Eastern Question foreign policy of the 19th century plan. The Eastern question in the foreign policy of Russia in the 19th century. Decline of the Ottoman Empire

At the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, first of all, relations with England, violated by Paul I, were restored. He canceled preparations for war with England and returned the Cossack detachment of ataman M.I. Platov sent by Paul I from a campaign in India. The normalization of relations with England and France allowed Russia to intensify its policy in the region of the Caucasus and Transcaucasia. The Georgian Tsar George XII repeatedly turned to Russia with a request for patronage. On September 12, 1801, a manifesto was issued on the annexation of Eastern Georgia (Kartli and Kakhetia) to Russia. In 1803-1804. on the same terms, the principalities of Mingrelia, Guria, and Imeretia, which constituted Western Georgia, became part of Russia. For Russia, the annexation of Georgia meant the acquisition of a strategically important territory for strengthening its positions in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia.

The annexation of Georgia pitted Russia against Iran, which claimed this territory, which led to a war between them that began in 1804. According to the Treaty of Gulistan concluded in 1813, Iran recognized the accession to Russia of a significant part of the khanates of Northern Azerbaijan, occupied by Russian troops during the hostilities of 1804-1806.

In 1806, the war between Russia and Turkey began. The reason was the removal of the rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia by the Turkish sultan from their posts, which was a violation of previous agreements between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, as well as the closure of the Black Sea straits for Russian ships. The war ended with the complete defeat of the Turkish fleet by the squadron of D.N. Sinyavin and the Turkish army, the active Russian army under the control of the commander-in-chief M.I. Kutuzov. On May 16, 1812, a peace treaty was signed in Bucharest, according to which Bessarabia was ceded to Russia, with the exception of its southern part.

In 1803-1805. the international situation in Europe sharply worsened. A period of Napoleonic wars began, in which many European countries were involved, including Russia. At this time, several coalitions were created against France with the participation of Russia, as a result, Russian troops participated in several military battles. Feeling the strength of the Russian army, Napoleon did not dare to enter Russia and offered peace to Alexander I. The military alliance was concluded on June 25, 1807 in Tilsit. The terms of the treaty were difficult for Russia, as they drew Russia into Napoleon's policy, he obliged Russia to oppose countries hostile to Napoleon and their allies. At the same time, Russia also used it for territorial acquisitions. In February 1808, the war between Russia and Sweden began. Sweden has been defeated. According to the Treaty of Friedrichsham concluded in October 1809, Finland (with wide autonomy) and the Aland Islands departed to Russia. The peace of Tilsit was a temporary respite before a new, even more dangerous military conflict with France. In 1810, Napoleon openly declared his desire for world domination, as well as the fact that Russia was on the way to it. Russia was aware of the impending danger, and both sides began intensive preparations for the upcoming war. Napoleon also sought to create an anti-Russian coalition, but he only managed to conclude secret alliances with Austria and Prussia. They were promised territorial acquisitions at the expense of Russian possessions. And Russia concluded a secret alliance with Sweden in April 1812, and a month later signed a peace treaty with Turkey.

On the night of June 12, 1812, Napoleon's army invaded Russia. The Russian armies were forced to retreat. On August 8, under pressure from public opinion, Alexander I signed an order to create a unified command of all active Russian armies and to appoint Mikhail Kutuzov as commander-in-chief. For the general battle, Kutuzov chose the position with. Borodino. In this battle, the losses of the French amounted to 28 thousand people, and the Russians - 46.5 thousand. However, Napoleon's goal - the defeat of the Russian army was not achieved. The losses incurred and delays in the arrival of the promised reserves did not allow Kutuzov to give a new battle. He gave the order to retreat to Moscow. Further, at the military council in Fili, it was decided to leave Moscow in order to save the army. The Napoleonic army was in Moscow for 36 days, Napoleon's attempts to persuade Alexander I to peace did not lead to anything. Fires raged in Moscow. Further hostilities led to the defeat of the French army. In Smorgon, Napoleon handed over command to Marshal Murat, while he himself secretly left the army and hurried to Paris. On December 25, 1812, the tsar's manifesto was issued announcing the end of the war.

On January 1, 1813, the Russian army under the command of Kutuzov crossed the border. In February, Prussia broke off relations with France and formed an alliance with Russia. In July-August, Austria, Sweden and England joined the anti-Napoleonic coalition. The decisive battle near Leipzig in October 1813, which went down in history under the name "Battle of the Nations", ended with the victory of the allied forces. The German states were liberated from French occupation. Further, the allied forces entered the borders of France.

The threefold superiority of the allied forces over the forces of Napoleon led to the victorious end of the company. On March 16, 1814, Paris capitulated. According to the peace concluded on May 18, 1814 in Paris, France returned to the borders of 1792, Napoleon was deposed and exiled to Fr. Elba, the Bourbon dynasty was restored to the French throne.

After the collapse of Napoleon's empire, Russia's international prestige increased significantly. In September 1814, at the initiative of the victorious powers, an international congress gathered in Vienna, which was attended by 216 representatives of almost all European states. They established new frontiers of states in Europe, sitting until June 1815. On September 14, 1815, Alexander I, the Austrian emperor Franz I and the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm III signed an act on the creation of a sacred alliance, the purpose of which was to protect new state borders, strengthen "legitimate" dynasties in Europe, whose congresses were periodically convened. Almost all the monarchs of Europe joined him.

In the second quarter of the 19th century, in foreign policy In Russia and other European powers, two main problems alternately arose and subsided - the revolutionary danger and the Eastern question. At this time, Europe experienced two revolutionary crises in 1830-1831 and in 1848-1849. The revolutionary wave also reached Russia, when in November 1830 an uprising broke out in Poland. Nicholas I unsuccessfully tried to organize a joint intervention of Russia, Austria and Prussia to suppress the revolutions in France and Belgium. However, the unwillingness of Austria and Prussia to participate in this action destroyed the plans of the king, who had to recognize the new French king Louis Philippe of Orleans, as well as the independence of Belgium that had separated from the Netherlands.

In 1848-1849, an even more formidable, revolutionary wave swept through the countries of Western Europe. Revolution in France, then the German states, then in Hungary. The revolutionary events in the Danubian principalities and in Hungary were considered by Nicholas I as a direct threat to the Russian autocracy. He willingly responded to the request of the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph for help in suppressing the Hungarian revolution.

Three main factors led to the emergence and further aggravation of the Eastern question:

the decline of the once mighty Ottoman Empire,

the growth of the national liberation movement of its constituent peoples against the Ottoman yoke

aggravation of contradictions between the European powers in the Middle East, caused by the struggle for the division of the world, in this case, the division of the "Turkish heritage".

For Russia, the eastern question was connected with solving the problem of the Black Sea straits, ensuring the security of the southern borders, the economic development of the south of the country, and intensive foreign trade through the Black Sea ports. Russia also feared that the collapse of the Ottoman Empire would make it the prey of the stronger European powers. Therefore, it then sought to strengthen its positions in the Transcaucasus and the Balkans in order to prevent the expansion of other powers into these regions.

The assertion of Russia in Transcaucasia eventually led to the Russian-Iranian war of 1826-1828. The result of this war was the peace proposed by Russia to the Shah government concluded in Turkmanchay in February 1828. Eastern Armenia joined Russia. Iran paid monetary indemnities and provided freedom of resettlement to Armenians within Russia, agreed to a ban on keeping its warships in the Caspian.

The Turkmanchay world untied Russia's hands before the imminent military conflict with Turkey, which took an openly hostile position towards Russia. On April 14, Nicholas I issued a manifesto on the beginning of the war with Turkey. This war was extremely difficult for Russia.

Peace was signed on September 2, 1829 in Andrianopol. Russia received small, but strategically important territories.

Russia's desire to extend its dominion in the North Caucasus met with strong resistance from the peoples of Dagestan, Chechnya and Adygeya. In 1817, the Caucasian War, which lasted about half a century, began, costing both Russia and the peoples of the Caucasus many forces and victims. At the end of the 50s, the conquest of Chechnya and Dagestan, the capture of Imam Shamil, a talented military leader, strong-willed and cruel, did not yet mean the end of the Caucasian War. Russian troops still had to conquer the Circassian and Adyghe tribes. The last pockets of resistance here were eliminated only in 1864. During the Caucasian War of 1817-1864. Russian troops lost 77 thousand people.

The reason for the Crimean War, which broke out in the early 1950s, was the dispute that arose between the Orthodox and Catholic churches about "Palestinian shrines." It was about which of the churches owns the right to own the keys to the Bethlehem temple, other religious monuments in Jerusalem and its environs. Here the interests of Russia, which protected the Orthodox clergy, and France, which patronized the Catholics, clashed. In fact, it was about strengthening the positions of these powers in the Middle East. The parties frankly went to a military conflict. The Crimean War began in an atmosphere of diplomatic isolation of Russia, which was opposed by a coalition of developed capitalist states. The war began as an aggressive one on both sides. If tsarism sought to master the Black Sea straits and expand its influence in the Balkans, then England and France sought to oust Russia from the shores of the Black Sea and from the borders of Transcaucasia. The Ottoman Empire also pursued its own revanchist goals in this war. The fate of the war was decided in the Crimea, although hostilities were also conducted on the Danube and in Transcaucasia.

On March 18, 1856, peace was concluded in Paris. Russia lost the southern part of Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube, but Sevastopol and other Crimean cities were returned to it "in exchange" for Kars and the Kars region. The peace treaty deprived Russia of the right to protect the interests of the Orthodox population in the territory of the Ottoman Empire, to patronize Serbia and the Danubian principalities, which significantly undermined Russia's influence in the Middle East. But the most difficult condition for Russia was the "neutralization" of the Black Sea. Its essence was to prohibit Russia and Turkey from keeping a navy on the Black Sea and having military fortresses, and the Black Sea straits were declared closed to military ships of all countries. Thus, the Black Sea coast of Russia turned out to be defenseless in case of war.

The defeat of Russia undermined its prestige in the international arena. But it was not the Russian people that suffered defeat, but tsarism and its feudal-serf regime. At the same time, the results of the Crimean War meant the failure of the far-reaching expansionist plans of the Western European powers, which sought to reduce Russia to the rank of secondary states. Russia's defeat in the Crimean War had serious consequences for her inner life. It became clear that the main reason for the military-technical backwardness of Russia was precisely the serfdom.

The Russian autocracy was bound to embark on the path of urgent social, economic and political reforms.

The primary task of Russia's foreign policy after the Crimean War was to achieve the abolition of the articles of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856. The solution to this complex foreign policy task was brilliantly carried out by the outstanding Russian diplomat, Minister of Foreign Affairs A. M. Gorchakov. Extensive experience in the diplomatic service, excellent knowledge of European affairs, friendly ties with many prominent foreign figures helped him significantly in solving complex problems. Gorchakov determined Russian foreign policy for more than a quarter of a century and did much to strengthen Russia's influence and prestige in the international arena.

The London Convention, signed on March 13, 1871, declared the articles of the treaty of 1856 restrictive for Russia to be invalid. Russia received the right to maintain a navy on the Black Sea and build military fortifications. The security of its southern borders was restored, as well as its influence in the Balkans.

The “Union of Three Emperors” (Russian, German and Austrian), signed in October 1873, although it did not contain allied obligations and was not strong due to the remaining contradictions between these powers, however, it played a significant role in international affairs of the 70s. It meant for Russia a way out of international isolation and the restoration of its influence on European politics, first of all, the opportunity to reach an agreement with Germany and Austria-Hungary on the Balkan issue.

On April 12, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey. Previously, secret agreements were concluded with Austria-Hungary on its observance of benevolent neutrality with Romania, which provided its territory for the passage of the Russian army, and at the disposal of the Russian command - part of its troops. This war began for Russia in unfavorable conditions - military reforms were not completed, the rearmament of the Russian army was not completed. The Turkish army by this time was reorganized with the help of foreign military specialists and had the latest small arms. The Turkish fleet on the Black Sea was superior to the Russian. The Russian army had to overcome powerful obstacles - the Danube, the line of fortresses and the Balkan Range. But in the future, success accompanied the Russian army, which caused alarm among the European powers. And finally, on February 19, 1878, a peace treaty between Russia and Turkey was concluded in the town of San Stefano. The conditions of this peace, which significantly strengthened Russia's position in the Balkans, caused strong dissatisfaction with the European powers, and as a result, in June-July 1878, a pan-European congress was convened, which revised its terms not in favor of Russia.

Also in the second half of the 19th century, Russia's policy on Far East and Central Asia. The delimitation of the possessions of Japan and Russia was carried out, and Central Asia was annexed.

In the 1960s, diplomatic relations between Russia and the United States strengthened. At this time, the issue of the sale by Russia to the United States of Russian remote and poorly protected possessions - Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, which was difficult for Russia to maintain, was resolved.

In 1899, at the initiative of Russia, an international conference was held in The Hague on the issues of limiting the arms race and on the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. However, the conference failed to reach a decision on the main issue - limiting the arms race.

At the end of the 19th century, in the years 89-90, the formation of two military-political blocs was laid in Europe: the Austro-Italian-German and the Franco-Russian. So far, only England has been left out of the lockdown. But the growth of antagonism with Germany forced England to enter into an alliance with France in 1904, and in 1907 with Russia. This is how the bloc of Entente countries took shape, in which England began to play a leading role.

By the beginning of the 19th century, two main directions in Russia's foreign policy were defined:

the Middle East - the desire to strengthen their positions in the Transcaucasus, the Black Sea and the Balkans,

European - participation in the coalition wars of 1805-1807. against France.

In the second quarter of the 19th century, there were two main problems in the sphere of foreign policy - the revolutionary danger and the Eastern question. These problems occupied an important place in the foreign policy of other European powers that competed in the international arena with Russia.

And finally, the primary task of Russia's foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century was to achieve the abolition of the articles of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, which forbade Russia to keep a navy on the Black Sea, to have military fortresses and arsenals on the Black Sea coast.

At the end of the 19th century, contradictions between the leading powers escalated due to the redistribution of colonies and spheres of influence, military-political blocs took shape, and an arms race began. This led to the intensification of the desire of the leading world powers for colonial expansion and the struggle for the redivision of the world.



a term denoting those that arose in the XVIII - early. XX centuries international contradictions associated with the beginning of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the growth of the national liberation movement of the peoples inhabiting it and the struggle of European countries for the division of the empire's possessions. Tsarism wanted to resolve this issue in its own interests: to dominate the Black Sea, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles and the Balkan Peninsula.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

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 m. 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 the Egyptian expedition of 1798-1801)) explains the conclusion of an alliance by Turkey with Russia in 1799 and 1805 and with Great Britain in 1799. Strengthening 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, seeking 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, 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 submission to 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 due to the diversion of Russia's forces and attention to the Far East, and then 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 decomposition 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 release Balkan peoples from under the tour. 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", " social significance Serbian-Bulg. 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 a semi-colony of imperialist powers and their predatory policy in the Middle East. At the same time, Lenin argued for all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, including the Turkish people, the inalienable right to liberation from imperialist bondage and feudal dependence and to independent existence. N. Pokrovsky on the foreign policy of Russia and international relations of modern times ("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 plans and actions of tsarism in the Second Century. But, attributing to trade capital a decisive role in the foreign and domestic policy of Russia, Pokrovsky reduced the policy of tsarism in the V. century to the desire of the Russian landowner in 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. This implies the erroneous statement of Pokrovsky that in August-October. 1914 Russia allegedly sought to draw the Ottoman Empire into world war on the central-europe side 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 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 in 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; "Economy of Turkey 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”, series of historical sciences, 1951, v. 18, No. 130): N. S. Kinyapina “Russian-Austrian contradictions on the eve and during Russian-Turkish war 1828-29" ("Uch. zap. MGU", works of the Department of History of the USSR, 1952, v. 156); O. Shparo "External. Canning's policy and Greek question 1822-1827" ("VI", 1947, No 12) and "The role of Russia in the struggle of Greece for independence" ("VI", 1949, No 8). In the mentioned study by A. V. Fadeev and in other work of that The same author (Russia and the Caucasus in the First Third of the 19th Century, 1960) made an attempt to broadly interpret the Eastern century as including also the political and economic problems of the Middle East and the Caucasus. in the early 19th century and the international position of the Ottoman Empire during this period of time are covered in the monograph by A.F. Miller Mustafa Pasha Bayraktar. Ottoman Empire at the beginning XIX century." (1947). A systematic presentation of the diplomatic side of the century can be found in the corresponding sections of the History of Diplomacy, vols. 1, 2nd ed., 1959, vol. 2, 1945. Sharpness and political topicality V. in international relations of modern times left a strong imprint on the research of bourgeois scholars.In their works, the interests of the ruling classes of the country to which this or that historian belongs are clearly visible. question" was written by S. M. Solovyov (collected works, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 903-48). Considering the geographic environment to be the most important factor in the historical development of swarm, he also relates Russia, with Asia, the sea coast and forests with the steppe.Hence, he justifies the aggressive policy of tsarism in the Middle Ages, which, in his opinion, is based on the process of colonization of the South Russian regions. , “the struggle against the Asians,” “an offensive movement against Asia.” The policy of tsarism in the Middle Ages is covered in an apologetic spirit in S. M. Goryainov’s monograph The Bosporus and the Dardanelles (1907), which covers the period from the end of the 18th century to the end of the 18th century. by 1878 and retaining its scientific value due to the wide use of archival documents.Unfinished publication of R. P. Martens "Coll. treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign. powers" (vols. 1-15, 1874-1909), although it does not contain treaties between Russia and Turkey, it includes a number of international agreements directly related to the V. v. Some of these introductions, based on archival sources, contain valuable material on the history of the Middle Ages in the late 18th century and in the first half of the 19th century. English historians (J. Marriott, A. Toynbee, W. Miller) justify diplomacy by the need for Great Britain to protect its trade routes (especially communications connecting 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 the policy of Great Britain 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. Ansel. 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'а nos jours", 8 ?d., 1926) and in the book. J. Ancel (1923), "Manuel historique de la question d´Orient. 1792-1923". 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 works 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. policy 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, "?sterreich 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 an angle of view external. -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 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. By 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., Ausgew?hlte diplomatische Aktenst?cke 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., Short story 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 Trait? 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 si?cle (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., T?rk inkil?bi tarihi, cilt 1-3, Ist., 1940-55. (See also literature at the station of the Black Sea Straits). A. S. Silin. Leningrad.

The Eastern Question is a complex of international conflicts late XVII- the beginning of the 20th century, associated with control over the holy places in Palestine, as well as with the struggle of the Christian (mostly Orthodox) peoples of the Ottoman Empire for independence and with the rivalry of the great powers (Russia, Austria, Great Britain, France, later Italy and Germany) for the division weakening Ottoman Empire.

Catherine II (1762-1796) had a project to completely expel the Turks from Europe, restore the Greek Empire (she planned to raise her grandson Konstantin Pavlovich to its throne), transfer the western part of the Balkan Peninsula to Austria and create a buffer state of Dacia from the Danubian principalities. At the same time, the Porte (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 (the Russian-Turkish war of 1787-1792), on the side of which Austria acted in 1788 . In 1788, Anglo-French diplomacy managed to provoke an attack on Russia by Sweden (the Russo-Swedish war of 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, which 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 minor 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 Bosphorus and the Dardanelles - 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 decided unanimously 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 do not want anything from her ruins; I need nothing". The Unkiar-Iskelesi 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. During this period, a coalition of European powers opposed Russia in the Eastern Question. Shortly after the Crimean War, the Austrian ambassador to Constantinople, Baron Prokesch-Osten, declared: “What is usually called the Eastern question in relation to Turkey is nothing more than a question between Russia and the rest of Europe.”

A firman favorable for Russia was prepared; but Turkey was slow to publish it. Hence the gap between Russia, first with Turkey (1853), and then with the Western powers, and the Crimean 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.

Caucasian war.

Caucasian War (1817-1864) - asymmetric military operations of the Russian Imperial Army, associated with the conquest of the mountainous regions of the North Caucasus.

AT early XIX centuries, the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti (1801-1810), as well as some Transcaucasian khanates (1805-1813) were annexed to Russia. However, between the newly acquired lands and Russia lay the lands of sworn allegiance to Russia, but de facto independent mountain peoples. Restoring order, establishing peace and law in these lands has become an important goal of Russian policy. The highlanders of the northern slopes of the Main Caucasian Range put up fierce resistance to the growing influence of imperial power.

After the pacification of Big Kabarda (1825), the main opponents of the Russian troops were the Adygs of the Black Sea coast and the Kuban region, Karachay in the Central Caucasus, and in the east - the highlanders, united in a military-theocratic Islamic state - the Imamat of Dagestan and Chechnya, which was headed by Shamil. At this stage, the Caucasian war intertwined with the war of Russia against Persia. Military operations against the highlanders were carried out by significant forces and were very fierce.

From the mid 1830s. the conflict escalated in connection with the emergence in Chechnya and Dagestan of a religious and political movement under the flag of ghazavat, which received moral and military support from the Ottoman Empire, and during the Crimean War - from Great Britain. The resistance of the highlanders of Chechnya and Dagestan was broken only in 1859, they surrendered. The war with the Adyghe tribes of the Western Caucasus continued until 1864 and ended with the eviction of a part of the Adyghes to the Ottoman Empire, or to the flat lands of the Kuban region

Foreign policy of Nicholas 1.

During the reign of Nicholas I, foreign policy efforts were directed towards solving two main tasks - the protection of Europe from revolutionary danger and progress in the Eastern question.

In the summer of 1830, revolutionary events took place in Western Europe: the king of France was expelled from the country, an uprising broke out in Belgium against the rule of the Netherlands. Nicholas I began to prepare for intervention. Only

international complications and events in Poland hindered him. The Polish liberation uprising of 1830-1831 was suppressed by the tsarist troops. Nicholas I canceled the Polish constitution of 1815 and declared Poland "an integral part of Russian Empire".

The second and main direction of Russia's foreign policy in the 20-50s was the solution of the Eastern question. Its emergence is associated with the weakening of Turkey and the rivalry of European powers for dominance in the Middle East and the Balkans. Not wanting this, Nicholas I stepped up Russian policy in the Eastern question, including military assistance to the Greeks. In subsequent years, the Anglo-Russian rivalry spread to the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Russia's foreign policy in the Caucasus and the Balkans was exceptionally successful. The Russian-Persian war of 1826-1828 ended with the defeat of Persia, and Armenia and

Northern Azerbaijan. The war with Turkey (1828-1829) was also successful for Russia. By mid-May 1828, the Russians occupied the Danubian principalities, crossed the Danube and took several fortresses. During the summer and autumn, the Caucasian Corps captured the Turkish fortresses of Kars, Akhalkalaki, Akhaltsikhe and others. During the same period, England pushed Iran to war with Russia. In January 1829, an attack was made on the Russian mission in Tehran. Almost all diplomats died, including the head of the mission, A.S. Griboyedov. However, the Iranian ruler did not dare to break the Turkmanchay Treaty and apologized to Russia in connection with the death of Russian diplomats.

On September 2, 1829, a peace treaty was signed between Russia and Turkey. The mouth of the Danube and the eastern coast of the Black Sea (from Poti to Sukhumi) went to Russia. The Sultan recognized the internal autonomy of Greece, Serbia and the Danubian Principalities.

Crimean War.

The Crimean War is the war of Russia against England, France, Turkey and Sardinia, supported by Austria and Prussia. The war was for dominance in the Middle East. Russia sought to take control of the Black Sea straits and strengthen its position in the Balkans. England and France, in their own interests, sought to oust Russia from the shores of the Black Sea and turn Turkey into a semi-colony of Western European capital. The reason for the war was Turkey's refusal to recognize Nicholas I as the patron of the Orthodox population of the Turkish Empire.

Crimean War 1853-1856, also Eastern War- a war between the Russian Empire and a coalition of the British, French, Ottoman empires and the Kingdom of Sardinia. fighting unfolded in the Caucasus, in the Danube principalities, in the Baltic, Black, White and Barents Seas, as well as in Kamchatka. They reached the greatest tension in the Crimea.

By the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was in a state of decline, and only direct military assistance from Russia, England, France and Austria allowed the Sultan to twice prevent the capture of Constantinople by the rebellious vassal Muhammad Ali of Egypt. In addition, the struggle of the Orthodox peoples for liberation from the Ottoman yoke continued (see the Eastern question). These factors led the Russian Emperor Nicholas I in the early 1850s to think about separating the Balkan possessions of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by Orthodox peoples, which was opposed by Great Britain and Austria. Great Britain, in addition, sought to oust Russia from the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus and from Transcaucasia. The Emperor of France, Napoleon III, although he did not share the plans of the British to weaken Russia, considering them excessive, supported the war with Russia as a revenge for 1812 and as a means of strengthening personal power.

During a diplomatic conflict with France over control of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Russia, in order to put pressure on Turkey, occupied Moldavia and Wallachia, which were under the protectorate of Russia under the terms of the Adrianople peace treaty. The refusal of the Russian Emperor Nicholas I to withdraw troops led to the declaration of war on Russia on October 4 (16), 1853 by Turkey, followed by Great Britain and France.

In the course of the ensuing hostilities, the Allies succeeded, using the technical backwardness of the Russian troops and the indecision of the Russian command, to concentrate quantitatively and qualitatively superior forces of the army and navy on the Black Sea, which allowed them to successfully land an airborne corps in the Crimea, inflict Russian army a series of defeats and, after a year-long siege, capture the southern part of Sevastopol - the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Sevastopol Bay, the location of the Russian fleet, remained under Russian control. On the Caucasian front, Russian troops managed to inflict a number of defeats on the Turkish army and capture Kars. However, the threat of Austria and Prussia joining the war forced the Russians to accept the terms of peace imposed by the allies. The humiliating Treaty of Paris, signed in 1856, demanded that Russia return to the Ottoman Empire everything captured in southern Bessarabia, at the mouth of the Danube River and in the Caucasus; the empire was forbidden to have a combat fleet in the Black Sea, proclaimed neutral waters; Russia stopped military construction in the Baltic Sea, and much more.

The Eastern question in the history of Russia is connected, first of all, with the relationship with the Ottoman Empire. Our interests have always clashed over our rights in the Black Sea. And also actively our state wanted to take possession of the Black Sea straits, such as the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Basically, the term of the Eastern question appeared at the beginning of the 19th century. This is connected, first of all, with the policy of Alexander I. But later, both Nicholas I and Alexander II also had an interest in the Black Sea.

Relations with the Ottoman Empire were very difficult. Our interests collided not only in the area of ​​the Black Sea. The peoples controlled by the Ottoman Empire constantly asked the Russian Empire to protect their rights. For several centuries, Russia has carried out a lot of Turkish wars, which means that the topic of the Eastern Question has a long history.

Eastern Black Sea issue

Not so long ago, at the end of the XVIII century. Catherine II raised the question of dividing the Ottoman Empire. In general, the main idea of ​​her policy was to expel the Turks from the Balkans and restore Great Greece there. And that her second grandson Konstantin Pavlovich became its ruler. But this development did not happen. The Empress died, and Paul I did not even think of supporting this mother's idea. Moreover, he decided to make friends with the Ottomans, they fought together against France.

When his son Alexander I ascended the throne, he actively discussed the solution of the Eastern question with his friends from the Unspoken Committee. But for that period of time, it was not beneficial for Russia to quarrel with the Turks, so it was decided to postpone this issue for the time being. They decided to leave the empire alone. While the echoes of the French Revolution roamed Europe, Alexander and the Ottoman government maintained order in the Balkans and the Caucasus. It was a great decision.

At the same time, England and France wanted to divide the Ottoman Empire, many understood that it was living out its last days. And the European giants could not stand aside. Another stumbling block for Europe was that Russia's influence on Ottoman politics was growing. And they couldn't let that happen. Therefore, they sought to weaken the Russian Empire. For Russia, it was important to maintain its influence on the Balkan Peninsula. There were both political and economic reasons for this.

It was important for Russia to gain a foothold in the Black Sea region. Russia also sought to become the main custodian of Christian traditions, as well as to become the patroness of the Slavs. For successful trade, as well as in case of military operations of our empire, the Black Sea straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles were necessary. If we take it much more broadly, then the policy of the Eastern question extended to the Transcaucasus.

Eastern Georgian Question

Georgia has been under the influence of Russia since Catherine's reforms. The state suffered greatly from the invasion of the Persians. And at the turn of the XIX century. declared that she wanted to fully become part of the Russian Empire. Georgia needed Russian patronage in order to receive military protection. Pavel I signed a manifesto that Georgia joins Russia with special rights. And Alexander I continued his father's policy and also issued a manifesto on September 12, 1801. According to this document, the territory of Georgia became completely part of the Russian Empire. Thus, another part of the Eastern question was solved.

P.D. became the manager on the territory of Georgia. Tsitsianov. He dreamed of freeing all of Transcaucasia from the influence of the Ottoman Empire and attacks Persian power. And then unite all the lands under the auspices of Russia. He was a charismatic, purposeful person, so he managed to persuade many lands to come under the protection of Russia in a short period of time.

The Persians were very dissatisfied with such a large influence of Russia in Georgia. Therefore, in 1804 they put the question point-blank - Russia had to withdraw all troops from Georgia. This warning was ignored, so the Shah of Persia declared war on Russia. According to the Gulistan peace treaty, Persia recognized all the territorial acquisitions of Russia in the Transcaucasus. Thus, the annexation of these territories was completed.

Turkish War in the Eastern Question

Even before 1805, Russia and the Ottoman Empire actively cooperated. Straits in the Black Sea were open to Russian ships. But in 1806 the sultan abruptly changed his Political Views and the question arises of a war with Russia. The most interesting thing here is that the influence of Napoleonic France gradually increased in the eastern lands. And the Sultan, instigated by the French, abruptly changes his line of conduct. Thus began a new aggravation in the Eastern question.

Near Austerlitz in 1805 Russia was defeated by France. Thus, the Sultan expected to quickly defeat the Russian army. But successes in the war were variable. In 1812, Russia and Turkey signed the Treaty of Bucharest. Russia received the Black Sea straits in the Caucasus, and Serbia became independent.

This is only the beginning of the epic of the Eastern Question. Both Nicholas I and Alexander II were in constant confrontation with the Ottoman Empire. The last open confrontation took place in 1877-1878. and ended with the Peace of San Stefano.

Oriental question video

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 m. 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, seeking 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 due to the diversion of Russia's forces and attention to the Far East, and then 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 decomposition 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 ext. 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. This implies the erroneous statement of 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 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 in 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; "Economy of Turkey 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 the policy of Great Britain 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. Ansel. 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 works 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 .