1875-78 and dedicated to the state of the Ottoman Empire and the intensified struggle of Europe. powers on Bl. East (see Soch., 2nd ed., vols. 9, 10, 11; 1st ed., vols. 15, 24). Marx and Engels acted in them with consistently internationalist. positions dictated by the interests of development in Europe and, in particular, in Russia, revolutionary-democratic. and the proletarian movement. They angrily exposed the invaders. goals pursued in V. century. tsarism. Marx and Engels stigmatized politics in the century with particular force. English bourgeois-aristocratic. oligarchy headed by G. J. T. Palmerston, determined by aggressive aspirations in Bl. East. The best resolution of V. in. Marx and Engels considered the real and complete liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Turks. yoke. But, in their opinion, such a radical elimination of V. century. could be carried out only as a result of the victory of Europe. revolution (see Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 9, pp. 33, 35, 219).
Marxist understanding of V. century. as applied to the period of imperialism, it was developed by V. I. Lenin. In various studies (for example, "Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism") and in numerous. articles ("Combustible material in world politics", "Events in the Balkans and Persia", "A new chapter in world history", "The social significance of Serbian-Bulgarian victories", "Balk. war and bourgeois chauvinism", "Awakening of Asia" , "Under a false flag", "On the right of nations to self-determination", etc.) Lenin characterized the process of turning the Ottoman Empire into an imperialist semi-colony. powers and their predatory policy in Bl. East. At the same time, Lenin claimed for all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, including for the tour. people, the inalienable right to liberation from the imperialist. bondage and feud. dependencies and independence. Existence.
In the owls ist. science V. c. widely interpreted in many studies of M. H. Pokrovsky about external. politics of Russia and international relations of the new time ("Imperialist War", Collection of Articles, 1931; "Diplomacy and Wars of Tsarist Russia in the 19th Century", Collection of Articles, 1923; article "Eastern Question", TSB, 1st ed., vol. 13) . Pokrovsky is credited with exposing and criticizing the aggressive designs and actions of tsarism in the Second Century. But attributing bargaining. capital a decisive role in external. and int. policy of Russia, Pokrovsky reduced the policy of tsarism in the V. century. to the desire of the Russian landowners and the bourgeoisie to achieve the possession of bargaining. through the Black Sea Straits. However, he exaggerated the value of V. century. in ext. Russian politics and diplomacy. In a number of his works, Pokrovsky characterizes the Russian-German. antagonism in V. century. as the main the cause of the 1st World War of 1914-18, and considers the tsarist government to be the main culprit in unleashing it. Hence follows false statement Pokrovsky, that in August-October. 1914 Russia allegedly sought to draw the Ottoman Empire into the world war on the side of the Central European. powers.
Represent scientific. value based on unpubl. doc-tah of the work of E. A. Adamov "The Question of the Straits and Constantinople in International Politics in 1908-1917." (in the collection of documents: "Constantinople and the straits according to the secret docks of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", (vol.) 1, 1925, p. 7 - 151); Ya. M. Zakhera ("On the history of Russian politics on the issue of the straits in the period between the Russian-Japanese and Tripolitan wars", in the book: From the distant and near past, collection in honor of N. I. Kareev, 1923 ; "Constantinople and the Straits", "KA", vol. 6, pp. 48-76, vol. 7, pp. 32-54; "Russian policy on the question of Constantinople and the straits during the Tripolitan War", "Izvestiya Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen", 1928, v. 1, pp. 41-53); M. A. Petrov "Preparation of Russia for a world war at sea" (1926) and V. M. Khvostov "Problems of capturing the Bosphorus in the 90s of the XIX century." ("Historian-Marxist", 1930, vol. 20, pp. 100-129), devoted to ch. arr. development in governments. circles of Russia of various projects for the occupation of the Bosphorus and the preparation of the Navy for the implementation of this operation, as well as the policy of Europe. powers in V. century. before and during World War I. A concise overview of the history of V. V., based on a document. sources, is contained in the articles of E. A. Adamov ("On the question of the historical prospects for the development of the Eastern Question", in the book: "Colonial East", edited by A. Sultan-Zade, 1924, pp. 15-37; " Section of Asian. Turkey", in collection of documents: "Section of Asian. Turkey. According to the secret documents of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", edited by E. A. Adamov, 1924, p. 5-101 ). Deep analysis of the struggle of the imperialist. powers in V. century. in con. 19th century is contained in the article by V. M. Khvostov "The Middle East Crisis of 1895-1897." ("Historian-Marxist", 1929, v. 13), in the monographs of A. S. Yerusalimsky "Foreign policy and diplomacy of German imperialism in the late 19th century." (2nd ed., 1951) and G. L. Bondarevsky "The Baghdad road and the penetration of German imperialism into the Middle East. 1888-1903" (1955). Capitalist politics. state-in in V. century. in the 19th century and at the beginning 20th century studied in the works of A. D. Novichev ("Essays on the Turkish Economy before the World War", 1937; "The Turkish Economy during the World War", 1935). Based on the involvement of extensive materials, including archival documents, the predatory goals and methods of penetration into the Ottoman Empire by foreigners are revealed. capital, the conflicting interests of the monopoly. groups of various countries, characterized by the enslavement of Turkey German-Austrian. imperialists during World War I. European politics. powers in V. century. in the 20s 19th century dedicated to the monograph based on archival materials by A. V. Fadeeva "Russia and the Eastern Crisis of the 20s of the XIX century." (1958), articles by I. G. Gutkina "The Greek Question and Diplomatic Relations of the European Powers in 1821-1822." ("Uch. Zap. Leningrad State University", Ser. Historical Sciences, 1951, v. 18, No. 130): N. S. Kinyapina "Russian-Austrian contradictions on the eve and during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-29. " ("Uch. zap. MGU", works of the Department of History of the USSR, 1952, v. 156); O. Shparo "Canning's Foreign Policy and the Greek Question 1822-1827" ("VI", 1947, No 12) and "The Role of Russia in the Greek Struggle for Independence" ("VI", 1949, No 8). In the aforementioned study by A. V. Fadeev and in another work by the same author (“Russia and the Caucasus in the first third of the 19th century,” 1960), an attempt was made to interpret the V. century broadly, as also including political. and economic problems cf. East and Caucasus.
The policy of Russia and France in the V. century. in the beginning. 19th century and international the position of the Ottoman Empire during this period of time is covered in the monograph by A.F. Miller "Mustafa Pasha Bayraktar. The Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 19th century." (1947). Systematic diplomatic presentation. V.'s sides of century. can be found in the corresponding sections of the History of Diplomacy, vol. 1, 2nd ed., 1959, vol. 2, 1945.
Sharpness and politics the topicality of V. in internat. relations of the new time left a strong imprint on the studies of the bourgeoisie. scientists. In their works, the interests of the ruling classes of the country to which this or that historian belongs are clearly visible. Specialist. the study "The Eastern Question" was written by S. M. Solovyov (collected works, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 903-48). Considering the most important factor geographic development. environment, Solovyov formulates V. c. as a manifestation of the primordial struggle of Europe, to which he also refers Russia, with Asia, the sea coast and forests with the steppe. Hence his justification of the aggressive policy of tsarism in the V. century, which, in his opinion, is based on the process of colonization of the South Russian. districts, "fight against the Asians", "offensive movement in Asia". In the apologetic spirit illuminates the policy of tsarism in the V. century. in the monograph by S. M. Goryainov "The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles" (1907), covering the period from the end. 18th century by 1878 and retaining its scientific. value due to the extensive use of archival documents.
The unfinished publication of R. P. Martens "Collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers" (vols. 1-15, 1874-1909), although it does not contain treaties between Russia and Turkey, does include a number of international agreements. agreements directly related to V. century. Of scientific interest are also ist. introductions, preceded by most of the published documents. Some of these introductions, based on archival sources, contain valuable material on the history of V. century. in con. 18th century and in the 1st floor. 19th century
Aggressive and anti-Russian. course in V. v. brit. English diplomacy. historians (J. Marriott, A. Toynbee, W. Miller) justify their bargaining by the needs of Great Britain. routes (especially communications linking it with India, and land approaches to this colony) and the importance from this point of view of the Black Sea straits, Istanbul, Egypt and Mesopotamia. So considers V. century. J. A. R. Marriot, "The Eastern question", 4 ed., 1940), trying to present British policy as invariably defensive. and pro-Turkish.
For the French bourgeois historiography is characterized by the substantiation of the "civilizing" and "cultural" mission of France in Bl. East, to-roy she seeks to cover up the expansionist goals pursued in V. century. French capital. Attaching great importance to the right of religion acquired by France. protectorate over the Catholic Sultan's subjects, French historians (E. Drio. J. Ancel. G. Anoto, L. Lamouche) in every possible way extol the activities of Catholic missionaries in the Ottoman Empire, preim. in Syria and Palestine. This trend is visible in the repeatedly reprinted work of E. Driault (E. Driault, "La Question d" Orient depuis ses origines jusgu "a nos jours", 8 ed., 1926) and in the book. J. Ancel (J. Ancel, "Manuel historique de la question d" Orient. 1792-1923 ", 1923).
Austrian historians (G. Ibersberger, E. Wertheimer, T. Sosnosky, A. Pribram), exaggerating the significance of the aggressive policy of the tsarist government in the V. century. and portraying it as a creation of the pan-Slavists allegedly dominating Russia, at the same time they are trying to whitewash the annexationist actions and the invaders. plans on the Balkan Peninsula of the Habsburg monarchy. In this regard, the work of b. Rector of the University of Vienna G. Ubersberger. Wide involvement of Russian. literature and sources, including owls. publications of documents, is used by him for one-sided coverage of Russia's policy in V. century. and a frank justification of antislav. and antirus. politics of Austria (in the later period of Austria-Hungary) (N. Uebersberger, "Russlands Orientpolitik in den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten", 1913; his own, "Das Dardanellenproblem als russische Schicksalsfrage", 1930; his own, "Österreich zwischen Russland und Serbien" , 1958).
A similar point of view is shared by most Germans. bourgeois scientists (G. Franz, G. Herzfeld, H. Holborn, O. Brandenburg), who assert that it was precisely the policy of Russia in the V. century. caused World War I. So, G. Franz believes that Ch. the cause of this war was the desire of tsarism to possess the Black Sea straits. It ignores the value of germ support. imperialism of the Balkan policy of Austria-Hungary, denies that Kaiser Germany had independence. invader goals in V. century. (G. Frantz, "Die Meerengenfrage in der Vorkriegspolitik Russlands", "Deutsche Rundschau", 1927, Bd 210, Februar, S. 142-60).
Typ. bourgeois historiography considers V. v. exclude. from the angle of vnesh.-political. provisions of Turkey 18-20 centuries. Guided by his extremely chauvinistic. the concept of historical process, tour. historians deny the existence of a nat in the Ottoman Empire. oppression. Fight netur. peoples for their independence, they explain the inspiration of Europe. powers. Falsifying history. facts, tour. historians (Yu. X. Bayur, I. X. Uzuncharshyly, E. Urash, A. B. Kuran, and others) argue that the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula by the Turks and its inclusion in the Ottoman Empire was progressive, because it allegedly contributed to the socio-economic. and cultural development of the Balkan peoples. Based on this falsification, tour. official historiography makes false, anti-historical. the conclusion that the wars waged by Sultan Turkey in the 18th-20th centuries were allegedly purely defensive. character for the Ottoman Empire and aggressive for Europe. Powers.
Publ.: Yuzefovich T., Treaties of Russia with the East, St. Petersburg, 1869; Sat. treaties of Russia with other states (1856-1917), M., 1952; Constantinople and the Straits. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. E. A. Adamova, vol. 1-2, M., 1925-26; Section of Asiatic Turkey. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. Edited by E. A. Adamova. Moscow, 1924. Three meetings, foreword. M. Pokrovsky, "Herald of the NKID", 1919, No 1, p. 12-44; From an archivist's notebook. Note by A. I. Nelidov in 1882 on the occupation of the straits, foreword. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, v. 3 (46), p. 179-87; The project of capturing the Bosphorus in 1896, foreword. V. M. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, vol. 4-5 (47-48), p. 50-70; The project of capturing the Bosphorus in 1897, "KA", 1922, v. 1, p. 152-62; The tsarist government on the problem of the straits in 1898-1911, foreword. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1933, v. 6(61), p. 135-40; Noradounghian G., Recueil d "actes internationaux de l" Empire Ottoman, v. 1-3, P., 1897-1903; Strupp K., Ausgewählte diplomatische Aktenstücke zur orientalischen Frage, (Gotha, 1916); A documentary record, 1535-1914, ed. by J. C. Hurewitz, N. Y. - L. - Toronto. 1956.
Lit. (except for the one indicated in the article): Girs A.A., Russia and Bl. Vostok, St. Petersburg, 1906; Dranov B. A., Black Sea Straits, M., 1948; Miller A. P., A Brief History of Turkey, M., 1948; Druzhinina E.I., Kyuchuk-Kainarji world of 1774 (its preparation and conclusion), M., 1955; Ulyanitsky V.A., Dardanelles, Bosphorus and Black Sea in the 18th century. Essays on diplomacy. East history. question, M., 1883; Cahuet A., La question d "Orient dans l" histoire contemporaine (1821-1905), P., 1905; Choublier M., La question d "Orient depuis le Traité de Berlin, P., 1897; Djuvara T. G., Cent projets de partage de la Turquie (1281-1913), P., 1914; Martens F., Etude historique sur la politique russe dans la question d "Orient. Gand-B.-P., 1877; Sorel A., La Question d "Orient au XVIII siècle (Les origines de la triple alliance), P., 1878; Roepell R., Die orientalische Frage in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung 1774-1830, Breslau, 1854; Wurm C. F., Diplomatische Ceschichte der Orientalischen Frage, Lpz., 1858; Bayur Y. H., Türk inkilâbi tarihi, cilt 1-3, Ist., 1940-55 (See also literature at the Black Sea Straits station).
A. S. Silin. Leningrad.
Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .
The main directions of Russia's foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century:
- European direction.
- Eastern direction.
- Expansion of the geopolitical space of Russia and the accession of Central Asia.
- Far East policy.
Russia's goals for European direction: Russia's exit from international isolation and the restoration of the status of a great power. The task is to revise and cancel the restrictive conditions of the Paris Peace Treaty. In the implementation of this task, a huge role belongs to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince A. M. Gorchakov, a major diplomat with a broad political outlook. In 1859, a Russian-French alliance was concluded, which did not lead to the result desired by Russia. Its new rapprochement with Prussia and Austria began. Russia in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 took a position of neutrality. The London Conference of the Great Powers in 1871 secured the abolition of the neutralization of the Black Sea - Russia returned the right to have a navy, naval bases and fortifications on the Black Sea coast. This made it possible to recreate the defensive line of the southern border of the state. Russia was again able to assist the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula in their liberation movement.
The German Empire, formed in 1871, pursued an aggressive foreign policy, wishing to ensure dominance in Europe, to create and expand its colonial possessions. Austria-Hungary stepped up its foreign policy in the Balkans. Under these conditions, Russia, seeking to avoid isolation, began to seek rapprochement with the Central European states. In 1872, a meeting of emperors and foreign ministers of Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary took place in Berlin. An agreement was reached on the terms and principles of the future union. In 1873, a tripartite agreement was signed between Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary - the "Union of the Three Emperors" (until 1878). In 1875, the so-called war alarm broke out, provoked by the militaristic ideas of the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Russia came out in defense of France. The possibility of a Russian-French rapprochement was outlined.
The most acute in the 1870s. represented the Eastern question.
Eastern Crisis
Stage I - 70s. 19th century
In 1875 an uprising broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Soon it spread to the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. In the summer of 1876, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on the Sultan. Without the help of the European powers, and in the first place Russia, the struggle of these peoples was doomed to defeat. The Russian government tried to coordinate its actions with the Western European powers. Russian Slavic committees of St. Petersburg, Moscow and some other cities were active. The most prominent representatives of the intelligentsia participated in their activities (writer and publicist K. S. Aksakov, literary critic V. V. Stasov, sculptor M. M. Antokolsky, scientists I. I. Mechnikov, D. I. Mendeleev, etc.). The committees were engaged in raising funds for "brothers by blood and faith", sent Russian volunteers to support the rebel Serbs, Bulgarians and other Balkan peoples. Among them were doctors N. F. Sklifosovsky and S. P. Botkin, writer G. I. Uspensky, artists V. D. Polenov and K. E. Makovsky. Yielding to public pressure, the Russian government in 1876 demanded that the Sultan stop the extermination of the Slavic peoples and make peace with Serbia. Since Turkey rejected all proposals for a peaceful settlement, Russia in April 1877 declared war on the Ottoman Empire.
Stage II - Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878.
The tsarist government sought to avoid this war, as it was poorly prepared for it. The military reforms begun in the 1860s were not completed. The Russian army had talented generals M. D. Skobelev, M. I. Dragomirov, I. V. Gurko. The War Department developed a plan for a quick offensive war.
Theaters of military operations - Balkan and Transcaucasian.
Balkan theater of operations:
- May 1877 - Russian troops entered the territory of Romania and crossed the Danube;
- July - December 1877 - siege and capture by Russian troops under the command of General I.V. Gurko Plevna;
- August - December 1877 - the transition of the Russian army through the Balkan mountains, the battles at the Shipka Pass, the entry of Russian troops into southern Bulgaria;
- January 1878 - Russian troops under the command of Generals I.V. Gurko and F.F. Radetsky occupied Adrianople and reached the approaches to Constantinople.
Transcaucasian theater of operations
The whole of Abkhazia was occupied and in November 1877 the Turkish fortress of Kars was taken by storm, the military defeat of Turkey became obvious.
Treaty of San Stefano
In February 1878, a preliminary (preliminary) peace treaty was signed in San Stefano: it ensured the sovereignty of the Balkan peoples, strengthened Russia's influence in the Middle East; Serbia, Romania and Montenegro gained independence; Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina became autonomous principalities; Russia returned South Bessarabia, lost after the Crimean War, acquired new strongholds in the Caucasus - Batum, Kars, Ardagan and Bayazet. These fortresses were of great strategic importance for putting pressure on Turkey in the Transcaucasus.
Stage III – Berlin Congress
The Western powers did not want to accept the strengthening of Russian positions in the Balkans and the Caucasus. They refused to recognize the terms of the San Stefano Treaty, demanded its revision and the convening of an international congress. Russia was forced to give in.
In June 1878, a congress opened in Berlin, in which Russia, Turkey, England, France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary took part. Russia found itself in complete isolation. The main goal of European states is to undermine Russian influence in the Balkans and belittle the results of Russia's military victories.
In July 1878, a treaty was signed that significantly changed the terms of the San Stefano Peace Treaty: Bulgaria was divided into two parts (northern Bulgaria became autonomous, southern Bulgaria remained under the yoke of Turkey); the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania was confirmed, but their territories were significantly reduced; Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina; England received the island of Cyprus for its support of Turkey. The dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire began.
Despite the decisions of the Berlin Congress, the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. was a milestone in the liberation of the Slavic peoples and the creation of their national statehood.
Foreign policy of Russia at the end of the 19th century.
The Berlin Congress revealed a new alignment of European forces: the consolidation of the Austro-German rapprochement, the failure of the Russian orientation towards Germany and the Union of the Three Emperors. Russia was forced to look for a new ally, more reliable than Germany. The confrontation between Russia, England, France, on the one hand, and Germany and Austria-Hungary, on the other, determined the situation in the world, affecting the interests of other states. Late XIX- the beginning of the XX century. was marked by the creation of two military blocs.
Triple Alliance
In 1879, Germany and Austria-Hungary entered into a secret alliance against Russia and France. Italy joined in 1882. Thus, in 1882, the Tripartite Alliance of the Central European powers arose. This union pursued an aggressive policy in the Balkans, the Near and Middle East. Germany was preparing for war against Russia and France.
Russian-French Union
Russia began an active rapprochement with France. In 1891-1892. A political agreement and a military convention were signed between Russia and France on joint actions in case one of the parties was threatened by an attack by Germany or Austria-Hungary. The ratification of the convention in 1893 meant the formation of a Russian-French alliance, which had an anti-German orientation.
With the formation of two opposing alliances (Triple and Russian-French), a new stage in the history of international relations opened, associated with the deepening of contradictions in Europe and the fierce struggle of the great powers for the further division of the world into spheres of influence.
Central Asian direction
The rivalry with England was the main reason for the intensification of Russian foreign policy in the Middle East. At the end of the 50s of the XIX century. Russia has taken practical steps to penetrate into Central Asia. Three Russian missions were organized: scientific (led by the orientalist N.V. Khanykov), diplomatic (N.P. Ignatiev’s embassy) and trade (headed by Ch. Ch. Valikhanov). Task: to study the political and economic situation of the states of the Middle East, to establish closer contacts with them.
In 1863, at a meeting of the Special Committee, it was decided to start active hostilities. The first clash occurred with the Kokand Khanate. In 1864, troops under the command of M. G. Chernyaev undertook the first (unsuccessful) campaign against Tashkent. In June 1865, M. G. Chernyaev actually captured Tashkent without bloodshed, which in 1866 was annexed to Russia. In 1867, the Turkestan Governor General was formed from the conquered territories. In 1876, the Kokand Khanate was included in Russia as part of the Turkestan Governor General.
In 1867-1868. Russian troops under the command of the Turkestan Governor-General K.P. Kaufman fought the Bukhara emir, who declared the Russians “ holy war"(gazavat). As a result of successful military operations, the Russian army took Samarkand. The emirate fell into vassal dependence on Russia.
After the successful campaign of Russian troops in 1873, the Khiva Khanate fell into vassal dependence on Russia while maintaining internal autonomy.
The process of mastering Central Asia ended in 1885 with the voluntary entry of Merv (the territory bordering Afghanistan) into 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 European countries 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 19th 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 scholars 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 deployed fighting 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. The intention of Russia 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 in late XVIII 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.
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, accepted in the literature. - early 1920s. The formation of the Eastern Question as one of the main foreign policy problems of Russia dates back to the period of the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774.
The Eastern Question consisted of three main parts: Russia's relations with Turkey and the European powers (Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, etc.) over Turkish domination in the Balkans and the Black Sea straits; the status quo of the policy of Russia and other great powers in relation to the so-called contact zones (Greece, Serbia, the Danubian principalities), where the possessions of Turkey were in contact with the territorial or colonial possessions of the great powers; the national and religious movements of the non-Turkish peoples of the Ottoman Empire, who at various times were supported by Russia or other powers.
Russia's interest in resolving the Eastern Question was caused primarily by the fact that it was a power that had a wide outlet to the Black Sea. The security of its southern borders and the economic development of its steppe outskirts, which played a steadily increasing role in the economic life of the whole country, depended on one solution or another of the Eastern Question. At the same time, the problem of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles became more and more intensified in the Eastern Question. On the one hand, Russia constantly and stubbornly sought a free exit for the Russian fleet from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and on the other hand, the closure of the entrance to the Black Sea for the navies of other European powers. Both could be ensured only by the regime of the Black Sea straits that was beneficial for Russia. The establishment of such a regime was one of the urgent tasks of Russian diplomacy. The ideological justification of Russian policy in the Eastern Question was the idea of patronage of the Christian subjects of the Turkish Sultan - the Balkan Slavs, Greeks, Armenians. The patronage of these peoples was a constant trump card of Russian diplomacy in relations with Turkey.
A characteristic feature of the Eastern Question for Russia was rather sharp political swings in the process of its solution. Periods of peaceful, allied relations between Russia and Turkey were suddenly replaced by a tense situation, often turning into separate military clashes, and then into real wars. Further, as is usually the case in international practice, followed by another peace treaty between the powers; Well, then it all happened again.
A major role in such a zigzag development of the Eastern Question for Russia was played by the great Western powers, and above all England and France, which, firstly, had their own economic and political interests in the Middle East, and secondly, they tried with all their might to prevent the strengthening of influence Russia in the Balkans, Turkey in the Black Sea straits. The need for constant opposition to this anti-Russian policy of the Western powers kept the entire diplomatic service of Russia in constant tension, both in St. Petersburg and abroad.
The Eastern question in the period under study is conditionally divided into two stages: the first - from the 1760s. before the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815, the second - before the Peace of Paris in 1856.
Russian-Turkish relations at the beginning of the XIX century. The beginning of the first stage of the solution of the Eastern Question passed under the sign of the Russian-Turkish union treaty, concluded in January 1799 in Constantinople, that is, during the reign of Paul I. The treaty opened a new page in the history of Russian foreign policy. If earlier as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars of the second half of the XVIII century. Petersburg provided its merchant fleet with a permanent outlet to the Black and Mediterranean Seas, now Russia was the first of the great powers to receive the right of passage through the straits for its warships. At the same time, Russia, having gained a foothold in the Ionian Islands, acquired bases for military operations in the Mediterranean. All this led to a huge increase in Russian influence in the Eastern Mediterranean in subsequent years. In addition, Russia received and exercised the right to patronize the Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire, the right to patronize Serbia and the Danubian principalities. Turkey has de facto recognized Russia's interests in the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia.
Alexander I in the first years of his reign supported the policy of strengthening good neighborly relations with Turkey. In 1805, a new union treaty was signed in Constantinople. He again proclaimed peace and good harmony among states. The parties guaranteed the integrity of their possessions and pledged to act jointly in all matters affecting security, as well as to provide each other with military assistance.
When creating anti-French coalitions, Turkey undertook to coordinate its actions with Russia and during the war to facilitate the passage of Russian warships through the straits. Agreements were reached to close the straits to foreign warships and transport with military cargo. The duration of the contract was determined by nine years. These were very favorable conditions for Russia.
However, the real union was short-lived. The Serbian uprising of 1804 marked the beginning of a broad national liberation movement in the Balkans and led to a crisis in Russian-Turkish relations. The leaders of the Serbian rebels turned to Russia for help. And although the union treaty did not allow the Russians to assist the rebels, in 1805, at the most difficult moment, Russian ships arrived in Galati and delivered weapons and ammunition to the Serbs.
Russo-Turkish War 1806-1812 Taking advantage of this fact, Napoleon managed to provoke a military conflict between Turkey and Russia. The Turkish Sultan ordered the straits to be closed to Russian ships. In December 1806, a new Russo-Turkish war broke out.
Starting it, Turkey hoped to return the Crimea, Transcaucasia to its possession, and also to strengthen the power of the Sultan in the Balkans. These aspirations were strongly encouraged by French diplomacy.
During the war, the Russian authorities established close cooperation with Serbia. Serbian rebels were sent money, ammunition, military instructors. Thanks to this, the Serbian army conducted military operations in the Turkish rear in cooperation with the plans of the Russian command.
At the first stage, the Russian-Turkish war took on a protracted character. Military operations were carried out indecisively. The main forces were sent to capture and hold individual fortresses. Russian sailors were more active. Since the spring of 1807, the Mediterranean Sea has become the scene of major military operations of the Russian fleet. Vice Admiral D.N. Senyavin occupied the island of Genedos and blocked the Dardanelles. In the Dardanelles and Athos sea battles in July 1807, he defeated the Turkish fleet.
In March 1811, General M.I. Kutuzov was appointed commander of the Danube army. In June, in a defensive battle near Ruschuk, he used a maneuver: he threw the Turkish army away from the fortress, after which he left it and took his army to the left bank of the Danube in order to lure the main enemy forces there and defeat them in the field. The Turkish commander Ahmet Bey succumbed to the military trick of the Russian commander and sent up to 35 thousand of his soldiers to the left bank of the Danube, leaving about 25 thousand in the camp near Ruschuk. Kutuzov with 20 thousand Russian troops blocked the Turkish forces that had crossed the Danube at Slobodzeya, while the 7,000-strong mobile detachment of General Markov, meanwhile, was moving secretly towards the Ruschuk camp of the Turks. On the night of October 1, this detachment crossed the Danube and a day later suddenly attacked the Turkish camp from the rear. The main enemy forces were cut off from their bases and surrounded. Suffering heavy losses from the fire of Russian artillery, the encircled grouping completely lost its combat capability. Its remnants (numbering up to 12 thousand people) laid down their arms at the end of November. In October, a 35,000-strong group of Turks, surrounded by Kutuzov on the left bank of the Danube, was defeated, and in December, General Kotlyarevsky, having made an unprecedented winter crossing with a small detachment through the ridges of the Lesser Caucasus, stormed the Turkish fortress of Akhalkalaki. The Turkish Sultan realized that the war was lost.
Despite the tough opposition of France, on May 16, 1812, a peace treaty was signed between Russia and Turkey in Bucharest. Under the Bucharest peace treaty, Bessarabia with the fortresses of Khotyn, Bendery, Akkerman, Kiliya and Izmail retreated to Russia. The Russian-Turkish border was established along the Prut River before its connection with the Danube. Moldova and Wallachia returned to Turkey. Russia returned all the lands and fortresses taken from the battle in Asia. At the same time, for the first time, she received naval bases on the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea. Russia ensured the autonomy of the Danubian Principalities, where it retained its influence. Serbia was granted autonomy in internal administration. Russia received the right to trade navigation along the entire course of the Danube, and military navigation - to the mouth of the Prut.
But Russia's main gain from the Bucharest peace, of course, was that it removed Turkey from the accounts as an enemy of Russia at the most critical moment - literally on the eve of Napoleon's invasion and throughout the war of 1812. This allowed Alexander I to concentrate all his forces solely on repelling the invasion enemy from the west. Not without reason, having learned about the conclusion of the Bucharest peace, Napoleon became furious and brought down a hail of reproaches on the Sultan and his ministers.
In general, the first stage of the solution of the Eastern Question for Russia, apparently, ended with a positive result. She managed to significantly increase her influence in the Balkans, achieve free passage of her ships through the Black Sea straits, and also secure her southern borders and the steppe outskirts.
Russo-Turkish War 1828-1829 Adrianople world. The second stage in resolving the Eastern Question for Russia (1816-1856), just like the first, was characterized by rather sharp swings in relations between Russia and Turkey: relatively peaceful, allied times were unexpectedly replaced by years of a tense, crisis situation, which, as a rule, , in armed conflicts and even in wars.
The first crisis in relations between Russia and Turkey at the second stage of the Eastern Question arose in connection with the uprising in Greece in 1821 against Turkish rule. The Greeks, demanding autonomy from Turkey, turned to Russia as a Christian power for help. Alexander I hesitated. Being a personally staunch opponent of any uprisings and revolutions, he was also bound by the decision of the "Holy Alliance" to preserve the existing regimes. The Greeks were offended by the refusal to help. The advanced part of Russian society was disappointed. The Turkish government brutally suppressed the Greek uprising, and this made the problem of Greece even more aggravated. Turkey believed that the events in Greece were provoked by Russian agents.
Nicholas I made an attempt to solve the Greek problem through diplomacy, involving the leading European powers in this. In June 1827, Russia, England and France signed in London a convention on the formation of an autonomous Greek state. However, Turkey categorically refused to accept it.
Turkey's refusal prompted the Allied Powers to put military pressure on her. A united Anglo-Russian-French squadron was sent to the shores of the Peloponnese. On October 8, 1827, a naval battle took place in Navarino Bay. As a result, the Turkish-Egyptian fleet was destroyed. The decisive role in the victory was played by the Russian squadron of L.P. Heiden.
But even after the defeat in the Navarino Bay, Turkey did not make concessions to the allies. Then the envoys of Russia, England and France left Constantinople. The Porte declared Russia an irreconcilable enemy of Turkey and all Muslims. Russian subjects were expelled from Turkish possessions, and the Bosporus and Dardanelles were closed to Russian ships. In April 1828, Nicholas I's manifesto on the outbreak of war with Turkey was published in St. Petersburg.
After the conclusion of a peace treaty with Iran, the Russian government transferred part of the troops from the Caucasus to the Black Sea-Balkan section of the border. Adjutant General P.Kh. Wittgenstein led the Russian troops in this war, then General N.I. Dibich.
On April 25, 1828, the Russian army entered the Danubian principalities and began a rapid advance towards Constantinople. But by autumn, this progress had slowed down. The siege of Varna took on a protracted character, the situation was complicated by the poor supply of food and illness in the army.
Dibich's goal was to conquer Silistria. By the summer of 1829, this fortress finally surrendered. During the summer campaign, Russian troops crossed the Balkan Range, took Adrianople, the second capital of the Ottoman Empire. These defeats forced Turkey to enter into peace negotiations. On September 2, 1829, a peace treaty between Russia and Turkey was signed in Adrianople.
According to the Peace of Adrianople, Greece received autonomy (a year later it declared its independence from Turkey). The rights of the Danubian principalities (Moldova and Wallachia) in the sphere of self-government were confirmed and expanded. The autonomy of Serbia was also confirmed. Russian merchants received the right to free trade throughout the Ottoman Empire. The Black Sea straits were declared open to merchant ships. Turkey returned all the territories occupied by Russian troops in the European theater of operations, with the exception of the mouth of the Danube with the islands. The border passed, as before, along the river Prut.
As a result of the Peace of Adrianople, Russia's influence in the Balkans increased significantly. This agreement in the aggregate of articles was valid until the Peace of Paris in 1856. Separate articles of the Adrianople Peace were developed in the Unkyar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833, the London Conventions of 1840 and 1841. on the international status of the Black Sea straits.
Eastern question in the 30-40s. The Unkar-Iskelesi union treaty between Russia and Turkey on friendship and mutual assistance confirmed the inviolability of the terms of the Adrianople peace and all previously concluded Russian-Turkish treaties. Russia pledged to provide Turkey with the necessary assistance with its naval and ground forces. According to a secret article, Turkey was to close the passage through the Dardanelles for all foreign warships. This was the main point of the agreement.
The closure of the Dardanelles for the navies of the non-Black Sea powers ensured the security of Russia's southern borders, and the principle of joint defense of the Black Sea straits allowed it to securely block access to them by enemy forces even in the event of war.
The conclusion of the Unkyar-Iskelesi Treaty was a major victory for Russian diplomacy, the significance of which was also emphasized by the fact that it was achieved without a single shot being fired. This served as proof of the power and influence of Russia in the Middle East.
Subsequently, however, Russia gradually began to lose its influence in the Eastern Question. According to the London Convention, signed in 1840 by England, Prussia, Austria and Russia, it was established that the principle of closing the Black Sea straits for foreign warships would be respected only as long as Turkey was at peace. Thus, any power hostile to Russia, having entered into an alliance with Turkey, could introduce its navy into the Black Sea. The Second London Convention, signed in 1841 by representatives of the five powers (including France), confirmed the principle of neutralizing the straits. The Russian fleet was locked in the Black Sea.
With the conclusion of the London conventions and fluctuations in the policy of “preserving a weak neighbor”, Russia has sharply weakened its position in the Balkans and the Middle East. The fact that Russia missed the Black Sea privileges hurt the ambitions of the country's top leadership, forcing them to seek revenge.
Crimean War. Crimean War 1853-1856 was, as it were, the final chord in Russia's attempts to resolve the Eastern Question at its second stage.
The reason for the war was the religious conflict between the Catholic and Orthodox clergy over the holy places in Palestine. Such conflicts arose more than once. But in this case, the Turkish Sultan, who owned Palestine, under pressure from the French government, decided the dispute in favor of the Catholics. Russia came out in defense of the local Orthodox clergy.
The religious dispute very soon developed into a diplomatic conflict, which became the outward manifestation of sharp contradictions between the European powers in the Middle East. This region turned out to be in the zone of economic and military-strategic interests, mainly of England, France and Russia.
The English and French bourgeoisie, taking advantage of the weakening of the Turkish sultanate, intensively mastered the Middle Eastern markets. Russia was their main competitor in this region. The Western powers sought by all means to weaken Russia's influence in the Balkans and the Middle East, in order thereby to strengthen their political, economic, and military-strategic positions there.
The government of Nicholas I really faced the threat of international isolation, however, it was not realized in time. Prince AS Menshikov was sent to Constantinople as an extraordinary ambassador. He demanded from the Sultan not only to restore the privileges of the Orthodox Church in Palestine, but also to recognize the Russian protectorate over the Orthodox subjects of Turkey. Nicholas I counted on the friendly neutrality of England and the support of Prussia and Austria.
These hopes were not justified. England and France intervened in the Russian-Turkish conflict on the side of the Sultan, while Austria and Prussia took neutrality, which was undesirable for Russia.
The Sultan agreed to satisfy Russia's demands for the privileges of the Orthodox clergy in Palestine, but refused to recognize the protectorate of the Russian Emperor over the Orthodox subjects of Turkey. In June 1853, Nicholas I ordered the Russian army to cross the Prut and occupy the Danubian principalities - Moldavia and Wallachia. After that, the squadrons of Turkey's allies, violating the 1841 convention on the neutrality of the Black Sea straits, entered the Sea of Marmara. Four days later, prompted by Western diplomats, the sultan demanded in an ultimatum the withdrawal of Russian troops. Having not received the desired answer from St. Petersburg, in October 1853 he began military operations on the Danube and in Transcaucasia. England and France declared Russia an aggressor.
The Crimean War had two stages: the first - the Russian-Turkish campaign on the Danube front (October 1853 - April 1854) and the second - the landing of British and French troops in the Crimea and the defense of Sevastopol (April 1854 - February 1856) .
At the first stage, the Danube territories became the main theater of military operations of the Turkish and Russian armies. Despite the numerical superiority of the Turks, the Russian troops managed to win a number of battles - near the village of Chetati (January 1854) and a naval battle in Sinop Bay. The Russian squadron was commanded by Vice-Admiral P.S. Nakhimov, a talented officer of the Black Sea Fleet, who was loved by sailors.
After Sinop and the hostilities on the Danube, the governments of England and France realized that Turkey would not be able to withstand single combat with Russia on its own. This prompted them to intervene in the course of hostilities.
This was preceded by an active propaganda campaign. In the press and in speeches, Russia was accused of an aggressive policy, and there were demands to come out in defense of Turkey. In March 1854, the governments of the Western powers presented the Russian emperor with a demand for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Turkish territories. Queen Victoria of England and French Emperor Napoleon III declared war on Russia. However, the coalition of the European countries of England and France failed to create. A year later, only the Kingdom of Sardinia joined them.
Fearing Austria's entry into the war, Nicholas I decided to withdraw troops from Wallachia and Moldavia. It would seem that the requirement of the allies was satisfied, but the war continued. She has entered a new phase. Now Russia was opposed not only by Turkey, but by the allied bloc of England-France-Turkey.
Developed in Paris detailed plan waging war. He meant large-scale military operations on the Danube, in the Transcaucasus, in the Baltic and White Seas and in the Kamchatka region. But the main theater of the war was the Crimea.
Having not achieved serious successes in the Far East and the North, England and France in the fall of 1854 decided to strike at the main strategic base of the Black Sea Fleet - Sevastopol. To capture it on the coast of Bulgaria, in the region of Varna, the allies concentrated a large expeditionary army, which they then landed in the Crimea. British and French strategists counted on a quick victory. But their landing operation resulted in a protracted, exhausting struggle, which went down in history under the name "Defense of Sevastopol".
The landing of the allies included 360 different ships and a 62,000-strong army with siege weapons. Of the total number of Western naval forces, 31 ships made up a combat squadron, which significantly exceeded the entire fleet, which was in Sevastopol under the command of Admiral P.S. Nakhimov. The Sevastopol fortress had a fairly well-fortified coastline, but was almost not fortified from the land. And this was known to the opponents. Taking into account this information, a plan was developed to capture the fortress.
There were about 52,000 Russian troops on the entire Crimean peninsula. However, some of them were stationed in the eastern part of the Crimea. The Sevastopol army under the leadership of A.S. Menshikov consisted of 33 thousand soldiers with 96 guns.
After the landing of the enemy troops, Menshikov made an attempt to stop him at the turn of the Alma River. Here, on September 8, the first battle of the Russian troops with the interventionists took place. The Russian army was defeated and suffered heavy losses. The Russians lost 6,000 men in this battle, the Allies 3,000. The technical backwardness of Russia manifested itself in human losses. Menshikov led the army first to Sevastopol, and then, fearing to lose contact with the inner provinces, to Bakhchisaray.
However, under the impression of a stubborn battle on the Alma, the Anglo-French military leadership abandoned their intention to attack Sevastopol from the north. The Allies bypassed the Sevastopol Bay and began to prepare a naval base in Balaklava. From here began their attack on the Sevastopol fortifications from the south.
The defenders of Sevastopol received the necessary time to prepare the city for defense. Day and night, under the leadership of military engineer E.I. Totleben, the construction of ground bastions, trenches and other fortifications was going on. On the hills around the city on the south side, seven bastions arose, interconnected by redoubts, batteries, or simply trenches.
The crews of the ships moved to land and took up defensive positions. These days, 10 thousand sailors went ashore, and in total during the defense - 20 thousand. They were the decisive force in the defense of the city. Ship guns were brought ashore and mounted on bastions. In order to block the enemy fleet from entering the bay, seven old sailing ships. The enemy fleet could no longer bombard the city.
The main heroes and the soul of the defense were the naval commanders - Vice Admiral V.A. Kornilov and Admiral P.S. Nakhimov.
On September 25, 1854, by order of the garrison, the city was declared in a state of siege. This date went down in history as the first day of the heroic defense. In total, the siege of Sevastopol lasted 349 days.
She was incredibly heavy. The defenders were in dire need of food, ammunition, drinking water. The garrison suffered heavy losses. The first detachment of sisters of mercy in Russian history took part in the defense of Sevastopol. It was formed in St. Petersburg from female volunteers. Under the guidance of doctors and surgeon N.I. Pirogov, they carried out an exhausting and noble watch in hospitals and at dressing stations.
The defense of Sevastopol throughout was distinguished by the high combat activity of its defenders. They are especially famous for their bold and daring night outings.
Fighting off enemy attacks, the defenders of the city continued to build new batteries and bastions, deepened ditches, built new redoubts. By order of Nakhimov, a floating bridge was built across the South Bay. This helped speed up the transfer of reinforcements and the supply of ammunition.
However, over time, the superiority of the enemy over the besieged became more and more tangible. The ranks of the defenders of Sevastopol were melting away. In August 1855, a floating bridge was built across the Bolshaya Bay to withdraw troops from the southern side of the city to the northern one.
The Crimean campaign ended, but not in the way that the governments of England and France would like. The defense of Sevastopol fettered the huge forces of the Allies and dragged out the war.
By the end of 1855, England and France began to lean towards peace negotiations. Both belligerents needed peace. The Paris Peace Congress opened in February 1856. Representatives of Russia, England, France, Turkey, Sardinia, Austria and Prussia took part in it. Russian diplomats, using the contradictions between the winners, and with some rapprochement with France, were able to achieve a softening of the peace conditions. But all the same, the Paris Peace Treaty was very difficult for Russia.
He proclaimed the restoration of peace between the participants in the war and provided for: the return by Russia to Turkey of the city of Kars with a fortress in exchange for Sevastopol and other cities in the Crimea occupied by Turkey's allies; declaring the Black Sea neutral, that is, open to merchant ships of all nations, with the prohibition of Russia and Turkey to have navies and arsenals there; the abolition of Russia's right to "speak in favor" of the principalities in Moldavia and Wallachia. Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia were given under the patronage of European states. It was a heavy and humiliating defeat for Russia.
The war revealed the economic backwardness of Russia. The serf system hampered the industrial development of the country and had a negative impact on the military potential. The recruiting system of army formation was rejected long ago in the West. Maintaining an army of more than a million people cost the state dearly. Army formations were dispersed throughout the empire. In the absence of a developed network of railways in the conditions of Russian off-road conditions, their quick transfer to solve military-strategic tasks was a difficult matter.
The serious backwardness of Russian industry was also manifested in the field of armaments of the army. Russian artillery, which had become so famous in the war of 1812, was now noticeably inferior to the English and French. The Russian fleet continued to be predominantly sailing. In the Black Sea squadron, out of 21 large warships, only 7 were steam-powered, while the Anglo-French fleet almost entirely consisted of steam-powered ships with screw engines.
Defeat in Crimean War and the difficult conditions of the Peace of Paris caused sharp criticism in Russia of the domestic and foreign policies of Nicholas I. It was felt that the country was on the verge of important changes in socio-economic and socio-political life.
The Eastern question is a symbol of the Middle East knot of international contradictions of the 18th - early 20th century, caused by the struggle of the great powers - Russia, England, France, Austria (since 1867 - Austria-Hungary), Prussia (since 1871 - Germany), Italy and the United States - for the "Turkish heritage", for the division of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of spheres of influence and control over all of Turkey or its national outskirts. This struggle intensified as a result of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the growth of the national liberation movement of the peoples enslaved by the Turks (Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs), the colonial expansion of the great powers that embarked on the capitalist path of development (see Colonialism, Capitalism).
The impetus for the emergence of the Eastern question was the events of the late 17th century. - the first half of the 18th century, when, after the defeat near Vienna (1683), the Turks lost the opportunity to conquer foreign lands and the process of their gradual displacement from the occupied territories began. Until the middle of the 18th century. Austria was the inspirer of the anti-Turkish coalitions (Austria, Venice, Poland, Russia). At the Karlowitz Congress (1698-1699) the first division of Turkish possessions in Europe took place. Austria received Hungary, Slavonia, Semigradye; Poland - Right-Bank Ukraine; Venice - Morea; Russia - the city of Azov.
From the middle of the 18th century before the Crimean War of 1853-1856. the role of Russia in the Eastern question is growing. Relying on its military and economic power, the support of the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire, which constantly rebelled against the Turks, using the Anglo-French contradictions and an alliance with Austria and Prussia, Russia won the wars with Turkey in 1768-1774 (Kuchuk-Kaynardzhysky world), 1787- 1791 (Peace of Jassy), 1806-1812 (Peace of Bucharest), 1828-1829 (Adrianople peace). As a result, Southern Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia, the Caucasus, Transcaucasia were annexed to Russia; Russian merchant ships received the right to pass through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles; Turkey was forced to grant independence to Greece, and Serbia, Montenegro, Moldavia and Wallachia - autonomy. In 1833, taking advantage of the military conflict between the Turkish sultan and his Egyptian vassal Pasha Muhammad Ali (see Muhammad Ali's campaigns of conquest), Russia, under the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Russian guarantees of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, tried to establish a protectorate over Turkey.
The European powers also pursued their own interests. In 1798-1801. Napoleon I tried to conquer Egypt, Palestine, Syria (see Napoleonic Wars). But after a series of military failures and the defeat of the French fleet at Aboukir by the English squadron under the command of Admiral G. Nelson, he temporarily abandoned plans for the military conquest of the East. In subsequent decades, France tried to extend its influence to Egypt, supporting Muhammad Ali, and from 1830 began to conquer Algeria, hoping in this way to establish control over North Africa, which belonged to Turkey.
England sought to use its advantage in the most industrial way. developed country and establish trade and economic dominance over Turkey, as well as secure approaches to their main colony - India. Therefore, she advocated maintaining the status quo in the East in order to prevent the expansion of France and Russia in Turkey. In 1840-1841. British diplomacy managed first to weaken the influence of the French ally Muhammad Ali, and then, with the support of France, Austria, Prussia, Turkey, to liquidate the Unkar-Iskelesi treaty, "drowning" Russian influence on the sultan in the collective guarantees of Turkey's integrity by the powers.
Period from the Crimean War 1853-1856 until the end of the 19th century. characterized by an intensification of the struggle for the "Turkish heritage" and a weakening of the role of Russia in the Eastern question. Having overestimated the military and diplomatic capabilities of Russia, Nicholas I in 1853 began a war against Turkey, wanting to put an end to this, as he put it, "the sick man of Europe." However, England, France, the Kingdom of Sardinia acted on the side of the Sultan, while Austria and Prussia took positions hostile to Russia. This led to the defeat of the latter in the Crimean War and, under the terms of the Paris Treaty of 1856, deprived it of the right to have a navy on the Black Sea and patronize the Christians of the Ottoman Empire.
The dominant position in Turkey remained with England and France, who actively fought among themselves for sales markets, sources of raw materials, and spheres of influence in the East. In 1869, the Suez Canal was opened, built under the guidance of the French engineer F. Lesseps. In 1881 the French captured Tunisia. They seemed to have established hegemony in North Africa. However, British bankers bought shares in the Suez Canal, and in 1882 British troops occupied Egypt, thus putting an end to French influence there.
The hegemony of England in the East also had an effect during the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. Despite the successes of the Russian army, which reached the suburbs of Istanbul with battles, where a victorious peace for Russia was signed in the town of San Stefano, England, with the support of Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, and Turkey, achieved a revision of the results of the war at the Berlin Congress of 1878. Nevertheless less Bulgaria gained independence, a single Romanian state was recognized, Russia annexed to its territory the mouth of the Danube, the regions of Batumi and Kars in Transcaucasia. At the same time, Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, and England annexed the island of Cyprus as compensation for supporting Turkey.
The next period in the history of the Eastern question covers the time from the end of the 19th century. and before the First World War 1914-1918. Its peculiarity is the global aggravation of international contradictions and the struggle of world powers for the redivision of the world. At this time, Germany becomes the most active contender for the "Turkish heritage". She managed to bring the Turkish army, politics and economy under her control. German specialists built the strategically important Berlin-Istanbul-Baghdad-Basra railway. All this led to the aggravation of Russian-German and especially Anglo-German contradictions. Austria-Hungary acted as an ally of Germany, fighting with Russia for influence in the Balkans. The Austro-German bloc was opposed by the Entente countries - England, France, Russia, forced to unite, despite internal differences. Disputes between the powers escalated during the Bosnian crisis of 1908-1909, when Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of the previously occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, which Russia did not agree with, and the two Balkan wars of 1912-1913. They led to the liberation of Macedonia, Albania, the islands of the Aegean from Turkey, but at the same time intensified territorial disputes between Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, behind which stood the great powers and their struggle for influence.
The culminating phase of the Eastern question is associated with Turkey's participation in the First World War on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as a result of defeat in the war. Its Arab provinces were turned into trust territories of England (Iraq, Jordan, Palestine) and France (Syria, Lebanon). The question arose about the division of the actual Turkish territories of Asia Minor. However, the national liberation war of the Turks under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk, supported by Soviet Russia, made it possible to keep the Turkish Republic within the borders that exist today (see the Kemalist Revolution in Turkey 1918-1923).