Eastern Question
Eastern Question- these are the contradictions that existed in the 18th and early 20th centuries, the conflict of the great powers of Russia, Austria, Great Britain, France, and later Italy and Germany, associated with the division of the weakening Ottoman Empire (1299-1922).
Term "Eastern Question" was first used in 1822 at the Verona Congress of the Holy Alliance.
Reasons for the controversy:
Struggle for control of holy sites in Palestine
Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and rivalry between countries for its inheritance (Russia, Austria, Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany)
The struggle of Christian peoples within the Ottoman Empire for independence
From the history of the Eastern Question:
Eastern Question for Russia it was expressed in a desire to strengthen influence in the Black Sea, the Balkans, Transcaucasia and the Danube principalities.
Russia wanted to increase its influence in the Balkans in order to develop the southern lands and intensify foreign trade along the Black Sea.
Here, Russia's interests intersected with the interests of other countries: Iran, England, Austria, which did not want Russia to increase its influence in the Balkans.
Russia tried to play the role of defender of the Slavic peoples oppressed by Turkey, although the reasons were different. Türkiye also played the role of protector, but of Muslim peoples in Transcaucasia.
In 1801, Eastern Georgia was annexed to Russia, which itself asked for a protectorate and protection. This marked the beginning of strengthening Russia's position in Transcaucasia.
In 1803-1804, the rest of Georgia independently joined. The East Georgian railway, built in 1814, connected Transcaucasia with Russia. Russia traded with the Middle East through Tiflis (Tbilisi)
This led to a clash with Iran - the Russian-Iranian War (1804-1813) Peace of Gulistan: Iran recognized the annexation of most of Northern Azerbaijan to Russia during the war of 1804-1806.
Russo-Turkish wars
1806. Occasion: Türkiye removed the rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia from their posts in violation of previous treaties with Russia, according to which this had to be done jointly. In addition, it closed the Black Sea straits to Russian ships. Bottom line: complete defeat of the Turkish courts by D.N. Sinyavin and the ground forces by M.I. Kutuzov and signing in 1812 Bucharest Peace: Most of Bessarabia, except for the southern part, passed to Russia.
Since 1803, a series of Napoleonic wars began, the eastern question faded into the background.
In the 2nd quarter of the 19th century, the Eastern Question intensified again.
Reasons:
Decline of the once mighty Ottoman Empire
The growth of the national liberation movement of peoples under the yoke of Turkey
The struggle of European countries for the Turkish inheritance.
Russian-Iranian War 1826-1828 According to the Treaty of Turkmanchay, Eastern Armenia was annexed to Russia, Iran paid indemnity and could not keep its warships on the Caspian Sea.
1828-1829- war with Turkey. The Treaty of Andrianople, according to which Russia received strategically important territories.
From 1817-1864 - protracted Caucasian War, since Chechnya, Dagestan and Adygea resisted Russian influence.
Crimean War. Reason: a dispute over Palestinian shrines between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (who should own the keys to the Bethlehem Temple). Russia and France clashed over influence in the Middle East. The war is aggressive on both sides. England and France wanted to oust Russia from the shores of the Black Sea and Transcaucasia. Türkiye wanted to return everything lost. March 18, 1856 - Treaty of Paris. Russia lost the southern part of Bessarabia, Kars, and the Kars region. But Sevastopol and other Crimean cities were returned to her. Russia was deprived of the right to protect the interests of Orthodox peoples in Turkey, and also as a result of the neutrality of the Black Sea, Russia and Turkey did not have the right to the Black Sea military fleet and fortresses, and the straits became closed to all military vessels.
March 13, 1871 – London Conference. The 1856 treaty was no longer in force, Russia had the right to a fleet and fortresses, the security of the southern borders and influence in the Balkans were restored.
October 1873- " Union of Three Emperors"(Russia, Germany, Austria) - restoration of Russian influence on world politics. An opportunity arose to reach an agreement with Germany and Austria-Hungary on the Eastern Question.
1877-1878- war with Turkey. The Treaty of San Stefano strengthened Russia's position in the Balkans.
1878-Berlin congress. The revision of the terms of the San Stefano Peace is not in favor of Russia. Despite Russia's diplomatic defeat, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 became a decisive stage in resolving the Eastern Question, in the process of liberating the South Slavic peoples and creating national states; Turkish rule in the Balkans was dealt a mortal blow.
The end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century - the collapse of the Ottoman Empire became irreversible: 1878 - Cyprus passed to Great Britain, 1881 - Thessaly passed to Greece, 1885 - Eastern Rumelia was reunited with Bulgaria, 1908 - annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary, 1911-1912 - many territories of Turkey passed to Italy.
1912-1913- Balkan Wars. An alliance of countries was formed: Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro with the aim of dividing the lands of Turkey.
First Balkan War(1912): Türkiye lost Macedonia and all of Thrace.
Second Balkan War(1913): Türkiye regained part of Thrace, but Turkish dominance in southeastern Europe was ended.
1923 - formation of a modern state - the Turkish Republic after the division of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War.
Thus The Eastern Question includes 4 crises between European states:
1 crisis: 20s of the 19th century(national liberation war in Greece, the battle in the Bay of Navarino in 1826, the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the allied fleet of England, France and Russia, the weakening of oppression in Greece, the Turmanchay peace, the Adrianople peace, support by England and France for Turkey.
2 crisis: England and France refused to help Turkey to suppress the uprising in Egypt. Russia helped in 1833 A secret Russian-Turkish agreement was signed on Russia’s exclusive right to use the Black Sea straits.
3 crisis: Crimean War, Treaty of Paris, Russia is deprived of the right to have a fleet on the Black Sea, independence of Wallachia and Moldova.
The result of three crises: To 50-60 years of the XIX century an independent Greek and Romanian state, Serbian autonomy, was created; The territory of Bulgaria is divided between neighboring states.
4 crisis: Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878, Treaty of San Stefano: Montenegro, Serbia, Romania - independent; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria – autonomous; Russia received territories up to Bessarabia, part of the Turkish possessions (Kars, Ardahan, Batum) and indemnity;
Türkiye has lost the right to interfere in the affairs of its autonomous regions.
England, France, Greece, Austria-Hungary are not happy with the terms of the Peace of San Stefano.
1878 - Berlin Treaty(revision of peace terms in favor of Europe):
1) Gained independence - Serbia, Montenegro and Romania
2) Bulgaria is divided into 3 parts;
3) Expansion of Russian possessions in Transcaucasia;
4) secret articles according to which England and the Ottoman Empire shared power over Crete and jointly controlled the Mediterranean Sea;
5) Austria-Hungary - received permission to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina
Consequences:
1) 1879 - the Ottoman Empire declared its bankruptcy (since 1875, Türkiye could not pay interest on loans).
2) 1881 - “Public Administration of Ottoman Debt”: Europe created a charitable organization in Turkey to prevent it from going bankrupt, to carry out further reforms in the interests of Christians (these reforms disadvantaged Muslims).
Beginning and first quarter of the twentieth marked by the struggle of the Balkan states with each other and the Ottoman Empire, in which Europe and Russia intervened and the desire to create independent nation states.
Material prepared by: Melnikova Vera Aleksandrovna
The most difficult international problem of the second half of the 19th century. arose in connection with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. What will happen in its place? In diplomacy this problem is known as the "Eastern Question". The most difficult international problem of the second half of the 19th century. arose in connection with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. What will happen in its place? In diplomacy, this problem is known as the "Eastern Question".
By the end of the 18th century, it became clear that the once formidable state of the Ottoman Turks was falling into decay. Russia and Austria benefited most from this process in the 18th century. Austria conquered Hungary and Transylvania and penetrated the Balkans. Russia expanded its borders to the shores of the Black Sea, hoping to advance into the Mediterranean. Many Balkan peoples were Slavic brothers, the Bulgarians and Serbs were also brothers in faith, and the Russians considered their liberation a completely justified cause.
But by the 19th century, expelling the “Turk” was no longer so easy. All countries, including Austria and Russia, were hostile to revolutions against the established order and were concerned about the possibility of the complete collapse of the Turkish state. Britain and France, which had their own interests in the region, sought to prevent Russian expansion, fearing that the liberated Slavs might become Russian satellites. However, public opinion was outraged by the frequent massacres committed by the Turks, and Western governments found it difficult to support the Sultan. The situation was complicated by growing unrest among the Balkan peoples. Lacking sufficient strength to expel the Turks themselves, they might well have created a crisis that would have required international intervention.
Revolt in Greece
Initially, such a crisis arose in connection with the uprising in Greece in 1821. Public support for the Greeks and reports of Turkish atrocities forced the West to act. When the Sultan refused to accept the solution to the problem imposed on him, an Anglo-French-Russian expedition destroyed the Egyptian and Turkish fleets at the Battle of Navarino (1827), and the Russian invasion (1828-29) forced the Turks to submit. According to the treaty signed in London in 1830, Greece was recognized as an independent kingdom. Three other Balkan provinces - Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia - received autonomy (self-government) within the Ottoman Empire.
In the 30s of the 19th century, the Ottoman Middle Eastern possessions found themselves at the center of the Eastern Question. Egyptian ruler Mehmet Ali retook Syria from the Ottoman Empire (its nominal overlord), but British intervention restored the status quo. In the course of events, another important issue arose - the right to passage through the Turkish-controlled Bosporus and Dardanelles narrow straits, connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean. An international agreement (the Straits Convention of 1841) provided that no state had the right to conduct its warships through the straits while Türkiye was in a state of peace. Russia increasingly opposed this restriction. But it continued to operate until 1923.
Since the mid-19th century, Russia twice waged victorious wars against Turkey, imposing strict terms on agreements, but other European powers forced their revision. This was first done during the Peace of Paris in 1856, after the Crimean War (1854-56), in which Russia was defeated by Britain and France. A second agreement was reached at the Berlin Congress (1878) after a general conflict had narrowly been avoided. However, the great powers were only able to slow down the formation of the Balkan states, which, moving from autonomy to independence, sometimes defied the agreements adopted at international congresses. Thus, in 1862, Wallachia and Moldavia united, forming the Romanian Principality, the full independence of which was recognized in 1878 simultaneously with the independence of Serbia. Although the Berlin Congress envisaged the formation of two Bulgarian states, they united (1886) and eventually achieved complete independence (1908).
Balkanization
By that time, it became clear that Turkish possessions in the Balkans would disintegrate into several separate states. This process made such an impression on politicians that any comparable fragmentation of a large state is still called balkanization. In a sense, the Eastern Question was resolved after the First Balkan War (1912), when Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece entered into an alliance to expel the Turks from Macedonia, leaving only a patch of land under their rule in Europe. The borders were redrawn. A new state appeared - Albania. "Balkanization" is over. But the region was no closer to stability, and the fragmentation of the Balkans pushed the great powers into intrigue. Both Austria and Russia were deeply involved in them, since Austria-Hungary absorbed the Serbian-Croatian provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in two stages (1878, 1908). Over time, Serbian outrage would serve as the spark that would ignite World War I of 1914-18, causing the fall of the Austrian, Russian and Ottoman empires. But even after this, as the Yugoslav events of the 1990s showed, the Balkan contradictions were not resolved.
KEY DATES
1821 Beginning of the Greek uprising
1827 Battle of Navarino
1830 Recognition of Greek independence
1841 London Straits Convention
1854-56 Crimean War
1862 Formation of Romania
1878 Berlin Congress decides to create two Bulgarian states. Independence of Serbia and Romania. Austria gains the right to govern Bosnia and Herzegovina
1886 Unification of two provinces to form Bulgaria
1908 Bulgaria becomes independent. Austria annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina
1912 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914 The assassination of the Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo leads to World War I
Reasons
CRIMINAL WAR (1853–1856), war between Russia and the coalition of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, France and Sardinia for dominance in the Middle East.
The war was caused by Russia's expansionist plans towards the rapidly weakening Ottoman Empire. Emperor Nicholas I (1825–1855) tried to take advantage of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples to establish control over the Balkan Peninsula and the strategically important Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. These plans threatened the interests of the leading European powers - Great Britain and France, which were constantly expanding their sphere of influence in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Austria, which was seeking to establish its hegemony in the Balkans. The reason for the war was the conflict between Russia and France associated with the dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic churches over the right of guardianship over the holy places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, which were in Turkish possessions. The growth of French influence at the Sultan's court caused concern in St. Petersburg. In January-February 1853, Nicholas I invited Great Britain to agree on the division of the Ottoman Empire; however, the British government preferred an alliance with France. During his mission to Istanbul in February-May 1853, the Tsar's special representative, Prince A. S. Menshikov, demanded that the Sultan agree to a Russian protectorate over the entire Orthodox population in his possessions, but he, with the support of Great Britain and France, refused. On June 21 (July 3) Russian troops crossed the river. Prut and entered the Danube principalities (Moldova and Wallachia); The Turks made a strong protest. Austria's attempt to achieve a compromise agreement between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in July 1853 was rejected by the Sultan. On September 2 (14), the combined Anglo-French squadron approached the Dardanelles. On September 22 (October 4), the Turkish government declared war on Russia. In October, Turkish troops tried to gain a foothold on the left bank of the Danube, but were driven out by General P. A. Dannenberg. On October 11 (23), English and French ships dropped anchor on the Bosphorus. On November 18 (30), P. S. Nakhimov destroyed the Turkish fleet in Sinop Bay. A separate Caucasian corps under the command of V. O. Bebutov stopped the advance of the Ottoman army on Tiflis and, moving hostilities to Turkish territory, defeated it on November 19 (December 1) in the battle of Bashkadyklar (east of Kars). In response, the Anglo-French squadron entered the Black Sea on December 23, 1853 (January 4, 1854) to impede the operations of the Russian fleet. It consisted almost entirely of steam ships with screw engines; The Russians had only a small number of such ships. The Black Sea Fleet, unable to confront the allies on an equal footing, was forced to take refuge in the Sevastopol Bay.
The result of the war was the weakening of Russia's maritime power and its influence in Europe and the Middle East. The positions of Great Britain and France in the Eastern Mediterranean have strengthened significantly; France has emerged as a leading power on the European continent. At the same time, Austria, although it managed to oust Russia from the Balkans, lost its main ally in the inevitable future clash with the Franco-Sardinian bloc; thus the way was opened for the unification of Italy under the rule of the Savoy dynasty. As for the Ottoman Empire, its dependence on Western powers increased even more.
The Eastern Question is the question of the fate of Turkey, the fate of the peoples enslaved by it and who fought for their national independence in the Balkans, Africa and Asia, as well as the attitude of European powers to these fates and the international contradictions that arose.
By the end of the 16th century, the Turkish Empire reached its greatest power, based on territorial conquests and feudal plunder of enslaved peoples. However, already at the beginning of the 17th century, the process of Turkey losing its conquered lands and the decline of its power began.
The reasons for this process lay in the growth of the economic influence of large landowners-feudal lords in connection with the development of commodity-money relations in Turkey; this led to a weakening of the military power of the Turkish state, to feudal fragmentation and to increased exploitation of the working masses of enslaved peoples.
The emergence of capitalism in Turkey, which began in the mid-18th century, only accelerated this process. The peoples enslaved by Turkey began to form into nations and began to fight for their national liberation; The unbearable exploitation of the working masses of the Turkish Empire delayed the capitalist development of the peoples subject to Turkey and strengthened their desire for national liberation.
Economic stagnation and degradation, the inability to overcome feudal fragmentation and create a centralized state, the national liberation struggle of the peoples subject to Turkey, and the aggravation of internal social contradictions led the Turkish Empire to the collapse and weakening of its international positions.
The ever-increasing weakening of Turkey fueled the aggressive appetites of the major European powers. Türkiye was a profitable market and source of raw materials; in addition, it was of great strategic importance, being located at the junction of routes between Europe, Asia and Africa. Therefore, each of the “great” European powers sought to snatch for themselves more from the inheritance of the “sick man” (as Turkey began to be called in 1839).
The struggle of Western European powers for economic and political dominance in the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire began in the 17th century and continued in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Towards the end of the third quarter of the 19th century, a new struggle began between the European powers, called the “Eastern Crisis”.
The Eastern Crisis arose as a result of the armed uprising of the Slavic population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1875-1876) against the Turkish oppressors. This uprising, which was anti-feudal in nature, was a progressive national liberation struggle of the Slavic people against backward and wild Turkish feudalism.
What was the position of the main European powers during the Eastern crisis?
Germany hoped to use the eastern crisis to weaken Russia and gain freedom of action in relation to France. Defeated by Prussia in 1871, it quickly recovered and revanchist sentiments grew within it. Bourgeois-Junker Germany looked with alarm at the revival of the power of France and made plans for its new defeat. For Germany, this was possible only on the condition that not a single European power would intervene in a new Franco-German war on the side of France; in this regard, she could most of all fear Russian interference that would be unfavorable to her. The German Reich Chancellor Bismarck hoped to achieve the weakening of Russia by dragging it into a war with Turkey; At the same time, Bismarck sought to pit Russia in the Balkans against Austria-Hungary and thus finally tie Russia up and deprive it of the opportunity to support France.
In Austria-Hungary, the military-clerical German party, led by Emperor Franz Joseph, hoped to use the Bosno-Herzegovinian uprising to seize Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which it was secretly encouraged by Germany. The seizure was thought of as an amicable deal with the Russian Tsar, since Austria-Hungary at that time did not consider it possible for itself to fight. At the beginning of the eastern crisis, Austro-Hungarian government circles even believed that it was necessary to extinguish the uprising and thereby eliminate the crisis.
Russia, weakened by the Crimean War and not yet fully recovered from its consequences, at the beginning of the eastern crisis was forced to limit itself, caring only about maintaining its positions in the Balkans and maintaining its prestige among the Balkan Slavs. The tsarist government tried to help the rebels, but did not want to get involved in any actions that could involve Russia in the war. This led to the fact that the Russian government was ready to take the initiative to provide assistance to the rebels, but only in agreement with other powers.
The British government, led by Prime Minister Disraeli, sought to take advantage of Russia's difficult situation to further weaken it. Disraeli understood that only weakness forced the Russian government to limit itself in its aggressive goals in relation to Turkey and that the tsarist government considered such a limitation as a temporary measure.
In order to deprive Russia of the opportunity to conduct an active policy in the Balkans, Disraeli adopted a plan to pit Russia in a war with Turkey, and, if possible, with Austria-Hungary. According to Disraeli, such a war would weaken all its participants, which would give England freedom of action to carry out aggressive plans in Turkey, would eliminate any threat to England from Russia in Central Asia, where Russia was already approaching the borders of India, and in the Balkans, where England feared Russia's seizure of the Black Sea straits. Disraeli began to unleash a war between Russia and Turkey under the hypocritical slogan of non-interference in Balkan affairs.
This was the international balance of power of the European powers at the beginning of the Eastern crisis.
The first steps of the European powers still showed hope for a peaceful settlement of the eastern crisis. The Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Andrássy, on the initiative of Russia and according to a project agreed upon with it, on December 30, 1875, presented a note to all major European powers. Its essence was to eliminate the uprising with the help of modest administrative reforms for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The powers agreed with the proposals of the note and, through their ambassadors, began to seek Turkey to comply with the demands proposed by the note. In February 1876, Sultan Abdul Aziz agreed to the note's demands. It would seem that the Eastern crisis, having barely begun, ends.
But then British diplomacy came onto the scene. The peaceful resolution of the eastern crisis did not suit her.
The closest obstacle to the deepening of the crisis was Sultan Abdul Aziz himself and his Russophile cabinet, headed by Mahmud Nedim Pasha. As a result of a palace coup organized by the English ambassador to Turkey, Elliot, Murad V was elevated to the Sultan's throne.
Meanwhile, the heroic struggle of the Bosniaks and Herzegovinians accelerated the open action of Serbia and Montenegro. At the end of June 1876, Serbia declared war on Turkey. The successful fight of 13-14 thousand Bosno-Herzegovinian rebels against the 35 thousand-strong Turkish army also gave hope for a successful outcome of the Serbo-Turkish war. In order to be ready to meet any outcome of this war and not be drawn into it, the Russian government decided to reach an agreement in advance with Austria-Hungary for all possible cases.
On this basis, the Reichstadt Agreement was born, concluded on July 8, 1876 between Alexander II and the Russian Chancellor Gorchakov, on the one hand, and Franz Joseph and Andrássy, on the other.
The first option, designed to defeat Serbia, provided only for the implementation of the reforms outlined in Andrássy’s note in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The second option, designed for a Serbian victory, provided for an increase in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and some annexations for Austria-Hungary at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina; According to this option, Russia received Batumi and the part of Bessarabia seized after the Crimean War was returned. The third version of the agreement, designed for the complete collapse of Turkey and its ousting from Europe, provided, in addition to the measures under the second option, also the creation of an autonomous or independent Bulgaria, some strengthening of Greece and, presumably, the declaration of Constantinople as a free city.
Meanwhile, hopes for a successful outcome of the war for Serbia were not justified. The Serbian army suffered a number of setbacks, and already on August 26, the Serbian prince Milan asked the powers for mediation in order to end the war. The powers agreed and turned to Turkey with a request to inform on what conditions peace could be granted to Serbia; Officially, England also participated in this, but unofficially it prompted Turkey to present Serbia with conditions for concluding peace that were completely unacceptable to the latter.
In response to this, the powers instructed England to achieve a month-long truce from Turkey. Disraeli could not openly refuse to carry out this order. Gladstone, who led the opposition in England against Disraeli's policies, developed a hypocritical campaign in England against the tyranny and savage Turkish atrocities that prevailed in Turkey and managed on this basis to make political capital for himself - to turn public opinion in England against Disraeli. To calm minds and reconcile the English public with Turkey, Disraeli came up with a new move: he decided to make Turkey at least fictitiously constitutional.
At the direction of the English ambassador, a new palace coup was organized, Murad V was overthrown and a new Sultan, Abdul Hamid, was installed in his place, who was a supporter of England and did not formally object to the proclamation of the constitution.
Following this, Disraeli, who had already received the title of Lord and was called Beaconsfield, fulfilling the instructions of the powers, officially proposed to Turkey to make peace with Serbia on the basis of the situation that existed before the war; at the same time, English diplomats conveyed secret “friendly advice” to the new sultan to put an end to Serbia.
Abdul Hamid followed this advice. At Djunis, the poorly prepared Serbian army was defeated. She was in danger of death.
In this situation, the tsarist government could not help but act in favor of Serbia, without risking forever losing its influence in the Balkans. On October 31, Russia presented Turkey with an ultimatum to announce a truce with Serbia within 48 hours. The Sultan was not prepared by his English prompters for such a move, was confused and on November 2 accepted the demand for an ultimatum.
Beaconsfield rattled his weapons and made a warlike speech. All this sounded menacing, but in essence England was not ready for a land war. The Russian government understood this and did not back down. Moreover, Alexander II, incited by a militant court party, led by his brother Nikolai Nikolaevich and son Alexander Alexandrovich, on November 13 gave the order to mobilize twenty infantry and seven cavalry divisions. After this, Russia could no longer renounce its demands on Turkey without loss of prestige, even if the latter did not fulfill them.
To be sure to push Russia into a war with Turkey, Beaconsfield proposed gathering ambassadors of the six powers in Constantinople and once again trying to agree on a “peaceful” settlement of the eastern crisis, peace between Serbia and Turkey, and reforms for the Balkan Slavs.
The conference of ambassadors worked out the conditions for ending the eastern crisis and on December 23 were supposed to present these conditions to the Sultan.
However, on December 23, a representative of the Sultan’s government, amid cannon salutes, announced at the conference that the Sultan had granted a constitution to all his citizens and that in connection with this, all the conditions worked out by the conference became unnecessary.
This statement by the Sultan's minister, inspired by British diplomats, clearly provoked Russia into war with Turkey. For the majority of the Russian government, it became increasingly clear that war could not be avoided. By that time, a new agreement had been concluded with Austria-Hungary in Budapest, this time in case of war between Russia and Turkey. This agreement was less beneficial for Russia than the Reichstadt one. Russia was forced to agree to the occupation of almost all of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary and promised not to create a strong Slavic state in the Balkans. In return, tsarism received only the “friendly” and unreliable neutrality of Austria-Hungary.
Although Türkiye made peace with Serbia on February 28, 1877, the war with Montenegro continued. The threat of defeat hung over her. This circumstance, together with the failure of the Constantinople Conference, pushed Tsarist Russia to war with Turkey; however, the disadvantage of the Budapest Convention was so obvious that hesitation arose in the tsarist government; there were even opinions about the need to make concessions to Turkey and demobilize the army.
In the end, a decision was made: not to demobilize the army and make another attempt to come to an agreement with the Western European powers for joint influence on Turkey.
As a result of this attempt, the so-called “London” proposals were born, which demanded from Turkey even more limited reforms for the Slavic peoples than before.
On April 11, these proposals, at the instigation of Beaconsfield, were rejected, and on April 24, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey.
So, the English government managed to achieve its immediate goal in using the eastern crisis: to push Russia into a war with Turkey. Germany also achieved its immediate goal, forcing Austria-Hungary to take direct part in resolving the Eastern Question; in the future there was a possible clash between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans.
It would be completely wrong to attribute the entire success of British and German foreign policy in fomenting the Eastern crisis only to Beaconsfield and Bismarck. They, of course, played an important role, but the main reason for the success of England and Germany was the economic and political backwardness of Tsarist Russia.
THE EASTERN QUESTION
conditional, accepted in diplomacy and history. lit-re, international designation. contradictions con. 18 - beginning 20 centuries associated with the emerging collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Turkey) and the struggle of the great powers (Austria (from 1867 - Austria-Hungary), Great Britain, Prussia (from 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 the national liberation. the movement of the Balkan and other non-Turkish peoples of the empire, on the other hand - strengthening in the Bl. East of European colonial expansion. state in connection with the development of capitalism in them.
The term itself "V. v." 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 the end. 18th century before the Crimean War 1853-56. It is characterized by preem. the predominant role of Russia in the 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 shores of the Black Sea. At the same time, Russia achieved bargaining. fleet the right of passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles (see Kuchuk-Kainardzhiysky peace of 1774), as well as for its military. ships (see Russian-Turkish alliance treaties of 1799 and 1805). Autonomy of Serbia (1829), limitation of the Sultan's power over Moldavia and Wallachia (1829), independence of Greece (1830), as well as the closure of the Dardanelles to the military. foreign ships state (except for Russia; see Unkyar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833) means. least were the results of Russian successes. weapons. Despite the aggressive goals that tsarism pursued 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 Turkey.
Russia's expansionist interests collided in Bl. East with the expansion of other European countries. powers At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. Ch. The post-revolutionary tried to play a role here. France. In order to conquer the east. markets and crushing the colonial dominance of Great Britain The Directory and then Napoleon I sought territorial control. seizures 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 of 1798-1801)) explains Turkey’s conclusion of an alliance with Russia 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 division of the Ottoman Empire. New exacerbation of V. v. was caused by the Greek uprising in 1821 against the Turks. dominion and growing 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 political and diplomatic relations. successes of tsarism in V. century. However, pressure from Great Britain and Austria, who sought to eliminate the predominant influence of Russia in the Ottoman Empire, and especially the desire of Nicholas I to be political. The isolation of France resulted in a rapprochement between Russia and Great Britain on the basis of the Great Patriotic War. and the conclusion of the London Conventions of 1840 and 1841, which actually meant diplomatic. victory for Great Britain. The Tsarist government agreed to abolish the Unkar-Iskeles 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 Bosporus and Dardanelles to foreigners. military ships, including Russian ones.
Second period of V. century. opens with the Crimean War of 1853-56 and ends at the end. 19th century At this time, the interest of Great Britain, France and Austria in the Ottoman Empire, as a source of colonial raw materials and a market for industrial products, increased even more. goods. Expansionist policy of Western Europe. states, under convenient circumstances, torn off its outlying territories from Turkey (the seizure of Cyprus in 1878 by Great Britain and Egypt in 1882, the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1878 and Tunisia in 1881 by France), were 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 English. and French the capital of monopoly domination over Turkey, the elimination of Russian influence in the Balkan Peninsula and the closure of the Black Sea straits for Russians. military ships. At the same time, the Western-European The powers of the course delayed the elimination of the historically outdated domination of the Tur. feudal lords over the peoples under their control. The Crimean War of 1853-56 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 contributed to the strengthening of the position of the British. and French capital in the Ottoman Empire and its transformation into con. 19th century to a semi-colonial country. At the same time, the revealed weakness of Russia in comparison with the capitalist. gos-you Zap. Europe determined the decline of tsarism's influence in international affairs. affairs, including in V. v. This was clearly manifested in the decisions of the Berlin Congress of 1878, when, after winning the war with Turkey, the tsarist government was forced to revise the San Stefano Peace Treaty of 1878. Nevertheless, the creation of a unified 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 Bulgaria. people from tour. oppression (1878) was the result of Russia's victory in the war with Turkey of 1877-73. Austria-Hungary's desire for economic and political hegemony in the Balkan Peninsula, where the paths of expansion of the Habsburg monarchy and Tsarist Russia crossed, caused since the 70s. 19th century growth of Austro-Russian antagonism in V. century.
Advance at the end 19th century The era of imperialism opens the third period of the century. In connection with the completion of the division of the world, new extensive markets for the export of capital and goods, new sources of colonial raw materials appeared, and new centers of world conflicts arose - in the Far East, in Lat. America, in the Center. and Sev. Africa and other regions of the globe, which led to a decrease in the share of V. in. in the system of contradictions in Europe. powers Nevertheless, the unevenness and spasmodic development of departments inherent in imperialism. capitalist countries and the struggle for the redivision of an already divided world led to an intensification of rivalry between them in the semi-colonies, including in Turkey, which was also manifested in the First Century. Germany developed a particularly rapid expansion, managing to displace Great Britain, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary in the Ottoman Empire. Construction of the Baghdad Railway and subordination of the ruling Tur. the elite led by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, and somewhat later the Young Turk military-political. influence of Germany The imperialists ensured the 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 intensification of the aggressive policy of Austria-Hungary in the Balkan Peninsula (the desire to annex territories inhabited by South Slavic peoples and to gain access to the Aegean region), based on the support of Germany (see Bosnian crisis of 1908- 09), led to extreme tension in Austro-Russian. relationships. However, the royal government, putting it aside. 19th century implementation of their invaders. plans in V. century, adhered to a wait-and-see and cautious course. This was explained by the diversion of Russia's forces and attention to the D. East, and then the weakening of tsarism due to defeat in the war with Japan and especially thanks to the first Russian. revolution 1905-07. The growth of contradictions in V. century. in the era of imperialism and the expansion of its territories. framework was facilitated by 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, European intervention. powers in internal affairs of Turkey. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the progressive result of which was the liberation of Macedonia, Albania and Greece. islands of the Aegean m. from the tour. oppression, at the same time testified to the extreme aggravation of V. century.
Turkey's participation in World War I on the side of the German-Austrian side. block determined the onset of critical phases V. v. As a result of defeats on the fronts, the Ottoman Empire lost b. including its territory. At the same time, during the war, Germany. the imperialists turned the Ottoman Empire “... into their financial and military vassal” (Lenin V.I., Soch., vol. 23, p. 172). Secret agreements concluded during the war between the Entente participants (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.
Plans and calculations of the imperialists in V. century. destroyed the victory in Russia Vel. Oct. socialist revolution. Sov. The government decisively broke with the policies of tsarism and canceled the secret agreements signed by the tsar and the Time. pr-you, including treaties and agreements concerning the Ottoman Empire. Oct. The revolution gave a powerful impetus to national liberation. the struggle of the peoples of the East and among them - the struggle of the tour. people. Victory will liberate the nation. movements in Turkey in 1919-22 and the collapse of the anti-Turkish movement. imperialistic Entente interventions were achieved with moral and political and material support from the Sov. Russia. On the ruins of the former multinational The Ottoman Empire formed a national bourgeoisie. tour. state So, new history. era opened Oct. revolution, forever removed V. century. from the arena of world politics.
Literary literature about V. century. very big. There is not a single consolidated 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, to a greater or lesser extent, the history of history would not have been affected. In addition, there is extensive scientific research. and journalistic literature devoted to various aspects and periods of the century. or covering certain events related to V. century. (primarily about the problem of the straits and the Russian-Turkish wars of the 18-19 centuries). Nevertheless, generalizing studies about V. century. extremely little, which is to a certain extent 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 characteristics of 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 Works, 2nd ed., vols. 9, 10, 11; 1st ed., vols. 15, 24). Marx and Engels spoke out in them with a consistently internationalist approach. 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 denounced politics in the Middle Ages with particular force. English bourgeois-aristocratic oligarchy led by G. J. T. Palmerston, determined by aggressive aspirations in Bl. East. The best resolution V. v. 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 only be achieved as a result of a European victory. revolution (see Works, 2nd ed., vol. 9, pp. 33, 35, 219).
Marxist understanding of V. century. in relation to the period of imperialism, 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 the Serbian-Bulgian victories”, “Baltic war and bourgeois chauvinism”, “The Awakening of Asia” , “Under a False Flag,” “On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” etc.) Lenin characterized the process of transforming the Ottoman Empire into an imperialist semi-colony. powers and their predatory policies in Bl. East. At the same time, Lenin supported all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, including the Turks. people, the inalienable right to liberation from imperialism. bondage and feud. dependence and self-reliance. existence.
In Sov. ist. science V. v. widely interpreted in many ways. research by M. N. Pokrovsky about external Russian politics and international relations of modern times (“Imperialistic 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 Middle Ages. But, attributing bargaining. capital has a decisive role in foreign affairs. and internal politics of Russia, Pokrovsky reduced the policy of tsarism to V. century. to the desire of the Russian landowners and the bourgeoisie to achieve possession of the bargaining. way through the Black Sea straits. At the same time, he exaggerated the importance 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 main the cause of the 1st World War of 1914-18, and the tsarist government considers the main culprit of its outbreak. This implies Pokrovsky’s erroneous statement that in Aug.-Oct. 1914 Russia allegedly sought to drag the Ottoman Empire into the world war on the side of the Central Europeans. powers
Represent scientific value based on unpublished documents by 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 secret documents of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", (vol.) 1, 1925, pp. 7 - 151); Y. M. Zahera (“On the history of Russian politics on the issue of the straits during 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 issue of Constantinople and the straits during the Tripolitan War", "Izvestia Leningrad" . state pedagogical institute named after A. I. Herzen", 1928, v. 1, pp. 41-53); M. A. Petrova “Russia’s preparation for a world war at sea” (1926) and V. M. Khvostova “Problems of capturing the Bosphorus in the 90s of the 19th century.” ("Marxist Historian", 1930, vol. 20, pp. 100-129), dedicated 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 this operation, as well as the policy of Europe. powers in V. century. on the eve and during the 1st World War. A condensed overview of the history of the century, based on a document. sources, contained in the articles of E. A. Adamov (“On the question of historical prospects for the development of the Eastern Question,” in the book: “Colonial East,” edited by A. Sultan-Zade, 1924, pp. 15-37; “ Section Asian. Turkey", in collection of documents: "Section Asian. Turkey. According to secret documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs", edited by E. A. Adamov, 1924, pp. 5-101 ). A deep analysis of the imperialist struggle. powers in V. century. in the end 19th century contained in the article by V. M. Khvostov “The Middle East Crisis of 1895-1897.” ("Marxist Historian", 1929, vol. 13), in the monographs of A. S. Yerusalimsky "Foreign policy and diplomacy of German imperialism in the late 19th century." (2nd ed., 1951) and G.L. Bondarevsky “The Baghdad Road and the penetration of German imperialism into the Middle East. 1888-1903” (1955). Capitalist politics state in V. in. in the 19th century and at the beginning 20th century studied in the works of A.D. Novichev ("Essays on the Economy of Turkey before the World War", 1937; "Economy of Turkey during the World War", 1935). Based on the use of extensive materials, including archival documents, the predatory goals and methods of foreign penetration into the Ottoman Empire are revealed. capital, conflicting monopoly interests. groups of different countries, characterized by the enslavement of Turkey by the German-Austrian. imperialists during the 1st World War. European politics powers in V. century. in the 20s 19th century A monograph based on archival materials is devoted to 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 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. MSU", tr. 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 “Russia’s Role in the Greek Struggle for Independence” (VI, 1949, No. 8). In the mentioned study by A.V. Fadeev and in other work by the same author (“Russia and the Caucasus in the first third of the 19th century,” 1960), an attempt was made to broadly interpret the century, as including also political. and economical problems Wed. East and Caucasus.
The politics of Russia and France in V. century. at 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 sides V. v. can be found in the corresponding sections of "History of Diplomacy", vol. 1, 2nd ed., 1959, vol. 2, 1945.
Witty and political. topicality of V. in int. relations of modern times have left a strong imprint on the research of bourgeois. scientists. In their works, the interests of the ruling classes of that country, to which this or that historian belongs, clearly appear. Specialist. the study "Eastern Question" was written by S. M. Solovyov (collected works, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 903-48). Considering the most important factor is history. development of geographical environment, Soloviev formulates V. century. as a manifestation of the primordial struggle of Europe, to which he also includes Russia, with Asia, the sea coast and forests with the steppe. Hence his justification of the aggressive policy of tsarism in the East, which, in his opinion, is based on the process of colonization of the southern Russians. districts, "fight against Asians", "offensive movement towards Asia". In apologetic spirit illuminated the policy of tsarism in the East century. in the monograph by S. M. Goryainov “Bosphorus and Dardanelles” (1907), covering the period from the end. 18th century to 1878 and maintaining its scientific. value due to the extensive use of archival documents.
The unfinished publication of R. P. Martens “Collected treaties and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers” (vol. 1-15, 1874-1909), although it does not contain treaties between Russia and Turkey, does include a number of international ones. agreements directly related to V. century. History is also of scientific interest. introductions that precede most published documents. Some of these introductions, based on archival sources, contain valuable material on the history of the century. in the end 18th century and in the 1st half. 19th century
Aggressive and anti-Russian. course in V.V. British English diplomacy historians (J. Marriott, A. Toynbee, W. Miller) justify their trades by the needs of Great Britain to protect their 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. This is how V. views it. J. A. R. Marriot, "The Eastern Question", 4 ed., 1940), trying to present British policy as invariably defensive. and pro-Turkish.
For French bourgeois Historiography is characterized by the justification of the “civilizing” and “cultural” mission of France in the Bl. East, which it seeks to cover up the expansionist goals pursued in the East. French capital. Attaching great importance to the law of religions acquired by France. protectorate over the Catholic subjects of the Sultan, French. historians (E. Driot. J. Ancel. G. Anotot, L. Lamouche) in every possible way extol the activities of Catholic missionaries in the Ottoman Empire, especially. in Syria and Palestine. This tendency 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 East. and portraying it as the creation of the supposedly dominant Pan-Slavists in Russia, at the same time they are trying to whitewash the annexationist actions and 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. Widespread involvement of Russians. Literatures and sources, including Sov. publications of documents, is used by him for one-sided coverage of Russian policy in V. century. and frank justification for anti-slavs. and anti-Russian. politics of Austria (in the later period of Austria-Hungary) (N. Uebersberger, "Russlands Orientpolitik in den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten", 1913; his, "Das Dardanellenproblem als russische Schicksalsfrage", 1930; his, "Österreich zwischen Russland und Serbien" , 1958).
The majority of Germany adheres to a similar point of view. bourgeois scientists (G. Franz, G. Herzfeld, H. Holborn, O. Brandenburg) who claim that it was Russia’s policy in the East. caused the 1st World War. So, G. Franz believes that Ch. The reason for this war was the desire of tsarism to possess the Black Sea straits. It ignores the germ support value. imperialism of the Balkan policy of Austria-Hungary, denies the existence of independence in the Kaiser's Germany. 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 examines V. century. will exclude. from the point of view of foreign policy. conditions of Turkey 18-20 centuries. Guided by his extremely chauvinistic. concept of historical process, tour historians deny the existence of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. oppression. The fight is non-tour. peoples for their independence they explain by the inspiration of Europe. powers Falsifying historical facts, tour historians (Yu. X. Bayur, I. X. Uzuncharshyly, E. Urash, A. B. Kuran, etc.) 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 socio-economic. and cultural development of the Balkan peoples. Based on this falsification, the tour. official historiography makes a false, ahistorical. the conclusion is that the wars waged by Sultan Türkiye in the 18th-20th centuries were supposedly purely defensive. character for the Ottoman Empire and aggressive for Europe. Powers
Publ.: Yuzefovich T., Treaties between Russia and the East, St. Petersburg, 1869; Sat. treaties between Russia and 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 Asian Turkey. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. E. A. Adamova, M., 1924; Three meetings, preface. M. Pokrovsky, "Bulletin of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs", 1919, No. 1, p. 12-44; From the archivist's notebook. Note by A.I. Nelidov in 1882 on the occupation of the straits, preface. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, t. 3(46), p. 179-87; Project for the capture of the Bosphorus in 1896, preface. V. M. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, t. 4-5 (47-48), p. 50-70; Project for the capture of the Bosphorus in 1897, "KA", 1922, vol. 1, p. 152-62; The tsarist government on the problem of the straits in 1898-1911, preface. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1933, t. 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. S. Hurewitz, N. Y. - L. - Toronto. 1956.
Lit. (except as 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-Kainardzhisky peace of 1774 (its preparation and conclusion), M., 1955; Ulyanitsky V. A., Dardanelles, Bosphorus and Black Sea in the 18th century. Essays on diplomacy. history of the east 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 the literature under the article Black Sea Straits).
A. S. Silin. Leningrad.
Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .
a complex of international conflicts of the late 18th and early 20th centuries associated with the struggle of the Balkan peoples against the Turkish yoke and with the rivalry of the great powers (Russia, Austria, Great Britain, France, and later Italy and Germany) for the division of the weakening Ottoman Empire (Turkey).
In the middle of the 17th century. The Ottoman Empire entered a period of deep domestic and foreign political crisis. After the defeat of the Turks by the Austrians and Poles near Vienna in 1683, their advance into Europe was stopped. At the end of the 17th-18th century. Türkiye suffered a number of serious defeats in wars with Austria, Venice, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia. Its weakening contributed to the rise of the national liberation movement of the Balkan peoples (Moldavians, Vlachs, Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, Greeks), most of them Orthodox. On the other hand, in the 18th century. In the Ottoman Empire, the political and economic positions of France and Great Britain strengthened, which, wanting to maintain their influence and prevent the territorial acquisitions of other powers (especially Austria and Russia), began to advocate for the preservation of its territorial integrity and against the liberation of the conquered Christian peoples.
From the middle of the 18th century. The role of the main enemy of the Ottoman Empire passed from Austria to Russia. Its victory in the Russian-Turkish war of 1768–1774 led to a radical change in the situation in the Black Sea basin. Under the terms of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Peace of 1774, Russia finally established itself on the northern coast of the Black Sea and received the right of protectorate over the Christian population of Turkey; The Danube principalities (Moldova, Wallachia, Bessarabia) gained internal autonomy; The dependence of the Crimean Khanate on the Turkish Sultan was eliminated. In 1783 Russia annexed Crimea and Kuban. The sharp weakening of the Ottoman Empire created the conditions for Russia to enter the Mediterranean Sea and for the elimination of Turkish domination in the Balkans. The Eastern Question the question of the fate of the Turkish inheritance and the Christian Balkan peoples came to the forefront of European politics: realizing the inevitability of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the largest European states Russia, Great Britain, France and Austria intensified their intervention in the affairs of the Eastern Mediterranean.
In the 1780s and the first half of the 1790s, an intense diplomatic struggle unfolded between the Austro-Russian bloc, which sought to speed up the process of dismemberment of Turkey, with Great Britain and (until 1789) France, which tried to maintain the status quo in the Balkans. Catherine II (1762-1796) put forward a project for the complete expulsion of the Turks from Europe, the restoration of the Greek (Byzantine) Empire (she planned to elevate her grandson Konstantin Pavlovich to its throne), the transfer of the western part of the Balkan Peninsula to Austria and the creation of a buffer state of Dacia from the Danube 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 (Russian-Turkish War of 1787-1791), on whose side Austria came out in 1788. In 1788, Anglo-French diplomacy managed to provoke an attack on Russia by Sweden (Russian-Swedish War of 1788–1790). But the actions of the anti-Russian coalition were unsuccessful: in 1790 Sweden withdrew from the war (the Peace of Verel), and in 1791 Turkey had to agree to the conclusion of the Treaty of Jassy, which confirmed the terms of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Treaty and pushed the Russian-Turkish border to the Dniester; The Porte renounced its claims to Georgia and recognized the right of Russia to intervene in the internal affairs of the Danube principalities.
The struggle of the European powers against revolutionary France (since 1792) temporarily diverted their attention from the Eastern Question, which allowed the Ottoman Empire to strengthen its foreign policy position. However, in the late 1790s, the Eastern Mediterranean again came to the forefront of European politics. In 1798, France, trying to restore its positions lost after the Revolution in the East and create a springboard for striking English possessions in India, attempted to seize Egypt, which was under Ottoman rule (Napoleon Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign). In response, Türkiye declared war on France (1798) and entered into an alliance with Russia and Great Britain (1799). In 1801, French troops in Egypt capitulated. However, the growth of the liberation movement of the Balkan peoples, who perceived Russia as their natural ally, and Great Britain’s attempts to gain a foothold in Egypt led to the collapse of the Anglo-Russian-Turkish alliance. In 1803 the British had to evacuate their troops from Egypt. After the uprising that broke out in Serbia in 1804 under the leadership of Kara-George and the victories of the Napoleonic Empire over the Third Coalition in Europe in 1805–1806 ( see also NAPOLEONIC WARS) The Porte became closer to France and in 1806, with its support, began a war with Russia; At the same time, she had to fight with Great Britain (Anglo-Turkish War of 1807-1809). The protracted Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812 ended with the victory of Russia: according to the Bucharest Peace of 1812, it received Bessarabia; Türkiye recognized Western Transcaucasia and somewhat expanded the autonomy of Moldova and Wallachia. Although she also pledged to provide internal independence to Serbia, in 1813 her troops occupied Serbian lands; Only after the uprising of 1814-1815 under the leadership of M. Obrenovic, the Porta agreed to give Serbia limited autonomy: this event marked the beginning of the process of liberation of the South Slavic peoples.
The defeat of Napoleonic France (1814-1815) again attracted the attention of European powers to the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Alexander I (1801-1825) returned to the plans of Catherine II and began to patronize secret Greek national organizations, but was unable to gain the support of other participants in the Holy Alliance and in the late 1810s, under pressure from Austria and Great Britain, softened his anti-Turkish policy. But in 1821 an uprising broke out in Greece against the Ottoman yoke (1821–1829), which aroused great sympathy in European countries (the Philhellenic movement). Since 1825, Russia has launched diplomatic activity in support of the Greeks; this prompted England and France to also intervene in the conflict. In 1827, at the London Conference, the three powers demanded that Turkey grant autonomy to Greece; when she refused to satisfy their demands, they sent a combined squadron to the shores of the Peloponnese, which defeated the Turkish-Egyptian fleet near Navarino. In response, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia (Russian-Turkish War of 1828–1829). This war, in which only Austria provided assistance to the Turks, ended with another victory for Russian weapons. According to the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, Russia acquired the mouth of the Danube and the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus; Turkey recognized the entire Transcaucasus as Russian possession, expanded the autonomy of the Danube principalities, granted Greece independence, and Serbia the status of a vassal autonomous principality, promised to it under the Treaty of Bucharest in 1812.
Russia's role in eastern affairs increased even more in the 1830s, when it acted as an ally of the Ottoman Empire. In 1831, the Egyptian Pasha Muhammad Ali, with France behind him, began a war against Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) ( cm. MAHMUD). In the face of defeats by the Turkish troops, Nicholas I (1825–1855) resolutely supported Porto. In February 1833, a Russian squadron entered the Bosphorus and landed thirty thousand troops to defend Istanbul, which forced Muhammad Ali to reach a compromise agreement with the Sultan. In July 1833, the Russian-Turkish Unkar-Iskelesi Allied Defense Treaty was concluded for eight years, according to which Russia guaranteed the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and the Porte pledged not to allow military ships of other countries, with the exception of Russians, into the straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles).
In 1839, Great Britain, to which Muhammad Ali refused to grant trade privileges in Egypt, provoked a new war between him and the Sultan. The victories of the Egyptian forces prompted the European powers to intervene. At the London Conference of 1840, Russia, Great Britain, Austria and Prussia decided on collective assistance to Mahmud II and demanded the preservation of the “integrity and independence” of the Ottoman Empire. When Muhammad Ali rejected the powers' ultimatum to cease hostilities, the Anglo-Austrian fleet bombarded the Syrian ports and forced the Egyptian pasha to submit. In 1841, under pressure from other European states, Russia abandoned the advantages it had received under the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty: from now on, the straits were closed to military ships of all European countries, including Russia.
In the 1840s and early 1850s, the Eastern Question intensified significantly. Back in 1839, during the second war with Muhammad Ali, the Porte announced its intention to carry out reforms aimed at improving the situation of the Christian population (inviolability of life and property of subjects, regardless of their religious affiliation; elimination of abuses in the tax system), but these promises remained on paper. For the Balkan peoples there was only one way left: armed struggle against Ottoman rule. On the other hand, by the middle of the 19th century. The economic and political penetration of European states into Turkey expanded, which intensified their mutual rivalry. In 1853, taking advantage of the conflict between the Catholic and Orthodox clergy for control over Christian shrines in Palestine, Nicholas I demanded from the Porte the right of patronage over all Orthodox subjects of the Sultan. When Türkiye, with the support of British and French diplomacy, rejected this demand, Russian troops occupied the Danube principalities, resulting in the Russian-Turkish War of 1853-1856 ( see also CRIMINAL WAR). In 1854 Great Britain and France entered the war on the side of the Ottoman Empire, and in 1855 Sardinia; the anti-Russian coalition also enjoyed the active diplomatic support of Austria. Russia's defeat led to a serious weakening of its position in the Black Sea basin: it lost Southern Bessarabia and lost the right to have a navy in the Black Sea; The Danube principalities were placed under the joint protectorate of the great powers (Treaty of Paris 1856).
Under the Peace of Paris, the Porte confirmed its commitment to grant the Christian population of the Ottoman Empire equal rights with the Muslim population, but again did not fulfill it. The situation in the Balkans has become even more tense. In 1858, after a long struggle, Montenegro achieved actual independence. In 1859, with the support of Russia, the Danube principalities created a unified state of Romania, despite the opposition of the Porte and Anglo-Austrian diplomacy; in 1861 Türkiye recognized Romania on the terms of recognizing the supreme suzerainty of the Sultan and paying tribute. In 1861, an uprising broke out in Herzegovina; assistance provided to the rebels by neighboring Montenegro led to the Turkish-Montenegrin War of 18621863; the Montenegrins were defeated in it, and the Herzegovinian uprising was suppressed. In 1861, Serbia declared complete autonomy in internal affairs and created its own army, which in 1862 expelled the Turkish garrison from Belgrade; in 1866 Serbia entered into an anti-Turkish coalition with Montenegro, in 1867 it achieved the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops from its territory, and in 1868 it concluded an alliance with Greece and a treaty of friendship with Romania. In 1866 there was an uprising in Crete, whose participants proclaimed the unification of the island with Greece. Russia, France, the North German Confederation and Italy proposed to Turkey to hold a plebiscite in Crete, but the Porte, with the assistance of Great Britain and Austria, rejected their collective note and, threatening war, demanded that Greece stop helping the rebels. At the Paris Conference of 1869, the Great Powers convinced Greece to accept the Turkish ultimatum; Soon the Cretan uprising was suppressed.
In the early 1870s, Russia managed to restore its position in the Black Sea basin. In 1870, with the support of Germany, it announced its withdrawal from the Treaty of Paris of 1856 regarding the right to have a navy in the Black Sea; this decision was sanctioned by the London Conference of the Great Powers in 1871.
The Porte's failure to fulfill promises to carry out reforms caused two uprisings in Bulgaria in 1875-1876, however, they were brutally suppressed. In 1875, an uprising broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina; in 1876 Serbia and Montenegro openly supported the rebels; Türkiye opened military operations against them. The Serbian army was defeated, but a Russian ultimatum forced Porto to suspend military operations. With the growing disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain and Austria-Hungary abandoned their previous policy of maintaining the status quo and began to develop plans for the division of Turkish possessions. In 1876-1877, European powers made several attempts to induce the Porte to carry out the necessary changes in the Balkan provinces (Constantinople 1876 and London 1877 conferences). After the Porte refused to comply with their demands, Russia declared war on it. As a result of the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the Ottoman Empire suffered complete defeat and was forced to conclude the Peace of San Stefano, according to which it returned Southern Bessarabia to Russia, recognized the independence of Romania, Montenegro and Serbia and agreed to grant self-government to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the creation of a vast Great Bulgaria consisting of Northern Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia. However, Russia's successes aroused opposition from other European powers led by Great Britain and Austria-Hungary, who achieved a revision of the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano at the Berlin Congress of 1878: it confirmed the transfer of Southern Bessarabia to Russia and the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, but Bulgaria was divided into three parts Northern Bulgaria in the status of a vassal principality, Eastern Rumelia in the position of a Turkish province with internal autonomy and Macedonia, which returned to Turkey; Bosnia and Herzegovina was placed under the control of Austria-Hungary.
Despite the diplomatic defeat of Russia, the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878 became a decisive stage in the resolution of the Eastern Question, in the process of liberation of the South Slavic peoples and their creation of national states; Turkish rule in the Balkans was dealt a mortal blow.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire became irreversible. Back in 1878, the Porte ceded the island of Cyprus to Great Britain. In 1881, Greece, through negotiations, obtained from Turkey the transfer of Thessaly to it. The 1885 uprising in Eastern Rumelia led to its reunification with Bulgaria; under pressure from British and Austrian diplomacy, which sought to wrest Bulgaria from Russian influence, the Porte de facto recognized the creation of a unified Bulgarian state. In 1896 there was a new uprising in Crete; in 1897 Greek troops landed on it. The Great Powers declared the island an autonomy “under the protectorate of Europe” and occupied it. Although Greece was defeated in the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 and was forced to evacuate its troops from Crete, Turkey actually lost dominance over the island: the Greek prince George became the High Commissioner of Crete; Troops of European states remained on it. After the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, Austria-Hungary, with German support, annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a result of the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912, Italy took Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and the Dodecanese Islands from the Ottoman Empire.
The final act of resolving the Eastern Question was the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. In 1912, Bulgaria and Serbia, with the assistance of Russia, formed a military-political alliance with the aim of dividing the European possessions of the Ottoman Empire, which was joined by Greece and Montenegro. As a result of the First Balkan War (1912), Türkiye was practically expelled from the Balkan Peninsula, losing Macedonia and almost all of Thrace; The independent state of Albania arose on the Adriatic coast. Although as a result of the Second Balkan War (1913) the Ottoman Empire managed to return part of Eastern Thrace with Adrianople (Turkish Edirne), Turkish domination in southeastern Europe was ended forever.
See also RUSSIAN-TURKISH WARS.
The Eastern Question in Russian Foreign Policy: The End of the 18th and the Beginning of the 20th Century. M., 1978
Kostyashov Yu.V., Kuznetsov A.A., Sergeev V.V., Chumakov A.D. The Eastern Question in International Relations in the second half of the 18th and early 20th centuries. Kaliningrad, 1997
Vinogradov V.N. The Eastern Question in Big European Politics. In the “powder keg of Europe”: 18781914. M., 2003
Soloviev S.M. History of the fall of Poland. Eastern Question. M., 2003
Find " THE EASTERN QUESTION"on
