Creation of the sacred union and its congresses. Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance

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

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

Holy Union- a conservative union of Russia, Prussia and Austria, created to maintain the international order established at the Congress of Vienna (1815). The statement of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed on September 14 (26), 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all the monarchs of continental Europe, except for the Pope and Turkish Sultan. Not being in the exact sense of the word a formalized agreement of the powers that would impose certain obligations on them, the Holy Alliance, nevertheless, went down in the history of European diplomacy as "a cohesive organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of revolutionary sentiments, wherever they didn't show up."

After the overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of pan-European peace, among the powers that considered themselves completely satisfied with the distribution of "rewards" at the Congress of Vienna, a desire arose and strengthened to preserve the established international order, and the means for this seemed to be a permanent alliance of European sovereigns and the periodic convocation of international congresses. But since the achievement of this was opposed by the national and revolutionary movements of the peoples striving for freer forms of political existence, this striving quickly acquired a reactionary character.

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

Signed on September 14 (26), 1815 by three monarchs - Emperor Franz I of Austria, King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia and Emperor Alexander I, at first in the first two did not cause anything but a hostile attitude towards himself.

The content of this act was in the highest degree vague and loose, and practical implications it was possible to make the most diverse of it, but its general spirit did not contradict, but rather favored the reactionary mood of the then governments. Not to mention the confusion of ideas belonging to completely different categories, in it religion and morality completely displace law and politics from those that undoubtedly belong to them. latest areas. Built on the legitimate principle of the divine origin of monarchical power, it establishes the patriarchal nature of relations between sovereigns and peoples, and the former are obliged to rule in the spirit of “love, truth and peace”, while the latter should only obey: the document does not at all address the rights of the people in relation to power. mentions.

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

This last exactly happened - the very Christian character of the Holy Alliance disappeared and only the suppression of the revolution, whatever its origin, was meant. All this explains the success of the Holy Alliance: soon all other European sovereigns and governments joined it, not excluding Switzerland with the German free cities; only the English prince-regent and the Pope did not subscribe to it, which did not prevent them from being guided by the same principles in their policy; only the Turkish sultan was not accepted as a member of the Holy Alliance as a non-Christian sovereign.

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

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

Option 1. In the first half of the XIX century. Russia had significant opportunities for the effective solution of its foreign policy tasks. They included the protection of their own borders and the expansion of the territory in accordance with the geopolitical, military-strategic and economic interests of the country. This implied the folding of the territory of the Russian Empire in its natural borders along the seas and mountain ranges and, in connection with this, the voluntary entry or forcible annexation of many neighboring peoples. The diplomatic service of Russia was well-established, intelligence - branched. The army numbered about 500 thousand people, was well equipped and trained. Russia's military-technical lag behind Western Europe was not noticeable until the early 1950s. This allowed Russia to play an important and sometimes decisive role in the European concert.

After 1815, the main task of Russia's foreign policy in Europe became the maintenance of the old monarchical regimes and the struggle against the revolutionary movement. Alexander I and Nicholas I relied on the most conservative forces and most often relied on alliances with Austria and Prussia. In 1848, Nicholas helped the Austrian emperor suppress the revolution that broke out in Hungary, and strangled the revolutionary uprisings in the Danubian principalities.

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

In the Caucasus, Russia's interests collided with the claims of Turkey and Iran to these territories. Here Russia tried to expand its possessions, strengthen and make stable the borders in Transcaucasia. Russia's relations with the peoples played a special role. North Caucasus whom she sought to fully subjugate to her influence. This was necessary to ensure free and secure communication with the newly acquired territories in the Transcaucasus and the lasting incorporation of the entire Caucasian region into the Russian Empire.

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

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

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

In March 1815, Russia, England, Austria and Prussia signed an agreement on the formation Quadruple union. It was aimed at putting into practice the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, especially as far as France was concerned. Its territory was occupied by the troops of the victorious powers, and it had to pay a huge indemnity.

In September 1815, the Russian Emperor Alexander I, the Austrian Emperor Franz and the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III signed the Act on the formation of the Holy Alliance.

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

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

In the first half of the XIX century. The Ottoman Empire was going through a severe crisis due to the rise of the national liberation movement of the peoples that were part of it. Alexander I, and then Nicholas I were placed in difficult situation. On the one hand, Russia has traditionally helped its co-religionists. On the other hand, its rulers, observing the principle of preserving the existing order, had to support the Turkish sultan as the legitimate ruler of their subjects. Therefore, Russia's policy in the Eastern question was contradictory, but, in the final analysis, the line of solidarity with the peoples of the Balkans became dominant.

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

HOLY UNION - a reactionary association of European monarchs that arose after the fall of Napoleon's empire. On 26. IX 1815, the Russian Emperor Alexander I, the Austrian Emperor Franz I and the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III signed the so-called "Act of the Holy Alliance" in Paris. The real essence of the "Act", sustained in a pompously religious style, was that the monarchs who signed it were obliged "in any case and in any place ... to give each other benefits, reinforcements and assistance." In other words, the Holy Alliance was a kind of mutual assistance agreement between the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was extremely broad.

19. XI 1815 the French king Louis XVIII joined the Holy Alliance; in the future, most of the monarchs of the European continent joined him. England was not formally part of the Holy Alliance, but in practice England often coordinated its behavior with the general line of the Holy Alliance.

The pious formulas of the "Act of the Holy Alliance" covered up the very prosaic aims of its creators. There were two of them:

1. Maintain intact the redrawing of European borders, which in 1815 was carried out at the Congress of Vienna (...).

2. To wage an uncompromising struggle against all manifestations of the "revolutionary spirit."

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

The powers of the Holy Alliance stood entirely on the basis of "legitimism", i.e., the most complete restoration of the old dynasties and regimes, overturned French Revolution and the armies of Napoleon, and proceeded from the recognition absolute monarchy. The Holy Alliance was the European gendarme, holding the European peoples in chains. This was most clearly manifested in the position of the Holy Alliance in relation to the revolutions in Spain (1820-1823), Naples (1820-1821) and Piedmont (1821), as well as to the uprising of the Greeks against the Turkish yoke, which began in 1821.

19. XI 1820, shortly after the outbreak of the revolution in Spain and Naples, Russia, Austria and Prussia at the Troppau Congress signed a protocol that openly proclaimed the right of the three leading powers of the Holy Alliance to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries in order to fight the revolution. England and France did not sign this protocol, but they did not go beyond verbal protests against it. As a result of the decisions taken in Troppau, Austria received the authority to suppress the Neapolitan revolution by force and at the end of March 1821 occupied the Kingdom of Naples with its troops, after which the absolutist regime was restored here. In April of the same year, 1821, Austria forcibly crushed the revolution in Piedmont.

At the Verona Congress (October - December 1822), through the efforts of Alexander I and Metternich, a decision was made on armed intervention in Spanish affairs. The authority for the actual implementation of this intervention was given to France, which actually invaded Spain on April 7, 1823, with an army of 100,000 under the command of the Duke of Angouleme. The Spanish revolutionary government resisted the foreign invasion for half a year, but in the end the interventionist forces, supported by the Spanish internal counter-revolution, were victorious. In Spain, as earlier in Naples and Piedmont, absolutism was restored.

No less reactionary was the position of the Holy Alliance on the Greek question. When a delegation of Greek rebels arrived in Verona to ask the Christian sovereigns, and above all Tsar Alexander I, for help against the Sultan, the congress even refused to listen to her. England immediately took advantage of this, which, in order to strengthen its influence in Greece, began to support the Greek rebels.

The Congress of Verona in 1822 and the intervention in Spain were essentially the last major acts of the Holy Alliance. After that, it actually ceased to exist. The collapse of the Holy Alliance was due to two main reasons.

First, within the union, contradictions between its main participants very soon came to light. When in December 1823 the Spanish King Ferdinand VII turned to the Holy Alliance for help to bring his "rebellious" colonies in America into submission, England, interested in the markets of these colonies, not only declared a strong protest against all attempts of this kind, but also defiantly recognized independence American colonies of Spain (December 31, 1824). This drove a wedge between the Holy Alliance and England. Somewhat later, in 1825 and 1826, on the basis of the Greek question, relations between Russia and Austria began to deteriorate - the two main pillars of the Holy Alliance Alexander I (towards the end of his reign), and then Nicholas I supported the Greeks, while Metternich continued its former line against the Greek "rebels". 4. IV 1826 Russia and England even signed the so-called Petersburg Protocol on the coordination of actions in the Greek question, clearly directed against Austria. Contradictions were also revealed between other members of the Holy Union.

Secondly—and this was especially important—despite all the efforts of reaction, the growth of revolutionary forces in Europe continued. In 1830, revolutions took place in France and Belgium, and an uprising against tsarism broke out in Poland. In England, a violent movement of the popular masses forced the conservatives to agree to the electoral reform of 1832. This dealt a heavy blow not only to the principles, but also to the very existence of the Holy Alliance, which actually fell apart. In 1833, the monarchs of Russia, Austria, and Prussia tried to restore the Holy Alliance, but this attempt ended in failure (see Munchen Greek Convention).

Diplomatic Dictionary. Ch. ed. A. Ya. Vyshinsky and S. A. Lozovsky. M., 1948.

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

This year marks the 200th anniversary of one of the key events in the history of Europe, when, at the initiative of the Russian Emperor Alexander I, or, as he was called, Alexander the Blessed, steps were taken towards the establishment of a new world order. In order to avoid new wars, like those waged by Napoleon, the idea was put forward to create a collective security agreement, the guarantor of which was the Holy Alliance (la Sainte-Alliance) with the leading role of Russia.

The personality of Alexander the Blessed remains one of the most complex and mysterious in Russian history. "Sphinx, unsolved to the grave", - Prince Vyazemsky will say about him. To this we can add that the fate of Alexander I beyond the grave is just as mysterious. We have in mind the life of the righteous elder Theodore Kuzmich the Blessed, canonized among the Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church.

World history knows few figures comparable in scale to Emperor Alexander. This amazing personality remains misunderstood today. The Alexander era was, perhaps, the highest rise of Russia, its "golden age", then St. Petersburg was the capital of Europe, and the fate of the world was decided in the Winter Palace.

Contemporaries called Alexander I the "King of Kings", the winner of the Antichrist, the liberator of Europe. European capitals enthusiastically greeted the liberator tsar: the people of Paris greeted him with flowers. The main square of Berlin is named after him - Alexander Platz. I want to dwell on the peacekeeping activities of Tsar Alexander. But first, let us briefly recall the historical context of the Alexander era.

The global war unleashed by revolutionary France in 1795 lasted almost 20 years (until 1815) and truly deserves the name "World War I", both in terms of its scope and duration. Then for the first time on the battlefields of Europe, Asia and America, millions of armies clash, for the first time a war was waged on a planetary scale for the dominance of a total ideology.

France was the hotbed of this ideology, and Napoleon was the distributor. For the first time, the war was preceded by the propaganda of secret sects and mass psychological treatment of the population. The Illuminati enlighteners worked tirelessly, creating controlled chaos. The age of enlightenment, to be more precise, obscuration, ended with a revolution, a guillotine, terror and a world war.

The theomachy and anti-Christian basis of the new order was obvious to contemporaries.

In 1806, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church anathematized Napoleon for his persecution of the Western Church. In all the churches of the Russian Empire (Orthodox and Catholic), Napoleon was declared the Antichrist and "the enemy of the human race."

On the other hand, the European and Russian intelligentsia hailed Napoleon as the new Messiah, who would make the revolution universal and unite all peoples under his power. Thus, Fichte perceived the revolution led by Napoleon as a preparation for building an ideal world state.

For Hegel in the French Revolution “the very content of the will of the human spirit appeared”. Hegel is undoubtedly right in his definition, but with the clarification that this European spirit was apostasy. Shortly before the French Revolution, the head of the Bavarian Illuminati, Weishaupt, sought to return the man to his " state of nature". His credo: “We must destroy everything without regret, as much as possible and as quickly as possible. My human dignity does not allow me to obey anyone.". Napoleon became the executor of this will.

After the defeat of the Austrian army in 1805, the thousand-year-old Holy Roman Empire was abolished, and Napoleon - officially "Emperor of the Republic" - became the de facto Emperor of the West. Pushkin says about him:

"Rebellious liberty heir and murderer,

This cold-blooded bloodsucker,

This king, who vanished like a dream, like the shadow of the dawn.

After 1805, Alexander I, remaining the only Christian emperor in the world, opposed the spirits of malice and the forces of chaos. But the ideologists of the world revolution and globalists do not like to remember this. The Alexander era is unusually eventful: in comparison with it, even the reigns of Peter and Catherine pale.

In less than a quarter of a century, Emperor Alexander won four military campaigns, repelling the aggression of Turkey, Sweden, Persia and, in 1812, the invasion of European armies. In 1813, Alexander liberates Europe and in the Battle of Nations near Leipzig, where he personally leads the allied armies, inflicts a mortal defeat on Napoleon. In March 1814, Alexander I, at the head of the Russian army, entered Paris in triumph.

A subtle and far-sighted politician, a great strategist, diplomat and thinker - Alexander Pavlovich was unusually gifted by nature. His deep and penetrating mind was recognized even by enemies: "He is elusive like sea foam" Napoleon said about him. How, after all this, to explain that Tsar Alexander I remains one of the most maligned figures in Russian history?

He - the winner of Napoleon, is declared mediocrity, and Napoleon defeated by him (by the way, who lost six military campaigns in his life) - a military genius.

The cult of the cannibal-Napoleon, who covered Africa, Asia and Europe with millions of corpses, this robber and murderer, has been supported and extolled for 200 years, including here in Moscow, which he burned.

Globalists and slanderers of Russia cannot forgive Alexander the Blessed for his victory over " global revolution and the totalitarian world order.

I needed this long introduction in order to outline the state of the world in 1814, when, after the end of the World War, all the heads of European states gathered at a congress in Vienna to determine the future order of the world.

The main issue of the Congress of Vienna was the issue of preventing wars on the continent, defining new borders, but, above all, suppressing the subversive activities of secret societies.

The victory over Napoleon did not mean a victory over the ideology of the Illuminati, which managed to permeate all the structures of society in Europe and Russia.

Alexander's logic was clear: whoever allows evil, he does evil himself.

Evil knows no boundaries, no measure, so you need to resist the forces of evil always and everywhere.

Foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, and just as there is no double morality - for oneself and for others, so there is no domestic and foreign policy.

Orthodox king and foreign policy, in relations with non-Orthodox peoples, could not be guided by other moral principles.

Alexander, in a Christian way, forgives the French for all their guilt before Russia: the ashes of Moscow and Smolensk, robberies, the blown up of the Kremlin, executions of Russian prisoners.

The Russian Tsar did not allow his allies to plunder and divide the defeated France into parts. Alexander refuses reparations from a bloodless and hungry country. The allies (Prussia, Austria and England) were forced to submit to the will of the Russian Tsar, and in turn refused reparations. Paris was neither robbed nor destroyed: the Louvre with its treasures and all the palaces remained intact.

Europe was stunned by the generosity of the king.

In occupied Paris, crowded with Napoleonic soldiers, Alexander Pavlovich walked around the city without an escort, accompanied by one adjutant wing. The Parisians, recognizing the king on the street, kissed his horse and boots. It never occurred to any of the Napoleonic veterans to raise a hand against the Russian Tsar: everyone understood that he was the only defender of defeated France.

Alexander I granted amnesty to all Poles and Lithuanians who fought against Russia. He preached by personal example, firmly knowing that you can change another only by yourself. According to St. Philaret of Moscow: "Alexander punished the French with mercy".

The Russian intelligentsia - yesterday's Bonapartists and future Decembrists - condemned Alexander's generosity and at the same time prepared regicide.

As the head of the Congress of Vienna, Alexander Pavlovich invites defeated France to participate in the work on an equal footing and appears in Congress with an incredible proposal to build a new Europe based on gospel principles. Never before in history has the gospel been laid at the foundation of international relations.

In Vienna, Emperor Alexander defines the rights of peoples: they must rest on the precepts of Holy Scripture.

The Orthodox Tsar proposes in Vienna to all the monarchs and governments of Europe to renounce national egoism and Machiavellianism in foreign policy and to sign the Charter of the Holy Alliance (la Sainte-Alliance). It is important to note that the very term "Holy Union" in German and French sounds like " Holy Testament”, which enhances its Biblical significance.

The final Charter of the Holy Alliance will be signed by the members of the Congress on September 26, 1815. The text was personally compiled by Emperor Alexander and only slightly corrected by the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia.

Three monarchs, representing three Christian denominations: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, address the world in the preamble: “We solemnly declare that this act has no other purpose than the desire to show before the whole world our unshakable intention to choose as a rule, both in the internal government of our states and in relations with other governments, the commandments of the Holy Religion, the commandments of justice, love, peacefulness , which are observed not only in privacy, but must guide the policy of sovereigns, being the only means of strengthening human institutions and correcting their imperfections".

From 1815 to 1818 fifty states signed the charter of the Holy Alliance. Not all signatures were put sincerely, opportunism is characteristic of all eras. But then, in the face of Europe, the rulers of the West did not dare to openly refute the Gospel.

From the very beginning of the Holy Alliance, Alexander I was accused of idealism, mysticism and daydreaming. But Alexander was neither a dreamer nor a mystic; he was a man of deep faith and a clear mind, and he loved to repeat the words of King Solomon (Proverbs, ch. 8:13-16):

“The fear of the Lord hates evil, pride and arrogance, and I hate the evil way and deceitful lips. I have advice and truth, I am reason, I have strength. By me kings reign, and rulers legitimize the truth. I am ruled by the rulers and the nobles and all the judges of the earth.”.

For Alexander I history was a manifestation of the Providence of God, the Epiphany in the world. On the medal, which was awarded to Russian victorious soldiers, the words of King David were engraved: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Your Name give glory”(Psalm 114:9).

Plans for organizing European politics on evangelical principles were a continuation of the ideas of Paul I, the father of Alexander I, and were built on the patristic tradition.

The great contemporary of Alexander I, St. Philaret (Drozdov), proclaimed Bibliocentrism as the basis public policy. His words are comparable to the provisions of the Charter of the Holy Alliance.

The enemies of the Holy Alliance were well aware of who the Union was directed against. Liberal propaganda, both then and after, in every possible way denigrated the "reactionary" policy of the Russian tsars. According to F. Engels: "World revolution will be impossible as long as Russia exists".

Until the death of Alexander I in 1825, the heads of European governments gathered at congresses to coordinate their policies.

At the Verona Congress, the Tsar told the French Foreign Minister and famous writer Chateaubriand:

“Do you think that, as our enemies say, the Union is just a word to cover up ambitions? […] There is no longer the policy of English, French, Russian, Prussian, Austrian, but there is only a general policy, and it is for the common good that peoples and kings must accept it. I should be the first to stand firm in the principles on which I founded the Union.".

In his book History of Russia, the French poet and political figure Alphonse de Lamartine writes: “Such was the idea of the Holy Alliance, an idea that was slandered in its essence, representing it as low hypocrisy and conspiracy of mutual support for the oppression of peoples. It is the duty of history to restore the Holy Alliance to its true meaning.".

For forty years, from 1815 to 1855, Europe did not know wars. At that time, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow spoke about the role of Russia in the world: "The historical mission of Russia is the establishment of a moral order in Europe, based on the Gospel commandments".

The Napoleonic spirit will be resurrected with the nephew of Napoleon I, Napoleon III, who will seize the throne with the help of the revolution. Under him, France, in alliance with England, Turkey, Piedmont, with the support of Austria, will unleash a war against Russia. The Europe of the Congress of Vienna will end in the Crimea, in Sevastopol. In 1855 the Holy Union will be buried.

Many important truths can be comprehended by contradiction. Negative attempts often lead to affirmation.

The consequences of breaking the world order are well known: Prussia defeats Austria and, having united the German states, smashes France in 1870. The continuation of this war will be the war of 1914-1920, and the consequence of the First World War will be the Second World War.

The Sacred Union of Alexander I has gone down in history as a noble attempt to elevate humanity. This the only example unselfishness in the field of world politics in history, when the Gospel became the Charter in international affairs.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the words of Goethe, spoken in 1827 regarding the Holy Alliance, after the death of Alexander the Blessed:

“The world needs to hate something great, which was confirmed by its judgments about the Holy Union, although nothing greater and more beneficial for humanity has yet been conceived! But the mob does not understand this. Her greatness is unbearable ".

activity congress holy union

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

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

The slogan of the union, called "the union of the sacred," was legitimism. The author and initiator of the "Holy Union" was the Russian emperor. activity congress holy union

Alexander I, brought up in a liberal spirit, full of faith in his God-chosenness and not alien to good impulses, wanted to be known not only as a liberator, but also as a reformer of Europe. He was impatient to give the continent a new world order that could protect it from cataclysms. The idea of the Union was born in him, on the one hand, under the influence of the idea - to become the peacemaker of Europe by creating such a Union that would eliminate even the possibility of military clashes between states, and on the other hand, under the influence of a mystical mood that took possession of him. This also explains the strangeness of the very wording of the union treaty, which is neither in form nor in content similar to international treatises, which made many specialists in international law see in it only a simple declaration of the monarchs who signed it.

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

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

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

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

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

Metternich criticized the Act of union of three monarchs, calling it "empty and empty" (verbiage).

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

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

Article 3 of the Act of the Holy Alliance states that "All Powers that wish solemnly to recognize these principles will be accepted into this Holy Alliance with the greatest readiness and sympathy."

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

And the idea of Alexander I to create a Holy Union of European Monarchs headed by him was met with restraint by the British cabinet. And although, according to the plan of the king, this union was supposed to serve the cause of peace in Europe, the unity of monarchs, and the strengthening of legitimacy, Great Britain refused to participate in it. She needed a "free hand" in Europe.

An English diplomat, Lord Castlereagh, declared it impossible "to advise the English regent to sign this treaty, since Parliament, composed of positive people, can only give its consent to some practical treaty of subsidies or alliance, but will never give it to a simple declaration biblical truths that would transport England to the era of Saint Cromwell and round heads.

Castlereagh, who made a lot of efforts to ensure that Great Britain stayed away from the Holy Alliance, also named the leading role of Alexander I in its creation as one of the reasons for this. In 1815 and in subsequent years, Great Britain - one of Russia's main rivals in the international arena - by no means contributed to the strengthening of the Holy Alliance, but skillfully used its activities and the decisions of its congresses to its advantage. Although Castlereagh continued to verbally denounce the principle of intervention, in reality he supported a hardline counter-revolutionary strategy. Metternich wrote that the policy of the Holy Alliance in Europe was reinforced by the protective influence of England on the Continent.

An active role in the Holy Alliance, along with Alexander I, was played by the Austrian emperor Franz I and his chancellor Metternich, as well as the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm III.

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

Goals holy union were to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1814 - 1815, as well as to wage a struggle against all manifestations of the "revolutionary spirit". The emperor declared that the supreme goal of the Holy Alliance was to make such "preservative commandments" as "the principles of peace, harmony and love" the foundation of international law ".

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

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

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

But there was another, de-ideologized understanding of this principle, according to which legitimism became, in fact, a synonym for the concept of European balance.

This is how one of the founding fathers of the system, French Foreign Minister Ch. Talleyrand, formulated this principle in his report on the results of the Vienna Congress: , relying only on strength, fall of themselves as soon as they are deprived of this support, and thus plunge the peoples into a series of revolutions, the end of which cannot be foreseen ... the congress will crown its labors and replace fleeting alliances, the fruit of transient needs and calculations, with a permanent system of joint guarantees and general equilibrium ... The order restored in Europe would be placed under the protection of all interested countries, which could ... by joint efforts strangle at their very embryo all attempts to violate it.

Without officially recognizing the act of the Holy Alliance, possibly concealing anti-Turkish overtones (the Union united only three states, whose subjects professed christian religion, was seen by the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire as Russia's intention to capture Constantinople), the British Secretary of State Castlereagh agreed with his general idea of the need for a concerted policy of the European powers in order to prevent wars. Other participants in the Congress of Vienna shared the same opinion, and they preferred to express it in a more generally accepted and understandable form of an international legal instrument. This document was the Treaty of Paris on November 20, 1815.

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

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

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

IN political life Holy Union should be distinguished three periods. The first period - the actual omnipotence - lasted seven years - from September 1815, when the Union was created, until the end of 1822. The second period begins in 1823, when the Holy Alliance wins its last victory by organizing intervention in Spain. But at the same time, the consequences of the coming to power of George Canning, who had become a minister in the middle of 1822, began to appear sharply. The second period lasts from 1823 to the July Revolution of 1830 in France. Canning delivers a series of blows to the Holy Alliance. After the revolution of 1830, the Holy Alliance, in essence, is already in ruins.

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