Was Alexander III the Peacemaker?

62
Was Alexander III the Peacemaker?


From criticism to apologetics


Tsar Alexander III, as is known, remained in stories under the nickname Peacemaker. He owes them the absence of wars throughout the thirteen years of his reign. Local border conflicts far from Europe, like the Afghan one in 1885, do not count.



In general, it must be said that somewhere in the 1990s, the derogatory characterization of the emperor that was common in the USSR was replaced by an almost enthusiastic one.

Hence the popularity of phrases attributed to Alexander III, such as:

“Russia has only two allies: the army and the navy.”

Или:

“Europe can wait while the Russian Tsar fishes.”

They also like to remember the fork, allegedly tied in a knot and thrown by the monarch to the Austrian envoy sitting next to him at one of the receptions, who decided to threaten Russia and hinted at the mobilization of two or three corps.

In addition to the fork, the stunned diplomat allegedly received:

“The same will happen to your buildings.”

However, the peaceful years of his reign were not at all the merit of Alexander III, but a consequence of the political situation in Europe that had developed even before his ascension to the throne, within the framework of which, from the Berlin Congress to the First World War, armed conflicts on the continent between the leading powers were virtually excluded.

The only thing is that the Bosnian crisis of 1908 aggravated the situation in Europe, but it is worth talking about it separately; For now, I will note that it is somewhat rash to assert that it almost led to a major war on the continent.

The reason for the relatively long peace for Europe was the balance of power that took shape as a result of four wars in the second half of the 19th century.

Four wars as a prologue to a long peace


First: Franco-Austrian 1859, more often called Franco-Austro-Italian, which, strictly speaking, is incorrect, since the Kingdom of Italy appeared on the map two years later.

At the same time, on the side of the Second Empire proclaimed in 1852 by Napoleon III, the Kingdom of Sardinia, which included, in addition to the island of the same name, also Piedmont located in the north-west of the Apennines, came out.

The decisive battle took place at Magenta. The Austrians, largely due to the persistence of parochialism in appointments to senior command positions and due to the reluctance of Emperor Franz Joseph to withdraw troops from the Russian border (although Alexander II did not even think about invading), were defeated.

As a result, Sardinia found itself one step away from the unification of Italy under its auspices, which, in turn, Napoleon III did not really want, but, having taken Nice and Savoy for himself, he reluctantly accepted. Unlike Vienna, which decided to defeat the Sardinians in 1860.

But here Alexander II already intervened, hinting to his Austrian brother that he would not allow his troops to invade Piedmont. Franz Joseph was not ready to fight on two fronts (by the way, he was not going to fight with us in the Crimean War, contrary to popular belief) and therefore retreated.

So, not least thanks to Russia, the Kingdom of Italy appeared on the map in 1861. However, Austria retained Venice, which is why the Italians considered the unification incomplete and accepted O. Bismarck’s proposal to enter into an alliance with Berlin directed against Vienna.


Iron Chancellor

The Austro-Italo-Prussian War of 1866 became, if we leave out the Austro-Danish-Prussian War of 1864, which did not significantly affect the balance of power in Europe, the second significant event in the period under review.

The outcome of the campaign was decided by the battle of Königratz, which demonstrated the military genius of G. Moltke the Elder - by the way, not only a German, but also a Russian field marshal - as well as for the first time in the General Staffs of leading European states they were able to appreciate the importance of railways in the operational deployment of troops, in which The Prussians were significantly ahead of the enemy.

However, the Italians were not lucky in the war; their army was defeated at the Battle of Kustotz. Franz Joseph was forced to cede Venice, but to Napoleon III, who graciously handed it over to Victor Emmanuel II. At the same time, the French retained Rome.

The main result of the war was the liquidation of the German Confederation, patronized by Vienna, which indicated the loss of Austria's dominance in Central Europe. Bismarck confidently, and with the benevolent neutrality of Russia, which was burdened by the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, moved towards the unification of Germany with iron and blood. France stood in the way.

The reason for the war was found by Napoleon III himself, who was outraged by the German pretender to the Spanish throne and became a victim of the phantom of the Spanish-Prussian alliance.

However, the southern neighbor, which had long been a shadow of its former power, did not pose a threat, and in the event of an armed conflict, the Prussians could not help the weak Spanish army, due to the dominance of the French at sea fleet - next in number and technical equipment after English.

Paris got involved in the war, overestimating its strength. As a result, Metz and Sedan drew a line under the great power aspirations of France in Europe. From now on, it could conduct independent and successful military operations only in the colonies. Actually, the current appearance of France was formed on the ruins of the defeated empire.


Napoleon III and Bismarck after the Battle of Sedan. Painting by Wilhelm Kamphausen

Realizing that the Third Republic, created to replace it in 1870, would not accept the loss of coal-rich Alsace and Lorraine and would sooner or later try to take revenge, Bismarck decided to finish it off. It was 1875, and the French had not yet restored their military potential, although they worked tirelessly on it.

But here, as in the story with the anti-Sardinian plans of Austria, Russia intervened again, five years ago having favorably reacted to the defeat of Napoleon III, as the guarantor of the Treaty of Paris.

Russia achieved its cancellation in 1870 through a note from A. M. Gorchakov. The formal reason was the repeated violation of the articles by the signatories themselves; in fact, St. Petersburg took advantage of the disappearance of the French Empire from the map. The Italians also benefited from the defeat of Napoleon III: French troops left Rome.

The proclamation of the Second Reich on January 18, 1871 in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles and the subsequent restoration of France in the guise of the Third Republic, but without geopolitical ambitions threatening the interests of Russia, established a favorable balance of power in Europe and partly neutralized the role of Great Britain on the continent, with which St. Petersburg had tense relations developed, largely due to clashes of interests in Central Asia.


Proclamation of the German Empire at Versailles. Painting by Anton von Werner

In the event of a repeated defeat of the French troops, Germany was excessively strengthened, with an even greater decrease in the political weight of Austria, the already insignificant Italy, and minimization of France. Such an imbalance in favor of the Second Reich did not suit either Russia or Great Britain.

And Alexander II, with the approval of London, made it clear to William I that he would not allow a new campaign against France. Berlin conceded. Another question is whether the Germans really intended to fight? In any case, in his memoirs, Bismarck denies that Berlin has such plans, but he does this after the fact and already in retirement, so his reasoning must be treated with a certain degree of caution.

From now on, the main task of the chancellor was to prevent the rapprochement of Paris and St. Petersburg, as well as Paris and Vienna, by diplomatic methods. But, let me emphasize once again, after 1875 Bismarck intended to do this exclusively peacefully, in particular, reassuring Russia regarding its concerns about the prospects of German ambitions in the Balkans. This is his famous:

“The region is not worth the bones of even one Pomeranian grenadier.”

To London, Bismarck also demonstrated his unwillingness to infringe on British interests on the continent, while he feared a rapprochement between Russia and England, despite the significant contradictions between them.

But the Elysee Palace did not calm down. France needed guarantees of non-aggression by the Germans. Britain could not provide them - due to the weakness of the land army, small and intended for wars in the colonies; and due to the then policy of “Brilliant Isolation”.

Relations with Austria have traditionally been difficult. Although, I repeat, Bismarck took into account the possibility of a rapprochement between Paris and Vienna, directed against Berlin, and tried to prevent this.

However, those at the Elysee Palace were more willing to see themselves as guests in the Winter Palace than in Schönbrunn (the residence of the Austrian emperors). It seemed to many then that geography itself, in the presence of the Franco-Russian alliance, neutralized Germany’s aggressive plans at their very beginning.

The apparent difficulty for Paris was the Union of Three Emperors that had taken shape by that time: Alexander II, Franz Joseph and Wilhelm I.

It is curious that according to the text of the document signed by the first two (Wilhelm I would join the treaty a little later) in Schönbrunn on May 25, 1873, the goal of the emperors was not to prevent a European war, but to postpone its possibility.

That is, in leading European capitals there were no illusions about the reality, in the long term, of an armed conflict. Another thing: hardly anyone could imagine its duration, colossal scale and destructive nature.

The General Staffs of the leading powers thought of the coming war in terms of short-term campaigns, following the example mentioned above. Politicians, including Bismarck, during the period we are considering, saw it as a matter of a separate future.

The document signed in Schönbrunn, in a sense, represented a vestige of the past, since it was maintained in the outdated spirit of the Holy Alliance, based on the defense of the principle of the legitimacy of monarchies and conservative values.

But by that time, the position of the former seemed unshakable, and revolutionary steam seemed to have been released on the barricades of European capitals back in the middle of the century. The defeat of the Paris Commune, many thought at the time, ruled out a revival of radicalism in the coming decades.

However, Bismarck considered the Union as a means against the rapprochement of the states surrounding Germany, primarily France and Russia. And he tried to demonstrate his political viability in 1876, when the Bulgarians launched an anti-Ottoman uprising, which was extremely harshly suppressed by Istanbul.

Realizing that Russia could intervene, especially given the popularity of pan-Slavist ideas in its society (Bismarck saw them as the basis of the expansionist policy of Alexander II), the chancellor initiated the emperors’ speech with the “Berlin Memorandum” of 1876, which called on the Porte to carry out reforms in the Balkans , and without encroaching on its territorial integrity.

Through this document, Berlin did not show concern for the southern Slavs, but sought to prevent an armed conflict between Russia and Austria, because the latter was not going to indifferently look at the strengthening of St. Petersburg’s position in the region, which it considered its sphere of influence. Moreover, both sides appealed to Germany, which sought to maintain smooth relations with both Vienna and St. Petersburg.

The memorandum met with understanding in Paris and Rome, but frightened London. He kept imagining the specter of Russia establishing control over the straits, with its subsequent entry into the Eastern Mediterranean and a threat to British interests in Egypt.

The foreign policy of St. Petersburg was presented to London in the form of two huge claws: one stretched towards the Bukhara Emirate and the Kokand, with Khiva, khanates; the other - to the straits. And both are towards British possessions.

Feeling the support of England, the Porte rejected the demands set out in the memorandum.

Peaceful ways to solve the problem were exhausted, and the Russian army crossed the Danube, with Austrian neutrality, for which it was promised Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the Reichstadt Agreement of 1876. Thus began the fourth war - the last in a series that influenced the political appearance of Europe and the balance of power in it, which lasted until the First World War.

As is known, despite the miscalculations of the tsar’s brother, who did not shine with military leadership talent (that’s why he was appointed commander-in-chief; for the same related reason, his full namesake would lead the army thirty-seven years later) Nikolai Nikolaevich the Elder, the war ended with the Peace of San Stefano, revised at the Berlin Congress .

Berlin Congress: everyone is against Russia?


We have a negative assessment of the latter, due to the alleged isolation of Russia.

But this is a simplified vision. For already within the framework of the aforementioned Reichstadt Agreement, Austria opposed the autonomy of Bulgaria, and at the congress itself, Russia unequivocally demanded unconditional support from Germany, and in some places in a rather harsh tone, reflected in one of the letters of Alexander II to Wilhelm I.

In addition, an understanding of the inevitable, sooner or later, division of the Porte's heritage already existed at the Congress of Vienna, and the parties agreed to cut the Balkan pie together. Petersburg tried to do this unilaterally.

A month before the congress, the Russian Ambassador to England, Count P. A. Shuvalov and the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, Marquis R. Salisbury, signed an agreement in London that essentially abolished the articles of the San Stefano Peace, which was only confirmed in Berlin.


Berlin Congress. Painting by Anton von Werner

But, most importantly, none of the congress participants intended to fight. And just as Napoleon III became a victim of unfounded fears of the specter of the Spanish-Prussian alliance, so Alexander II was afraid of the non-existent phantom of a new Eastern (Crimean) war.

From whom did the military threat to Russia come? From the then weak France, only in Russia and seeing the guarantor of its own security? Germany? But she tried to defend her interests strictly diplomatically and did everything to level out the contradictions between Austria and Russia, trying to maintain generally friendly relations with both.

And Franz Joseph had enough internal problems and had no time for war. England? So in London, Salisbury and Shuvalov agreed on everything. Finally, what threat did Her Majesty’s fleet pose to Russia?

Another thing is that, yes, in general Russian diplomacy was not up to par. Because she could play on the harsh criticism of British Prime Minister B. Disraeli, who supported Porto, from British public opinion, including his main rival and opposition leader, W. Gladstone; to win over France and Italy to a greater extent, again playing on the latter’s contradictions with Austria.

After all, just as pan-Slavist sentiments were strong in Russia, so in Italy the ideas of irredentism, that is, the unification of all lands inhabited by Italians, were popular. And some of them were under Austrian rule - Trieste in particular.

However, despite the ambitions and disputes, none of the leading powers were ready for a major war or wanted one. So the peaceful years of Russia are not at all the merit of Alexander III and his diplomacy.
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    11 May 2024 05: 18
    The author is right in the main thing: the policies of Alexander 3 were not the cause of the peaceful period. Russia and its Tsar needed an alliance with a technologically advanced power due to its own chronic backwardness. And France seemed like a more convenient ally.

    Nowadays, Alexander 3rd is advertised only in the general context of strained attempts to present modern Russia as the heir to the Russian Empire.
    Although they themselves gouged both the Empire and the USSR, and now they are successfully finishing off the remnants.
    1. +3
      11 May 2024 12: 20
      Peace-loving, but not far-sighted. French loans played a cruel “joke”. The Entente arose under pressure from France and his Danish wife. Which led to WWI.
      That is, he was a peacemaker only for his generation.
      1. 0
        13 May 2024 19: 09
        There was no alternative; industry had to be developed somehow, but our own funds were not enough. Russia also needed the Franco-Russian alliance as a counterbalance to the overfed Germany. WWII may have been inevitable, but it could have gone completely differently if Alexander’s successor had been more adequate.
  2. +3
    11 May 2024 05: 30
    At the time indicated by the Author, there was simply no one to start a war in Europe. Newly born Germany and Italy were still weak, Austria-Hungary was the same “sick man of Europe” as the Ottoman Empire. Well, England and France were something like fat cats who divided among themselves the last free lands in Africa. France still had some plans for Alsace, but was not able to return it alone. So, even if the toughest militarist were in power in Russia, even he would not be able to start a European war
    1. +3
      11 May 2024 08: 36
      The most terrible animal is the heron. He eats everything... and the gopher eats. Which no one sees.
      The nobles slept through the raising of the heads of commoners and workers.
      He's a flyer. Last chance to give education and culture to the lower classes. raise fathers and grandfathers who could keep future grandchildren from the revolutions of the early 20th century
      1. 0
        11 May 2024 12: 21
        The educated and cultured lower classes would have demolished the exploiters of the tsars even faster.
  3. +2
    11 May 2024 06: 04
    But here Alexander II already intervened, hinting to his Austrian brother that he would not allow his troops to invade Piedmont.

    And so it would seem that relatively neutral Austria wants to attack Sardinia, which, to the applause of the British and French, declared war on Russia without any reason, so why help our enemies? If they had fought, the French would have gotten in, they would have spent money, they would have fallen behind in development, what would be wrong with that? It would be possible to help the losing side. This domestic peacekeeping is incomprehensible; if one of the bad people far from our borders starts a quarrel, then this must be facilitated in every possible way
    1. -1
      11 May 2024 06: 38
      This is exactly what the Americans and British have always done and are doing. . They help fan the fire far from their borders. And they never got anything from it except benefit.
      Just to do this, you must have technological superiority and the reputation of a highly developed country.

      And if all that is available is the reputation of the retarded, then these retarded gentlemen are developed - all the holes are plugged: “What can you give? A soldier? Give us a soldier... What else can we take from you?”

      For example, today's Ukraine is, as it were, the "defender of Western civilization".... Such people, for lack of their own intelligence, have to please others.
      1. +2
        11 May 2024 14: 57
        Quote: ivan2022
        Just to do this, you must have technological superiority and the reputation of a highly developed country.

        here is a specific example - Alexander 2 prevented a war, that is, he could have done nothing and it would have happened; the reputation of a technologically developed country would not have prevented this. For some reason the reputation had an effect on Austria. Wars in general are not fueled by reputation or technology.
  4. -1
    11 May 2024 06: 36
    It's easy to insult the dead, they won't answer you...
    1. +3
      11 May 2024 15: 04
      What is the insult?
  5. +2
    11 May 2024 07: 01
    Simply put, according to the author, all European states have been struck by an epidemic of peacefulness. The author is from what planet?
    1. +2
      11 May 2024 14: 59
      So the Europeans had previously divided Europe, and then they started dividing Africa with Asia, like there was enough for everyone. During this time, we lost the habit of fighting wall to wall; in 1914 we had to get used to it again
      1. +1
        11 May 2024 15: 46
        Quote from alexoff
        This is how Europeans divided Europe before,
        And how was it divided to everyone’s satisfaction?
        1. 0
          11 May 2024 16: 26
          No, but instead of Lorraine you could get Algeria with Vietnam and other goodies, somehow it sounds more impressive
          1. +1
            11 May 2024 16: 29
            Quote from alexoff
            but instead of Lorraine you could get Algeria with Vietnam and other goodies

            It is possible, but there is a nuance. Whatever one may say, it is the metropolis that is the heart and brain of the colonial empire, so the most reliable way to seize colonies is through victories in Europe. Actually, this is precisely why WWII began.
            1. +4
              11 May 2024 17: 13
              WWII began when there was nothing left to divide (only Ethiopia and Thailand remained) and all that was left was to squeeze out other equally successful boys. Fighting with professionals was, of course, more difficult than dispersing an underdeveloped bantustan, so everyone took the simpler path.
              1. +1
                11 May 2024 17: 17
                Quote from alexoff
                WWII began when there was nothing left to divide

                The war for the colonies was commonplace long before WWI.
                1. +1
                  11 May 2024 17: 22
                  In the mid-19th century, colonies were taken seriously thanks to technological progress
                  1. +1
                    11 May 2024 17: 25
                    Progress has accelerated many things, but the struggle itself began much earlier.
                    1. +1
                      11 May 2024 20: 21
                      Previously, but since the Spaniards and Portuguese were the pioneers in this matter, wars began over the squeezing of their colonies or newly independent colonies. They didn’t fight very much among themselves, but their replacements turned out to be more sensitive guys
    2. +7
      11 May 2024 15: 04
      Have you read the article? Where do I write about peacefulness?
      1. +2
        11 May 2024 15: 45
        Quote: Igor Khodakov
        Where do I write about peacefulness?

        In the article. And Bismarck didn’t want to fight, and Franz Joseph didn’t want to fight, and no one wanted to... Everyone is just so peaceful.
    3. 0
      13 May 2024 14: 00
      Quote: Dart2027
      Simply put, according to the author, all European states have been struck by an epidemic of peacefulness. The author is from what planet?

      Well I do not know. In fact, the Author shows that the period of the 60-70s of the 19th century was filled with local European conflicts, which managed to relieve tension between countries for a certain period of time - someone longed for revenge, but was not ready, and someone achieved goals and began to look for new ones. That's all. And no peacefulness.
      1. 0
        13 May 2024 19: 43
        At the beginning of the article
        Franz Joseph was not ready to fight on two fronts (by the way, he was not going to fight with us in the Crimean War, contrary to popular belief) and therefore retreated
        In a minute we find and read about the ultimatum that was sent to Alexander II. As a matter of fact, in Crimea, forces acted against the united army of several states that, in principle, could not win, due to their small numbers. And at the same time, significant forces stood on the border throughout the war against a possible attack by the AVI, which immediately showed what an ally it was.
  6. +6
    11 May 2024 08: 34
    Alexander III is first and foremost a person. Despite all our attempts to treat history objectively, we will always be a priori subjective.
    This is exactly how a person - the “Russian bear cub” evokes sincere sympathy.
    1. +2
      11 May 2024 12: 00
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Alexander III is first and foremost a person. Despite all our attempts to treat history objectively, we will always be a priori subjective.

      If “personality comes first,” then of course we will always be subjective, but the author is trying to be objective first of all.
    2. +2
      11 May 2024 12: 22
      Yes, a person, the most ordinary royal person, squeezing all the juice out of the people.
  7. +3
    11 May 2024 10: 18
    The pompous statement "We have two Allies - the Army and the Navy." was done at a time when ordinary people were considered dirt. It is not for nothing that “From Rags to Riches” appeared at this time. What would the Army and Navy do without the support of the People? The people provide everything necessary for both the Army and the Navy. Including their lives. And suddenly the People had nothing to do with it. It sounds strange.
    1. 0
      11 May 2024 12: 20
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      The people provide everything necessary for both the Army and the Navy. Including their lives. And suddenly the People had nothing to do with it
      you hit what is called "the top ten".
      The fact that “the people have nothing to do with it” and are in no way responsible for the history of their own country is the usual belief of today’s people; “The Tsars did it, the Bolsheviks did it, Yeltsin did it, the Jews did it.”...

      But the people are great because they do everything they order. Can create a great country. can gouge it on orders......maybe Christian, maybe atheistic and then - again - great... maybe FOR nationalization and for privatization, and then vice versa laughing But the great people were not lucky with either the authorities, or history (especially in the USSR), or with all their neighbors, or even with demography.
    2. +3
      11 May 2024 14: 15
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      And suddenly the People had nothing to do with it. It sounds strange.

      Why do people participate in foreign policy?
    3. 0
      11 May 2024 14: 16
      He never said that catchphrase; it was attributed to Alexander III much later by his emigrant son-in-law (already in the 30s of the XNUMXth century)
  8. +7
    11 May 2024 10: 27
    However, the peaceful years of his reign were not at all the merit of Alexander III, but a consequence of the political situation in Europe that had developed even before his ascension to the throne, within the framework of which, from the Berlin Congress to the First World War, armed conflicts on the continent between the leading powers were virtually excluded.
    If I wanted to, I would start a war. Where there were 4 wars, they could have staged more. So it's well deserved. Look, Cousin Willie was itching, although Germany was successfully pushing back England using purely economic methods.
  9. +5
    11 May 2024 17: 02
    Finally, what threat did Her Majesty’s fleet pose to Russia?

    Wow. Brave claim. Block the Black Sea straits through which grain was exported, right?
    1. -2
      11 May 2024 18: 39
      Quote from: sepal81
      Wow. Brave claim. Block the Black Sea straits through which grain was exported, right?

      Exports would go through the northern, Baltic straits. The fuss around the Black Sea straits initially did not make much sense; grain buyers were in northern Europe. And in the Mediterranean, who should you sell grain to? Egypt? laughing
      1. +2
        13 May 2024 19: 12
        Which in the same way could be blocked with overwhelming dominance at sea.
        1. 0
          13 May 2024 22: 22
          Quote: Kmon
          Which in the same way could be blocked with overwhelming dominance at sea.

          By whom? Turkey? lol
          1. 0
            13 May 2024 22: 28
            Britain, we are talking about it above.
            1. 0
              13 May 2024 22: 41
              Quote: Kmon
              Britain, we are talking about it above.

              These games can be played by two people. In the case of an alliance with Germany, this will be much more difficult to do, especially since it will be necessary to begin a blockade of the straits simultaneously with Turkey. And it’s just a stone’s throw from the Danish Straits to England itself.
              1. 0
                13 May 2024 23: 10
                Germany at that time had no fleet and it could not do anything to England. And most likely she would not have entered into Russia; by that time the union had practically collapsed.
                1. 0
                  14 May 2024 22: 19
                  Quote: Kmon
                  And most likely she would not have entered into Russia; by that time the union had practically collapsed.

                  This should have been done before. Peter also practically carried out Sweden; in front of his heirs, he had to calmly finish off. Or completely annex or at least squeeze out the southern coast along the straits. On the contrary, Denmark had also been trying to ally with Russia for a long time, and they also had a grudge against England. It was possible to stand up firmly and vice versa, threatening Britain with raids.
  10. +2
    11 May 2024 17: 23
    Sasha III was in the war. And I didn’t really like this business. I couldn’t stand Vereshchagin and his painting. His aversion to war was therefore well known. And the fact is that Russia did not fight under him.
    But one of his decree about cook’s children does not characterize him in the best way. Although the guy was quite good. “The need for invention is cunning” is his catchphrase in relation to himself.
    1. +2
      11 May 2024 18: 43
      Quote: MCmaximus
      His aversion to war was therefore well known. And the fact is that Russia did not fight under him.

      But by breaking the long-standing Russian-Prussian alliance, he practically guaranteed Russia the First World War, and the Second as well. Moreover, both are in the interests of the Anglo-Saxons. A good "peacemaker" ..
      1. +1
        11 May 2024 18: 54
        And what does all this have to do with peacefulness?
        Yes, and the break with the Germans was not just like that. It is still unknown who taught what there.
        1. 0
          11 May 2024 22: 44
          Yes, and the break with the Germans was not just like that. It is still unknown who taught what there.

          It seems that Bismarck gathered German bankers and “recommended” not to give loans to the Tsar. He created the Empire himself, and buried it himself.
      2. +1
        13 May 2024 19: 17
        Didn't tear it up. The alliance of the three emperors was first undermined by Germany with its “friendly” behavior at the Berlin Congress, and then it completely refused to renew it. And preventing the excessive strengthening of Germany was in the interests of not only the Anglo-Saxons but also Russia. In order not to become in the future a colony or occupied territory of the continental hegemon, which, as history shows, has a habit of going east without coping with Britain.
        1. 0
          13 May 2024 22: 33
          Quote: Kmon
          The alliance of the three emperors was initially undermined by Germany with its “friendly” behavior at the Congress of Berlin

          And remind you that before this Russia, in the person of Alexander II, managed to abandon Austria, its partner? Do you remember about the Budapest Convention? And Prussia acted as the guarantor of the agreement, so it was a slap in the face of Bismarck as well. But then yes... Alexander III was offended by the pope and defiantly opposed Germany, to the delight of the Anglo-Saxons.
          1. 0
            13 May 2024 23: 06
            Yes, such a thing happened, but even earlier, “allied” Austria and Germany spoiled Russia during the Bulgarian crisis.
    2. +1
      11 May 2024 23: 42
      There was a circular from the Minister of Public Education Delyanov, nicknamed “the circular about the cook’s children.” Not a royal decree. By the way, it was not particularly implemented, and in general it was of a recommendatory nature.
      1. 0
        12 May 2024 05: 51
        With us, the Tsar Father is always responsible for everything. It is tolerated through oversight.
      2. 0
        12 May 2024 17: 12
        By the way, it was not particularly implemented, and in general it was of a recommendatory nature.

        This is how they later tried to retouch it. Yes, the circular was not a law, and formally, according to the law, failure to comply with it was not prosecuted. But, firstly, in Tsarist Russia, officials and gentlemen, directors of private schools en masse decided not to listen to the Tsar’s recommendations? (especially if you yourself shared his beliefs) And secondly, with such recommendations to already existing educational institutions, not too numerous at that time, as you think, how did the state develop the education system in the country, while a rapid industrial revolution was taking place in the world? revolution and in “Europe” industrial enterprises grew like mushrooms? Hence the need to purchase technical products abroad for gold, simply because there was one factory in the entire country or there was no serial industrial production of this and that at all.
  11. +2
    11 May 2024 18: 20
    The author is amusingly trying to prove that he was not a “peacemaker”? Apparently he wanted to fight but couldn’t think of someone to fight with? laughing
    1. +4
      12 May 2024 06: 04
      The author is amusingly trying to prove that he was not a “peacemaker”? Apparently he wanted to fight but couldn’t think of someone to fight with? laughing

      Internet Journalism involves “hype” - to lure a potential reader through a link and get likes. Therefore, the titles of works sometimes contradict their content or are absurd. If in Alexander Alexandrovich’s place were his ancestors Pyotr Alekseevich or Alexander Pavlovich, then Russia’s participation in wars in the European theater would be inevitable. Even his son became involved in the conflict in the Far East for the interests of his cousins ​​several years before the Russo-Japanese War. I think if San Sanych remained at the helm, he would have put a “bolt” on the interests of the courtiers in Korea, thereby avoiding the preconditions of Mukden and Tsushima. I am generally silent about participation in the First World War, since he was completely far from the idea of ​​defending French-English capital with the blood of Russian soldiers.
      He made quite a few mistakes and miscalculations, both in the development of the economy and politics, but by making sharp statements and gestures he did not let the country into the abyss of wars. The situation on Kushka is proof of this.
      1. +1
        13 May 2024 19: 21
        Well, if they sat out the “war for French-English capital”, they would get a completely defeated and occupied France, Germany dominating the continent and an offer that cannot be refused: either become a German colony, or get a war with guaranteed complete defeat. With allies is still better than without allies. And they squandered the victory in WWII due to their own incompetence.

        And there was simply no alternative to French loans; without them, the industry would not have been able to develop at all.
        1. 0
          13 May 2024 19: 52
          And there was simply no alternative to French loans; without them, the industry would not have been able to develop at all.

          It was not necessary to pay for them in blood. Italy turned over in flight and nothing happened. It was possible to simply squeeze out the straits on the quiet and congratulate the Germans on their victory. Prussia's next push would be against Austria. Here it was already possible to pull chestnuts out of the fire. However, there is a lot of “would” - it turned out that it turned out!
          1. 0
            13 May 2024 22: 16
            The Germans would politely thank you for your congratulations, and then still put you in the appropriate pose. It would have been impossible to sit on the sidelines of the pan-European turmoil by pretending to be a neutral. The USSR tried - the result is known. During the Franco-Prussian war, the straits could have been squeezed out, but 1) they were afraid of a new Crimean war, as described in article 2) this would have ruined relations with all European powers without exception, and without allies and without loans it would have been very difficult in the event what. As for Italy, if Germany had won, her fate as a traitor would have been unenviable.

            And they paid in blood not for loans, but for their own incompetence. An alliance with France was preferable to an alliance with Germany, not only for financial reasons, but also because France physically could not pose an existential threat, unlike.
            1. 0
              14 May 2024 07: 29
              An alliance with France was a necessary evil due to Germany's position. In the event of the defeat of the Franco-British Alliance, we might have to give up Poland without Vilna. Then, inevitably, the German hegemon turned his attention to Austria-Hungary. How long would it take him to digest the question. Perhaps France played an act of revenge. That is, the era of great European wars without our direct participation. The era of Catherine the Great and Alexander III.
              1. 0
                14 May 2024 11: 27
                Is this a joke or what? Austria-Hungary was Germany's staunchest ally. There is, of course, a chance that it would have disintegrated even after a victorious war, but I don’t think it would have been difficult to digest it, judging by the Anschluss. And in any case it would not have saved us. There was no way the Republic of Ingushetia could compete with the victorious and dominant German superpower on the continent. All that remained was to become a colony or ally with the Franks in advance, which Alexander chose. It's not his fault that Nikolai blew it all.
  12. +1
    12 May 2024 06: 54
    "...went towards the unification of Germany with iron and blood." Too many typos, in almost every paragraph.
  13. +3
    12 May 2024 12: 15
    Under Alexander the Third, there was an active settlement of migrant peasants and Cossacks in Siberia and the Far East, Central Asia, and the final conquest of Central Asia. Clashes with the Afghans and their British advisers at Kushka (the so-called Afghan Crisis). The final borders of the state were fully formed. Transport infrastructure developed (Siberian Railway, etc.)
  14. 0
    14 May 2024 13: 23
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    An alliance with France was a necessary evil due to Germany's position. In the event of the defeat of the Franco-British Alliance, we might have to give up Poland without Vilna. Then, inevitably, the German hegemon turned his attention to Austria-Hungary.


    The alliance with France was a necessary evil due to the rapid penetration of Anglo-French capital into the Russian market. We had to pay for economic dependence with geopolitical obligations.
    For the Republic of Ingushetia, the optimal option would be “armed neutrality.”
    We would not have to fear German expansion. Russia was of no interest to the Kaiser; he was attracted to colonial possessions in the Middle East and Africa. We didn’t fucking need Poland, its inclusion in the Republic of Ingushetia generally brought little benefit to the Russians, more problems.
    The defeat of Austria-Hungary by Germany would not have done us any harm either. In general, it was worthwhile to meddle less in European affairs and focus more on the internal development of our state.
  15. 0
    14 May 2024 13: 26
    Quote: Kmon
    There was no way the Republic of Ingushetia could compete with the victorious and dominant German superpower on the continent.


    Only yours IMHO. Germany had strong potential, but was limited in resources. The Germans still would not have succeeded in conquering Russia, just like Napoleon (whose empire was also a superpower).