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.

The globalists and slanderers of Russia cannot forgive Alexander the Blessed for his victory over the “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.

The Orthodox tsar could not be guided by other moral principles either in foreign policy or in relations with non-Orthodox peoples.

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 as a foundation 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 is the only example of disinterestedness 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 ".

The declaration of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed in October 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all the monarchs of continental Europe, except for England, the Pope and the 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."

History of creation

Castlereagh explained the non-participation of England in the treaty by the fact that, according to the English constitution, the king does not have the right to sign treaties with other powers.

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 was fully developed with the aim of forcibly suppressing all national and revolutionary movements and maintaining the existing system with its absolutist and clerical-aristocratic trends.

Congresses of the Holy Alliance

Disintegration of the Holy Alliance

System post-war device Europe, created by the Congress of Vienna, was contrary to the interests of the new emerging class - the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois movements against the feudal-absolutist forces became the main driving force behind the historical processes in continental Europe. The Holy Alliance prevented the establishment of bourgeois orders and increased the isolation of monarchical regimes. With the growth of contradictions between the members of the Union, there was a drop in the influence of the Russian court and Russian diplomacy on European politics.

By the end of the 1820s, the Holy Alliance began to disintegrate, which was facilitated, on the one hand, by the retreat from the principles of this Union on the part of England, whose interests at that time were very much in conflict with the policy of the Holy Alliance as in a matter of conflict between Spanish colonies V Latin America and the metropolis, and in relation to the still ongoing Greek uprising, and on the other hand, the release of the successor of Alexander I from the influence of Metternich and the divergence of interests of Russia and Austria in relation to Turkey.

The overthrow of the monarchy in France in July 1830 and the explosion of revolutions in Belgium and Warsaw forced Austria, Russia and Prussia to return to the traditions of the Holy Alliance, which was expressed, among other things, in the decisions taken at the Munich Congress of the Russian and Austrian emperors and the Prussian crown prince (g .); nevertheless, the successes of the French and Belgian revolutions

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 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.

The globalists and slanderers of Russia cannot forgive Alexander the Blessed for his victory over the “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.

The Orthodox tsar could not be guided by other moral principles either in foreign policy or in relations with non-Orthodox peoples.

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 "Sacred Union" in German and French sounds like "Sacred Covenant", which strengthens its Biblical meaning.

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 private life, but should 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 of state 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 said to 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 politician 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 is the only example of disinterestedness 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 ".

IN 1815-1830sINTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

The struggle of the peoples against Napoleon ended in the collapse of the French empire. The victory over Napoleon was used in their own interests by a coalition of monarchist, feudal-absolutist states. The destruction of the Napoleonic empire led to the triumph of the noble-monarchist reaction in Europe.

Peace treaty with France, renewed treaty of the Quadruple Alliance and final act The Congress of Vienna formed the basis of international relations after the Napoleonic era, which went down in history under the name of the "Viennese system". The interests of the victorious powers were contradictory. But at the final stage of the Congress of Vienna, the members of the anti-Napoleonic coalition had to overcome mutual contradictions and make compromise decisions. The decisions of the Congress of Vienna contributed to the strengthening of the noble-monarchist reaction in Europe. In order to intensify the struggle against revolutionary and national liberation movements, the reactionary governments of the European states concluded a Holy Alliance among themselves.

The Holy Alliance entered the history of European diplomacy as an organization with a clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the idea of ​​suppressing the revolutionary spirit and political and religious love of freedom, wherever they manifest themselves. The Holy Alliance of the victorious countries became the bulwark of the new international political system established by the Congress of Vienna. The act of this alliance, drawn up by the Russian emperor Alexander I, was signed on September 26, 1815 by the Austrian emperor Franz 1, the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm III, and sent on their behalf to other European powers. In November 1815 King Louis XVIII of France joined the Holy Alliance. Later, almost all European states joined it, with the exception of England, which was not formally a member of it, but its government often coordinated its policy with the general line of the Holy Alliance.

The Pope did not sign the act, fearing the discontent of the Catholics in different countries. The text of the document stated that the sacred bonds of true brotherhood and principles Christian religion they undertake to provide each other with assistance, reinforcement and assistance. The goal of the participants was to preserve the European borders established by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and to fight against all manifestations of the "revolutionary spirit".

In the Holy Alliance, especially in the early years of its existence, the main role was played by a major diplomat and Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich, and the entire policy of the Holy Alliance is sometimes called "Metternich". The Russian Emperor Alexander I also played an important role in the union. 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 absolute monarchy. The struggle of the Holy Alliance, as an organ of all-European reaction against any liberal, and even more so revolutionary and national liberation aspirations, was expressed in the decisions of its congresses.


IN political life Holy Union should be distinguished three periods.

The first period - the period of actual power lasted seven years - from September 1815, when the union was created, until the end of 1822, when the fourth congress of the Holy Alliance was held. This period of his activity is characterized by the greatest activity.

The second period of activity of the Holy Alliance begins in 1823, when he wins his last victory by organizing an intervention in Spain. At the same time, the consequences of the coming to power in the middle of 1822 of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of England, George Canning, began to manifest themselves. This period lasted until the July Revolution of 1830 in France, after which the Holy Alliance lay in ruins.

The third period of the Holy Alliance 1830-1856. - the period of its formal existence in the presence of serious disagreements among its participants.

In total, four congresses of the Holy Alliance took place: the Aachen Congress in 1818, the Troppau Congress in 1820, the Laibach Congress in 1821, and the Verona Congress in 1822. In addition to the heads of the three powers - the founders of the Holy Alliance, representatives of England and France took part in them.

The first congress of the Holy Alliance was held in Aachen in 1818. It was convened in order to further strengthen the political balance in Europe. The proposal for a meeting of the allied courts to discuss the situation in France was made by the Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich in March 1817. He had far-reaching goals, sought, firstly, to weaken political opposition to the Bourbons and stop the growth of revolutionary sentiment in Europe; secondly, speaking out as a supporter of the return of France to the ranks of the great powers, to reduce the influence of Russia on it; thirdly, by binding France with treaty obligations with England, Austria and Prussia, to prevent the strengthening of Russian-French influence in Europe. It was he who suggested that the quiet German town of Aachen be chosen as a meeting place for the allies, where the German rulers could not influence the course of the meeting.

During the preparation of the Aachen Congress, there were disagreements between the allied powers on the agenda of the congress and the composition of its participants. All the Allied Powers understood that French problems would take center stage at the forthcoming meeting.

The Russian side believed that such a conference should help strengthen the "Vienna system" and sought to bring a wide range of European problems for discussion. In the opinion of the St. Petersburg cabinet, most European countries could take part in its work. But Alexander I agreed to limit the composition of the participants in the meeting if only one issue was considered at it - the withdrawal of allied troops from France. Alexander I considered it necessary to quickly withdraw foreign troops from France, which, after their evacuation, would take its proper place in the European community.

Austrian Chancellor Metternich argued that the main purpose of the meeting should be to consider the internal political situation in France. The Austrian court expected to hold the meeting only on the basis of the Quadruple Alliance, which limited the number of its participants and did not give Russian diplomacy the opportunity to maneuver. If the Petersburg court sought to avoid the principle of excluding small states during future meeting, the governments of Austria, Prussia and England were of the opposite opinion.

During the preparation of the Aachen Congress, the Austrian memorandums of 1818 asserted that the four allied powers had the exclusive right to change the conventions and treaties of 1815, as well as to reject requests from European countries to participate in the meeting. However, this program could undermine the political balance in Europe. Therefore, K. Metternich was forced to make changes to it. The new version indicated that all questions, except for questions about the timing of the end of the occupation of France and its role in the "Viennese system", should be considered with the direct participation of the parties concerned.

On the eve of the Aachen Congress, the diplomats of the allied countries met in the allied town of Karlsbad. Here the last round of diplomatic preparations for the congress took place, the main purpose of which was an attempt to find out the weak and strengths programs with which allies and rivals were going to the upcoming meeting. By the beginning of the congress, the program of the Russian delegation had not changed. The position of Austria also remained the same, and changes were made to the program of the British delegation. The memorandum, drawn up by Lord R. Castlereagh and approved as an instruction to the British representatives, noted the expediency of the complete withdrawal of the allied forces from France in the performance of its financial obligations. It was further emphasized that it was necessary to preserve the Quadruple Alliance in its original form, and, consequently, France could not become its full member.

The Aachen Congress opened on September 20, 1818, in which Russia, Austria, England, Prussia and France took part. The congress participants were represented accordingly Russian minister Foreign Affairs K.V. Nesselrode, Austrian Chancellor K. Metternich, British Foreign Minister Lord R. Castlereagh, Prussian Foreign Minister K.A. Hardenberg, Duke of Richelieu, Prime Minister of France. The delegations of Russia, Austria and Prussia were headed by Emperors Alexander I, Franz I and Friedrich Wilhelm III. In addition to them, many English, Austrian, Prussian, Russian and French diplomats of lower ranks gathered in Aachen.

During the work of the congress, French and Spanish issues, the problems of the prohibition of the slave trade and the protection of merchant shipping, and a number of others were considered. The first was to resolve the issue of the withdrawal of the occupying troops from France. On September 27, 1818, French conventions were signed with members of the Quadruple Alliance on the withdrawal of all allied troops by November 30, 1818 and the timely payment of an indemnity in the amount of 260 million francs.

The Duke of Richelieu insisted on turning the Quadruple Union into a union of five powers, however, at the request of Lord R. Castlereagh and the German courts, on November 1, 1818, a special four-power convention was signed, which confirmed the Quadruple Alliance, created in order to preserve the order established in France. Only after this, on November 3, 1818, did the allies offer France to join the four powers in maintaining state borders and the political system established by the Congress of Vienna.

The declaration of November 3, 1818, signed by all the participants in the congress, proclaimed their solidarity in maintaining the principles " international law, tranquility, faith and morality, whose beneficent action has been so shaken in our times. Behind this phrase was the desire of the five monarchies to jointly strengthen the absolutist system in Europe and unite their forces to suppress revolutionary movements.

Despite the fact that only two issues related to French problems were officially on the agenda of the meeting, other aspects of international relations were considered at the congress along the way: the question of the mediation of the powers in the conflict between Spain and its colonies, questions of freedom of merchant navigation and the cessation of the slave trade. A specific decision was made only on the issue of protecting merchant shipping from piracy. It was recommended that England and France address the North African regencies with a warning that piracy was detrimental to world trade and could lead to dire consequences for them.

The Aachen Congress was the first major event in the history of European diplomacy after the creation of the "Viennese system". His decisions strengthened it and showed that the great powers were interested in preserving their alliance. The decisions of the Aachen Congress were aimed at preserving the order of the Restoration in Europe.

The Second Congress of the Five Allied Powers - Austria, Russia, Prussia, France and England, opened in Troppau on October 11, 1820 (Silesia). The congress was convened on the initiative of K. Metternich in connection with the revolution of 1820 in the Kingdom of Naples, which posed a threat to Austrian rule in Lombardy and Venice.

The congress was held in an atmosphere of acute diplomatic struggle. At the first meeting, Chancellor K. Metternich presented the "Note", which substantiated "the right of the allied powers to interfere in the internal affairs of states in order to suppress revolutions in them." He sought moral support for the Austrian proposals, stressed that there was no other way to fight the Neapolitan revolution, except for military intervention.

The Russian delegation proposed to take joint moral action against the Neapolitan revolution. The Prussian representatives supported the Austrian point of view, and the representatives of England and France refused to take part in the formalization of any decisions. On November 7, 1820, Russia, Austria and Prussia signed the Preliminary Protocol and additions to it, which proclaimed the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states (without an invitation from their governments) to suppress revolutionary uprisings there.

The texts of the Preliminary Protocol and additions to it were familiarized with the representatives of England and France. They recognized the right of the Allies to intervene in the Neapolitan events, but refused to officially join these documents. Thus, despite the formal refusal to approve the decisions taken at Troppau, neither the British nor the French representatives condemned the very right to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent state. The protocol, signed by the participants in the congress, authorized the occupation by Austria of the Kingdom of Naples. At the insistence of Alexander I, the protocol ensured the preservation of the inviolability of the kingdom and the opportunity for the Neapolitan king to voluntarily grant a constitution to his people. The discussion of the issue of combating revolutions in Europe continued at the third congress of the Holy Alliance in Laibach, which opened on January 11, 1821.

The representatives of the Italian states invited to the congress sought to suppress the Neapolitan revolution and thought little about the consequences of the Austrian intervention for the whole of Italy. England was outwardly neutral, but in fact approved the Austrian plan, as did Prussia. France supported the very idea of ​​intervention. In February 1821, the campaign of the Austrian troops against Naples began.

The official closing of the congress in Laibach took place on February 26, and in fact on May 12, 1821. Most of the participants remained in Laibach, following the actions of the Austrian troops and the Viennese court in Piedmont. After the suppression of the Italian revolutions, the representatives of Austria, Prussia, Russia signed a declaration on the extension of the occupation of Naples and Piedmont and confirmed their determination to use violent methods to restore the power of legitimate monarchs. The Declaration, together with the Preliminary Protocol and its additions, reflected the ideological principles of the Holy Alliance.

The situation in Europe after the suppression of the Italian revolutions continued to be restless. In the spring of 1822, the participants of the Troppau-Laibach Congress began a diplomatic sounding in order to find out each other's positions on the struggle against the revolution in Spain. The next meeting of the monarchs of the allied powers was envisaged at the congress in Laibach. The proposal to convene a new meeting was made by Emperor Franz I to the Russian Tsar Alexander I at the beginning of June 1822. Verona was chosen as the venue for the new congress. In that ancient city the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, Italian sovereigns, numerous diplomats gathered. England was represented by the prominent statesman Duke Arthur of Wellington.

The Verona Congress took place from October 20 to November 14, 1822. It was the last and most representative among the diplomatic congresses of the Holy Alliance. main role it was played by five great powers who called themselves allies. Representatives of the Italian states were assigned a secondary role: they participated in the discussion of Italian problems. Formally, the union of the five powers still existed, but there was no longer any unity between them. The beginning of the Eastern crisis led to a deepening of contradictions. England was the first to withdraw. France pursued a cautious policy. The program of the Russian delegation was of a conservative nature.

The main problem at the congress was the preparation, on the initiative of the French king, of intervention to suppress the revolution in Spain. At a meeting of the authorized five powers on October 20, 1822, the French Foreign Minister asked for "moral support" for his government in intervening in Spain in order to protect France from the influence of the revolution. Representatives of England, Prussia and Russia reacted positively to this initiative. A. Wellington said that the French proposal contradicted the British position of non-intervention, so it could not be approved.

Behind this statement lurked the fear of the British side that France would strengthen its position in Spain and in general in the Mediterranean. On November 19, 1822, a protocol was signed, which was a secret agreement between the four powers on measures to overthrow the revolutionary government in Spain. A. Wellington refused to sign it on the pretext that it might endanger the life of the Spanish king.

INTRODUCTION

The system of international relations, called the Vienna system, had as its beginning the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1814-1815. It has become an instrument for maintaining lasting peace in Europe and achieving a balance of power on the continent.

There are two aspects in the meaning of the Vienna system for the history of European countries and peoples.

On the one hand, it gave Europe the opportunity to live until the early 1850s. without deep military upheavals, although it must be borne in mind that within the framework of the Vienna system, contradictions between the great powers were growing.

On the other hand, the positive significance of the Vienna system, associated with the possibility of a peaceful settlement of military conflicts, was reduced by its extremely reactionary nature, aimed, in many cases, at the direct suppression of revolutionary movements, which hampered the modernization processes in Western Europe.

The purpose of this work is to explore the role of the Holy Alliance in the history of the development of Europe and Russia.

THE HOLY UNION IN THE HISTORY OF EUROPE

The “final general act” of the Congress of Vienna on May 28 (June 9), 1815, was not the final stage in the establishment of a new European order. Back in March 1815, Russia, Great Britain, Austria and Prussia entered into a Quadruple Alliance, in words, aimed at supporting the Bourbon dynasty restored in France, but in fact, to control the internal and foreign policy defeated France.

By virtue of this agreement, France was occupied by the allied forces and a huge military indemnity was imposed on it. All this meant the desire of the great powers to weaken France in every possible way and deprive her of the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy.

The initiators of the creation of the Quadruple Alliance were England and Austria, who did not want the revival of France. Russian Emperor Alexander I (1801 - 1825) treated France more benevolently and took significant measures to return France to the rank of a great power.

Russia's policy after the Congress of Vienna was ambivalent. Not trusting his allies to the end, Alexander considered it necessary to continue efforts to stabilize the situation in Europe. Firstly, to carry out possible transformations within their own country, and secondly, for future evolutionary changes in European political systems. The third factor that determined his political plans was the desire to maintain stability in the newly acquired Polish lands (the Kingdom of Poland). In this regard, Alexander with his own hand drew up the text of a new treaty - “ Act of Holy Alliance ».

The document had religious and mystical character with the obligation of Christian monarchs to provide assistance and support to each other. At the same time, under the religious shell, a common political task was hidden - support for the principle of legitimism and the preservation of European balance. In comparison with previous treaties (of Chaumont and Paris in 1814, on the Quadruple Alliance of 1815), the provisions of the Holy Alliance looked somewhat vague in terms of the motives, means and goals that were stipulated in it.

Meanwhile, the Union, according to the plan of its creators, was supposed to play the role, on the one hand, of a deterrent against national liberation movements, and on the other, a unifier of all its members to protect the existing order. Not for nothing, the text included a provision that the members of the Union would "give each other a hand and help to preserve peace, faith and truth."

Creation of the Holy Alliance. The text of the agreement on the creation of the Holy Alliance was signed on September 14 (26), 1815 by three monarchs: the Austrian Emperor Franz I of Habsburg (1792-1835), the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Hohenzollern (1797-1840) and the Russian Emperor Alexander L of Great Britain, represented by Prince George of Wales - in 1811 - 1820. he acted as regent for the mentally ill King George III of Hanover - she refused to sign the document. At the same time, as subsequent events showed, the British leadership took an active part in the policy pursued by the Holy Alliance.

Soon, all European powers joined the Union, except for Turkey and the Papal Court.

Despite the vagueness of the established principles, the Union gradually began to gain significant weight and strength. It turned into a counterbalance to the Quadruple Alliance, which was actively advocated by Great Britain and Austria. This helped the Russian emperor to pursue a policy of counterbalances, strengthening France with all possible ways. Already the accession of France to the "Act of the Holy Alliance" meant its inclusion in the pan-European concert.

In November 1815 between Russia and France formally signed a peace treaty. At the same time, Russian diplomacy watched the internal state France and did everything possible to maintain the power of the Bourbons. On this basis, already in 1816, the French government turned to the English commander of the occupying forces, Duke A. Wellington, with a request for the possibility of reducing the occupying army, which was warmly supported by Alexander I. The amount of indemnity was also reduced.

Demonstrative support by Alexander of the French government was connected, first of all, with the fact that the European balance in his understanding included France in the great powers as a counterbalance to the Anglo-Austrian influence in Europe.

THE ROLE OF THE CONGRESSES OF THE HOLY UNION IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Aachen Congress. The first congress of the Holy Alliance met in German Aachen on September 18 (30), 1818. The main participants in the negotiations were: from Russia - Alexander I, Austria - the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the actual head of government K, Metternich, Prussia - Chancellor K. Hardenberg, Great Britain - Minister Foreign Affairs R. Castlereagh, France - Minister of the government of Louis XVIII of Bourbon (1814-1815, 1815-1824) L. Richelieu.

The Congress was convened to discuss questions about the position of France, her relations with the allies and some other international problems(on the mediation of the powers in the conflict between Spain and its colonies; on the freedom of navigation and the cessation of the slave trade).

Even before the Congress Russian government raised the question of terminating the activities of the Quadruple Union, which, however, was sharply rejected by its other members.

The Aachen Congress made decisions: on the withdrawal of the occupying troops from France until November 30, 1818, on the reduction of the indemnity paid by France, on its acceptance into the Holy Alliance.

The second, in importance, was the question of helping Spain in the question of revolutionary ferment in her Latin American colonies. In the end, the condemnation of revolutionary uprisings in Latin America did not lead to a decision on the armed intervention of the powers in favor of Spain.

With regard to the question of the slave trade, Russia came out in favor of an early cessation of the trade in Negroes and strict supervision of the implementation of the decision of the powers to stop the slave trade.

Despite the general declarative statements about the need to combat revolutionary manifestations in various parts Sveta, the Aachen Congress did not take on the character of the reactionary organization that the subsequent congresses of the Holy Alliance had.

During the discussion of many issues, a tough confrontation between Russia and England was manifested, as well as the desire of the latter to win Austria and Prussia over to its side. As Russian Secretary of State I. Kapodistria noted, “Great Britain claims absolute dominance at sea and in trade relations in both hemispheres ... It owns Portugal, keeps Belgium under its influence and belittles Spain by trading with the rebels.” Kapodistrias was referring to the rapid expansion of British priority on the seas and oceans.

The Russian government was extremely dissatisfied with the position of Austria, which, in its opinion, sought to regain all the privileges of the crown of the former "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation."

As a result, the Aachen Congress not only did not bring the great powers together, but also revealed obvious contradictions between them. The Congress in Aachen, which closed on November 9 (21), 1818, did not give the Holy Alliance an exclusively anti-revolutionary orientation, but declared many legitimate and anti-revolutionary postulates.

Troppau-Laibach Congress. The intensification of the revolutionary movement in Europe made it necessary to convene new meeting members of the Holy Alliance. She was assigned to Troppau (Opava, Czech Republic) on the initiative of K. Metternich.

Great French revolution late 18th century and the era of the Napoleonic wars caused serious changes not only in the social composition and position of various groups of the population of the European continent, but also in the self-consciousness of the peoples of Europe. Despite some positive results of the Congress of Vienna and the creation of the "system of 1815", the main thing remained that the peoples of the European states refused to put up with the restoration of the old orders and dynasties. Especially hated was the restoration of the rule of the Bourbon dynasty in the Italian lands and the Iberian Peninsula.

By the beginning of the 1820s. in Spain, the Italian and German states, numerous secret societies were formed, the program of which included the demand for the introduction of constitutional orders. In the "small" German states, the revolutionary movement was led by students; in the Italian lands, the middle strata of society rose up to fight; in Spain, the unrest affected the army.

The situation was also difficult in France, in which the ministry of A. Richelieu was replaced by the rule of E. Decaze, an ardent supporter of an unlimited monarchy.

In January 1820, a revolution broke out in Spain under the leadership of Captain R. Riego, which put an end to the despotism of Ferdinand VII of Bourbon (1808, 1814-1833). In the summer of that year, the Cortes (parliament) gathered in Madrid, effectively depriving the king of power.

In June 1820, several regiments rebelled in the Kingdom of Naples. They were supported by the broad masses of the people, which forced the King of the Two Sicilies Ferdinand I of Bourbon (1816-1825 ") to seek help from Austria. K. Metternich was clearly aware that the sole intervention of Austria in Italian affairs would be hostilely perceived by other European states. In connection with with this he proposed to convene a new congress of the Holy Alliance.

To understand the position of Russia at the future congress, it is necessary to note the transformation of the views of Alexander I towards a significant amendment. If until 1820 he oscillated like a pendulum between the remnants of liberal views and his reactionary moods, then the revolutionary events of the 1820s. throughout Europe, strengthened his reactionary views. This was reflected in the change of managers of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: from 1815/1816. There were two secretaries of state - the liberal I. Kapodistria and the adherent of the ideas of Metternich K.V. Nesselrode, but in 1822 Kapodistrias was dismissed. This made it possible for the Austrian chancellor to influence the position of both Alexander and Russia more and more. In his memoirs, Metternich reveled in the possibility of this influence, although he clearly exaggerated it in many ways.

Such was the international situation on the eve of the opening Congress in Troppau, which began its work on October 11 (23), 1820.

Already at the beginning of the congress, news came of the performance of the Semyonovsky regiment in St. Petersburg, which further strengthened Alexander's reactionary moods.

The main issue on the congress agenda was the development of measures to suppress revolutionary uprisings. In this regard, the participants heatedly discussed the question of the right to intervene in the affairs of other states without waiting for such a request from them.

As a result, three of the five great powers - Russia, Austria and Prussia - signed a protocol on the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states (the principle of intervention) and a special protocol concerning measures to suppress the Neapolitan revolution. This protocol authorized the Austrian military occupation of the Kingdom of Naples. In addition, Ferdinand I was invited to the congress, whom it was important for the heads of powers to isolate from the rebellious people in order to prevent him from fulfilling his earlier promise to introduce constitutional government in Naples.

In January 1821, the sessions of Congress were moved to laybach(Ljubljana, Slovenia). The elderly Ferdinand also arrived here.

Without waiting for the completion of the work of the congress, the Austrian troops in February 1821 opposed the revolutionary Naples, and in March 1821 the power of the Bourbon dynasty was restored there.

In March 1821, a revolution broke out in Piedmont (north of the Apennine Peninsula). The representatives of the great powers who remained in Laibach immediately authorized Austria to suppress this revolution, which it carried out in April 1821, after which Austria, Prussia and Russia signed a declaration extending the occupation of Naples and Piedmont by Austria.

Great Britain and France occupied a special position at the meetings of the congress. They did not support the principle of intervention, they did not sign the protocol on the suppression of the Neapolitan revolution, but they did not oppose these decisions either.

Troppau-Laibach Congress and the decisions taken by him demonstrated that the Holy Alliance has become an organization of a reactionary political nature, designed to suppress any revolutionary actions aimed at the political modernization of Europe. The Congress showed that there were no serious disagreements among the five great powers on this issue, although political differences remained in full on other international problems.

The congress participants did not specifically discuss the issue of measures to suppress the revolution in Spain and Portugal, however, in a declarative form, Russia, Austria and France expressed the idea of ​​the need to interfere in the internal affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. The reactionary role of Russia and personally Alexander I also became obvious at the congress.

The official closing of the congress meetings took place on February 14 (26), 1821, but in fact its participants remained in Laibach until the end of April, following the actions of the Austrian troops in Piedmont.

Congress of Verona . The third congress of the Holy Alliance took place on October 20 (November 1) - December 14 (26), 1822 in Verona, Italy. It was mainly devoted to the question of events in Spain.

The Congress was extremely representative. Its participants: from Russia - Emperor Alexander I, from Austria - Emperor Franz /, from Prussia - King Friedrich Wilhelm III, from Great Britain and France - foreign ministers, as well as Italian monarchs, diplomats and prominent military leaders of other European countries.

In addition to the Spanish problem, attention was paid to the flaring Greek uprising against domination. Ottoman Empire and the fate of the Latin American colonies seeking independence from Spain. The last question was of particular acuteness, since Paraguay, in fact, became independent from 1811, Chile - after the popular struggle in 1810-1823, New Granada - from 1819, Venezuela - from 1821, as a result of victories, won by S. Bolivar over the Spanish troops.

Of great importance for the decision-making of the Congress was the fact that after the death of the British Foreign Minister R. Castlereagh, he was replaced by D. Canning, who occupied a more liberal position than his predecessor. In addition, England, fearing the strengthening of the role of France on the European continent, was a principled opponent of interference in Spain's relations with its colonies. The policy of Great Britain was determined by the desire in its own interests to ensure the independence of the southern Latin American colonies and their separation from Spain.

Nevertheless, Alexander I and K. Metternich were staunch supporters of the decisive suppression of the revolution in Spain by the forces of the French troops. On November 19 (December 1), 1822, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France signed a protocol in which the circumstances were formulated that led to the French intervention in Spain to restore the fullness of royal power in it. The powers broke off diplomatic relations with Spain and expressed their readiness to provide moral and material support to France. Great Britain did not sign the protocol, not wanting to interfere in Spanish affairs, although Field Marshal A. Wellington, a representative of the British Foreign Office, in a private conversation with a Russian representative (H.A. Lieven) expressed support for the decisions of the Congress. In April 1823 french army under the command of Prince Louis of Angoulême, she crossed the Pyrenees and crushed the Spanish revolution by autumn.

The coordinated position of Russia, Austria and Prussia was also reflected in their common declaration condemning any revolutionary actions, including the national liberation struggle of the Greek people.

CONCLUSION

So, Holy Union 1815 is a conservative political alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, designed to support the system of international order established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The practical functions of the Holy Alliance were reflected in the decisions of a series of congresses (Aachen, Troppaus, Laibach and Verona), which formed the principles and conditions for interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states with the aim of preventive violent suppression of all revolutionary movements and maintaining the existing political system with its absolutist and clerical - aristocratic values.

At the Congress of Verona, the reactionary essence of the Holy Alliance was clearly revealed. If the Vienna system played dual role: on the one hand, supporting the legitimate sentiments of European monarchs, on the other hand, it contributed to the balance of power in Europe and the resolution of conflict situations by peaceful means, then the Holy Alliance was a conservative organization that slowed down the creation of independent European states and their bourgeois modernization for a long time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alekseev, I. S. The art of diplomacy: not to win, but to convince [Electronic resource] / I. S. Alekseev. - 4th ed. - M.: Publishing and Trade Corporation "Dashkov and Co", 2013.

General history of diplomacy. — M.: Eksmo, 2009.

History of Russia: Textbook / Sh.M. Munchaev, V.M. Ustinov. - 6th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Norma: NITs INFRA-M, 2015

Story: Tutorial/ P.S. Samygin, S.I. Samygin, V.N. Shevelev, E.V. Shevelev. - M.: NITs Infra-M, 2013.

New Historical Bulletin, 2014, No. 2 (40)