Napoleonic Wars and the Holy Alliance as a system of pan-European order

a reactionary association of European monarchs that arose after the fall of Napoleon's empire. 26. IX 1815 Russian Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz I and Prussian King Frederick William III signed the so-called in Paris. "Act of Holy Alliance". The real essence of the “Act”, designed in a pompous religious style, boiled down to the fact that the monarchs who signed it pledged “in every case and in every place ... to provide each other with benefits, reinforcements and assistance.” In other words, S. s. was a kind of mutual assistance agreement between the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was extremely broad in nature. 19.XI 1815 to S. p. the French king Louis XVIII joined; Later, most of the monarchs of the European continent joined him. England did not formally become part of the S. s., but in practice England often coordinated its behavior with the general line of the S. s. The pious formulas of the “Act of Holy Alliance” covered up the very prosaic goals of its creators. There were two of them: 1. To maintain intact the redrawing of European borders that was carried out in 1815 Congress of Vienna(cm.). 2. Conduct an irreconcilable struggle against all manifestations of the “revolutionary spirit.” In fact, the activities of S. s. focused almost entirely on the fight against the revolution. The key points of this struggle were the periodically convened congresses of the heads of the three leading powers of the United States, which were also attended by representatives of England and France. Alexander I and K. Metternich usually played the leading role at the congresses. Total congresses of the S. s. there were four - Aachen Congress 1818, Troppau Congress 1820, Laibach Congress 1821 And Congress of Verona 1822(cm.). Powers of S. s. stood entirely on the basis of “legitimism,” i.e., the most complete restoration of the old dynasties and regimes overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon’s armies, and proceeded from the recognition absolute monarchy . S. s. was a European gendarme who kept the European peoples in chains. This was most clearly manifested in the position of S. s. in relation to the revolutions in Spain (1820-23), Naples (1820-21) and Piedmont (1821), as well as the uprising of the Greeks against the Turkish yoke, which began in 1821. 19.XI 1820, shortly after the start of the revolution in Spain and Naples , Russia, Austria and Prussia at the congress in Troppau signed a protocol that openly proclaimed the right of intervention of the three leading powers of the Socialist Republic. into the internal affairs of other countries in order to fight the revolution. England and France did not sign this protocol, but did not go beyond verbal protests against it. As a result of the decisions taken in Troppau, Austria received the authority to armedly suppress the Neapolitan revolution and at the end of March 1821 occupied the Kingdom of Naples with its troops, after which the absolutist regime was restored here. In April of the same 1821, Austria forcibly suppressed the revolution in Piedmont. At the Congress of Verona (October - December 1822), through the efforts of Alexander I and Metternich, a decision was made on armed intervention in Spanish affairs. The authority to actually carry out this intervention was given to France, which actually invaded Spain on April 7, 1823 with an army of 100,000 under the command of the Duke of Angoulême. The Spanish revolutionary government resisted foreign invasion for six months, but in the end the interventionist forces, supported by the Spanish domestic counter-revolution, were victorious. In Spain, as before in Naples and Piedmont, absolutism was restored. S.'s position was no less reactionary. in the Greek question. When a delegation of Greek rebels arrived in Verona to ask Christian sovereigns and especially Tsar Alexander I for help against the Sultan, the congress even refused to listen to it. England immediately took advantage of this and, in order to strengthen its influence in Greece, began to support the Greek rebels. The Verona Congress of 1822 and the intervention in Spain were essentially the last major acts of the Socialist Revolution. After that, he virtually ceased to exist. Decay of S. s. was due to two main reasons. Firstly, within the union very soon contradictions between its main participants were revealed. When in December 1823 the Spanish king Ferdinand VII turned to S. s. for help in bringing its “rebellious” colonies in America to submission, England, interested in the markets of these colonies, not only declared a decisive protest against all attempts of this kind, but also demonstratively recognized the independence of the American colonies of Spain (31. XII 1824). This drove a wedge between S. s. and England. Somewhat later, in 1825 and 1826, due to the Greek question, relations between Russia and Austria, the two main pillars of the Socialist Revolution, began to deteriorate. Alexander I (towards the end of his reign) and then Nicholas I supported the Greeks, while Metternich continued his previous line against the Greek "rebels". 4. IV 1826 between Russia and England the so-called. Petersburg Protocol on coordination of actions in the Greek issue, clearly directed against Austria. Contradictions also emerged between other participants of the S. s. Secondly, and this was especially important, despite all the efforts of the reaction, the growth of revolutionary forces in Europe continued. In 1830, revolutions took place in France and Belgium, and an uprising against tsarism broke out in Poland. In England, the rapid movement of the popular masses forced the Conservatives to accept the electoral reform of 1832. This dealt a heavy blow not only to the principles, but also to the very existence of the Socialist Union, which actually collapsed. In 1833, the monarchs of Russia, Austria, and Prussia tried to restore S., but this attempt ended in failure (see. Munich Convention).

Holy Alliance

The Holy Alliance (French La Sainte-Alliance, German Heilige Allianz) is a conservative alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria, created to maintain what was established at the Congress of Vienna (1815) international order. The statement of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed on September 14 (26), 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all the monarchs of continental Europe, except for the Pope and the Turkish Sultan. Not being in the exact sense of the word a formalized agreement of the powers that would impose certain obligations on them, the Holy Alliance, nevertheless, went down in the history of European diplomacy as “a close-knit organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of the revolutionary spirit and political and religious free-thinking, wherever they appear"

Collapse of the Holy Alliance

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

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

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

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

Austria was dissatisfied with Russia's war in the Balkans: Austrian Chancellor Metternich pointed out that helping the “Greek revolutionaries” was contrary to the principles of the Holy Alliance. Nicholas I sympathized with Austria for its conservative anti-revolutionary position. Nesselrode also sympathized with Austria. In addition, support from Austria could give Russia a free hand in the Balkans. However, Metternich avoided discussing the “Turkish question.” But during the revolution in the Austrian Empire of 1848-1849, he lost his position, and Nicholas I began to hope that Austria would change its position.

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

Meanwhile, Prussia decided to increase its influence in the German Confederation. This brought her into several conflicts with Austria. Thanks to Russian support, all conflicts were resolved in favor of Austria. This led to a cooling of relations between Russia and Prussia.

But Russian-Austrian cooperation could not eliminate Russian-Austrian contradictions. Austria, as before, was afraid of the prospect of appearing in the Balkans independent states, probably friendly to Russia, the very existence of which would cause the growth of national liberation movements in the multinational Austrian Empire. As a result, in Crimean War Austria, without directly participating in it, took an anti-Russian position.

At the end of the Congress of Vienna in the fall of 1815, the sovereigns of Russia, Austria and Prussia were in Paris at the same time and concluded here the so-called Holy Alliance, which was supposed to ensure peace in Europe in the future. The initiator of this union was Tsar Alexander I. “Leader of the immortal coalition” that overthrew Napoleon, he was now at the height of power and glory. His popularity was also supported by the fact that he was considered a supporter of free political development, and indeed, at that time his mood was quite liberal. Annexing Finland to Russia in 1809, he retained the class constitution in force in Sweden, and in 1814 insisted that the French king LouisXVIII gave his subjects a constitutional charter. At the end of 1815, the Kingdom of Poland, newly formed at the Vienna Congress, received a constitution from its new (Russian) sovereign. Even earlier than this, Alexander I had constitutional plans for Russia itself, and even later, opening the first Polish Sejm in Warsaw in 1818, he said that he intended to extend the benefits of representative government throughout his entire empire.

But at the same time with this liberalism, which later turned out to be insufficiently deep and strong, there was a different mood in the soul of Alexander I. The grandiose events in which he had to play a role could not help but affect his entire psyche, and the result of this action was the development in him of religious dreaminess and mysticism. After the fire of Moscow, which, by his own admission, “illuminated his soul,” he, together with the devout admiral Shishkov He began to diligently read the Bible, some passages of which he interpreted in the sense of prophecies about events that had just happened. This mood intensified in Alexander I after his acquaintance with one pietist, Mrs. Krudener, with whom he often saw in 1815 in Heidelberg and Paris: she already directly applied various prophecies of the Apocalypse to Alexander I himself, called him the angel of the world, the founder thousand year kingdom etc. Having sketched out what later became the main act of the Holy Alliance, the mystical-minded emperor showed her his draft, on which she put the words “La Sainte Alliance” as a title.

Holy Alliance

The essence of the matter was that the sovereigns of Austria, Prussia and Russia gave a solemn promise in all their actions to be guided by the commandments of the holy Christian faith, to remain in brotherhood among themselves and “to give each other assistance, reinforcement and help”, relating to their subjects and troops, how fathers of families should behave, etc. Declaring themselves “as if appointed by Providence to manage three branches of a single family,” the three allied sovereigns “with the most tender care convinced their subjects from day to day to establish themselves in the rules and active performance of duties” taught by the Divine Savior. In conclusion, it was pointed out that the powers wishing to solemnly recognize the “sacred rules” set forth in the act “may all be willingly and lovingly admitted into this Holy Alliance.”

Having drawn up this religious and moral declaration without any specific political and legal content and without any mention of the rights of peoples, Alexander I submitted it to the Austrian Emperor for consideration FranzI and the Prussian king Friedrich WilhelmIII. Neither one nor the other liked the project. The Austrian emperor was, however, under the unconditional influence of his minister, Prince Metternich, who completely agreed with his sovereign, finding that this “philanthropic undertaking under the cover of religion” is nothing more than an “empty and boring document”, which, however, could be very badly interpreted. Metternich just at this time began to play the role of the first statesman of Austria, in which he remained for more than thirty years, directing the policy of the Habsburg monarchy in the most reactionary direction. In his stubborn conservatism, he could not have been more suitable to the character of Franz I, a pedantic absolutist who believed only in the patriarchal method of government and in the need for the strictest discipline. Francis I instructed Metternich to negotiate the proposal of the Russian emperor with the Prussian king, and he also found the matter inappropriate, but at the same time pointed out the inconvenience of rejecting the project. Both allies then indicated to Alexander I some, in their opinion, desirable changes, and Metternich convinced the author of the project of the need to make them, after which the document was signed by all three monarchs. For the actual signing of the act of the Holy Alliance, its initiator chose September 26 of the new style, which in the last century coincided with September 14 of the old style, i.e., with the celebration in Orthodox Church the day of the Exaltation of the Cross of the Lord, which also for Alexander I apparently had a special religious meaning.

In addition to the three sovereigns who signed the act of the Holy Alliance, other sovereigns also joined it. There were very few exceptions. First of all, dad PiusVII declared that he had nothing to accede to the principles which he had always recognized, but in fact he did not want his signature to be among the signatures of minor sovereigns. Secondly, the English prince regent, replacing his mentally ill father, refused to join the union GeorgeIII: The treaty was signed by the sovereigns alone, and the English constitution also requires the signature of the responsible minister. Finally, the Turkish Sultan, as a non-Christian sovereign, was not at all invited to participate in this union of “a single Christian people,” as the union was directly named in the act. In addition to major and minor monarchs, Switzerland and the German free cities also joined the union.

The Austrian minister, who at first found the “philanthropic undertaking” of Alexander I “at least useless,” subsequently benefited more than anyone else from the document, which he himself called “empty and boring.” After the fall of Napoleon, Metternich became the most influential politician Europe, and even Alexander I submitted to his system, despite the fact that Austrian policy was often in conflict with the most vital interests of Russia. Of all statesmen of this era, the Austrian Chancellor more fully embodied the principles of reactionary politics than anyone else and more steadily put them into practice than anyone else, not without reason calling himself a man of existence. Herself state tradition The Habsburg monarchy was a tradition of political and religious reaction. On the other hand, no state needed to suppress popular movements to such an extent as Austria with its diverse population: there were Germans in it, and therefore it was necessary to ensure that it was quiet and peaceful in Germany - and the Italians, and therefore, it was necessary to monitor all of Italy - and the Poles, whose fellow tribesmen in the Kingdom of Poland, to Metternich’s displeasure, had a constitution - and, finally, the Czechs, Magyars, Croats, etc. with their particularistic aspirations. All this made the Habsburg monarchy common center reactionary politics, and Metternich as its leader throughout Europe. The advice of the Viennese oracle was followed not only by the petty sovereigns of Germany and Italy, but also by the monarchs of such great powers as Russia and Prussia. In particular, Alexander I often submitted to the influence of Metternich, who usually very skillfully supported the demands of Austrian policy with references to the Holy Alliance.

an alliance of European monarchs concluded after the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire. T.n. The act of S. s., clothed in religious-mystical. form, was signed on September 26. 1815 in Paris Russian imp. Alexander I, Austrian imp. Francis I and Prussian King Frederick William III. 19 Nov 1815 to S. s. French joined. King Louis XVIII, and then most of the monarchs of Europe. England, which did not join the Union, supported the policy of the Socialist Union on a number of issues, especially in the first years of its existence, English. representatives were present at all congresses of the Socialist Union. The most important tasks of S. s. were the struggle against the revolutionaries. and national liberation. movements and ensuring the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814-15. At the periodically convened congresses of Socialist Socialists. (see Congress of Aachen 1818, Congress of Troppau 1820, Congress of Laibach 1821, Congress of Verona 1822) the leading role was played by Metternich and Alexander I. January 19. 1820 Russia, Austria and Prussia signed a protocol proclaiming the right to arm them. interference in internal affairs of other states in order to fight the revolution. The practical expression of S.'s policy. there were Carlsbad resolutions of 1819. In accordance with the decisions of S. s. Austria carried out armament. intervention and suppressed the Neapolitan revolution of 1820-21 and the Piedmontese revolution of 1821, France - the Spanish revolution of 1820-23. In subsequent years, contradictions between S. s. and England due to the difference in their positions regarding the war for Spanish independence. colonies in Lat. America, and then between Russia and Austria on the issue of attitude towards the Greek. national liberation uprising 1821-29. Despite all the efforts of S. S., revolutionary. and will free you. movements in Europe were shaking this alliance. In 1825, the Decembrist uprising took place in Russia. In 1830, revolutions broke out in France and Belgium, and an uprising (1830-31) against tsarism began in Poland. Under these conditions, S. s. actually fell apart. Attempts to restore it (the signing of the Berlin Treaty between Russia, Austria and Prussia in October 1833) ended in failure. During 19 and at the beginning. 20th centuries (except for the period immediately following the formation of socialist systems) historiography was dominated by negative ratings activities of this reactionary union. monarchs. In defense of S. s. Only a few court and clerical historians spoke, who had only a weak influence on general development historiography. In the 20s 20th century the “rewriting” of the history of the village began, which acquired a particularly wide scale after World War II. First of all, the existing history was subject to revision. liter assessment ch. figures of the Congress of Vienna and S. s. (historians - C. Webster, G. Srbik, G. Nicholson), and the role of the “great European” Metternich (A. Cecil, A. G. Haas, G. Kissinger) is especially praised. Congress of Vienna and S. s. declared to be an avatar vitality conservatism, its ability to preserve established social foundations after turbulent societies. shocks (J. Pirenne). To the special credit of S. s. The suppression of the revolution is being carried out. and will free you. movements of peoples. It is emphasized that the leaders of S. s. “for the first time in history” they created “supranational and supraparty” institutions (by which, first of all, socialist congresses are meant), which ensured the creation of an “effective mechanism” “for maintaining order and preventing chaos in Europe” (T. Shider, R. A. Kann). Thus, reaction. the authors see the special value of S. s. is that he carried out an organized "export of counter-revolution", which is the most important thing today integral part extreme imperialist programs. strength Carrying out dubious historical parallels, the latest imperialist. historians consider S. s. as a distant predecessor and herald of the “integration of Europe” and the North Atlantic bloc. It is emphasized that NATO will have to ensure agreement between Ch. capitalist powers. In this regard, attention is paid to the attempts that have taken place to attract villagers to participate in S. USA (Pirenne). It is noteworthy that some historians (Kissinger and others) strive to prove that the experience of S. with. indicates the possibility of peaceful coexistence only of socially homogeneous states. It is characteristic that most of the newest bourgeois. works about S. s. is not research, but based on very meager source data. the basis of socio-political reasoning, the purpose of which is to substantiate the modern ideology and practice of imperialist reaction. Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., Russian note, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 5, p. 310; Marx K., The exploits of the Hohenzollerns, ibid., vol. 6, p. 521; Engels F., The situation in Germany, ibid. vol. 2, p. 573-74; his, Debates on the Polish Question in Frankfurt, ibid., vol. 5, p. 351; Martens F., Collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers, vol. 4, 7, St. Petersburg, 1878-85; Treatise of the Fraternal Christian Union, PSZ, vol. 33 (SPB), 1830, p. 279-280; History of diplomacy, 2nd ed., vol. 1, M., 1959; Tarle E.V., Talleyrand, Soch., t. 11, M., 1961; Narochnitsky A. L., International relationships European countries from 1794 to 1830, M., 1946; Bolkhovitinov N. N., Monroe Doctrine. (Origin and character), M., 1959; Slezkin L. Yu., Russia and the War of Independence in Spanish America, M., 1964; Manfred A.Z., Socio-political ideas in 1815, "VI", 1966, M 5; Debidur A., ​​Diplomatic History of Europe, trans. from French, vol. 1, M., 1947; Nadler V.K., Emperor Alexander I and the idea of ​​the Holy Alliance, vol. 1-5, Riga, 1886-92; Soloviev S., The Age of Congresses, "BE", 1866, vol. 3-4; 1867, vol. 1-4; his, Emperor Alexander I. Politics - diplomacy, St. Petersburg, 1877; Bourquin M., Histoire de la Sainte-Alliance, Gen., 1954; Pirenne J. H., La Sainte-Alliance, t. 2, P., 1949; Kissinger H. A., World restored. Metternich, Castlereagh and the problems of peace 1812-1822, Bost., 1957; Srbik H. von, Metternich. Der Staatsmann und der Mensch, Bd 2, M?nch., 1925; Webster Ch. K., The foreign policy of Gastlereagh 1815-1822. Britain and the European Alliance, L., 1925; Schieder T., Idee und Gestalt des ?bernationalen Staats seit dem 19. Jahrhundert, "HZ", 1957, Bd 184; Schaeder H., Autokratie und Heilige Allianz, Darmstadt, 1963; Nicolson H., The Congress of Vienna. A study in Allied Unity. 1812-1822, L., 1946; Bartlett C. J., Castlereagh, L., 1966; Haas A. G., Metternich, reorganization and nationality, 1813-1818, "Ver?ffentlichungen des Institutes f?r Europ?ische Geschichte", Bd 28, Wiesbaden, 1963; Kann R. A., Metternich, a reappraisal of his impact on international relations, "J. of Modern History", 1960, v. 32; Kossok M., Im Schatten der Heiligen Allianz. Deutschland Und Lateinamerika, 1815-1830, V., 1964. L. A. Zak. Moscow.

HOLY UNION

A reactionary association of European monarchs that arose after the fall of Napoleon's empire. 26. IX 1815 Russian Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz I and Prussian King Frederick William III signed the so-called in Paris. "Act of Holy Alliance".

The real essence of the “Act”, designed in a pompous religious style, boiled down to the fact that the monarchs who signed it pledged “in every case and in every place ... to provide each other with benefits, reinforcements and assistance.” In other words, S. s. was a kind of mutual assistance agreement between the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was extremely broad in nature.

19.XI 1815 to S. p. the French king Louis XVIII joined; Later, most of the monarchs of the European continent joined him. England did not formally become part of the S. s., but in practice England often coordinated its behavior with the general line of the S. s.

The pious formulas of the “Act of Holy Alliance” covered up the very prosaic goals of its creators. There were two of them:

1. Maintain intact the redrawing of European borders that was carried out in 1815 Congress of Vienna(cm.).

2. Conduct an irreconcilable struggle against all manifestations of the “revolutionary spirit.”

In fact, the activities of S. s. focused almost entirely on the fight against the revolution. The key points of this struggle were the periodically convened congresses of the heads of the three leading powers of the United States, which were also attended by representatives of England and France. Alexander I and K. Metternich usually played the leading role at the congresses. Total congresses of the S. s. there were four - Aachen Congress 1818, Troppau Congress 1820, Laibach Congress 1821 And Congress of Verona 1822(cm.).

Powers of S. s. stood entirely on the basis of “legitimism,” that is, the most complete restoration of the old dynasties and regimes overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon’s armies, and proceeded from the recognition of an absolute monarchy. S. s. was a European gendarme who kept the European peoples in chains. This was most clearly manifested in the position of S. s. in relation to the revolutions in Spain (1820-23), Naples (1820-21) and Piedmont (1821), as well as the uprising of the Greeks against the Turkish yoke, which began in 1821.

On November 19, 1820, shortly after the outbreak of the revolution in Spain and Naples, Russia, Austria, and Prussia at the congress in Troppau signed a protocol that openly proclaimed the right of intervention of the three leading powers of the Socialist Republic. into the internal affairs of other countries in order to fight the revolution. England and France did not sign this protocol, but did not go beyond verbal protests against it. As a result of the decisions taken in Troppau, Austria received the authority to armedly suppress the Neapolitan revolution and at the end of March 1821 occupied the Kingdom of Naples with its troops, after which the absolutist regime was restored here. In April of the same 1821, Austria forcibly suppressed the revolution in Piedmont.

At the Congress of Verona (October - December 1822), through the efforts of Alexander I and Metternich, a decision was made on armed intervention in Spanish affairs. The authority to actually carry out this intervention was given to France, which actually invaded Spain on April 7, 1823 with an army of 100,000 under the command of the Duke of Angoulême. The Spanish revolutionary government resisted foreign invasion for six months, but in the end the interventionist forces, supported by the Spanish domestic counter-revolution, were victorious. In Spain, as before in Naples and Piedmont, absolutism was restored.

S.'s position was no less reactionary. in the Greek question. When a delegation of Greek rebels arrived in Verona to ask Christian sovereigns and especially Tsar Alexander I for help against the Sultan, the congress even refused to listen to it. England immediately took advantage of this and, in order to strengthen its influence in Greece, began to support the Greek rebels.

The Verona Congress of 1822 and the intervention in Spain were essentially the last major acts of the Socialist Revolution. After that, he virtually ceased to exist. Decay of S. s. was due to two main reasons.

Firstly, within the union very soon contradictions between its main participants were revealed. When in December 1823 the Spanish king Ferdinand VII turned to S. s. for help in bringing its “rebellious” colonies in America to submission, England, interested in the markets of these colonies, not only declared a decisive protest against all attempts of this kind, but also demonstratively recognized the independence of the American colonies of Spain (XII 31, 1824). This drove a wedge between S. s. and England. Somewhat later, in 1825 and 1826, due to the Greek question, relations between Russia and Austria, the two main pillars of the Socialist Revolution, began to deteriorate. Alexander I (towards the end of his reign) and then Nicholas I supported the Greeks, while Metternich continued his previous line against the Greek "rebels". 4. IV 1826 between Russia and England the so-called. Petersburg Protocol on coordination of actions in the Greek issue, clearly directed against Austria. Contradictions also emerged between other participants of the S. s.

Secondly, and this was especially important, despite all the efforts of the reaction, the growth of revolutionary forces in Europe continued. In 1830, revolutions took place in France and Belgium, and an uprising against tsarism broke out in Poland. In England, the rapid movement of the popular masses forced the Conservatives to accept the electoral reform of 1832. This dealt a heavy blow not only to the principles, but also to the very existence of the Socialist Union, which actually collapsed. In 1833, the monarchs of Russia, Austria, and Prussia tried to restore S., but this attempt ended in failure (see. Munich Convention).

Diplomatic Dictionary. - M.: State Publishing House of Political Literature. A. Ya. Vyshinsky, S. A. Lozovsky. 1948 .

See what "HOLY UNION" is in other dictionaries:

Holy Alliance: ... Wikipedia

The alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815, after the fall of the empire of Napoleon I. The goals of the Holy Alliance were to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815. In 1815, France and... ... joined the Holy Alliance. Big encyclopedic Dictionary

THE SACRED ALLIANCE, the union of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815, after the fall of Napoleon I. The goals of the Holy Alliance were to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814 15. In 1815, the Holy Alliance was joined by... ... Modern encyclopedia

Historical Dictionary

THE SACRED ALLIANCE, the union of Austria, Prussia and Russia, was concluded in Paris on September 14 (26), 1815, after the fall of the empire of Napoleon I. The purpose of the S. was to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815. In 1815 to the Socialist Council. France and a number of people joined... ...Russian history

SACRED UNION- (Holy Alliance) (1815), European union. powers, whose goal was to support and preserve the principles of Christ. religion. It was proclaimed at the Congress of Vienna (1815) by the emperors of Austria and Russia and the king of Prussia. All heads were invited to join it... ... The World History

The alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815 after the fall of the empire of Napoleon I. The purpose of the Holy Alliance was to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814 15. In 1815 France joined the Holy Alliance ... encyclopedic Dictionary

The alliance of European monarchs concluded after the collapse of the Napoleonic empire. T.n. The act of S. s., clothed in religious mysticism. form, was signed on September 26. 1815 in Paris Russian imp. Alexander I, Austrian imp. Francis I and Prussian King Frederick... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

An alliance of European monarchs concluded after the collapse of the Napoleonic empire to fight against the revolutionary and national liberation movement and ensuring the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna 1814 1815 (See Congress of Vienna ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

See Holy Union... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron

Holy Alliance- an alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, concluded in Paris on September 26, 1815, after the fall of Napoleon I. The purpose of the Holy Alliance was to ensure the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15. In November 1815, France joined the union,... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of World History