Polish Question: Lesson of the Congress of Vienna for Modern Russia
At the village of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, the combined Anglo-Dutch army under the command of the Duke of Wellington and the Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal Gebhard Blucher inflicted a crushing defeat on Napoleon's army. Commemorative ceremonies will be held on Thursday, Friday and Saturday at the memorial field near the village of Waterloo, 15 kilometers south of the center of Brussels. In total, the celebration of the anniversary of Waterloo will attract at least one hundred thousand people to the venue. AT historical reconstruction of the battle will be attended by about 5 thousand participants from different countries, including clubs in Russia, and 300 horses. 20 tons of gunpowder will be consumed for a shot from guns to simulate a battle.
Before the anniversary of 2015, it could have been decided that Waterloo had long been a fact of European history. However, preparations for the festive event this year revealed that the wound inflicted by Waterloo still hurts the French. In March this year, the French government banned the Belgian government from issuing a two-euro coin dedicated to Waterloo. The Belgians had to put into remelting 180 thousand already minted coins. The French explained their decision by saying that “excessive” tensions in Europe and “adverse reactions in France” were undesirable. Waterloo, it is believed in Paris, can still cause tension. On Thursday, Paris will defiantly ignore the commemorative ceremony on the battlefield near Brussels. Belgium and Holland will be represented at the ceremony by their monarchs, Great Britain by the heir-prince, and the French Foreign Ministry will send secondary officials to it. French historical identity still has problems created by the French Revolution and the loss of European cultural hegemony.
However, now in the shadow of Waterloo there was another extremely important, relevant and instructive European historical event - 9 June 1815, exactly nine days before the battle at Waterloo, in Vienna in the Hofburg Palace representatives of the powers hostile to Napoleon signed the Final Act of the Vienna Congress, which issued system of international relations in Europe for the next 40-50 years. The hypothetical victory of Napoleon at Waterloo would be a means of destroying the Vienna system created in opposition to the French Revolution. Waterloo as the final bloody sanction under the decisions of the Congress of Vienna became a symbol of the end of one and the beginning of another historical era. The eighteenth century of the Enlightenment and the Great French Revolution ended Waterloo.
Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna with the “Holy Union” system became a stage in the development of international law. However, on closer examination of these two events, it should be recognized that the modern paradox of Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna is that only one United Kingdom has survived to date. All other participants have undergone, sometimes catastrophic, transformations or have completely disappeared from the historical arena. For example, in 1815, Belgium did not yet exist. Now there is neither the French Empire nor Prussia. As for the Congress of Vienna, of all the territorial changes sanctioned against the Russian, Austrian empires, kingdoms of Sweden, the Netherlands, Prussia and others, only one point remains relevant to our days - international recognition of the neutrality of the Swiss Confederation. Everything else has sunk into oblivion, something in nine days, something at the end of 1815, something in 15 years after Congress, and something in 100 - after the First World War. The European map is very changeable and mobile. In addition, the Congress of Vienna in conjunction with Waterloo is a brilliant illustration of the fact that any system of international law is a simple reflection of the balance of forces of the powers that authorized it. Napoleon did not fit into the Vienna system. He challenged her. Therefore, the Allies had to eliminate him from politics through Waterloo. The international system operates as long as it is profitable for its participants, or until new political factors or new actors emerge. No “international law” system per se will replace a realistic foreign policy. Ignoring real politics through creating a system that legitimizes the status quo increases the likelihood that a system will disintegrate under the pressure of specific realities of international politics. This is the main lesson of the Congress of Vienna. Waterloo was only the first attempt to destroy it.
The main task of the Congress of Vienna was the decision on the former possessions of the Napoleonic empire in Europe - vassal and semi-mussal after it established the 1814 of the year with minor corrections of the 1792 boundary of the year according to the peace treaty between the powers and France. Initially, representatives of the four allied states - Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia at the Congress of Vienna, stated that decisions would be made only by these powers. As for the others, they can only make or reject decisions that have already taken place. However, the prince from France, Prince Talleyrand, with the support of the British, managed to ensure that representatives of France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden also participated in the meetings. In practical terms, this meant that a representative of France that had lost the war was added to the pool of winning powers at the Congress. However, his, Talleyrand, intrigue in some respects played a prominent role in the Congress. Despite this, decisions on the main issues of European settlement at the Congress of Vienna were not taken on the terms of equal sovereign representation of all Congress participants. The principal issues were solved by the "powers". The Congress of Vienna fully implemented the law of real politics.
The main objective of the Vienna system of international relations was the restoration of "equilibrium" in Europe. The basic principle of the Vienna system was declared "legitimism", which was supposed to protect the "Holy Alliance" of European monarchs created on its basis. Legitimism was understood as the historical right of dynasties to address the basic issues of government and state-building. In this regard, historical dynasties were considered “legitimate”, and not republics and vassal monarchies, to the thrones of which Napoleon spread his relatives or henchmen. True, the Congress of Vienna with the principle of legitimism was not consistent. Regarding the king of Neapolitan Joachim Napoleon (Murat) and the Swedish crown prince Karl XIV, Johan (Bernadotte), the legitimate principle was violated. The recognition of Bernadot and Murat "legitimate" at the Congress of Vienna was associated with their betrayal of Napoleon.
In the history of the Congress of Vienna, for us, first of all, the theme of Russia and Europe, the first Russian participation in the creation of a European system of international relations under the auspices of the "Holy Alliance" is remarkable. After the decisive victory over Napoleon in 1812, Russia had two foreign policy alternatives in the European direction: 1) to invade Europe for the final defeat of Napoleon; 2) abandon the invasion and give Europe itself. The last to emperor Alexander I was strongly advised by the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, field marshal Mikhail Kutuzov. Alexander neglected his advice.
The main question for Russia in the European system being created was the Polish question. Regarding Poland, Russia, it was important to solve two problems:
1) to ensure the incorporation into Russia of the territories obtained during the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1772, 1773, 1795 and prevent the Polish revision of the sections;
2) to guarantee the security of Russia from attacks from the territory of Poland. The experience of the Napoleonic wars demonstrated that the Duchy of Warsaw, created by Napoleon in 1807, turned from the core of the divided Polish territories into each of Napoleon’s military campaigns in the East into a foothold and enemy resource potential for an attack on Russia.
After the final defeat of Napoleon in 1814, Russia had two possible solutions for the Russian-occupied Duchy of Warsaw:
1) restore on its basis the Polish vassal from Russia;
2) return the territory of the Duchy of Warsaw to its former owners in the sections of the Commonwealth - Prussia and Austria.
Formally, the Congress of Vienna defended the rights of legitimate dynasties. In this regard, the Poles were "deprived." They did not have their own dynasty. Therefore, "legitimism" in relation to Poland meant that it could be divided. “Legitimate” from the point of view of the powers recognized the previous sections of Poland. This logic suggested that the territory of the Duchy of Warsaw should return to Prussia. And Krakow from its composition - to Austria.
Russia at the Congress of Vienna chose the first option. Crucial to this outcome were:
1) Russia's involvement in European affairs after the 1812 of the year (how to refuse the territorial reward after the victory over Napoleon, if all the other powers are going to take the territory?);
2) since 1803, the already prepared political project of the Polish state under the scepter of the Romanov dynasty, prepared by the emperor's friend, the Polish prince Adam Czartoryski;
3) is the identity of Emperor Alexander I, who in his attitude was neither Russian nor Orthodox.
The restoration of Poland did not correspond to either the public opinion of Russia or the Russian foreign policy expediency. However, victories in the war with Napoleon turned the head of the Russian Tsar, in his education, psychology and salon culture generally prone to mysticism. Alexander began to see himself as an instrument of God, destined to liberate Europe from the evils of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and its personal embodiment — Napoleon. The king felt obliged to restore the Polish state. The new Polish state not only satisfied the principles of the dear imperial heart of "Christian justice", but also allowed Alexander I to speak on the political stage in the long-desired role of a constitutional monarch. The Polish plan for the Chartoryisky Circle was linked to the common goals of European reform in Russia, under which Poland was to play the role of a skirmisher.
At the Congress of Vienna, the territorial claims of the Russian Empire against Poland met with resistance from Britain and the Austrian Empire. The plan for the restoration of the Polish state under the rule of the Russian Tsar was supported by Prussia. In the Polish question against Russia and Prussia, the French envoy Talleyrand intrigued.
The main territories of the Polish state planned by Alexander I of Poland before 1807 belonged to Prussia. Consequently, Prussia was to receive compensation from Russia at the expense of the German princes, who were Napoleon's allies until the end of 1813. The most desirable for Prussia territory "for Poland" was to be economically developed Saxony. As a result, Poland and Saxony became the first major source of disagreement at the Congress of Vienna. The disputes in Vienna have gone so far that on January 3, 1815, the representatives of Great Britain, Austria and France reached a secret agreement against Prussia and Russia. There was no complete unity between Prussia and Russia. The Prussian representative Hardenberg began to ponder the prospect: would not Prussia join the anti-Russian coalition?
The resulting anti-Russian combination was a clear historical warning to Russia, because it marked the very configuration of the hostile coalition that manifested itself in the Crimean War of 1853 — 1856. In vain, Napoleon returned to Paris for “One Hundred Days,” warned Alexander I of the anti-Russian intrigue at the Congress. Napoleon’s return to power in France smoothed over differences between the powers at the Congress of Vienna and led to an early compromise on all key issues. 13 March 1815 was signed a declaration against Napoleon, declaring him "the enemy of the human race" and outlawing him. 25 March 1815 in Vienna Austria, England, Prussia and Russia concluded a new defensive and offensive alliance against Napoleon. The fear instilled by the return of Napoleon put an end to petty discord, and Congress vigorously set about solving the most important and urgent matters. Against this background, in the run-up to Waterloo, the Final Act of Congress was prepared.
According to the decisions of the Congress of Vienna as an integral part of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Poland was created, endowed with numerous attributes of a sovereign state and located in a dynastic union with Russia.
Prussia received for the creation of the Kingdom of Poland in compensation from the territory of the former Duchy of Warsaw - Poznan with the region. Of the German principalities in compensation for Poland because of a compromise with Austria, only half of Saxony, but, more importantly, the Rhineland and the former kingdom of Jerome Bonaparte Westfalia. The new western regions had no direct territorial connection with the core of the kingdom of Prussia, which in the near future invited Prussian strategists to fight for a corridor to them. A similar connection between the North German territories was created by Prussia following the war with Austria in 1866.
So, note that the end of 9 on June 1815 of the Congress of Vienna marks the maximum territorial expansion of the Russian Empire to Europe. This advance at the expense of Poland was paid for by territorial compensation of Prussia. These compensations created the prerequisites for the decisive success of this country in the future unification of Germany. The main rival of Prussia - the Austrian empire at the end of the Congress of Vienna was content with significant territorial increments in the Balkans and in Italy, which made the Hapsburg empire even more "non-German" state. Italian tension reduced the forces of Vienna in the struggle against Prussia for hegemony in Germany. Thus, Russian diplomacy at the Congress of Vienna laid the foundations for unfavorable for Russia business turnover in Germany. The negative consequences of the unification of Germany under the leadership of Prussia were fully manifested for Russia in 1878 at the Berlin Congress.
Another important note, this time concerning the reverse side of the Vienna Congress medal - “One Hundred Days” by Napoleon and Waterloo. In 1813, the enemy coalition twice offered a peaceful compromise to Napoleon, which the emperor of France rejected. For Napoleon, any other status for France was unacceptable, except for its superiority in Old Europe. On closer examination, the hegemony of France was secured by the possession of two territories - Flanders and the Rhineland with the “natural border” of France along the Rhine. At the end of the Congress of Vienna, half of these key areas for French imperialism, with the sanction and with the direct participation of the Russian tsar, were transferred to Prussia, which ensured the hegemony of this state in Germany. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Napoleon struck his first blow in the military campaign of the year 1815 on the other half, controlled then by Britain, on Flanders. It ended for the emperor with a defeat at Waterloo.
Prussia, which united Germany, in the 1914 year, exposed Russia during the outbreak of World War, to Poland and to the second part of Napoleon’s French imperialist inheritance - Flanders, which at that time was called Belgium and whose neutrality was guaranteed by the United Kingdom. The British control after the Congress of Vienna over the key territory of Belgium and Holland was not only a means of security for the British Isles, but also served to prevent the appearance of the continental European hegemon - be it France or Germany. Flanders and the Rhine are the key geopolitical areas of Old Europe.
As for the “Polish question”, the 19th century convincingly demonstrated that the main outcome of the Congress of Vienna is the Kingdom of Poland, whether in the form of a constitutional monarchy or in the form of “provinces of the Privislensky krai”, with all its political, legal and social structure, as well as culture was a foreign body as part of the Russian Empire.
The twentieth century showed other alternatives to the Vienna Congress for solving the “Polish question”. The independent Poland created after the First World War throughout its history from 1918 to 1939 has remained a hostile state to Russia. Poland has done an excellent job with the role of a buffer separating Russia from Europe, but only in relation to Russia (“Miracle on the Vistula”), but not Germany. 1939 year “Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact”, it seemed, repeated the options for dividing Poland 1793 and 1795. In the 1941 year, as in the 1812 year, the territory of Poland served as a springboard for an attack on Russia (USSR). The Governor-General of 1940 of the Year was a historical reminiscence of the Duchy of Warsaw of 1807.
The Yalta system attempted to play a different game in the case of Poland than Vienna in the 1815 year. If the Congress of Vienna compensated Prussia for the creation of Poland under the auspices of Russia, then Yalta compensated Poland for its Soviet vassalage at the expense of Prussia. “People’s Poland” received compensation for the “Cresa voshodnie” (the author of the idea was Churchill by the way), an alliance with the USSR and the presence of Soviet troops on its territory at once six historical regions of Prussia - East Prussia, Danzig, Pomerania, Poznan, Silesia and part West Prussia on the river Oder. However, such a territorial combination did not remove the “Polish question” from the agenda of Russia and did not add appreciation to the Poles for our country. In practice, the Helsinki Final Act was intended to guarantee Poland, Czechoslovakia and the USSR from territorial revisionism and revanchism in Germany. The irony of history: in 2014 — 2015, it was Germany and its European allies who began to appeal to the very principle of “inviolability of borders” from Helsinki, which was assigned to it at the start of the process.
Truly, Russia, as Rousseau predicted, will sooner or later gag on an attempt to absorb the Polish kingdom, and such a digestive disorder will result in suffering not only for the Poles, but also for the Russian state and Russian society. The question “what to do with Poland?” Rose to its full height for Moscow immediately after 1992.
In 2014, the problem was aggravated by the fact that the Ukraine, incited by the United States and Germany, assumed the historic role of a troublemaker and a rebel towards Russia. So far, the “Polish question” for Russia is being resolved from the opposite, i.e., ousting Russia from Europe and depriving it of sovereignty. True, in this respect, the lessons of the Vienna Congress 1815, in part, should inspire us with optimism. After all, the general impression of the Congress of Vienna was this: its participants cared more about the benefits of dynasties than about the fate of nations. The most important thing - the Congress of Vienna neglected the national aspirations of divided nations - Germans, Italians and Poles. Sooner or later, these aspirations were realized, which caused in less than half a century the disintegration of the Vienna system in Europe. However, such optimism should not turn a blind eye to another important lesson for us of the Vienna Congress: Russia, as a civilizationally alien to Europe, needs to act very carefully on the field of European politics.
Information