What is the meaning of the Eastern Question. Eastern question

Class 8.

Subject: Eastern Question and European Policy.

Type of lesson: Studying a new material.

Purpose: describe the essence of the "Eastern Question" and the path of its permission.

During the classes:

1. Organizing time
2. Actualization of students' knowledge on the topic ""
3. Studying a new material.

Plan:

1. Attempts by the section of the possessions of Turkey.
2. Reforms of the 1840s. in Turkey.
3. Crimean war 1853-1856

1. Please remember how the Ottoman Empire was formed?(Ottoman Empire originated in1299 and existed until 1922 of the year. She included: Small Asia (Anatoly), Middle East, North Africa, the Balkan Peninsula and adjacent to him from the North of Europe of Europe) in Europe, the Ottoman Empire was called the Ottoman Empire, a high (brilliant) port.

During this period, in Europe, the leading powers entered into confrontation with each other, when the risk of strengthening competitors, threatening disrupting equilibrium in Europe.

Equilibrium of power - The principle of politics, which followed the European powers. He assumed that they would unite against those countries that claim to dominate the continent.

The most acute in the middle of the XIX century was the Eastern Question.

"Eastern Question" - This is a complex of international conflicts in the XVII-early XX centuries. Related to the control over the saints in Palestine, as well as the struggle of the Christian peoples of the Ottoman Empire for finding independence and rivalry of the great powers for the section of the weakening Ottoman Empire.

Causes of exacerbation of "Eastern Question"

• The struggle for spheres of influence in Turkey.
• Fighting Slavic peoples for national liberation.
• Control of the Black Sea Straits Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

In 1830. The French troops invaded Algeria (formally Vassal Turkey) The French authorities confiscated state lands of Muslims who did not recognize the power of colonizers. These lands were transferred to migrants from the countries of Southern Europe. Increased attention, France devoted to another Vassal state of the Ottoman Empire - Egypt.

Pasha Egypt Mohammed-Ali (1769-1849) conducted reforms that strengthened his power.

In 1831. By France, Mohammed-Ali was encouraged by the war against Turkish Sultan. Egyptian troops occupy Syria, Libya, which caused European powers discontent.

Russia at the request of Sultan Mukhmoud II sent the fleet to Turkey and troops, which landed in the Bosphor region. England was puzzled by such a turn of events. She was not satisfied with the consolidation of Russia in the straits; neither establishing the control of France over Egypt.

At the initiative of England in1833. A truce was signed between Egypt and Turkey.

However, in 1839 War began again. The Turkish army suffered defeat.

1. Independent work with textbook text p. 114.

The task: to write down the reforms that were held in Turkey in the 40s. XIX century.

Reforms:

• The introduction of centralized administrative management.
• Recognition of the right of private ownership of land, its purchase is allowed for sale.
• Development of a secular education system.
• Guarantee of the inviolability of life and property, regardless of religious affiliation.
• Attempts have been made to cross the abuse when collecting taxes.
• The creation of a regular European type army began.

!!! However, reforms were not supported in the country. The Muslim clergy was annoyed by concessions "incorrect." Local to know believed that reforms infringe on their privileges. The peasantry was not pretty buying land by Rovovshchikov and merchants.

Reforms did not provide conditions for the development of their own production.

1. Crimean war 1853-1856

Causes of war:

• Contradictions between Russia and Turkey and European states due to the straits.
• Help from Russia national liberation movements of the Balkan peoples in the fight against the Ottoman Empire.
• The policy of England and France, aimed at the weakening of Russia's influence on the Balkan Peninsula and the Middle East.

Results of war:

• Return of Russia Sevastopol, in exchange for the Turkish Fortress Kars.
• Announcement of the Black Sea is neutral, which deprived Russia and Turkey the opportunity to have a military fleet and coastal fortifications here.

Thus, the "Eastern Question" was partly devoid.

1. Homework.

• Read paragraph 13.

1. Summing up the lesson. Estimation.

The Eastern Question is the question of the fate of Turkey, about the fate of the people enslaved and fought for their national independence of peoples in the Balkans, in Africa and in Asia, as well as about the attitude towards these fate of the European powers and about the international contradictions that arose at the same time.

By the end of the XVI century, the Turkish Empire reached the greatest power based on territorial seizures and feudal robbery of enslaved peoples. However, at the beginning of the XVII century, the process of Turkey of the conquered lands and the fall of her power began.

The reasons for this process were in the growth of the economic influence of major landowner-feudal feudalists in connection with the development of commodity-money relations in Turkey; This led to the weakening of the military power of the Turkish state, to feudal fragmentation and to strengthen the operation of the working people of the enslaved peoples.

The emergence of capitalism began in the middle of the 18th century in Turkey only accelerated this process. Peoples enslaved by Turkey began to develop in the nation and began the struggle for their national liberation; The unbearable exploitation of the working people of the Turkish Empire was detained the capitalist development of the subjects of the people of peoples and strengthened their desire for national liberation.

Economic stagnation and degradation, the inability to overcome feudal fragmentation and create a centralized state, the national liberation struggle of the subjects of the people of peoples, the exacerbation of the internal social-resonance, led the Turkish empire to the decay and weakening of its international positions.

All increasing weakening of Turkey died the gripful appetites of major European powers. Turkey was a profitable market and source of raw materials; In addition, she had a major strategic importance, located in the node of the paths between Europe, Asia and Africa. Therefore, each of the "great" European powers sought to snatch for themselves more from the inheritance of a "patient man" (so began to call Turkey since 1839).

The struggle of Western European powers for the economic and political prevalence in the Ottoman (Turkish) empire began in the XVII century and continued in the XVIII and XIX centuries.

By the end of the third quarter of the XIX century, a new struggle began between European powers, called the "Eastern Crisis".

The East crisis arose as a result of the armed uprising of the Slavic population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1875-1876) against the Turkish oppressors. This is an uprising that worns anti-refortionally, was the progressive national liberation struggle of Slavic nationality against the backward and wild Turkish feudalism.

What was the position of the main European powers during the Eastern crisis?

Germany expects to use the Eastern Crisis to weaken Russia and obtain freedom of action against France. Promussia defeated in 1871, she quickly recovered and revenge the revenge on it. Bourgeois-Juncker Germany was alarming with anxiousness to revive the relics of France and built plans for her new defeat. For Germany, this was possible only under the condition that no European power interferes with the new Franco-German war on the side of France; In this regard, it could most fear in Russia's unfavorable intervention for it. Weakening of Russia The German Reichskancler Bismarck expected to achieve it by pulling it into war with Turkey; At the same time, Bismarck sought to push Russia in the Balkans with Austria-Hungary and the finally tie Russia, to deprive her opportunities to support France.

In Austro-Hungary, the military clerical German party with Emperor Franz Joseph, headed by the head of the Bosnian Herzegoving uprising for the capture of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was imposed by secret Germany. The seizure mentioned in the form of a loved deal with the Russian king, since to fight with Russia Austro-Hungary at that time did not consider it possible. At first, the eastern crisis, the Austro-Hungarian government circles even believed that it was necessary to glise the uprising and the elimination of the crisis.

Russia, weakened by the Crimean War and not fully recovered from its consequences, at the beginning of the eastern crisis was forced to limit himself, caring only about the preservation of its position in the Balkans and to maintain his prestige among the Balkan Slavs. The royal government tried to help the rebels, but not designed to get involved in any actions that could involve Russia in the war. This led to the fact that the Russian government was ready to take the initiative to assist the rebel, but only in harmony with other powers.

The British government, led by Prime Minister Dieceli, was sought to take advantage of the difficult situation of Russia for even greater weakening. Diecelie understood that only weakness forced the Russian government to limit themselves in its conciliation in relation to Turkey and that the royal government considers such a restriction as a temporary measure.

To deprive Russia, the opportunity to lead an active policy in the Balkans, Dieceli accepted the plan to challenge Russia in the war with Turkey, and if possible, with Austria-Hungary. According to Dieceli, such a war would have weaken all of its participants, which would give England the freedom of action on the implementation of concrete plans in Turkey would eliminate any threat of England from Russia in Central Asia, where Russia was already approaching the borders of India, and in the Balkans, where England feared the seizure of Russia of the Black Sea Straits. The unleashing of the war of Russia with Turkey disipers began to spend under the hypocritical slogan of non-interference in the Balkan affairs.

Such was the international alignment of European powers at the beginning of the Eastern crisis.

The first steps of the European powers still filed hopes for the peaceful settlement of the Eastern crisis. Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrassi, on the initiative of Russia and according to the project agreed with her, on December 30, 1875 presented with all major European powers of a note. Its essence coincided with the help of modest administrative reforms for Bosnia and Herzegovina eliminate the uprising. The powers agreed with the proposals of the notes and through their ambassadors began to seek from Turkey to carry out the requirements of the notes. In February 1876, Sultan Abdul-Aziz agreed with the requirements of notes. It would seem that the eastern crisis, barely started, ends.

But here the English diplomacy was made to the scene. The peaceful resolution of the Eastern crisis has not satisfied.

Sultan Abdul-Aziz and his Rusophilic office led by Mahmoud Nedim-Pasha was the closest obstacle to the deepening of the crisis. As a result of the Elliot of the palace coup in Turkey organized by the English ambassador, Murad V. was erected at the Sultan Prepoll.

In the meantime, the heroic struggle of Bosnyakov and Herzegovintsev accelerated the open speech of Serbia and Montenegro. At the end of June 1876, Serbia declared War of Turkey. Successful struggle of 13-14 thousand Bosnov-Herzegovin rebels against the 35-thousand Turkish troops filed hope and the successful outcome of the Serbo-Turkish war. To be ready to meet any outcome of this war and not to be the most drawn into it, the Russian government decided to negotiate in advance with Austria-Hungary for all possible cases.

The Reichstadt Agreement was born on this soil, concluded on July 8, 1876 between Alexander II and Russian Chancellor Gorchakov - on the one hand, Franse Joseph and Andrashi - on the other.

The first option, designed for the defeat of Serbia, provided for only the reforms planted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, scheduled for nothedrash. The second option, designed for the victory of Serbia, envisaged the increase in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and some annexations for Austria-Hungary at the expense of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Russia for this option received Batumi her returned part of Bessarabia rejected after the Crimean War. The third version of the agreement, designed for the full collapse of Turkey and the displacement of it from Europe, provided that, besides measures for the second option, also the creation of autonomous or independent Bulgaria, some strengthening of Greece and, presumably announcement by Konstantinople by free city.

Meanwhile, hope for successful for Serbia the outcome of the war was not justified. The Serbian army suffered a number of failures, and on August 26, the Serbian Prince Milan requested the power of mediation in order to terminate the war. Power agreed and appealed to Turkey with a request to report on what conditions Serbia World may be provided; England officially participated in this, and she prompted Turkey to prevent Serbia completely unacceptable for the last condition of the conclusion of the world.

In response to this, the powers were commissioned England to achieve a monthly truce from Turkey. It could not openly refuse to fulfill this assignment. Gladstone, headed in England opposition against the politics of Dieceli, developed in England a hypocrite campaign against the arrangement of arbitrariness and wild Turkish atrocities in Turkey and managed to make a political capital on this basis - to set up the public opinion of England against Dieceli. To calm the minds and reconcile the public of England with Turkey, Dieceli came up with a new move: I decided to make Turkey at least fictitious constitutional.

At the pointer of the English ambassador, a new palace coup was organized, Murad V was overthrown and the new Sultan Abdul Hamid was planted in his place, which was a supporter of England and formally irrehable against the proclamation of the Constitution.

After that, Diecelie, then already received by the title of Lord and named Biscoufold, fulfilling the instructions of the Power, officially proposed Turkey to conclude peace with Serbia based on the situation that existed before the war; At the same time, English diplomats gave the new Sultan a secret "friendly advice" to end with Serbia.

This Council Abdul Hamid followed. Under Dreunis, poorly prepared Serbian army was broken. She threatened death.

In this situation, the tsarist government could not not speak in favor of Serbia, not risking forever lose its influence in the Balkans. On October 31, Russia presented Turkey an ultimatimative requirement within 48 hours to declare a truce with Serbia. Sultan was not prepared by his English souffliers to such a go, was confused and on November 2 adopted the demand of an ultimatum.

Bribesfield Harrital, said militant speech. All this sounded Grozno, but essentially to the Ground War, England was not ready. The Russian government understood this and did not go to the opponent. Moreover, Alexander II, incited by the militant court party, at the head of which was his brother Nikolai Nikolayevich and son Alexander Alexandrovich, 13 Nov gave an order about the mobilization of twenty infantry and seven cavalry divisions. After that, Russia without losing prestige could no longer refuse his requirements for Turkey, at least even the last and did not fulfill them.

In order to immediately undrain Russia in War with Turkey, Biscoufield suggested that the ambassadors of six powers in Constantinople and once again try to agree on the "peaceful" settlement of the Eastern crisis, about the world of Serbia with Turkey and about reforms for the Balkan Slavs.

The conference of the ambassadors developed the conditions for the termination of the Eastern Crisis and December 23 should have submitted these conditions to Sultan.

However, on December 23, the representative of the Sultan Government under the Thunder of Cannon Salutov announced at a conference that Sultan gave to all its citizens a constitution and that, in connection with this, all the conditions developed by the Conference becomes excessive.

This statement of the Sultanian minister, inspired by English diplomats, clearly provoked Russia to war with Turkey. For the majority in the Russian government, it was becoming clearer that without war can not do. With Austria-Hungary by that time, a new agreement was concluded in Budapest, now in case of the war of Russia with Turkey. The agreement was less profitable for Russia than Reikhstadt. Russia was forced to agree to the occupation of Austria-Hungary almost all of Bosnia and Herzegovina and gave a promise to not create a strong Slavic state in the Balkans. Instead of this, the tsarism received only the "friendly" and unreliable neutrality of Austria-Hungary.

Although on February 28, 1877, Turkey concluded peace with Serbia, but the war with Montenegro continued. Over her hung a threat of defeat. This circumstance, together with the failure of the Constantinople conference, was pushing royal Russia to war with Turkey; However, the disadvantage of the Budapest Convention was so obvious that fluctuations arose in the royal government; There were even opinions about the need to make concessions to Turkey and demobilize the army.

In the end, a decision was made: the army does not demobilize and make another attempt to negotiate with Western European powers for joint impact on Turkey.

As a result of this attempt, the so-called "London" proposals that demanded even more than before, cut-infused reforms for Slavic peoples were born from Turkey.

On April 11, these proposals, for the bailies of the biscouple, were rejected, and on April 24, 1877, Russia declared war on Turkey.

So, the British government managed to achieve its nearest goal in the use of the Eastern crisis: to undrain Russia in the war with Turkey. Germany reached its closest purpose, forcing Austria-Hungary to take direct participation in the resolution of the Eastern Question; In the future, there was a possible collision of Austria-Hungary with Russia in the Balkans.

It would be completely incorrect to attribute the entire success of the English and German foreign policy to incite the eastern crisis only biscoupled and Bismarck. Of course, they played an important role, but the main reason for the success of England and Germany was the economic and political backwardness of Tsarist Russia.

After taking the Turks of Constantinople (1453), the Ottoman Empire gradually turned into a global state that played one of the leading roles in international politics. From this time, a strong neighbor appeared east of European countries, in relations with whom they needed to develop a special foreign policy strategy.

During military hikes, Turkish Sultans Selim I (1512-1520) and Suleiman I (1520-1566) expanded their possessions at the expense of territories in East Mediterranean, North Africa, in the Balkans, where the peoples live on the national and confessional affiliation. The conquest policy of Turkish Sultanov not only created a threat to the safety of European states, but also slowed down the development of the economy in the Middle East region.

However, the rulers of subsequent years could not preserve their conquests. In the XVIII - early twentieth centuries. The multinational Ottoman Empire experienced a deep crisis, while the European powers, who had a greater military and economic power, conducted an active colonial policy, competing with each other, incl. in the east. So between states there were contradictions included in the history under the general name.

Eastern question - under it It is necessary to understand the complex of international problems related, firstly, with the solution of the regime of Bosphorus and Dardanelles, secondly, with the national liberation movement of peoples who were under the rule of Turkish Sultanov, thirdly, with the struggle of leading European states for economic influence in the region.

In historiography, there is no general opinion regarding the date of the concept of the "Eastern Question". A number of researchers suggest that this term appeared in diplomatic practice at the end of the XVIII century, others refer to its first use by the time of the Veronian Congress of the Sacred Union (1822), when the situation arose in the Balkans during the Greek Uprising 1821-1829 was discussed. , the third group of scientists - by the period of the Second Turkish-Egyptian crisis of 1939-1841. It is also difficult to determine the geographical belonging of the Eastern Question, given the scale of the ownership of the Ottoman Empire.

Moskovskaya Rus has established political contacts with Turkey back in 1496 the period of the end of the XV - mid-XVII centuries. It was characterized by the development of diplomatic ties between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the form of sharing embassies. However, the gripful policy of the Turkish Sultans, who stood behind the back of the Crimean Khanov complicated mutual communication. From 1677 in the history of Russian-Turkish relations began the period of wars. In the first time, Turkey retained the primacy in solving interstate contradictions, preventing the strengthening of the southern borders of Russia. The lack of fleet and defensive points on the Black Sea did not allow Russia to influence international problems in the Balkans, the Middle East. Only from the end of the XVIII century. Russia began to actively participate in the decision of the Eastern Question. Russian-Turkish relations depended on solving the problem of the Black Sea Straits, the situation in the Balkans and the provisions of Orthodox Sultan's Orthodox, with which the Government of Russia had a patronage.

In the history of "Eastern Question", as an international problem, it is customary to distinguish three periods, each of which had its own characteristics.

1. - From the end of the XVIII century. To the Crimean War 1853-1856 Priorities in the foreign policy of Russia at this time were the struggle for entering the Black Sea, ensuring freedom of maritime trade, strengthening southern borders and establishing relations with Turkey on a par with Western European powers. The policy of Russian diplomacy in relation to Turkey was carried out with the help of two methods that replaced each other. One was assisted by the section of European Turkey and the education of independent states in its territory. The other is to establish the prevailing influence of Russia in European Turkey with the help of union contracts.

Help Slavic peoples were used by Russia as a substantiation of the policy of approving Russian influence in Southeast Europe, providing free shipping on the Danube, Prut, Dnestra, the creation of a military-economic and strategic base in the Middle East.

2.The meter - since the end of the Crimean War until the mid-90s. XIX century European states dictated policies in the Middle East, and Russian diplomacy, lost influence in international affairs, fought for the abolition of the restrictive conditions of the Paris Treaty of 1856. From this point on, the beginning of the second period of the Tanzimat (reforms) of the Ottoman Empire was open to European capital.

The Crimean system has been preserved to the 70s. XIX century Cancellation of the neutralization of the Black Sea in 1871 at the London Conference changed the alignment of forces. The adoption of the Berlin Treatment of 1878 aggravated the situation in the Balkans and led to the deterioration of relations between Russia and Austria-Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria. It is believed that the international crisis of the second half of the 70s, GG.XIX century. deepened the contradictions that were born throughout the century and created prerequisites for the emergence of the First World War.

3. The period began with the conclusion in 1897 the Russian-Austrian Convention on the Balkan problem. This period is characterized by exacerbation of rivalry between European states in the Ottoman Empire. In connection with the activation of Russian policies in the Far East, its task in the "Eastern Question" was limited to the preservation of Status Quo in the Balkans. By the end of the XIX century. The threat to many European countries is Germany. The construction of the Baghdad Railway, a special influence on Turkish Sultan Abdul Hamid II provided a German predominance in the Ottoman Empire. Military political blocks have developed. The Balkan Wars have been prepared for the world conflict. As a result of the defeat in the First World War, the Ottoman Empire lost most of its territories.

On October 30, 1918, in Mudros (Port on. Lemnos) on board, Agamemenon was signed by a truce, which meant the end of the existence of the Ottoman Empire. Under the rule of Sultan remained actually the lands of modern Turkey. Eastern question has stopped his existence (Petrunina Zh.V. Eastern Question: the concept and main stages // Teaching history in school. 2007, No. 4.)

First military collision XIX century. In the framework of the Eastern Question, 1804-1813 were taken out during the Russian-Iranian war. For domination in Transcaucasia and Caspiani. The cause of the conflict was the aggression of feudal Iran against Georgia and other Transcaucasia lands, which were part of Russia at the beginning of the century. Iran and Turkey, incited by the United Kingdom and France, sought to subjugate all the Transcaucasia, sharing the spheres of influence. Despite the fact that from 1801 to 1804, the individual Georgian principalities voluntarily joined Russia, on May 23, 1804, Iran submitted to Russia an ultimatum on the withdrawal of Russian troops from the entire Transcaucasia. Russia refused. Iran in June 1804 unfolded the fighting for the capture of Tiflis (Georgia). Russian troops (12 thousand people) moved to the event of the Iranian army (30 thousand people). The decisive battles of Russian troops spent under Gumry (now - Gyumri, Armenia) and Erivani (now G. Yerevan, Armenia). Battles were won. Then the fighting moved to the territory of Azerbaijan. The war went with big interruptions and for Russia was complicated by parallel participation in other hostilities. However, in the war with Iran, the Russian troops won. As a result, Russia expanded its territory in the Transcaucasia, attaching North Azerbaijan, Georgia, Dagestan.

The reason for the beginning of the Russian-Turkish war is 1806-1812, which Turkey unleashed with the support of Napoleon, served as a violation of the Turks of the Treaty on the free passage of Russian courts through the Bosphorus Straits and Dardanelles. In response, Russia introduced troops to the Danube Principality - Moldova and Valachia, who were under the control of Turkey. Russia in this war supported the United Kingdom. The main battles of the combat operations of the Squadron Vice-Admiral D.N. Senjanina. He won the victory in the Dardanellian maritime and Afonov battles of 1807. Russia assisted by the rebels of Serbia. In the Balkan and Caucasian theaters of hostilities, Russian troops struck by the Turks. Before the war with Napoleon at the head of the Russian army, M.I. became Kutuzov (from March 1811). In the Rushchuksky battle and in the battle of Slobodzee in 1811, in the territory of Bulgaria, he forced the capitulation of Turkish troops. War was won. The result of the war was to join Russia Bessarabia, Abkhazia and part of Georgia and the recognition of Turkey, the rights of self-government for Serbia. In the face of Turkey, Napoleon lost an ally before the start of the French invasion of Russia.

In 1817, Russia entered into a protracted Caucasian war in order to conquer Chechnya, Mountain Dagestan and the North-West Caucasus. The main combat operations turned into the second quarter of the XIX century. During the reign of Nicholas I.

With the coming to power of the coalition of the SDPG / CVDP, and, accordingly, Chancellor Willie Brandt and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Walter Scheel in the country's foreign policy marked the turn towards greater realism and suspension. The new authorities took steps towards genuine improvement in relations with the Soviet Union on the only possible basis - the recognition of political and territorial realities established in Europe after World War II. On October 28, 1969, V. Brandt made a government statement in which the main accents in foreign policy orientation. In a government statement, it was noted: "Our national interests do not allow us to occupy the position between the West and East. Our country needs cooperation and consent to the West and Understanding with the East. The German people need a world in the full sense of this word also with the peoples of the Soviet Union and all the peoples of Eastern Europe. " The statement was noted that Eastern Policy First of all, "... was the provision of German interests and assumed to carefully expand the field of foreign policy activity of the Federal Republic." The Government of V. Brandt immediately began to look for ways to improving relations from the USSR, the normalization of relations with Eastern European states. It was an important recognition of the GDR as a state that opened the way to start the normalization of the relationship with her. According to A.A. Novikova and N.V. Pavlova, new Eastern Politics began to be understood as "practical steps to normalize RFG relations with socialist countries based on the recognition of the territorial status quo in Europe and the refusal to use the force or the threat of its use, to overcome the inertia of the Cold War, on the self-affirmation of the Federal Republic on the World War Arena and its transformation in a full-fledged subject of international relations. " In turn, as indicated by I.S. Kremer, "Already the first government statement of V. Brendt in Bundestag on October 28, 1969 indicated that his office intends to make a serious turn in politics towards the USSR and other socialist countries, including the GDR."

The Government of V. Brandt, introducing that in the near future the union of Germany was impossible, put the task on the basis of the discharge policy to overcome the isolationism of the East and "through contacts between people to make the boundaries more transparent." Thus, as a basis new The Eastern Policy of the Federal Republic of Germany was taken by V. Brandt and E. Bar The concept of "change through rapproche", which made the ideas of the political and economic concept of convergence and the "magnet theory" K. Schumacher. Thus, without refusing to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe national reunification, Germany moved the achievement of this goal for the long term and under the slogan of "changes after rapprochement" focused on the tasks of the Middle and short-term perspective. These challenges were: "Improving relations with the Soviet Union, the normalization of relations with the Eastern European states and the preservation of the Vivendi modus between both parts of Germany", with the understanding that international legal recognition of the GDR was still unwanted for Germany. The highest leadership of Western Germany was made attempting through contacts between people and make a special status of RFG relations and GDR to make the boundaries between the two German states more transparent.

On November 28, 1969, the Government of V. Brandt signed an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, against the accession to which previous Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the current opposition of the XDS. The signing of the Agreement, of course, indicated the desire of Bonna to follow in the direction of global discharge processes. However, in the vision of the borders of a peaceful settlement, Chancellor V. Brandt and his closest assistant E. Bar went even further. In their opinion, the basis of the discharge of tensions between East and the West was to be broad practical measures of a disarmament nature, right up to the creation of a common body coordinating NATO and ATS activities. Military blocks over time were supposed to replace a single collective security system through the conclusion of a number of bilateral agreements between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe on the refusal to apply force and reduce the armed forces. USSR and the United States, not being members of the security system, would have to act as guarantors. Thus, the results of discharge in Europe would contribute to the arrival of both German states, in fact, to neutrality, which was repeatedly voiced by Moscow as a mandatory condition for the unification of Germany. For a complete understanding of the new foreign policy in the field of "Eastern Policy", it is necessary to allocate the main goals on which the social liberal government of V. Brandt and V. Scheel focused, referring to the obligatory condition to overcome the confrontation between the East and the West, the strengthening of the Union of Western States, which concentrated their efforts :

1. Exchange of official statements about the refusal of the use of force with the Soviet Union, as well as the strengthening of bilateral, especially economic, relations with the USSR.

2. Conclusion of an agreement with the Polish People's Republic, in which the issue of post-war boundaries settled between Germany and Poland.

3. Improving the situation around West Berlin. At the same time, the tasks of the FRG were in maintaining the responsibility of the three powers for the Western Berlin, in providing transport guarantees on transportation with the city and its improvement, in strengthening the links between Eastern and Western Berlin, as well as between Western Berlin and GDR.

4. Conclusion of a complex of agreements with the GDR - if possible with the Soviet Assistance, where the special relations between both German states were proclaimed, excluding international legal recognition of the GDR. At the same time, special attention was paid to measures to facilitate the lives of people in the neighboring GDR by expanding exchanges and trips, that is, by providing freedom of movement and residence of citizens, exchange between them and opinions.

5. Conclusion of an agreement with the Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Republic, which resolved the issue of the Munich Agreement of 1938 and the issue of the Sudechka Germans.

6. Signing contracts with other countries of Eastern Europe.

7. Participation of both German states at a security and cooperation meeting in Europe and in negotiations on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe.

The "New Eastern Policy" of the Government of V. Brandt, reflected in the tasks set in front of it, was aimed at achieving two global goals: the discharge of international tension and the reunification of Germany. This formula was not the invention of the Cabinet V. Brandt / V. Scheel - both reunification, so, to one degree or another, and a decrease in confrontation and a peaceful settlement, as priority political goals appeared at the German leadership over 1949-1969. However, the main and very significant feature of the foreign policy concept of the government came to power in 1969 in Bonn, was the fact that for the first time the reunification of Germany completely obeyed the discharge process. In the refusal of the thesis "The discharge and normalization of relations with socialist countries only after reunification" and the main feature of the Eastern Policy Willie Brandt is concluded, which allows us to talk about it as a truly new "Eastern Policy" of Germany.

Soviet-German relations in context
Implementation of the "New Eastern Policy" FRG

On September 22, 1969 in New York V. Brandt, being Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of K.-g. Kizinger, conducted advice on bilateral relations with its Soviet colleagues. And after the victory of the block of SDPG / SVDP in the elections in October 1969, V. Scheel met with the Soviet Ambassador S. Tsarpkin and agreed to resume negotiations on the refusal of force. On November 15, 1969, the FRG Ambassador to Moscow, Allardt transferred the Note of his government to the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which stressed the desire to immediately begin negotiations with the Soviet government about mutual refusal to use force. At the end of 1969, an intensive political dialogue between representatives of the USSR and the FRG at a high level on the normalization of relations was established. So, in December 1969, a meeting of the Soviet delegation led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs A.A. Gromyko and delegations of Germany. In January 1970, the State Secretary of the Office of the Federal Chancellor E. Bar was visited for negotiations on the non-use agreement on the non-use agreement. In total, with the aim of developing the text of the contract between the USSR and Germany A.A. Gromyko, E. Bar and V. Scheel spent in 1969-1970. More than 30 meetings. The first round of negotiations continued on May 22, 1970 and ended with the appearance of the so-called "Bar" document. These were the first strokes of completely new relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR. In the Bar Document, Germany was obliged to "in the present and future, to respect the irrevocability of the borders of all European states, including the border on Oder and Neutse and the border between Germany and the GDR. In addition, Germany was obliged to not put forward any territorial claims ... For its part, the Soviet Union refused his rights to the military invasion of the provisions of the UN Charter on the "enemy state". Deliberately pretending publicity to this document on July 1, 1970, V. Brandt, on the one hand, went on serious concessions of the USSR regarding the official recognition of the border on Oder and Neur and the boundaries between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, however, on the other hand, this contract did not interfere The future unification of two Germany peacefully. It is also necessary to note the positive position of the United States in relation to the first steps of the FRG during the process of resolving relations with the USSR. "In general, Washington welcomed the new Western German foreign policy, considering it as a long-awaited cover of his own course on the discharge of international tension." Chancellor V. Brandt subsequently as evaluated the position of the United States: "... By and large, there could be no disagreement, as Nixon on the advice of Kissinger conducted a policy of Kennedy to the Soviet Union under the slogan" cooperation instead of confrontation. " The US government knew that we had no idea of \u200b\u200bcooperation with the West, which, however, was impossible to do. " The practical result of the first round of negotiations was, first of all, recognition of the FRG existence of two German states, and secondly, the conclusion of three agreements on the supply of Soviet natural gas for a period of 20 years in exchange for pipes of a large diameter of February 1, 1970 and consultations on issues of closer technological cooperation. Thus, from the very beginning, the new "Eastern policy" of the Federal Republic of Germany had not only foreign policy, but also manifested itself in the development of cooperation of the USSR and Germany in the economic sphere. The second round of negotiations between the USSR and Germany took place in Moscow from July 17 to August 12, 1970 between A.A. Gromyko and V. Scheel. During these negotiations, the German delegation made it clear to understand the Soviet side that "with the USSR cannot be concluded an agreement capable of replacing a peace treaty, to cancel the rights of the allies, to reduce the principle of refusal to apply force to the recognition of borders, not take into account the situation in Western Berlin and infringe other states. " At the same time, following the second round of Bonn's negotiations with Moscow in August 1970, the Government delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany headed by Chancellor V. Brandt arrived in the USSR to sign the Soviet-West German Treaty. August 12, 1970 V. Brandt and V. Scheel from the West German side and A.N. Kosygin and A.A. Gromyko from the Soviet side signed an agreement between the USSR and Germany in Moscow.

The contract emphasized the desire of both parties to promote peace and security in Europe and around the world, improving and expanding mutual cooperation, including scientific, technical and cultural ties. The parties assumed the obligations to "resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means; In matters of affecting security in Europe and international security, as in their mutual relations, under Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, from the threat of force or its use. " Thus, the point was finally delivered to the Government of Germany "from the Power Position" policy in relation to socialist countries. Both sides emphasized their desire to strengthen peace and security in Europe, as well as to "... improvement and expansion of mutual cooperation, including scientific, technical and cultural connections." The most important provisions of the contract was recognized by the USSR and Germany irregularities of existing European state borders. This position fixes Art. 3 of the contracts: "... The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Federal Republic of Germany are united in recognizing that the world in Europe can be saved only if no one will encroach on modern boundaries. They assume the obligation to strictly observe the territorial integrity of all states in Europe in their current borders. They declare that they do not have any territorial claims to anyone, and will not put such claims in the future. They are viewed as unreal and in the future borders of all states in Europe, as they pass on the day of signing this Agreement, including the Oder-Neyce line, which is the Western border of the Polish People's Republic, and the border between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic " .

The proclamation of the inviolability of all European borders has opened the possibility of the formation of FRG relations with socialist countries based on trust and mutual understanding. The USSR and Germany after the recognition of the territorial status quo have already considered each other not as opponents, but, on the contrary, as an allied. As a result, the freedom of action of the parties in the foreign policy sphere was significantly increased, the greater weight of the decision of international political issues was defeated. The Government of the USSR and Germany also welcomed the plans for the convening of a meeting on strengthening the security and development of cooperation in Europe and stated that they would do all of them depends on the preparation and successful holding of this meeting. Further steps to develop a discharge policy were reflected in a separate document, also signed in Moscow, "Agreement on the intentions of the Parties". In this document, the German government has declared its readiness to conclude agreements with CCHSR and Poland, as well as with the Government of the GDR. The contract with the GDR "will have a generally accepted obligatory force between states, as well as other contracts that German and GDR conclude with third countries, ... to build their relations with the GDR on the basis of full equality, the lack of discrimination, respect for the independence and independence of each of each both states in cases relating to their internal competence in their respective borders. It was announced about the intention to take measures to join both German states in the UN. " The document had a provision indicating the refusal of West Germany from claims to the "sole representation of all Germans". This document also refers to the intention of both parties to promote Germany and GDR to the UN. Thus, the FRG actually had to abandon the many years of practices to create obstacles in the normalization of relations between all countries of the world with the GDR. The contract and agreement on the intentions of the parties touched upon a number of fundamental issues of relations between Moscow and Bonn and all world politics as a whole. For the first time in the documentary form, Western Germany confirmed the territorial status quo in Europe, in particular, the border on Oder-Neutsea, and the fact of the existence of the GDR, its sovereignty was recognized. Fixing the basic principles of Soviet-West German relations, the Moscow Treaty laid the "first stone to the foundation of the" New Eastern Policy "" of the Federal Republic of Germany, became the "core policy of discharge and peace conducted by V. Brand."

The meaning of the Moscow Treaty was determined not only by the specific content of his articles, but also by the fact that he widely opened the door for a whole series of subsequent agreements and agreements, and therefore noticeable changes in the pan-European situation. However, it is impossible not to say what the point has investigated each of the Parties to the Moscow Treaty. The signing of the contract allowed the Soviet Union to declare the final consolidation of the post-war status quo in Europe, focusing on the recognition of the invisibility of the existing borders by Western Germany, incl. borders between the FRG and the GDR. Characteristic on this is the statement of the Secretary-General of the Central Committee of the CPSU L.I. Brezhnev: "These political documents are fully based on the recognition of the political and territorial reality, which have been established after the Second World War, and enshrine the irrevocability of the existing European borders, including the boundaries between the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western border of the Polish People's Republic." In turn, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany focused on articles where it was said to refuse to use the force or the threat of its application. The reserved position of the Federal Republic of Germany continued to be a striving for the future reunification of Germany. Thus, the Bonn was specified that the contract does not close for the Federal Republic of Germany to restore the unity of the nation with peaceful means. Chancellor V. Brandt, speaking on August 14, 1970 in Bonn at a press conference with a statement on the results of the visit to Moscow, emphasized: "When signing the contract, we proceeded from the fact that the borders of states in Europe, how they exist today, - Regardlessly, they like them or not, and on what legal basis they are installed, - cannot be changed by force ... This clear and firm position does not contradict the goal to deal with peaceful means for the unity of the German nation. "

The treaty between the USSR and Germany became a significant event in the post-war history of international relations. It has become a significant contribution of two states to strengthen peace in Europe. A new foundation was created for the development of cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR in the political, economic and cultural fields. The Moscow Treaty was the first and most important agreement on Germany with a socialist state. Having discovered the way to cooperate FRG from the USSR in various fields, thereby created the conditions for the normalization of FRG relations with other socialist states, putting the beginning of a truly "New Eastern Policy" of Germany.

The signing of the contract caused a positive reaction in the international community. His signing was welcomed by a joint statement by the State party of the Warsaw Treaty, UN Secretary-General at Tan, French President J. Pompidou, heads of many other countries and organizations. Thus, the Moscow Treaty, settling the problems between the USSR and Germany, opened the FRG path to the normalization of relations with the eastern unit and the GDR. A year after the signing of the Moscow Treaty, a new important step in the development of bilateral relations was negotiations between V. Brandt and L.I. Brezhnev at a meeting in Crimea (September 16-18, 1971). Crimea discussed issues related to the ratification of Moscow and Warsaw contracts, with a four-way agreement on Western Berlin, with the preparation of a pan-European Security Meeting with the participation of the United States and Canada, as well as with the prospects for the entry of both Germanic states in the UN. At the same time, the Soviet leader put the entry into force of the agreement on Western Berlin dependence on the early ratification of the Bundestag "Eastern Contracts".

The meeting in Crimea demonstrated the increased role of Germany in the process of discharge between East and the West, marked the line from which the federal republic began to participate in the formation of policies relating to relations between East and West. In November 1971, an air traffic agreement was signed between Germany and the USSR, and the official visit to the Soviet Union of Foreign Minister of FRG V. Scheel was held. By signing the "Moscow Treaty", as well as the series of "Eastern Contracts", the Government of V. Brandt as a whole solved two of the three tasks: 1) the decision of the most acute issues between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Socialist countries (recognition of the "insignificant initial" Munich Agreement, recognition of borders on Oder and neutov, the payment of reparations by the Poles victims as a result of Hitler's aggression, etc.); 2) recognition and consolidation in the contractual form of the principle of irrevomicability of borders in Europe and the principle of refusal to use or threatening the use of force in the future. When soon after the ratification of the Moscow Treaty, the Secretary-General of the Central Committee of the CPSU L.I. Brezhnev was first of the leaders of the USSR in May 1973, the federal republic was already for the Soviet Union, the most preferred partner among Western European countries. At the same time, the USSR has already pursued a new goal - to achieve the intensification of economic cooperation and obtain support from the FRG for the soon convocation of the European Security Conference. Bonn also tried to use Soviet interest in economic cooperation to resolve the problems remaining unresolved after the signing of a four-sided agreement on West Berlin.

Conclusion

Changes in Soviet Foreign Policy, American Initiatives in the Region of Discharge and Intrapolitical Consensus Among the new leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany became the main prerequisite for developing and implementing the new concept of Eastern Policy. The main principles were practical steps on the normalization of FRG relations with socialist countries based on the territorial status quo in Europe and the refusal of the use of force or the threat of its application, to create a climate of confidence between the negotiation partners, on the self-affirmation of the Federal Republic on the world arena and its transformation In a full-fledged subject of international relations. The first practical act of implementing the new foreign policy concept of the Federal Republic of Germany was the signing between the governments of the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic in August 1970, "Moscow Treaty", which confirmed the irrevomination of the borders after the war in Europe and kept a refusal to apply force to solve controversial issues. Then, a similar agreement was concluded by Germany with Poland, agreements were concluded on the basics of relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR and the normalization of relations with Czechoslovakia.

The New Eastern Policy of the Federal Republic of Germany gave the most powerful impetus to the deepening and further development of FRG cooperation with socialist countries of Eastern Europe in the economic and cultural spheres. Throughout 1972-1973. Negotiations were held on the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of embassies between Germany and a number of socialist countries. In 1970-1972 Western Germany signed agreements on trade and economic cooperation with the USSR, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. Significantly increased trade and economic turnover. "New Eastern Policy" of the Federal Republic of Germany, contributing to the overcoming of the inertia of the Cold War, was an integral part of the discharge process of international tensions, and in fact "became synonymous." As noted by the historian N.V. Pavlov, "... Do not be" New Eastern Policy "there would be no meeting on security and cooperation in Europe ..." Eastern Politics "entered the German term in the international lexicon and became synonymous with the discharge policy."

On October 20, 1971, V. Brandt was awarded the Nobel Prize of the World. The West German Chancellor became the first German, who received the world award after the Second World War "For the policy of reconciliation between the old images of the enemy, and as a sign of recognition of" specific initiatives, which led to the weakening of tensions "between East and West. Giving a solemn speech during the presentation of a premium, V. Brandt gave an excellent feature of the new Eastern policy of the Federal Republic of Germany: "We started, also pursuing our national interest, to build our relations with Eastern Europe in a new way ... The transition from the classical policy of power to the peaceful policy of the world, Which we spend, should be understood as a change of goals and methods - from their interests to their equalization. " As noted on December 10, 2008, the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs F. Steinmeier in his speech about the European Partnership, "From Eastern Policy Willie Brandt leads a straight road to the fall of the Berlin Wall, to overcoming the separation of Germany and Europe." V. Brandt "New Eastern Politics" had a significant impact on the Soviet foreign policy. As the first President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev, "New Eastern Policy had an impact on the Soviet public, contributed to reflections on the role of democracy for the future of own country, stimulated critically thoughtful forces inspired by the XX Coupss Congress. However, only years later, in the Soviet Union, we truly evaluated tremendous opportunities in Eastern politics and began to meet the real movement. " Summing up, we note that the importance of "New Eastern Policy", conducted by the Government of Chancellor V. Brandt, for the development of Russian-German relations is no doubt. In fact, at this stage, the foundations of the current strategic partnership of Russia and Germany were laid.

Notes

1. 1. Alexseev R.F. USSR-FRG: a new stage of relationships. M., 1973.

2. 2.Brandt, V. Memories. Translation from it. M.: News, 1991.

3. 3.Germany. Facts / ed. K.Lanterman. Berlin, 2003.

4. 4. Gorbachev M.S. As it was: Combining Germany. M., 1999.

5. 5. Signature between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Federal Republic of Germany (together with the "arrangement of the intentions of the parties"). On August 12, 1970 signed in Moscow on August 12, 1970 / Collection of existing agreements, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign countries. Vol. Xxvii. M., 1974.

6. 6.Kremer I.S. FRG: Stages of Eastern Policy. M., 1986.

7. 7.Labetskaya E., Lukyanov F., Slobodin A., Shpakov Y. Pipe in infinity. Chronicle of the biggest transaction in Russian-German history // News Time, No. 169, November 17, 2000.

8. 8. The exchange notes between the USSR Embassy in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany on the agreement on consular activities. It took place on July 22, 1971 / a collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign countries. Vol. Xxvii. M., 1974.

9. 9. Washers of the history of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia / Ed. I.S. Ivanova, A.Yu. Meshkova, V.M. Grinine and others. In 3 tt. T. 3. M., 2002.

10. 10.pavlov N.V. FRG foreign policy in the post-pubolar world. M., 2005.

11. 11.pavlov N.V., Novikov A.A. Foreign policy of Germany: from Adenauer to the Schröder. M.: CJSC Moscow textbooks - Sidipress, 2005.

12. 12. World policies in our time. Lecture of the Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt on December 11, 1971. In connection with the award of the Nobel Prize of the World for 1971. / Willy Brandt. Democratic socialism. Articles and speeches. Per. with it. / Ed. G.A. Bagaturian. M., 1992.

13. 13.Popov V.I. Modern diplomacy. Theory and practice. M., 2004.

14. 14. The success of the Federal Chancellor Willy Brandt to the West German population in connection with the signing of the Treaty between the USSR and Germany. Moscow, 12.08.1970 / Eastern German policy under cross-fire. Digest of articles. Per. with it. M.: 1972.

15. 15.Hakka K. The Great Power is unwitting. Foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany / Per. with it. M.: Booklet, 1995.

16. 16.Willi Brandt Regierungserklaerung VOM 28 Oktober 1969 // Die Welt, 29.10.1969.

17. 17.Http: //www.bundestag.de/service/glossar/w/wahlergebnisse.html.

18. 18.Http: //www.germania-online.ru (Willie Brandt - Creator "Eastern Policy" // http://www.germania-online.ru/publikacii/swp/swp-detail/datum/2011/ 12/12 /).