How Nikolaev Russia fell into the trap of the Crimean War

French battleship Charlemagne

Russophobia and the Eastern Question

In the pre-war decades, anti-Russian sentiments grew stronger in Western Europe, caused by the desires of Western elites and society to get rid of the “European gendarme.” The West was frightened by the huge Russian Empire, which defeated Napoleon's empire, crushed revolutions and had the largest and most powerful army on the continent. Even Russia's partners in the Holy Alliance, Austria and Hungary, feared Russia's further strengthening.

During this period, the Eastern, Turkish question played a large role in European politics. The Ottoman Empire was greatly degraded and almost collapsed due to the revolution in Greece and the war with Egypt. It was saved only by the intervention of the European great powers, including Russia.

Russian Tsar Nicholas I considered the Ottoman Empire “the sick man of Europe” and was working on the issue of its division ("Türkiye is a dying man"). In particular, he hinted to the British that they could get Egypt if Russia resolved the issue of the security of the Strait Zone and Constantinople. He also did not want France to take advantage of the collapse of Turkey. In January and February 1853, Nicholas again returned to this issue in a conversation with the English ambassador Seymour. He had previously raised it in 1844 at Windsor in a conversation with Peel and Lord Aberdeen. However, this time the British reacted sharply negatively to the issue of the division of Turkey.

As a result, attempts by St. Petersburg to come to an agreement with London on the issue of the future division of Turkey did not interest England. The British did not want to negotiate, they sought global dominance, and Russia was a dangerous potential adversary (How Palmerston beat France and Russia). Therefore, the British set the task of ousting the Russians from the Black and Baltic Seas, returning Russia to the borders of the XNUMXth–XNUMXth centuries.

England was concerned that the Russians might interfere with the creation of their world empire. Russia could intensify its advance in the Caucasus and Turkestan in order to reach the southern seas. Also, the British categorically did not want Russia to receive Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, turning the Black Sea into a “Russian lake” and entering the Mediterranean. Strengthening its position at the expense of Turkey also did not suit Austria. The Viennese court was afraid that St. Petersburg would turn the Balkans into its protectorate.

French society wanted to take revenge for the defeat of Napoleon's empire. In addition, the Russian Tsar had a negative attitude towards revolutions in France. Nikolai Pavlovich considered Napoleon III, who came to power in France after the coup on December 2, 1851, illegitimate, since the Bonaparte dynasty was excluded from the French succession to the throne by the Congress of Vienna. The new French emperor was irritated by the attitude of St. Petersburg. Also, Napoleon III, taking into account the fragility of his position and the internal problems of France, wanted to distract society with a “small victorious war.”

Napoleon III, Emperor of France (1852–1870). Painting by German artist Franz Winterhalter

New aggravation of the Eastern question

At the end of the 1840s, the rivalry between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in Palestine, which belonged to the Porte, sharply intensified. Outwardly, these were petty religious squabbles that regularly occur in and between religious communities. In particular, on the issue of control over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In questions about who should repair the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, whether it is possible to place a star with the coat of arms of France in the Church of the Nativity, etc. In general, these were questions at the level of city authorities.

In Palestine it turned out differently. Russia stood up for Orthodox Christians, France stood up for Catholics. The issue has become international. The owner in Palestine was the Turkish Sultan. Among his subjects were about 12 million Orthodox Christians (up to a third of the empire's population) and only a few thousand Catholics. Therefore, it was logical to transfer control over religious objects to the Orthodox Church. Moreover, historically the rights were theirs - before the capture of Palestine by Muslims, it was part of the Byzantine Empire, and not Catholic Rome.

In fact, Paris did not care about any religious symbols and ruins. The issue was Syria, which France wanted to include in its sphere of influence. Therefore, France previously supported the expansion of the Egyptian Pasha Muhammad Ali. In 1830–1847 the French captured Algeria, which was a Turkish vassal, and wanted the banquet to continue. French big capital laid claim to Egypt (here they competed with the British) and Syria and Palestine. Paris also wanted to take revenge for the defeat of Napoleonic France, to split the old anti-French coalition of England, Russia and Austria.

The French cited a 1740 treaty with the Ottoman Empire that gave France control over Christian holy sites in Palestine. Russia pointed to the Sultan's decree of 1757, which restored the rights of the Orthodox Church in Palestine, and the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi Peace Treaty of 1774, which gave Russia the right to protect the interests of Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

France demanded that the keys to the church, then owned by the Orthodox community, be given to the Catholic clergy. Paris backed up its demand with a military demonstration: the French, in violation of the London Convention on the Status of the Straits of 1841, brought the 80-gun battleship Charlemagne under the walls of Constantinople. The Turkish Sultan and the government yielded under pressure from the French. At the beginning of December 1852, the keys to the Church of the Nativity were transferred to France.

In response, Russian Chancellor Nesselrode stated that Russia “will not tolerate the insult received from the Ottoman Empire... vis pacem, para bellum!” The concentration of the Russian army began on the border with Moldova and Wallachia.

In March 1853, the French Foreign Ministry sent instructions to its envoy in Istanbul, de Lacour. It said that if the Russian fleet in Sevastopol begins to move, or Russian troops enter the Danube principalities, or even Russian ships approach the Black Sea coast of Turkey, all this will become the basis for declaring war on Russia. That is, the French prohibited Russians from traveling in the Black Sea!

The aggressiveness of the French regime caused delight in London. The British once again had the opportunity to start a big war in Europe and bleed their competitors. In 1799–1815 England, with the help of the Russians, destroyed the empire of Napoleon, who challenged the world order of Britain. Now it was possible to weaken the strengthened Russian Empire with the hands of France and Turkey.

Menshikov's mission

In February 1853, the Tsarist Ambassador Extraordinary, Prince Alexander Menshikov, arrived in Constantinople on the steamship-frigate “Gromonosets”. The Turkish Sultan Abdulmecid received Menshikov, who presented the Ottoman monarch with a personal letter from Nicholas I. Russia planned to conclude a convention on the position of the Orthodox Church in Palestine and Syria and invited Turkey to conclude a defensive treaty against France. That is, Russia wanted to get an agreement like the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833, when the Russians saved Istanbul from its Egyptian vassal (How Muhammad Ali of Egypt defeated and almost dismembered the Ottoman Empire; How Russia Saved Turkey).

The Ottomans maneuvered and played for time. In March, France sent a squadron to the Aegean Sea. On April 5, Stratford-Radcliffe, the new British ambassador, arrived in Istanbul. This was an old enemy of Russia and a personal enemy of the Russian sovereign. He convinced the Ottoman Sultan to satisfy Russia's demands, but only partially - for holy places. The Briton understood that this would not be enough for Menshikov. The Russian ambassador will insist to the end, then England and France will support Turkey. Abdul-Mejid I issued a firman (decree) on the inviolability of the rights of the Greek Church to holy places.

The English ambassador managed to convince Prince Menshikov that England would remain neutral. On May 17, 1853, Menshikov delivered an ultimatum to the Porte demanding the conclusion of a convention on the supervision and control of the immunity of the Greek Church, that is, Russia received the right to intervene in any issues related to the religious and administrative situation of the Orthodox community. Menshikov did not raise the issue of the status of the straits. The Russian side did not receive an answer, and on June 2, 1853, Menshikov left Istanbul.

F. Kruger. Portrait of A. S. Menshikov

Russia has been driven into a trap

Now Russia, in order not to lose face, had to use force.

Tsar Nicholas issued a manifesto that he, like his ancestors, must defend the Orthodox Church in Turkey, and that in order to enforce the previous Russian-Turkish agreements, violated by the Sultan, Russia was forced to occupy the Danube principalities. On June 21, 1853, Russian troops entered Moldova.

This is where Petersburg fell into a trap. Tsar Nicholas hoped that the Russian army and navy would quickly put Turkey in its place. As a last resort, the possibility was considered that France would intervene in the war. However, France did not have a common border with Russia, and it could only help the Porte to a limited extent.

In the pre-war period, the Tsar, including because of the diplomats - Ambassador Kiselev in Paris, Brunnov in London, Meyendorff in Vienna, Budberg in Berlin, and most of all Chancellor Nesselrode, had an erroneous picture of the world. In it, Russia was strong and invincible, Austria and Prussia were allies, England maintained neutrality, France was weak.

Petersburg expected Britain to maintain strict neutrality in the conflict. Austria and Prussia were considered our partners, and from their side Russia was supposed to receive benevolent neutrality. The tsarist government especially counted on the Habsburg Empire, which the Russians literally saved from the Hungarian Revolution of 1849.

The initial mistake in the balance of power in Europe became the main prerequisite for the future defeat of Russia in the Eastern (Crimean) War.

The problem is that the Russian sovereigns Alexander I and Nicholas I paid too much attention to Europe and its problems. Especially help to the German world. They did not understand that no agreements or benefits from Russia in the interests of European countries (for example, saving Vienna and Berlin from Napoleon) would ever make Westerners love Russia or at least respect its interests. Our country has always been “Mordor”, the “evil empire” for the Western world. It has always been too big and strong, and interfered with the West in general and individual Western powers in particular (England).

But there will always be a reason for conflict and an attempt to resolve the “Russian question” - the dismemberment and destruction of Russian civilization. In the XNUMXth century we were accused of being reactionary and absolutist. We were the “gendarme of Europe”.

In the XNUMXth century, the world began to be frightened by the threat of revolution and socialism - “The Russians are coming!”

Currently, Russia is an “aggressor”, “Mordor”, which is encroaching on the freedom of surrounding states. Nobody remembers that the Russian world and the Russian superethnos were simply torn apart in 1991. Now on the agenda is the division and destruction of the remaining part of Russia.

Comments

[Old electrician]

According to the opinion of admirers of baked goods, which is still propagated to this day, Russia in the First World War had to die to the last man for the Russophobic interests of England and France. Because England and France promised to give Russia the Bosporus and Dardanelles, which they themselves did not own, and despite all their efforts they could not take possession. Promising does not mean getting married. The only clear prospect for Russia after the victory over Germany was an equally bloody war against the alliance of Turkey, England and France for the promised Bosporus and Dardanelles.
What is interesting is that until now, despite the fact that Nicholas II was overthrown by English agents led by Guchkov, for admirers of the monarchy, a German spy is shameful, and an English or French spy is romantic and noble.

[Luminman]

Quote: Old electrician

despite the fact that Nicholas II was overthrown by British agents

When there is a war and all the efforts of the allies must be concentrated on the unity of the coalition, why should one of its allies, the coalition, undermine it by overthrowing Nicholas II?

[Landwarrior]

Quote: Luminman

Quote: Old electrician

despite the fact that Nicholas II was overthrown by British agents

When there is a war and all the efforts of the allies must be concentrated on the unity of the coalition, why should one of its allies, the coalition, undermine it by overthrowing Nicholas II?

Well, they didn’t immediately begin to “shake the regime.” When it became clear that Germany was exhausted, that the war would soon end and the time would come to share the bonuses, greed took over. Although they still continue to claim that the intervention was an attempt to help an ally

[Cartographer]

Quote: Landwarrior

Quote: Luminman

Quote: Old electrician

despite the fact that Nicholas II was overthrown by British agents

When there is a war and all the efforts of the allies must be concentrated on the unity of the coalition, why should one of its allies, the coalition, undermine it by overthrowing Nicholas II?

Well, they didn’t immediately begin to “shake the regime.” When it became clear that Germany was exhausted, that the war would soon end and the time would come to share the bonuses, greed took over. Although they still continue to claim that the intervention was an attempt to help an ally

Well, sort of, yes. The old regime was more understandable and it was possible to negotiate with it, the system was approximately the same. The new regime proclaimed world revolution and instability

[Ulan.1812]

The new regime, called the Provisional Government, abolished the Russian Empire and established the Russian Republic.
This is what our state was called from February to October.
The provisional government for London was very predictable.

[Old electrician]

When there is a war and all the efforts of the allies must be concentrated on the unity of the coalition, why should one of its allies, the coalition, undermine it by overthrowing Nicholas II?

- because for England the collapse of Russia was one of the strategic objectives of the war.
At every opportunity, England spoiled the “ally” with all the proletarian hatred. Here are some examples.
In 1911, the Turkish government ordered two battleships from England and even made a deposit to the Vickers company for one of them, called “Reshadiye”, so that the construction would be completed by August 1914. Thus, just before the start of the First World War, England began building a battleship for the state, which was an inveterate enemy of England's allied country - Russia. The beauty of the situation is that after the Crimean War, Article XI of the Paris Peace Treaty on the neutralization of the Black Sea prohibited all Black Sea powers from having military fleets in the Black Sea. Article XIII of this treaty prohibited both the king and the sultan from creating naval arsenals and fortresses on the coast. In 1870, the provision on the Black Sea limiting neighboring powers to have a navy was annulled by Alexander II, but by 1914 Russia still did not have fortifications for the Black Sea Fleet. Those. The delivery of battleships to Turkey was a shock to Russia and the mood in St. Petersburg after that was close to panic. Nick 2 urgently authorized measures to purchase four dreadnoughts from the United States at once, but the deal did not take place. In Nikolaev, four domestic battleships began to be built in an emergency, of course, with the most active purchases in England. Making money from the misfortune of an ally betrayed by you is sacred! Ultimately, England earned doubly - it also deceived the Turks by requisitioning the Reshadiye.
However, Türkiye was not left without a battleship. The First World War began with the German battleship Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau finding themselves alone against the English squadron, which could tear them apart like Tuzik a hot water bottle. However, “unexpectedly” the British suddenly became humanists and literally drove the Germans into the Bosphorus. Ours tried to mine the exit from the Bosphorus to the Black Sea, but the British blocked this decision - after all, Turkey had not yet entered the war!!! As a result, the Goeben and Breslau pirated on our coast with impunity until 1916.
After the start of the war, the British, without any sanctions, prohibited France from selling any aircraft equipment to Russia, primarily aircraft engines. The ban was lifted only in 1916.
In 1915, Russian soldiers marched with sticks against German machine guns. It's called rifle hunger. Every rifle counted. Fedorov resolved the issue with the Japanese and they agreed to sell 120 thousand rifles to Russia. Since the Russo-Japanese War, the British have determined Japanese foreign policy. Taking advantage of the opportunity, they intercepted this order only because they could make a mess and did not miss this chance. They didn’t really need rifles and in 1916 they resold them to Russia. As they say, etc., etc.
England’s attitude towards Russia during the First World War is reminiscent of how the Great Zee paternally and condescendingly patted Biden on the shoulder so that Ukrainian men would die to the last on the battlefields for US interests. The only difference is that instead of the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Ze promised membership in the EU and NATO. As in the case of the Russian Empire, despite the brotherly pats, as soon as Ze drained the counterattack, they immediately began to drain him. Accordingly, joining the EU and NATO, as it turned out, is no longer possible for Ukraine. It is also no longer destined to become a Great Agrarian Power. Who needs competitors?
Nick 2 completely merged the 1916 company, ruining the coalition's plans. After that he became uninteresting to England. From the memoirs of the English Ambassador to Russia Buchanan:

... The palace coup was discussed openly, and at dinner at the embassy one of my Russian friends, who held a high position in the government, informed me that the only question was whether both the emperor and the empress would be killed, or only the last ...

– Isn’t it funny how the ambassador of the “union” state was preparing the overthrow of the sovereign? That is, in fact, history repeated itself with the “removal from power” of Paul I, only without the noose and the “apoplectic blow to the temple with a snuffbox.”
After the overthrow of the autocracy and recognition of the Provisional Government, England refused political asylum to the Romanovs. France openly declared that it did not want the “debunked tyrant,” and especially his wife of German origin, to set foot on Republican soil. It was a death sentence. Who exactly brought it to performance no longer plays the piano. By the way, English documents about the February Revolution were supposed to be declassified in 2017. Everyone was waiting for a sensation, but now these documents are classified forever. The cat knows whose meat it ate.

[Cartographer]

Quote: Old electrician

Here are some examples.
In 1911, the Turkish government ordered two battleships from England and even made a deposit to the Vickers company for one of them, called “Reshadiye”, so that the construction would be completed by August 1914. Thus, just before the start of the First World War, England began building a battleship for the state, which was an inveterate enemy of England's allied country - Russia.

Only no one had heard about the First World War in 1911. And by 1905, Russia already had a Black Sea Fleet with battleships in its composition. The Goeben breakthrough can also hardly be called the work of the British, there were some nuances. And in the end, the British had to carry out the Dardanelles operation , which cost them considerable losses

[Ulan.1812]

When Nicholas II abdicated, one of the members of the English government declared that one of the goals of this war had been achieved.
How the British allowed Admiral Souchon's squadron (Goeben and Breslau) into the straits with a threefold superiority in forces is described in Boris's story
Lavreneva - "Strategic mistake."
The story is, of course, fictional, but it is based in part on the memories of eyewitnesses.
The British specifically allowed the Germans into the straits to prevent the Russians from capturing them.
It has been correctly noted that until 1916, Russia did not have modern dreadnoughts on the Black Sea, only battleships from the Russo-Japanese War.

[Cartographer]

Quote: Ulan.1812

When Nicholas II abdicated, one of the members of the English government declared that one of the goals of this war had been achieved.
How the British allowed Admiral Souchon's squadron (Goeben and Breslau) into the straits with a threefold superiority in forces is described in Boris's story
Lavreneva - "Strategic mistake."
The story is, of course, fictional, but it is based in part on the memories of eyewitnesses.
The British specifically allowed the Germans into the straits to prevent the Russians from capturing them.
It has been correctly noted that until 1916, Russia did not have modern dreadnoughts on the Black Sea, only battleships from the Russo-Japanese War.

A threefold advantage is very good, only at the time of contact war had not yet been declared. Don’t look for a black cat in a dark room

[Trapperxnumx]

Quote: Ulan.1812

described in Boris Lavrenev’s story “Strategic Mistake.”

I also advise you to familiarize yourself with the work of A. Bolnykh “The Tragedy of Errors”. There this moment is analyzed even better and not so biased, which allows you to get a more complete picture of what is happening.

[Wened75]

Quote: Luminman

Quote: Old electrician

despite the fact that Nicholas II was overthrown by British agents

When there is a war and all the efforts of the allies must be concentrated on the unity of the coalition, why should one of its allies, the coalition, undermine it by overthrowing Nicholas II?

...And bringing to power their puppets who declared “war to the bitter end”? Weird question.
In addition, the British had 2 “aces up their sleeve” - Japan and the USA. It was not for nothing that when planning the intervention, the issue of transferring Japanese and American armies to the Eastern Front was discussed.

[Trapperxnumx]

Quote: Old electrician

According to the opinion of admirers of baked goods, which is still propagated to this day, Russia in the First World War had to die to the last man for the Russophobic interests of England and France. Because England and France promised to give Russia the Bosporus and Dardanelles, which they themselves did not own, and despite all their efforts they could not take possession. Promising does not mean getting married. The only clear prospect for Russia after the victory over Germany was an equally bloody war against the alliance of Turkey, England and France for the promised Bosporus and Dardanelles.

The main thing is to start with “bulk crunches”, and then you can start creating any nonsense, even as fierce as yours.
The fact that the French “died” more actively than the Russians and the fact that the British spared their soldiers no more than any other armies does not bother anyone.

[bya965]

The Turkish Empire wasn't that bad. For a Russian person, it’s not very good, it’s not ours, but if you compare it in the Middle Ages with the West, then it’s much better. So without having the Orthodox faith

In general, I am a supporter of living not according to faith, but according to conscience, as they lived before the adoption of Christianity, as in principle the majority lived in the USSR, although now they will come running in something unknown. The root Rod occurs about 200 times in Russian words. The root is Christ or Jesus more than once.

we could act together against the West, but as a result we shed Russian blood for the interests of others, for the peoples who betrayed Russia at the first opportunity.

[Monster_Fat]

With us, as always: everyone is to blame for all our troubles except us. So it is with the “Crimean War” - “Russia got caught”.... Like: she walked, walked and accidentally fell into a trap, insidiously set by her ill-wishers... Yeah. And now, too, “I got it”, but no, now we were “deceived”...

[bya965]

With us, as always: everyone is to blame for all our troubles except us.

You don’t understand, I’m not saying that the Abrahamic religions are to blame, I haven’t seen any benefit from them in a thousand years of Orthodoxy, so I don’t think there will be any in the future.
Like the Jews, don’t spit in the well from which you drank. Everything is in the past.
For us Russians, don’t spit in the well; you might need to drink some water. Everything is in the future.

[ivan2022]

Quote: bya965

You don’t understand, I’m not saying that the Abrahamic religions are to blame, I don’t see any benefit from them after a thousand years of Orthodoxy.

There is a Russian proverb about this about a dancer who doesn’t see any benefit from his eggs either.

If for 1000 years the Russians have not been able to assimilate either Orthodoxy or any ideology at all to this day, this is probably not due to bad ideology.

But for example, the Chinese were able to benefit from their Confucius, Marxism and liberalism...

For the smart, everything benefits the smart and the wind at your back!

[Trapperxnumx]

Quote: bya965

So without having the Orthodox faith

we could continue to perform human sacrifices. This, of course, is much more humane)

[north 2]

just like a riot in France is a revolution, and like a riot in Russia it’s the executioner of the Decembrists, this Nicholas the First. And he is also a censor, an auditor, and an overseer of peoples in prison. Well, having bestowed so many epithets on Nicholas, Europe cannot call him a gendarme in Europe. And then the gendarme of Europe.
But in truth, Russia became the gendarme of Europe back in 1814-1815, taking Paris by storm, forcing Napoleon to abdicate and creating the Holy Alliance, which invited all European countries to behave with restraint and be mutually restrained from new wars, as well as from revolutions in Europe. It was a whole security system in Europe.
It was this Europe that arranged the Crimean War for Russia in order to put an end to the world order according to the Congress of Vienna, as a result of which Russia maintained order in Europe in the Holy Alliance. Moreover, Russia not only monitored, but also stood guard over this security system in Europe. Like a gendarme guarding law and order.
Even Pushkin, in his poem To the Slanderers of Russia, showed how Europe went crazy when, according to the charter of the Holy Alliance, Russia brought order to the revolutionary rebellion of Poland in 1831.

[Cartalon]

I read up to the partners in the Holy Alliance, Austria and Hungary, but didn’t go any further.

[Landwarrior]

Getting caught up in the Crimean War - yes, we got stuck... But why didn’t they take advantage of the constant discord in the Anglo-French-Turkish coalition? The Anglo-French contingent in the Crimea was very quickly struck by cholera; they would not have been able to crawl out of the peninsula...

[Trapperxnumx]

there was no time - it was necessary to sink the fleet.
Oh yes, this is also the machinations of the West. Forgot.

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Replace: France with the USA, Sardinia with Poland, Austria-Hungary with India, Prussia with China, Turkey with Ukraine, the British ambassador to Turkey with Boris Johnson in Kiev, Nicholas I with Putin, the heap, Menshikov with Shoigu for example. Something familiar turns out... Even Russophobia in the press in the West is accelerating just as it was then.

[Doctor]

Replace: France with the USA, Sardinia with Poland, Austria-Hungary with India, Prussia with China, Turkey with Ukraine, the British ambassador to Turkey with Boris Johnson in Kiev, Nicholas I with Putin, the heap, Menshikov with Shoigu for example. Something familiar turns out... Even Russophobia in the press in the West is accelerating just as it was then.

No, Kolya is cooler. He had enough keys to climb into the trap.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

From the article.

Even Russia's partners in the Holy Alliance, Austria and Hungary, feared Russia's further strengthening.

Probably still: Prussia and Austria-Hungary. The latter broke up into independent states only as a result of WWI.

[Dekabrist]

Probably after all: Prussia and Austria-Hungary

Austria. Or rather - the Austrian Empire (until 1804 - the Habsburg Monarchy). Austria-Hungary appeared in 1867.
In addition to Russia, Prussia and Austria, the Holy Alliance included all European monarchs, except the Pope. The Turkish Sultan asked, but was not accepted for religious reasons. The British monarch George IV participated as King of Hanover, so Britain was not formally part of the Holy Alliance.
After the death of Alexander I, it ceased to exist in its original form.
The author’s phrase about “partners” indicates a complete lack of knowledge on the issue or deliberate manipulation.
Actually, it makes no sense to analyze this author’s articles as historical ones; they can only be of interest to specialized specialists.

[Luminman]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Probably after all: Prussia and Austria-Hungary

After the creation of Austria-Hungary, the emperor wore two crowns - Austrian and Hungarian. And before that, Hungary became part of the Habsburg monarchy as an equal kingdom. Thus, Hungary could quite separately sign the agreement on the Holy Alliance...

[Dekabrist]

Hungary could have independently signed the agreement on the Holy Alliance...

Could not. Both Austria and Hungary had one monarch - Franz II Joseph Karl, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary.

[Luminman]

Quote: Dekabrist

Could not. Both Austria and Hungary had the same monarch

Yes, there is only one monarch, but he represented two crowns - Austrian and Hungarian and had two seals.

[Dekabrist]

Yes, there is only one monarch, but he represented two crowns - Austrian and Hungarian and had two seals.

He had one seal - the personal seal of Franz II Joseph Karl, the obverse depicts a detailed coat of arms with a double crown on a double-headed eagle holding an orb, a cross and a sword in its talons. Which certified all relevant documents.

[Luminman]

Quote: Dekabrist

He had one seal - the personal seal of Franz II Joseph Karl

This is just the personal seal of King Franz II, bestowing the title of nobility on some officer. One more time: The Hungarian kingdom, together with its lands, had the same equal rights as they had in Austria. Another thing is that with each new emperor, these same rights were infringed more and more, but the Habsburgs, until the fall of the empire in 1918, always spoke on behalf of two monarchies - Austrian and Hungarian...

[Dekabrist]

however, the Habsburgs, until the fall of the empire in 1918, always acted on behalf of two monarchies - Austrian and Hungarian...

As well as the Croatian, Bohemian and 39 sovereign monarchies of the German-speaking states of Central Europe, ranging from Anhalt-Bernburg to Lübeck inclusive.

[Luminman]

Quote: Dekabrist

As well as the Croatian, Bohemian and 39 sovereign monarchies of the German-speaking states of Central Europe, ranging from Anhalt-Bernburg to Lübeck inclusive.

The non-states you named are just the German Confederation, a supranational entity. Loose and muddy, rising from the ruins of the Holy Roman Empire. Here you can add English Hanover and Swedish Pomerania...

[Dekabrist]

The non-states you named are just the German Confederation

The Austrian Empire and Prussia are also the German Confederation.

[Major Kosukhin]

That is, powerless Hungary, part of the empire, is your signatory to the Congress of Vienna? And formally (and in fact) independent German principalities are just sub-states? You are talking fantastic nonsense, dear

[Luminman]

I already once defined delirium; in psychosis, many lose their temper. Among my contemporaries, I advise you to first read Wikipedia and me, otherwise you:

Quote: Major Kosukhin

you are talking fantastic nonsense

[the same doctor]

Do you think that if Nikolai had been smarter, we would not have been attacked?
.
The only option was: instead of pacifying the Hungarians, send troops to Constantinople in 1848. But loyalty to partners prevailed over Russian interests.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: also a doctor

instead of pacifying the Hungarians, send troops to Constantinople in 1848

Do you think the Hungarian victory was at least a little beneficial for Russia?

[Eug]

Although the question is not for me, I dare to answer - I suspect that it is beneficial, if only because Austria-Hungary was Russia’s main rival in the Balkans, and it certainly would not have cared for the Balkans... and then there was Greece...

[Ryaruav]

Russia was unlucky with both Nikolashkas

[Fat]

Quote: Ryaruav

Russia was unlucky with both Nikolashkas

Until a certain period, the policy of Nicholas I was quite “sane”.
On the eve of the Crimean War, Karl Vasilyevich Nesselrode, who became chancellor in 1845, was unable to correctly assess the foreign policy positions of European states. As a result, Russia found itself in international isolation.

[Fat]

Russia's partners in the Holy Alliance, Austria and Hungary, feared Russia's further strengthening.

Good morning. I’m wondering at what point, during the time of Nicholas I, Hungary separated from Austria: Probably, if Hungary had not been part of Austria, it would not have been necessary to strangle the “Hungarian Revolution” in 1849.
Nicholas I traditionally focused on an alliance with Austria and Prussia, although in 1848 he unexpectedly opposed Prussia, supporting Denmark.
In relations with his “partners,” the Tsar-Emperor “messed up” arrogantly and self-confidently.
Nicholas I made the fight against the “revolutionary infection” a principle of the Republic of Ingushetia’s foreign policy and, as a result, lost the trust of his “allies.”

[Maks1995]

Another article about the Crimean War? Where is everyone deceiving Russia?
Oh, hardly.
I once read on the diplomatic service website that the French then directly persuaded the Tsar not to go to Turkey, promising to assist in other places.
Everyone, everyone understood that Turkey was a crossroads of trade routes and a weakened, “draw” that let everyone through suited everyone.
“Mine” would have suited me better, but all the other countries were already up in arms. How many attempts have there been to “unite” a little from different countries? there were articles right here about attempts before and after...
You can read the fiction “Monte Cristo” - it describes how France, losing in the colonial partition, climbed into both Africa and the Arabs...

So everyone understood perfectly well that “seizing and dividing” the only waterway... would be extremely disadvantageous for the others. As it turned out, except for the royal power...
Well, etc.

[Dekabrist]

Another article about the Crimean War? Where is everyone deceiving Russia?

The only sane comment on the essence of the issue.

[depressant]

Just a fact.
In 2014, Nicholas II sent 2000 Russian engineers to the United States at the request of the government of this country to create a military-industrial complex of heavy weapons.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: depressant

In 2014, Nicholas II sent 2000 Russian engineers to the United States at the request of the government of this country to create a military-industrial complex of heavy weapons.

Lyudmila Yakovlevna, are you all right?

[bober1982]

It's a typo. In one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.

[Fat]

Everything is fine with Lyudmila Yakovlevna. She just came across the LJ about which it is written here: https://rdp4v.livejournal.com/2507565.html

[Dekabrist]

Everything is fine with Lyudmila Yakovlevna. She just came across the LJ about which it is written here:

If she called what was written there “just a fact,” then obviously not everything is in order.

[depressant]

Everything is fine with Lyudmila Yakovlevna.

Andrey Borisovich, thank you for interceding)))
Well, it got a little confusing with the date - I was thinking about my girlish )))
And I didn’t pull it out of thin air - not a date, a fact. I'm not sure what I read in this LiveJournal. So, it flashed somewhere. And then I thought, maybe that’s why the grateful American people helped young Soviet Russia during the famine, collected money, sent ships with grain to St. Petersburg. In general, it was inspired.

[Major Kosukhin]

Thank God, Nicholas II was not Duncan MacLeod, and did not live to see our times. As for the industrial complex of heavy weapons, in 1914 the USA had it much better developed than in Russia, it was we who bought the Varyag, Retvizan, and guns there McLena, locomotives and carriages, not ours. 2000 engineers went there not to create it, but to assess what could be bought there for Russia and to prepare procurement documentation.

[Mikhail Ya2]

What could the backward, agricultural Republic of Ingushetia teach the USA, which had heavy industry an order of magnitude larger and better than in the Republic of Ingushetia?

[Foma Kinyaev]

Another monstrous nonsense from a folk historian.
Everyone needs to know that the bald degenerate Nikolashka and his favorite Nesselrode gave away the results of Paskevich’s campaign in Transcaucasia in 1829, and then saved the Ottoman dynasty from Egypt in 1930. That’s all you need to know about the history of the issue. Everything else is just a consequence of what happened during these years events. Starting a war with all of Europe is a small merit.

[Foma Kinyaev]

Don’t overstrain yourself from nonsense, Russian dreadnoughts for the Black Sea began to be designed in 1906, and Britain supplied them with critical technologies and equipment - vehicles, artillery. The Russian-Japanese war had not yet ended, and the Republic of Ingushetia had already concluded an agreement on military technical cooperation with Britain - production of naval artillery, technology transfer and construction at English shipyards of the Rurik-2 missile launcher.

[Ulan.1812]

Exactly. If I’m not mistaken, until 1909 there were only discussions about what dreadnoughts should be for the Russian fleet.
An international competition was even announced for the project.
It seems like the Germans won, but decided to build their own.
The first to begin building were four dreadnoughts for the Baltic.
And only then they began to build on the Black Sea.
By the way, they were armed with 12-inch guns from the Obukhov plant. Quite good. Only by that time England was already building super-dreadnoughts.

[dump22]

Now Russia, in order not to lose face, had to use force. ... This is where Petersburg fell into a trap.

In my opinion, this is another attempt to put an owl on a globe.
There is no such thing as being “forced” to attack first.

This is always just an attempt to justify aggression.
Like Nicholas 1 in 1853.
Like Hitler in 1941.
Like the USA in 2003.

[Dekabrist]

In my opinion, this is another attempt to put an owl on a globe.
There is no such thing as being “forced” to attack first.

Why did you stop at 2003?

[dump22]

These, in my opinion, are the most striking examples of justifying aggression as a “forced” step.
Of course there are many more of them in history.

[Mikhail Ya2]

Before the Muslim takeover of Palestine, it was part of the Byzantine Empire, not Catholic Rome.

It is when? The Kingdom of Jerusalem was founded by Catholics. After the departure of the crusaders, Muslims sat in Palestine

[Mikhail Ya2]

In the pre-war period, the Tsar, including because of the diplomats - Ambassador Kiselev in Paris, Brunnov in London, Meyendorff in Vienna, Budberg in Berlin, and most of all Chancellor Nesselrode, had an erroneous picture of the world. In it, Russia was strong and invincible, Austria and Prussia were allies, England maintained neutrality, France was weak.

Istria teaches that it teaches nothing. The Japs are weak, Kyiv in three days, the proletariat of Finland is waiting for liberation…….

[Seal]

That's interesting. Again the message is that Nicholas I supposedly considered the Ottoman Empire the “sick man of Europe” and was allegedly working on the issue of its division. And the author refers to his previous material - “Turkey is a dying man.”
In which the author wrote:

Nicholas told Aberdeen:
“Türkiye is a dying person. We can strive to keep her alive, but we will not succeed. She must die and she will die. This will be the critical moment.
I foresee that I will have to make my armies march. Then Austria will have to do the same.
At the same time, I am not afraid of anyone, except France. What will she want?
I'm afraid that there are many in Africa, in the Mediterranean Sea and in the East itself.

Back to the question of the reliability of this expression about a sick person.
Nicholas I did not write memoirs.
Aberdeen also never wrote about this expression of Nicholas I.
And yet, the version that in a conversation with Aberdeen Nicholas I said this and that is circulating all over the world. By her own. Like a cat.

[Seal]

In Palestine it turned out differently. Russia stood up for Orthodox Christians, France stood up for Catholics. The issue has become international. The owner in Palestine was the Turkish Sultan. Among his subjects were about 12 million Orthodox Christians (up to a third of the empire's population) and only a few thousand Catholics. Therefore, it was logical to transfer control over religious objects to the Orthodox Church.

During the two decades following the Crimean War, Istanbul's external debt exceeded 212 million pounds sterling. For the Turks, this was a huge amount, equal to all the income of the Ottoman Empire for 12 years. The main creditors of Istanbul were the financial structures of Paris and London and Vienna. It is curious that among the Viennese bankers who were leaders in the “Ottoman” market, the first place belonged to the Austrian bank Creditanstalt, which has successfully survived to this day.
It goes without saying that Turkey could not provide preferences to Russia when it owed huge amounts of money to Catholic France and Austria. However, the third main creditor, England, also played on the side of France and Austria. And he was even like the main striker.
But Turkey had no debt to Russia.

PS It is characteristic that the Turks received only 57% of this amount, the rest immediately went to foreign bankers “for services”.

[Seal]

Quote: Old electrician

During the First World War, Russia had to die to the last man for the Russophobic interests of England and France

First of all England. Which also left France in the cold. England played entirely their own game.
As soon as Herr Diesel invented his internal combustion engine and converted it to oil, everyone in Europe understood the importance of oil. And in Europe, by the beginning of the XNUMXth century, only we and the Ottoman Empire had huge oil reserves. Well, there was also Romania - but Ploiesti was not even close to Baku and Kuwait. “If oil is the queen, then Baku is its throne,” wrote Winston Churchill at the beginning of the century. Baku is the Russian Empire. And modern independent Iraq and Saudi Arabia - before the First World War this was the Ottoman Empire. Kuwait stands apart. It's even more interesting with him. In 1896, as a result of a coup, Mubarak bin Sabah, nicknamed the Great, took the Kuwaiti throne. He managed to achieve diplomatic recognition of Kuwait by the Turks, and also signed a secret pact with Britain in 1899, according to which Kuwait actually became a British protectorate. It is curious that the sheikh also turned to the Russian Emperor Nicholas II with a request for “high patronage,” but was refused - Russia did not want to aggravate relations with the British. On the eve of the First World War, an Anglo-Turkish treaty was signed, according to which Kuwait, while formally remaining part of Turkey, retained national autonomy, and both contracting parties pledged not to send their troops into its territory. After the outbreak of war, Great Britain announced the termination of the treaty with the Turks and officially established a protectorate over Kuwait.
But as they say: “Oil was found in Antarctica. The bloody penguin regime will soon end." So, I repeat that as soon as Herr Diesel invented his internal combustion engine and everyone in Europe understood the importance of oil, then immediately, as if by magic, “Jewish pogroms” began in Russia, and “Armenian pogroms” in Turkey. No wonder they say that Armenians are spare Jews The world "democratic press" begins to harshly condemn "bloody tsarism" in Russia and "bloody sultanism" in Turkey. Our Empires began to be nibbled around the edges. They took a piece of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands from Russia, taking the Liaodong Peninsula with Port Arthur and Dalniy, and Manchuria. Almost all of its European part and Libya were bitten off from Turkey. But at the beginning of the 20th century, Western “democratizers” were not yet so united. Therefore, in 1914, the German and Austrian “democracies” clashed with the English and French “democracies”. First the Russian Empire and then the Ottoman Empire were dragged into this fight. As a result, both our Empires perished. And there are two more empires from among the “Western democracies” - German and Austro-Hungarian. After the defeat in the First World War, Baku oil was torn away from Russia (Azerbaijan became independent), and all its oil-bearing provinces - Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia - were torn away from Turkey. And it became clear who received the main profit from the war - England.
England began to control Baku for some time (however, they were soon kicked out of there by the Germans and Turks, since the war was not over yet). But after the war, England received Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia under its League of Nations mandate. Moreover, the English Democracy even cheated its ally the French Democracy, which only got Lebanon and Syria from Turkey, where there was no oil We, Russia, are luckier. We had the strength to regain Azerbaijan with its Baku oil in 1920. And we did this with the help of Turkey. It was Turkey (Ataturk) who gave an ultimatum to Azerbaijan to allow our 11th Army to pass through the territory of Azerbaijan, which supposedly goes to help Turkey fight against the Entente. Although everyone understood perfectly well that Ataturk was simply handing over Azerbaijan to us. Moreover, it delivers it in such a way that not a single oil field is damaged. As a result, in 1920, the young Soviet Republic received all Baku oil fields intact. And then we helped Ataturk with money and weapons and military specialists (Frunze and Voroshilov).

[Eug]

Eh... as for me, Nicholas II
missed the real opportunity to at least seriously annoy the Angles - a protectorate over Kuwait, a quick conclusion of an alliance with Germany, France, in my opinion, in this situation would clearly have been wary of an alliance with the Angles... and then, quite likely, there would have been no war
It was.

[Eug]

The culprit is inadequate assessments of the situation, interests and behavior of the “partners” in the negotiations, resulting in a lack of leverage (except for the military) over them. So relevant....