Holy Alliance

After the overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of the entire European world among the powers that considered themselves quite satisfied with the distribution of "rewards" at the Congress of Vienna , the desire to preserve the established international order arose and strengthened, with the permanent union of European rulers and the periodic convening of international forms of political existence then this desire quickly became reactionary.

The initiator of the Holy Alliance was the Russian emperor Alexander I , although in drawing up an act of the Holy Alliance he still considered it possible to patronize liberalism and bestow a constitution on the Kingdom of Poland . The idea of ​​an alliance originated in him, on the one hand, under the influence of the idea of ​​becoming a European peacemaker by creating a Union that would even eliminate the possibility of military clashes between states, and on the other, under the influence of the mystical mood that seized him. The latter explains the strangeness of the very wording of the union treaty, which is not similar in form or content to international treatises, which led many international law experts to see in it only a simple declaration of the monarchs who signed it.

The document reads:

“THE TRACT OF THE BRATISH AND CHRISTIAN UNION, concluded in Paris on September 14/26, 1815.

In the name of the Most Holy and Divisible Trinity.

Their Majesties, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia, as a result of the great incidents that had marked Europe for the last three years, especially as a result of the blessings that God's Providence pleased to cast upon the states whom the government placed in the hope of the one God, having felt the inner conviction in that, the image of mutual relations necessary for the powers should be subordinated to the high truths inspired by the eternal law of God the Savior, they declare solemnly that the subject of this Act is to open in the face of the universe their unshakable determination both in the management of the states entrusted to them and in political relations to all other governments to be guided by no other rules, like the commandments of this holy faith, the commandments of love, truth and peace, which, by no means limited to applying them solely to private life, I must, on the contrary, directly control the will of the kings and lead all their deeds, as a single means affirming human ordinances and remuneration bestowing their imperfections. On this basis

I. According to the words of the Holy Scriptures, commanding all people to be brothers, the three contracting monarchs will be united by bonds of real and inseparable brotherhood and, considering themselves to be single-earthmen, in any case and in every place will begin to give each other benefits, reinforcements and help; in relation to their subjects and their troops, they, like the fathers of families, will govern them in the same spirit of brotherhood, in which they are animated, in order to preserve the faith, peace and truth.

Ii. Therefore, the single prevailing rule be, both between the mentioned authorities and their subjects, to bring each other services, to render mutual goodwill and love, to honor all of them as members of a single Christian people, because the three allied sovereigns consider themselves aki set from Providence for government three single family branches, namely - Austria, Prussia and Russia, confessing in such a way that the Autocrat of the Christian people, whom they and their subjects are part of, is not otherwise truly like He, Com in fact belongs to the power, because in Him the treasures of love, vision and wisdom are infinite, that is, God, our Divine Savior Jesus Christ, the Verb of the Most High, the Word of Life. Accordingly, with this, their Majesties, with their most tender care, persuade their subjects to establish themselves in the rules and in the effective fulfillment of their duties from day to day, in which the Divine Savior instructed men, aki is the only means of enjoying the world that expires from good conscience and is durable.

Iii. All powers wishing to solemnly recognize sacred rules in this act, and koi will feel how much kingdoms need for happiness for a long time, so that these truths will further contribute to the good of human destinies, may be willingly accepted into this Sacred Union with love.

Signed on September 14 (26), 1815 by three monarchs - Emperor Franz I of Austria , King Frederick William III of Prussia and Emperor Alexander I , he initially in the first two did not cause anything but hostility to himself.

According to Metternich , who was also suspicious of the idea of ​​the Holy Alliance at first, this “undertaking”, which “should, according to his guilty, be just a simple moral manifestation, in the eyes of the other two sovereigns who gave their signatures, didn’t have that meaning, ” and later “ Some parties hostile to the sovereigns only referred to this act, using it as a weapon, in order to cast a shadow of suspicion and slander on the purest intentions of their opponents ”.

The same Metternich assures in his memoirs that “the Holy Alliance was not at all founded in order to limit the rights of peoples and favor absolutism and tyranny in any form. This Union was the only expression of the mystical aspirations of Emperor Alexander and the application of Christianity principles to politics. The idea of ​​a sacred union arose from a mixture of liberal ideas, religious and political . ” Subsequently, however, Metternich changed his mind about an “ empty and bitter document ” and very skillfully used the Sacred Alliance for his reactionary goals.

The content of this act was highly indefinite and extensible, and the most practical conclusions could be drawn from it, the general spirit did not contradict it, but rather favored the reactionary mood of the then governments. Not to mention the confusion of ideas belonging to completely different categories, in it religion and morality completely supersede law and politics from the areas undoubtedly belonging to these latter. Built on the legitimate beginning of the divine origin of monarchical power , it establishes the patriarchal relationship between sovereigns and nations, and the former are entrusted with the duty to govern in the spirit of "love, truth and peace", and the latter should only obey: the rights of the people towards the government are not at all mentions.

Finally, obliging the sovereigns to always “ give each other allowance, reinforcement and assistance,” the act says nothing about in what cases and in what form this obligation should be fulfilled, which made it possible to interpret it in the sense that help is obligatory in all those cases where subjects will show disobedience to their "legitimate" sovereigns.

This last is exactly what happened. Alexander I himself began to look at the Holy Alliance precisely like this: “ I ,” he said at the Verona congress to the French plenipotentiary concerning the Greek uprising, “ leave the Greek cause because he saw the revolutionary sign of time in the Greek war. Whatever they do in order to constrain the Holy Alliance in its activities and suspect its goals, I will not back down. Everyone has the right to self-defense, and this right must also be enjoyed by monarchs against secret societies; I must protect religion, morality and justice . " With such a view of the struggle of the Greek Christians with the Muslims of the Turks as a revolt of rebellious subjects, the very Christian character of the Holy Alliance disappeared and meant only the suppression of the revolution, whatever its origin. All this explains the success of the Holy Alliance: soon all the other European sovereigns and governments, including Switzerland with German free cities, joined it; only the English prince regent and the Pope did not subscribe to him, which did not prevent them from being guided by the same principles in their policies; Only the Turkish Sultan was not admitted to the membership of the Holy Alliance as a non-Christian sovereign.

In England, the creation of the Holy Alliance was viewed with the greatest suspicion. The parliamentary opposition during the debate on foreign policy in the House of Commons made a special request to the government on this issue. The members of the chamber demanded an answer to the question of why the treaty was concluded without the participation of England, what is the true meaning of this unusual international act, whether it is not directed against the interests of Great Britain and how it relates to other agreements between the allies in the anti-Napoleonic coalition . R. S. Castlerey replied that the Act of the Holy Alliance did not contradict the mutual obligations of the Allies, that his text had been communicated to him by Alexander I before signing, and later three sovereigns appealed to the Prince Regent with an invitation to join the treaty.

Whether there was a need for such a contract or not is another matter. But if Emperor Alexander is sincerely guided by the spirit that permeates this document, which I, for my part, do not doubt at all, then Europe and the whole world can only be most sincerely congratulated on this. If Emperor Alexander wishes to consolidate his fame on such a basis, then future generations will appreciate this noble decision. Having done so much for humanity with a weapon, how could he better use his influence on the sovereigns of Europe than to provide her with a long and beneficent peace? ^[2]

The non-participation of England in the treaty Castlerey explained by the fact that according to the English Constitution, the king has no right to sign treaties with other powers.

Marking the character of the epoch, the Holy Alliance was the main body of pan-European reaction against liberal aspirations. Its practical significance was expressed in the decisions of a number of congresses ( Aachen , Troppaus , Laibach and Verona ), which fully elaborated the principle of interfering in the internal affairs of other states in order to forcibly suppress all national and revolutionary movements and maintain the existing system with its absolutist and clerical-aristocratic trends.

Aachen Congress

September 20 - November 20, 1818

Conferences in Troppau and Laibach

1820 - 1821 years

As a rule, are considered together as a single congress.

Congress in Verona

October 20 - November 14, 1822

The postwar system of Europe, created by the Congress of Vienna, contradicted the interests of the new nascent class - the bourgeoisie . Bourgeois movements against feudal absolutist forces became the main driving force of historical processes in continental Europe. The Holy Alliance prevented the establishment of bourgeois order, reinforced the isolation of monarchical regimes. With the growth of contradictions between the participants of the Union, the influence of the Russian court and Russian diplomacy on the European policy fell.

By the end of the 1820s, the Holy Alliance began to decompose, aided by, on the one hand, the deviation from the principles of this Union by England, whose interests at that time very strongly contradicted the policies of the Holy Union as in the conflict between the Spanish colonies in Latin America and as well as in relation to the still-continuing Greek uprising, and on the other - the release of the successor to Alexander I from the influence of Metternich and the divergence of interests of Russia and Austria in relation to Turkey.

The overthrow of the monarchy in France in July 1830 and the explosion of revolutions in Belgium and Warsaw forced Austria, Russia and Prussia to return to the traditions of the Holy Alliance, which was reflected, among other things, in the decisions taken at the Munich-Ingrets congress of the Russian and Austrian emperors and the Prussian crown prince ( 1833 year); nevertheless, the successes of the French and Belgian revolutions of 1830 dealt a severe blow to the principles of the Holy Alliance, since now two great powers, England and France , who had previously completely attached to these principles in the sphere of international relations (and internal), now held a different policy, more favorable bourgeois liberalism, - the policy of non-intervention. Nicholas I, who first tried to persuade the Austrian emperor to jointly protest against the “usurper” of the French throne, Louis-Philippe, soon abandoned these efforts.

In the meantime, the contradictions between the interests of Russia, Austria and Prussia grew.

Austria was unhappy with the war of Russia in the Balkans : the Austrian Chancellor Metternich pointed out that helping the "Greek revolutionaries" contradicts the principles of the Holy Alliance. Nicholas I sympathized with Austria for its conservative anti-revolutionary stance. Austria sympathized with Nesselrode . In addition, support from Austria could untie Russia's hands in the Balkans. However, Metternich declined to discuss the “Turkish issue”. But during the revolution in the Austrian Empire of 1848–49, he lost his position, and Nicholas I had hope that Austria would change its position.

In the summer of 1849 , at the request of the Emperor of Austria Franz-Joseph I , the Russian army under the command of Field Marshal Paskevich took part in suppressing the revolution of 1848-1849 in Hungary . Then Russia and Austria simultaneously sent notes to Turkey demanding the extradition of Hungarian and Polish revolutionaries. After consulting with the British and French ambassadors, the Turkish Sultan rejected the note.

In the meantime, Prussia decided to increase its influence in the German Union . This led her to several conflicts with Austria . Thanks to the support of Russia, all conflicts were resolved in favor of Austria. This led to a cooling of Russian relations with Prussia.

After all this, Nicholas I was counting on the support of Austria in the Eastern Question :

“As for Austria, I’m sure of it, as our contracts define our relationship.”

But Russian-Austrian cooperation could not eliminate Russian-Austrian contradictions. Austria, as before, was frightened by the prospect of the emergence in the Balkans of independent states, probably friendly to Russia, whose very existence would have caused the growth of national liberation movements in the multinational Austrian empire. As a result, Austria, not directly participating in the Crimean War , took an anti-Russian position.

• Unholy Union (geopolitics)

• For the text of the Holy Alliance, see the Complete Assembly of Laws, No. 25943.
• The French original can be found in 1 h. IV m. “The collections of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers” ​​by Professor Martens.
• “Mémoires, documents et écrits divers laissés par le prince de Metternich,” Vol. I, pp. 210-212.
• V. Danevsky, “Systems of political equilibrium and legitimism” 1882.
• Ghervas, Stella [Ghervas, Stella Petrovna], Réinventer la tradition. Alexandre Stourdza et l'Europe de la Sainte-Alliance, Paris, Honoré Champion, 2008. ISBN 978-2-7453-1669-1
• Nadler V. K. The Emperor Alexander I and the idea of ​​the Holy Alliance. TT 1-5. Kharkov, 1886-1892.

• Nikolai Troitsky Russia at the head of the Holy Alliance // Russia in the XIX century. Lecture course. M., 1997.