Political writings NY DanilevskyNikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822-1885) naturalist, philosopher, sociologist. Born in the village. Oberets Orel province. Received a master's degree in botany at the natural faculty of St. Petersburg University. Joined Petrashevsky circle and for belonging to him was imprisoned for a hundred days in detention in the fortress. Beginning with 1853 repeatedly heading the expedition on the state of fish stocks in various regions of Russia. Becoming a member of the Council of Ministers of State Property, took an active part in the development of laws that regulate the state of fish resources of the country until the beginning of the XX century. The main work "Russia and Europe" was completed in 1869, in which he developed a theory which later became famous cultural-historical types. Cultural-historical type - is a holistic system defined by cultural, psychological and other factors inherent in the people collectively or close in spirit and language of the peoples. Danilevsky identifies a number of cultural-historical types, such as the Egyptian, Chinese, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, etc. Some of them have completed their existence, others are in one of the phases of development.Particular attention is paid Danilevsky Romano-Germanic (Western European) and Slavic types. Last is still in its formative stages. According to Danilevsky, not necessarily to all nations and peoples were in its development the same steps, for example, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, etc. In this sense, a single human history does not exist, and have a history of the origin, development and decline of individual cultural-historical types. The history of humanity is composed of a kind of history of individual cultural-historical types. Representation of the same uniform for all the world stages of development, according to Danilevsky, there are illegal transfer features the history of Western Europe to the whole world.Historical mission of Russia he sees for the preservation and development of the Slavic cultural-historical type. Western Europe is hostile to Russia and the Slavic, so you need the solidarity of the Slavic peoples in the struggle with the desire to destroy the West, subordinate or assimilate Slavs. Danilevsky book reprinted several times after his death, his publisher friend Strakhov, provoked a lively discussion. Among the fiercest critics of the concept of Danilevsky belonged Vl. Soloviev. The concept of cultural-historical types was the forerunner of the concept of local civilizations developed in the XX century. Spengler and Toynbee.Biography NY DanilevskyChapter I. 1864 and 1854 years. Instead of introducingComparison of two years. European indifference to Denmark and sympathy for Turkey. Holstein question. East war, the key value of the Bethlehem church. Vienna Note; political course of action in Europe in terms of the scope of private relations. European public opinion. Location meryanie different measures?Russia and EuropeNY DanilevskyCHAPTER I. 1864 and 1854 years. Instead of introducingIn the summer of 1866 events occurred immense historical importance. Germany, fragmented for centuries, began to rally, led by the brilliant Prussian minister[1] , in one strong unit. European status quo, obviously violated and the violation is, of course, will not stop at that, what we are witnessing bshi recent. Artfully arranged political machine move which was so carefully balanced, was upset. Everyone knows that the events in 1866 were only a natural consequence of accidents in 1864. Then actually happened disorder politico-diplomatic machine, although it did not drew the attention adequately deputed to oversee her mechanics. However important, however, were the consequences of the Austro-Prussian-Danish war in 1864, I'm not on this side of its wish to draw the attention of readers.In both years, which I titled this chapter, at a distance of ten years apart, two events occurred which embody many extremely instructive for every Russian, although who knows how to look into the meaning and commits around it. Presented in the compressed form, these events were as follows. In 1864, Prussia and Austria, two first-class state, which had a total of about 60 million people and which can have almost millions armieyu, attacking Denmark, one of the smallest countries in Europe, inhabited by two and a half million inhabitants, no more - the state nevoinstvennoe, enlightened, liberal and humane in the highest degree. They take away from this state two areas with two-fifths of the total number of his subjects - two areas, which inextricable link with the State was approved no further thirteen years ago London treatise signed by, among other powers, and both strikers Powers[2] . And this is a direct violation of the contract, that bullying not excite anyone's strong opposition. No insult to the moral sense, nor a violation of the so-called political equilibrium does not excite the indignation of Europe, nor its public opinion, nor any of its governments, - at least, not so excited to get from words to deeds - and Denmark section quietly accomplished. That's what it was in 1864.Eleven years before that Russia, the state also is referred to the political system of the European states, however, a very large and powerful, reviled in the most sacred of their interests (in the interests of religious) Turkey - State barbaric, aggressive, which though it has relaxed, but still Only one domestic support its illegal and unjust domination, the state, while not yet included in the political system of Europe, so that the integrity has not been provided any positive treatise. Nobody on this integrity, however, and does not infringe. Turkey requires only that it clearly and positively confirmed the obligation not to violate the religious interests of the majority of its own self-nationals - an obligation not any new and already eighty years ago solemnly given in Kucuk Kainarji peace treaty[3] . So what! This is a fair demand, what are acknowledged his diplomatic meeting primary states of Europe, religious and other interests of millions of Christians are put in anything; barbaric same state becomes in the eyes of European civilization in the palladium and freedom. In 1854, just ten years before the partition of Denmark, to which nobody cared, England and France declare war on Russia, the war involved Sardinia, Austria takes a threatening position, and finally the whole of Europe threatens war if Russia does not accept the offer of her unfavorable conditions for peace. So are the governments of Europe, public opinion as it is even more hostile and seeks to win over him, even those governments, as the Prussian and some other German at all sorts of motives do not want to break with Russia. Where does this indifference to the humane, liberal Denmark and this sympathy to the barbaric, despotic Turkey - this indulgence even unjust claims with Prussia and Austria is committed contempt of the most legitimate demands of Russia? Case worth it to delve into it. This is not some accident or magazine trick, not any party enthusiasm and collective diplomatic action of the whole of Europe, there is a general feeling of discovery, which is less influenced by any other passion, thoughtless instant culture. Therefore, I chose it as the starting point of the proposed study mutual relations between Europe and Russia.First of all let's see whether there is a relationship in Denmark to Prussia and Austria, some daring challenge, in short, something to apologize in the eyes of Europe, this oppression of the weak and strong, contrary to Russia's actions anything insulted Europe, causing it just anger and resentment?We will not go into details shlezvng-Holstein dispute between Germany and Denmark, which ran, as you know, the whole seventeen years, and I think little of interest for Russian readers. The essence of the matter is that Denmark has established a common constitution for all its constituent parts - one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe, in which, of course, the question could not be of any oppression of one nation by another. But it is not like that in Germany: it required for Holstein constitution albeit much worse, but one that would be completely fragmented this country with other parts of the monarchy - not even require personal connections such as Sweden and Norway (it would be all right), and some applied to the entire state law, such as the Polish do not allow [4] , using which ranks Holstein could destroy the validity of any regulations adopted for the whole of Denmark. But Holstein belonged to the German Confederation, therefore, this would be achieved through indirect dominion over all the Union of Danish monarchs. This dominance he considered it necessary by the philosophy that except Holstein, in which case the German Confederation had the right to some intervention[5] , in the state of Denmark and Schleswig entered yet, the country completely alien to the German treatises, but populated in large part by the Germans, which it gradually colonized from the Scandinavian and turned into a purely German. In the eyes of all the Germans, any interest in politics, was Schleswig Holstein with indivisible whole, but this view was not the slightest support based on the positive international law treatises. To hold it in fact, it was necessary to use Holstein as a lever to continuous pressure on all of Denmark. With this tool, the Danish government could spend only those in Schleswig only measures that would be acceptable to Germany. Denmark, obviously, could not agree to this, and patriotic party (so-called eyderskih Danes) was ready to completely abandon Holstein, if only the unity, integrity and independence of the rest of the monarchy are not violated continuously alien intervention. On the gravity of the interference we can afford to make easy concept from personal experience. Intervention, based on the interpretation of some articles picky Treaty of Vienna, led to outrage all Russia[6] . Well, that anger Russia, being so full-bodied, pulls on the scales a lot of diplomatic policy and considerations of a different kind, but who pays attention to the outrage of Denmark? Besides, Denmark hands were in fact linked treatise, do not let her complete freedom to dispose of a form of government that she would like to give Holstein. The true meaning of this treatise were between Denmark and the German Confederation logomachies endless. Each side interprets certainly the case in their favor, and finally the German Confederation, did not differ, the swiftness of action, losing patience and assigns flogging in Holstein. Holstein belongs to the German Confederation, and against such a measure can not as yet nothing to argue. But everybody knows that the German Confederation, although his ties and was due to fifty million people, did not inspire anyone too much respect and fear - or even tiny Denmark, which, despite allied flogging, calmly continued his work. Prussia (or, more precisely, Bismarck), however, sees that for her, in any case, this case does not result in good. Denmark takes over - lost all plans for the Kiel Bight, Navy dominance in the Baltic Sea for hegemony in Germany, in short, lost all German interests, which Prussia has always considered himself, and, moreover, quite rightly, the main, almost the sole representative . Triumph German alliance - Holstein, alone or together with Schleswig, turn into an independent state, which will strengthen him in alliance game medium and small states that, as quite rightly thinks Bismarck, only hurt the Prussian hegemony. We must not give the Union and to increase, it is necessary and Schleswig Holstein to get their claws to Germanic, and with him and dealt with properly chastnoprusskoe flourished. Following this exactly right (with the Prussian perspective) reasons, to ensure an alliance with Austria, which in all this have to with their own hands for the heat raking Prussia, Bismarck stands up for the lack of respect and insulted Denmark German Confederation and requires approval by the House of destruction common to whole monarchy constitution - although essentially liberal, but does not match any common types of Germany or special forms of Prussia - threatening to war. Denmark formal aspect was not quite right, because - not being able to perform the impossible for her treatise, or at least it used to fulfill the sense in which he understood Germany - she decided to cut the Gordian knot etoyu common to all monarchy constitution, which, satisfying, in fact, all legal requirements as Holstein and Schleswig eliminated, however, is quite intervention in the affairs of the union of the latter and made ??it unnecessary for the first. Not being so, the right to a formal party, Denmark, threatening war with two first-class states, could easily give way to such affirmative requirement. Such flexibility was necessary at all costs to prevent. Means to that found very easy. To fulfill its requirements Prussia and Austria have appointed such a short time that during his Danish government did not have time to convene the House and to offer to the discussion of these powers demand. Thus, the Danish government has been put in need or to reject the claims of foreign powers, and to incur the unequal war, or violate the constitution of their state; violate the constitution as the then state of affairs - with just ascended the throne, and not yet managed to establish its sovereign, unpopular because of his German origin - would mean, in all probability, cause a revolution. Danish government had no choice but to elect as lesser of two evils. It and chose war, having apparently sufficient reason to believe her lesser evil. First, Denmark has led such a war with Prussia and Germany, as recently as 15 years ago, and it came out the winner rather than defeated, it could therefore count on a similar outcome this time. Consideration is very good - only if it was not taken into account that in Germany at that time there was a goofy Frankfurt Parliament, and in what was then Prussia was not Bismarck. In addition, the Danish government could hope that the political system of states, based on the positive treatises, not just empty words - that after Europe about a hundred years did not stop screaming about the great crime of the partition of Poland[7] , it will not allow the partition of Denmark - that she will take into account the oversight knife to her throat, and, at least, require attacking it states that they should give her time to recover. In all this, she was wrong. The war has begun. Not cooked to her Danes, of course, suffered defeat. To put an end to this impossible fight, gathered in London conference of European states. Neutral Powers offered a deal in which took into account the victories Prussia and Austria, but the deal did not satisfy the allies, they continued to insist, and Europe, this limiting his intercession, provided they settle accounts with Denmark, they themselves know. So, if we can assume Denmark is not quite right with the formal side, this was not true with excess smoothed act Prussia and Austria, not only gave the possibility to withdraw from Denmark adopted it too strong measures, but to use it only as a pretext for the purpose of execution conceived : rejection from her not only of Holstein, but also inseparable from him, in their minds, Schleswig. Diplomatic practices - esteem protection of international law, as well as legal protection of the rights revered forms of civil and criminal - have been violated, and the offender was not their Denmark, Prussia and Austria. Consequently, these two states, and not Denmark, insulted Europe.But sometimes the illegality, that is formal, external injustice covers him such inner truth, that every feeling and impartial opinion take the side of the imaginary injustice. Whether, for example, more than ever committed a daring, more formal direct violation of international law than in the formation of Cavour and Garibaldi Italian kingdom? Actions of the government of Victor Emmanuel with the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples in no way be justified from a legal point of view[8] , and yet, everyone who has not lost a living sense of human feelings and agree that in this case the form had to give essentially external legality - inner truth. Do not be such and Schleswig-Holstein affair, was not suitable and whether it is under the category of cases formally unjust, but justified this hidden under the shell of inner truth and not this inner truth disarmed Europe? And it will have to answer in the negative. First, the national cause, having his lawyer Austria can excite only bitter laughter and indignation[9] . Secondly, the principle of nationalities have not yet been recognized, at least officially, Europe and, without all sorts of side considerations in itself does not justify her eyes. Even a fair deal in Italy triumphed only because of the mutual relations between the major states which so placed that this is not just a matter of legality has found its defenders. At the start of the national public opinion prevalent only in France and in Italy, and it was only because that these countries find it profitable for themselves. Third, finally, and most importantly: the principle of nationalities is not quite applicable to the Schleswig-Holstein business. German people in 1864 did not constitute one whole, he had no political nationality, and until it was formed in the name of which he could require the separation of Schleswig Holstein and Denmark by not demanding at the same time the destruction of Bavaria, Saxony, Lippe-Detmold , Saxe-Altenburg, etc. as independent political units? However, between the different German states existed weak political communication, named German Union, but exactly the same member of the union, as Bavaria and Prussia, Lippe and Altenburg was and Holstein. Schleswig, of course, did not belong to the union, but if they do not pay attention to the fact that the Danish area was only colonized by Germans, and adhere to the principle of ethnographic, completely rejecting the historical right, then from this point of view, the extreme limit of all requirements of the German- the same could only be attaching Schleswig to the German Union, and not the perfect office and Schleswig Holstein and from Denmark. (...) If, therefore, the German people did not constitute a political nationality, if a large proportion of it was connected under the same management with other nationalities, he could rightly demand from Denmark, only to German nationality is not oppressed in Holstein and Shlezvire and enjoyed equally with the Danish, but this was nothing and demand, and this was done without any requirement.Imagine that the original plan of Napoleon III to Italy would materialize [10] . It would be equal to - like the German - Italian Confederation, which would include and Venetian kingdom, remaining, however, in conjunction with Austria. On what grounds could then King of Sardinia, in alliance with the King of Naples to require the separation of Austria Venice, Italian nationality if it does not oppressed and all rights are not violated venetsiyantsev be? This situation could be considered Italians - and quite thoroughly - very unsatisfactory. But the main reason was unsatisfactory though not belonging Venice Austria and separateness of the Italian states with a single Italian nationality, and only gossip itself in a single political entity, would this nation, if not formal, based on the treatises, the innate natural right to demand its complement from Austria . Such rights can not be denied and Germany, but first we must be to connect it to the German one political entity, separated from all the German not requiring an independent national life, and then there is demand, and from the other. Finally, from a national perspective restore the damaged German national law could, in any case, require only the German Confederation, as it was in the beginning, but he was obviously more than relegated to the background after all here took into their own hands Prussia and Austria.However, whether this is so or not, it's actually going on here is not to conclusively prove substantial injustice act Prussia and Austria against Denmark, we want to show that in the eyes of Europe's inner truth of Schleswig-Holstein case could not justify its illegality. For us it does not matter what the case itself, but the way in which it seemed the eyes of Europe, and hardly anyone would dare assert that it enjoyed sympathy European governments and European (except for the German, of course) public opinion. In the opinion of Europe, to violations of international relations forms joined here and the futility of the very essence of the Prussian-Austrian-German claims. Why on earth do not have armed themselves against these claims in Europe? Obviously, the innocence of Denmark and not external or internal rightness of Prussia and Austria were the cause. It is necessary to search a different explanation.But before we turn ten or eleven years ago to the more interesting for us the Eastern question.At the request of Napoleon [* 1] , the benefits of which were forced to flatter the Catholic clergy, the Turkish government has violated a long-standing aboriginal rights of the Orthodox Church in the Holy Places. It is a violation to express the main is that the key to the main door of the Bethlehem church[11] had to go to the Catholics. The key itself is, of course, a tiny thing, but for the most part things are valued at their actual worth, but for the idea that connect with them. What is the actual price of a piece of silk fabric, imposed on a wooden pole? But this piece of silk fabric on a wooden pole called a banner, and dozens, hundreds of people sacrifice their lives to save the banner or snatch it from the hands of the enemy. This is because the flag is a symbol, which is inseparably connected, in the opinion of soldiers, military honor of the regiment.A similar importance was the key Bethlehem. In the eyes of all the Christians of the East with that key was connected to the concept of the primacy of the church, which possesses them. Obviously, for the Mohammedan government of Turkey, it is impartial on the question of the superiority of one or the other of the Christian faith, meeting the wishes of the majority of his subjects belonging to the Orthodox Church, would be sure to be the sole guiding light in resolving such disputes. It is impossible to imagine any government, private benefits, opinions or prejudices which are not affected at all in any case, has decided it is not in the interests of the majority, but a small minority of his subjects, and, moreover, contrary to the age-old tradition, and those without needs, aroused displeasure in millions of people. For this course of action is necessary to assume any particular motives. Fear of violent demands France there is nothing to explain, because Turkey could not have known that from the attack of France, she always would find support and protection in Russia, and probably also in England and other European countries, as it was in 1840[12] . Obviously, this was a concession to the requirements of the French welcome pretext for Turkey to insult Russia. Religious interests of millions of its citizens were violated because these millions have had the misfortune to belong to the same church, which belongs to the Russian people.Russia Could not stand up for them, could the Russian government - all without violating their duties without offending the religious feelings of the people, without giving a shameful way of patronage that it provided Eastern Christians for centuries - and be allowed to establish the idea that the unity of the faith and the Russian people have printing rejection for Christians of the East, the reason for the persecution and oppression from which Russia is powerless to save them, that the actual protection can only be found in Western states, mainly in France? In addition, for any impartial person clear that France is the requirement was neither more nor less than a call made Russia not accept that do not allow the honor and dignity. This debate on the key that many even, we imagine something insignificant, unworthy people having good fortune to live in an enlightened nineteenth century, Russia had to, even with only a political point of view, much more important than any question of boundaries debate about more or less extensive area; from France he was, of course, nothing more than a tool for inciting hatred and breach of the peace. So understood at the time this case the British government itself.A just demand Russian Turkish government responded promise to issue a firman confirming all rights which have historically used the Orthodox Church - the firman, which would be sure to be read publicly in Jerusalem. This promise was not fulfilled; promised firman was not read, although this reading expected thence all the Orthodox population. Russia has been unworthily deceived her government put in ridiculous and pathetic as impotence, while all French demands were solemnly made. What could I do after that? Could Russia be satisfied with promises of Turkey, could give them the slightest faith? Not to mention the damage it insulting, not whether it was to think that Turkey, after such a happy beginning, so he came down safely with her hands, she could, when she was only pleased, take one after the other rights of the Orthodox Church to show its unfortunate followers futility of any hope of Russia? Russia Could not see what arena opened intrigue Latins who could appreciate the benefits received by him, and of course, they would not have stopped. To prevent this, remained one means to summon Turkey's positive commitment expressed in the form of a diplomatic agreement that all the rights enjoyed hitherto Orthodox Church will be permanently saved her. Was it possible to require less, when these rights were just violated and promise to restore their firman was not fulfilled? Do not the most original thing to require a formal commitment or contract from someone who has shown that his word, his promise is impossible to give a simple faith? The requirement for Russia this formal commitment requirement called patronage over the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire and the violation of the sovereign rights of the latter. Of course, it was a requirement of patronage, but that it was in this new and strange to excite a general indignation against Russia? For nearly 80 years, namely since 1774, Russia had formally expressed in a treatise entitled to such protection[13] , only needed a clear and precise definition of it. In fact, the right of patronage, derived not from treatises, and of the essence of things, Russia has always had and always enjoyed since how to make enough strong. Such beneficial owner had spokon century all states when they felt that any expensive for their business has suffered oppression in a foreign country. So the Protestant states often patronized Protestant in Catholic countries. So Russia and Prussia to patronize dissidents, Orthodox and Protestants, oppressed in the former Kingdom of Poland[14] . So, after the Eastern warriors, France had even armed protection of the Syrian Christians. And not in a religious sense to provide such protection. Did not consider themselves whether Britain and France have the right to patronize all the Neapolitan general subjects, in their opinion (but rightly) cruel and despotic manageable, and the King of Naples to require improvements in the method and form of governance? Do not patronized France Belgians rebelled against Holland? If so expensive protection for the interests of one state, the oppressed in another, actually existed and always, no matter what theory of non-interference, will always exist (as based on the very nature of things), what a terrible and humiliating that if it is the natural right of patronage received formal expression in the treatise? Court of Rome concluded a concordat with the Catholic and non-Catholic, even with the state, which pronounces, through diplomatic channels, certain rights for the Catholic Church in these powers, and such concordats are not considered, however, violations of the rule of these states. Peace of Westphalia concluded his state committed to each other without restricting the rights of its citizens, not belonging to the dominant religion in them[15] . Sometimes this decision is not executed by Catholic powers; Protestants intervened in the case and forced execution treatise. Thus, Frederick William, the father of Frederick the Great, twice had a very real protection to the oppressed Protestants in Salzburg. It is true that in the Treaty of Westphalia was a mutual obligation, but in Russia's relations with Turkey in this reciprocity was no need, because the Mohammedan subjects of Russia had no harassment is not tolerated. Of course, based on the treatises of patronage over the right part of the foreign nationals of another state can not be pleasant for him, but what do you do if it is only an expression of really existing needs? The only way to avoid this trouble - to destroy the very fact necessitates foreign patronage, while the same fact will exist, unhallow patronage formality agreement does not change the nature of the case. You could even say that in such a formal recognition of the right of patronage and intervention in clearly defined cases, decrease the chances of the actual application of this law. In fact, except Russia in 1853 and without a diplomatic note and generally without attributive diplomatic agreement, which currently require it became this year - that would be so scared if Europe - had not intervened in the affairs of Turkey, not assumed the patronage Orthodox Church? On the contrary, if such a positive, clear and determinative agreement existed before that time, it is not prevented if he Turkey in its hostility to the majority of its citizens as an act and yet rejected if the actual intervention by Russia? But what man would not have a clue or permitted with nedopuskaemosti contracts that give one the right to a formal state protection of the citizens of another state - a right that without a contract and actually always there - one will doubt that the contract, expressed in clear and definite terms always preferable contract authorizing place uncertain interpretations of the contract, introducing one way to reduce the temptation to assume the obligations and the other - to exaggerate their rights. In the present case and the case is going on only one such replacement contract others to prevent future similar to the collision and the actual need for intervention. If such agreements violate the supremacy of the state, the violation has already been done 80 years ago, and now it was attached only harmless form. All that can be interpreted to consist, therefore, only to form was adopted with it, and most harmless, satisfying the most scrupulous diligence European states about the dignity of Turkey, and in this respect there was no Russian acquiescence limits. She has not acted unceremoniously as German allies against Denmark, and when the great European powers offered their mediation, she took it, giving them blagousmotreniyu definition expressions that Turkey had to meet its requirements. Instigator of the case itself - France - drafted notes, diplomatic representatives of the great European powers approved and accepted it. Since the composition of the famous Vienna Note[16] . Russia, recognizing mediation powers definitely decided intermediaries. It would seem that it was over. If you could before and thoroughly or unfounded to assume the part of Russia's ambitious intentions, she apparently refused them, deciding collective diplomatic wisdom of Europe. It's clear that the intent of its limited yield, first, meet for the violation of her co-religionists, the natural patron of which, by the very nature of things, it has always been, is and will be, in treatises or without them, and secondly, liabilities expressed , at least in the most delicate to the Turkish pride form that henceforth such violations will not. And what, Turkey rejects this composed four great powers and Russia adopted, the note, making it such changes, which deprive it of any significance and binding sense. The very fact that the note variation was already familiar contempt, and - one Russian, but also to the other four powers, unless they seriously looked at his work and did not see him trap that Russia hoped to catch, thinking that she not accept their proposed text and then what will be as many accuse her in the back and secret thoughts and ambitions of by washing hands at her shoulder all the responsibility for the consequences. Turkey, from nowhere, gaining spirit declare war on Russia and finds himself between the two signatories to the Vienna note one obvious and secret ally, only the fourth remains neutral spectator.Political passions amazing how otumanivayut mind: the most direct and indisputable case becomes questionable in the eyes and distorted biased judge. Also try to translate this unprecedented mode of action of the political sphere into the sphere of private relations. Someone who considers himself insulted, demands satisfaction from the offender, in consideration of mutual friends he makes concession after concession in the form they require satisfaction, finally agrees to provide all the solutions themselves these friends - the arbitration court of honor, as, for example, is found between the military and students , agrees, despite the belief that friends are for the most part, these false friends, that one of them was even an instigator in the applied insult him. So he is convinced of the rightness of their cause. Friends decide decision - note: the solution proposed by the instigator - and certainly insulted him obeys considers it quite sufficient for themselves. Add to this that the injured, as has often been proved perfectly in possession of weapons, an offender is not so good in this case, yet the latter is inspired unexpected courage, rejects the decision taken by it before mediators and causes his opponent to a duel.Friends, of course, come in indignation, declare themselves supporters caused and insist that he be pardoned recognized them all for a fair, - enforce this so out of place emboldened master, or at least leave poedinschikov cracking each another as themselves know? Not at all, it turns out that friends strange sense of honor and justice. Take heart, if you please, to what a bad warrior, he could not cope with them caused the enemy - it is clear as twice two is four. Well - knightly honor and duty to stand up for and protect the weak from the strong attack, and took an unexpected enthusiasm because he has nowhere, both from their own knightly whisperings; honor, therefore, orders to stand behind him feeding. So solve two of his friends. But it is necessary for this same reason any, and if no reason, then, at least, though pretext, an excuse, as usual, is, of course, as strange as this story. Insulted and called, out of respect to a friend, for good nature or something, or so much, God knows why, offers such an enemy battlefield conditions, "You, my friend, I know you know how to fight bad, so here's what: if napadesh on me, I will defend, lucky you - well, your happiness, and a little penalty, go for this feature, and I'm already behind her touch you dare not, take this all the friends to witness and bail. " Is it smart or not, I do not know, but generously essentially, out of hand as generous. However, two friends, the instigator and the other, and this was not enough:"The dash touch - it's good - you only have a hand and a leg tie give yourself and wait. On one leg and one hand only fight me, and we will enjoy how these tricks you'll throw. If not, then three on you will attack. " Hands and feet are not given myself a generous associate Warrior - Well, excuse, thank you Lord, found, and that is where the difficulties in which they both were: fighting - dying to, and not fight for that. They persuaded and third at the same time to fight with them, but straight into the fray this climb was far too obscene: Not more than five years ago hurt him out of the water, whether or pulled out of the fire - when he was already quite choked, or smoke gasped, - in a word, life saved. He rises to the trick. "The place - he says - where you fight think by my side, your fight you will not stop me, I still take his, and you know where Fight. However, the place for you will be very uncomfortable: the wind and the sun directly eyes thee from it will not be to attack, only defend muddle, uh, yeah that's your business, if you do not want to train, then, until those three front attack you will, I'll grab the back of his neck. " Currently only the fourth stepped aside. "My, - he says - hut on the edge, I do not know."How would we, I ask, to judge such actions? And in this parable is not the slightest exaggeration or caricature, just a simple rehash: court of honor - the Vienna Conference, the streak - Danube arm and a leg, whereby we must be bound, - fleet that Russia should not interfere with the supply of arms to the Circassians, and so etc. Is, in fact, was the Battle of Sinop not more than strange pretext to declare war naval powers?[17] . Is Austria did not require purification and neutrality of the Danubian principalities, thus exposing Russia beats her enemies and depriving itself of its opportunities to apply them, instead of forcing the land to conduct naval warfare? Who was here on earth, insulted and offended? If not to the evidence is clear that war with Russia looking for at any cost? Does not France from the outset violated his immoderate demands peace between churches and rivalry forced Russia to stand up for their co-religionists? Turkey is not whether after this tricked Russia, do not hold the promise of firman? Does not France again, left corner to its fleet to the Dardanelles, forced Russia to engage in the Danubian principalities?[18] Then, when Russia agreed to provide a solution to the dispute mediation four great powers and certainly took their proposed text of the note, if not Western powers, and preferably not whether England through his envoy, constantly hostile to Russia, Lord Radcliffe, instigated Turkey not to take it and - time to put an end to diplomatsiey whereby could not manage to put the instigator Russian affairs - directly declare war?Is there, in fact, the slightest opportunity to think that Turkey decided to ignore the opinion of the whole of Europe and rejecting it, declare war on Russia with the conviction that the proposed note it was not a trap, but real, honest expression of opinion in Europe, and without inciting the most promise active help? Finally, if no wild demands of the Western powers to Russia, being in a war with Turkey, quietly looked at how will the supply of arms and generally help Circassians[19] , and is used to defend only one army, but not the Navy? Do not these ridiculous demands, rejected it as necessary, provided the pretext for war? What to say more about the requirements of Austria, which to shield Turkey, makes war within Russia itself? What can I say, finally, Sardinia, so so great live, for no apparent reason declaring war on Russia not only really no reason, but even without the slightest shadow of an excuse? Is all of this does not show any bitterness, any determination to neglect all, if only to satisfy his desire to humiliate Russia as to what finally appears favorable, apparently, the case? All this becomes interesting Especially if you compare such resentment against Russia with the condescension that was provided to the actions of Prussia and Austria concerning Denmark. And if it was still possible to attribute it to the courts or Machiavellianism only governmental spheres European powers saw the auspicious occasion to profit at the expense of Russia, - not at all! Currently scheming like designs Cardinal Alberoni became completely impossible. All European governments should take into consideration the mood of public opinion and quite often even compelled them to act. So it was in the Eastern question. British Government, ie the Ministry of Aberdeen, was not only peacefully, but even friendly disposed towards Russia, and the same must be said of most of the German Government. Only one force of public opinion forced England to war and changed the ministry for what it is not led war with sufficient energy. As hostile, if not more, this opinion was in Prussia and in the rest of Germany and if they are not carried away in the war, because there is not yet received such power, as in England. Every success, won not only the Western powers, but even the Turks celebrated everywhere as a success of the common cause of all Europe. However, the new government of France sought the case for war, but why it has chosen this particular war, which by itself did not present him with any positive benefits, there was even contrary to common notions of the political interests of France? And Napoleon, of course, understand their health. But he knew that this would be the most popular in Europe the war, the only one able to reconcile it with the Napoleonic dynasty, which it generally looked with suspicion and hostility, and the result of this calculation is quite justified.Consequently, in this case, public opinion in Europe was much more hostile to Russia than her government diplomatic sphere. Quite the contrary, in the Schleswig-Holstein question public opinion outside of Germany at all and did not approve of Austria and Prussia, and stood almost everywhere in Denmark, but it was generally cold, sluggish, did not have the same swiftness that drags the government, and because they left not only the freedom to act according to their discretion, prudence, but even as expressed in magazines and in numerous rallies against the war. Whence, I ask again, is meryanie different measures and it is hanging different weights when it comes to Russia and other European countries? Presented analysis and a thorough comparison of the Schleswig-Holstein question with oriental in their essence and in their form does not, as we have seen, the key to this mystery and on the contrary, it is even more difficult otgadku. Do not filed his former Russian affairs, their violence just fear and resentment in Europe, so that Europe took the first present the case to pay for the past and to protect yourself in the future? Let's see, maybe it really is!Notes[1] "genius Prussian Minister" Danilevsky calls Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), who, occupying the post of Minister-President of the most powerful of the German states, pursued a policy of German unification "blood and iron". Austro-Prussian War of 1866 was the first major step in this direction.[2] In early 1852 representatives of the five great powers (Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia) signed an agreement in London guaranteeing the integrity of the Danish monarchy. In accordance with duchies of Schleswig and Holstein recognized possessions of the Danish crown and cleared of introduced there earlier German troops.[3] The agreement, signed July 10, 1774 in the village of Kucuk Kaynardzha (on the territory of present-day. Bulgaria), summed up the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. Russia passed into the possession of Kerch in the Crimea, part of the coast of the Dnestr estuary and Kabarda. Kucuk Kainarji turned Russia into a Black Sea power and significantly strengthened its position in the Caucasus and the Balkans.[4] In the days of Rzeczpospolita in Polish Sejm acted principle "liberum veto", ie complete unanimity in deciding cases. Speaking against any decision, members of the Sejm were not required to motivate their protest, to get a negative result, it was enough verbal disagreement ("not allowed") at least one of the delegates present gentry.[5] formed in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna the German Confederation and the Austrian Empire included 38 German states, including Prussia played a primary role. German alliance did not provide the unity of Germany, being, in fact, formal education.[6] We are talking about the "April Notes" in 1863, presented by the representatives of France and England to Tsar Alexander II on the occasion of the uprising in Poland. Notes contain a requirement that the Polish question was submitted to the European powers.[7] The partition of Poland (Rzeczpospolita) occurs in stages in 1772, 1793 and 1795. Russia initially opposed hatched Prussia together with Austria plans partition of Poland, limited diplomatic pressure on the ruling circles Rzeczpospolita on so-called "dissident issue", ie the question of the oppressed in Poland Ukrainian and Belarusian population are Orthodox Christians. Mutiny Polish confederates who opposed the decision of the Seimas of the equation of the Orthodox and Protestants equal rights with Catholics, Catherine II was forced to reconsider its position. In the three partitions of Poland proper Polish lands became part of Austria and Prussia. To Russia withdrew Belarus, Right-Bank Ukraine, western lands (without Lviv), part of Lithuania, Latgale and Courland.[8] The Prime Minister of Piedmont (Kingdom of Sardinia) K. Cavour (1810-1861) in his quest to unite the Italian people around the throne of King Victor Emmanuel resorted to the tactics of secret diplomacy and political combinations. Actions Cavour (secret deals with Napoleon III, flirting with Garibaldi, etc.), often go beyond the bounds of legality.[9] The Austrian Empire and after his conversion in 1867 dualistic (twofold) of the Austro-Hungarian state continued to be a prison for living in it the Slavic peoples.[10] According to the plan of Napoleon III Italy after the expulsion of the Austrians it was to become a federal state under the honorary chairmanship of the Pope.[* 1] There is a view Napoleon III. - Note. Ed.[11] Bethlehem church - Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (Palestine), built in the IV. on the spot where, according to tradition, Jesus Christ was born.[12] Support from Russia was guaranteed Union-Turkey defense agreement signed between the two countries in 1833 (Unkiar-Iskelesiyskyay contract). In 1840, Russia, England, Austria and Prussia had collective assistance to the Turkish sultan in his fight against France's protege - Egyptian Pasha Muhammad Ali, who sought to seize power in the Ottoman Empire.[13] This is one of the articles Kucuk Kainarji peace treaty between Russia and Turkey.[14] See annotated. 7 to this chapter.[15] The Peace of Westphalia was concluded after a grueling Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), during which revealed a complete failure of plans to create a world of "Christian" (Catholic) Empire under the auspices of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs. Position of the Peace of Westphalia, which mentions Danilevsky concerned the religious disputes between Protestants and Catholics.[16] Vienna Note - a document adopted by the Conference in Vienna on the Eastern question in July 1853 Envoys of five European powers developed apologetic text notes that suited Tsar Nicholas I, but it was rejected by the Turkish Sultan.[17] November 30, 1853 Black Sea Fleet squadron under the command of Vice Admiral Nakhimov destroyed in Sinop (Turkey) Turkish fleet was standing there.[18] Ie Moldavia and Wallachia.[19] In the XIX century. ethnonym "Circassians" was used in an extended sense, denoting not only the North Caucasian tribes Circassians but generally all the Caucasian highlanders. In the struggle with the imperial troops they used weapons and ammunition that came from Turkey.Chapter 2. Why Europe is hostile to Russia?Russia is not an aggressive state. What is "winning"? Finland. Baltic provinces. Western edge. Poland. Bessarabia. Caucasus. Siberia. Character Russian wars. Russia is not Extinguisher light and freedom. Holy Alliance. Kill Kotzebue. Russian liberalism does not reduce hostility toward her. Ignorance of Europe on Russia. Europe does not acknowledge us.CHAPTER II. Why Europe is hostile to Russia?We hear slander, insults we know Tysyacheglavoy lies newspapers, cheating, envy and fear generated. Friends have asked our Russia!"Look at a map - tell me one foreigner - how can we not feel that Russia presses us in its mass as a cloud hanging like some terrible nightmare?" Yes, landkartnoe pressure does exist, but where is it in fact, what and when expressed? France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Spain under Charles V and Philip II, Austria under Ferdinand II really gravitated over Europe, and threatened to destroy the independent, free development of its various ethnic groups, and a large labor cost her free from such pressure. But is there anything like that in the past history of Russia? However, many times it intervened in the fate of Europe, but what was the occasion for this intervention? In 1799, in 1805, in 1807. Russian army fought with varying degrees of success, not for the Russian and European interests in[1] . Because of these same interests, for her, in fact, alien, had brought it on himself the twelfth year of the storm, and when wiped off the face of the earth half a million army and this one seemed to have quite freedom served Europe, it did not stop there, and , in spite of their benefits - that was in 1813 opinion Kutuzov and, generally, all the so-called Russian party - two years fought for Germany and Europe and, having finished the fight overthrow of Napoleon, just saved France from the vengeance of Europe as saved Europe from oppression France. Thirty-five years later she again, perhaps against their own interests, saved from the final disintegration of Austria, believes, rightly or wrongly, the cornerstone of the political system of the European states[2] . What gratitude for all that she received both Governments and the peoples of Europe - all well-known, but not in this case. Here, however, everything is still marked by active participation of Russia in European affairs, with the sole exception of perhaps aimless intervention in the Seven Years War[3] . But the lessons of history have not warned anyone. Russia - not tired to cry in every way - a huge aggressive state, continually expanding its limits, and therefore threatens the peace and independence of Europe. This is - one charge. Another is that the Russian supposedly represents something of a political Ahriman[4] , some grim force hostile to progress and freedom. How much do all this fair? Let us first look at the Russian conquest. Of course, Russia is not small[* 1] , but most of its space occupied by the Russian people free settlement, and not the state of conquest. Nadel, inherited Russian people is quite natural area - as natural, such as France, only in large sizes - an area the marked sharply on all sides (except for some western) seas and mountains. This region was crossed by two of the Ural Mountains, which, as you know, in the middle part of his canopy so that there is a natural ethnographic partitions. The western half of this area erupt radiating in all directions from the center of rivers: the Northern Dvina River Neva - drain the entire lake system, the Western Dvina, Dnieper, Don and Volga in the same way as in a small form France Meuse, Senoyu, Loire, Garonne and Ronoyu . The eastern half of parallel erupt over the Ob, Yenisei and Lena, who also divided among themselves by mountain barriers. All this space there was no political body formed when the Russian people began to gradually withdraw from the tribal forms of life and make the political system. The whole country was either desert or semi-wild populated Finnish tribes and nomads, hence not to impede the free settlement of the Russian people, to continue in almost all of its first millennium of history, in the absence of historical nations that ought to destroy and trample underfoot to take their place. Occupation people never intended his historical pursuits should not have less blood and tears. He suffered many wrongs and oppression against the Tatars and Poles, Swedes and swordsmen, but the oppressed nobody unless called oppression reflection unfair attacks and claims. Public building erected by them is not based on the bones violated nationalities. He has held or wasteland, or joined with him by historical, no forced assimilation tribes such as the Chud, the whole, or as a current Meria Zyrians Cheremis, Mordovians not embody any rudiments of historical life, no aspirations to it, or, finally took under its shelter and its defense, the tribes and nations, which, being surrounded by enemies, already lost their national independence or could not keep it any longer, as Armenians and Georgians. Conquest played in all this most insignificant role, as is easily seen by tracing how Russia got its western and southern suburbs, slyvuschego in Europe under the name of greediness greedy Russian conquests. But first we must agree on the meaning of the word "conquest." Conquest is a political murder or, at least, political mayhem, as, indeed, the first of these is used in a very different sense, say better: national, national murder or mutilation. Although the definition is metaphorical, however it is true and clear. Subsequently get a chance elaborate on our thoughts about the importance of the nationalities, but still rather accept aphoristic position, which, however, and requires no special evidence in our time, is because, in theory at least, the belief of the majority of thinking people: that every nation has the right to independent existence in precisely that extent it is aware of itself and has a claim on it. This last condition is very important and requires some explanation. If, for example, Prussia conquered Denmark France or Holland, they would have caused this real suffering, would violate a valid law, which could not be rewarded any civil or political rights and privileges granted by the Danes or the Dutch, for other than personal and civic but political, or so-called constitutional, freedom of the peoples living independently public and political life, still feel the need that all the results of their activity - industrial, intellectual and social - were their full ownership and not sacrificed to an alien political body , do not get lost in it, were not material and the means to achieve their objectives for outsiders. They do not want to serve them, because every historical nationality has its own problem, which must decide whether your idea, your particular aspect of life that seeks to implement - a task the idea side of life, the more great and original than itself perfectly nationality from other ethnographic, social, religious and historical relations. But a necessary condition for achieving all this is the national political independence. Therefore, the destruction of the independence of this country can be in all justice called the national murder which excites a legitimate resentment against his finisher. To this class of phenomena is public and what I have called the national mutilation. Italy, for example, felt real suffering because of her - Venice - remained attached to an alien political body - Austria, although this was not an insurmountable obstacle to the development of its national life, just as the cut-off arm or leg does not stop life of the individual man, but nevertheless deprives it of the completeness and protean manifestations, to which it would be able to without this injury. Historic people gather together until all of its parts, all of his organs, should be considered a political cripple. These were recently Italians; such still Greeks, Serbs, and even Russian, which are separated by three or four millions of their countrymen Ugric and Galician[5] . And how many more under wraps until the rest nationalities, waiting for his resurrection! Said here would be, however, to be unfair and unreasonable to attribute to such tribes who lived independent historical life, because if that does not have an internal instincts of this, or because circumstances have developed unfavorably for them and the possibility of their historical development was destroyed at such an early stage of their lives when they were only ethnographic material has not yet had time to accept a form of political personality - so to speak, before they were vdunut spirit alive. Such tribes - such as the Basques in Spain and France, the Celts principality Valisskogo[6] and our many Finnish, Tatar, Samoyed, Ostyak and other tribes - are designed to ensure that merge gradually and imperceptibly with the historical ethnic group among whom they are scattered, assimilate it, and serve to increase the diversity of its historical manifestations. These tribes are, without doubt, the right to the same degree of personal, civic and social freedom, as the dominant historical nation, but not to political independence, for not having it in the mind, and they need it do not feel and do not even feel can. You can not stop life that did not live, can not mutilate the body, no individual association. Here there is, consequently, no national murder or national injury and therefore no gains. It is even impossible in relation to such families. Most etymological meaning of the word "conquest" is not applicable to such submission tribes because they have no resistance, if this does not violate their personal, property and other civil rights. When these rights are inviolable, they, in fact, nothing more than defend.After this brief digression, necessary for understanding the concept of winning, let's start our review with the north-western corner of the Russian state, with Finland, - directly from one of the political crimes of which we rebukes Europe. Was here in the conquest of national significance is murder, which gives it a hateful, criminal nature? Without doubt not, because there was no nationality, which would defeat with its independent existence or mutilated any branch integral part thereof. Finnish tribes inhabiting Finland, like all the other Finnish tribes scattered over the space of Russia, has never lived historical life. As long as there is no violation of people's independence, the political considerations of geographic rounding strategic border security, etc., in themselves they can not justify the accession of any country, get their lawful use. Russia was at war with Sweden, which since the Treaty of Nystad could not get used to the idea of ??the assignment that by all rights belonged to Russia[7] , and looking for anyone in her opinion, an opportunity to renew the war and return their previous gains. Russia won and gained the right to compensation money, land or other, if only it did not extend to the part of Sweden itself - for the national territory is not alienated and no contracts can not consecrate in the minds of the people of this alienation, alienated yet not lose part of their national character. Then, of course, but only have to submit irrevocably. But not enough to say that the accession of Finland from Sweden to Russia draws substantial rights were not violated, - benefits Finland itself, ie, the Finnish people inhabiting it, more than the benefits of Russia, demanded changes rule. State so powerful as Russia, may have largely abandon benefiting from the acquisition of the country; nation so powerful as Russian, could without harm to themselves provide Finnish folk ethnographic full independence. Russian state and Russian nationality could be content with little, it was enough to have in the north-west corner of its territory neutral country and a friendly nation instead of an enemy outpost and domination hostile Swedes. Russian state and nation could do without a full merger of the country with him and Finnish nationality, to which, of course, by necessity, had to seek weak Sweden, in relation to which Finland was three-quarters of its own space and half of its population. And really, only since the accession of Finland to Russia beginning to awaken Finnish nationality and finally reached that for her tongue could be recognized as equal in respect of the Swedish university education, administration and even debate in the Sejm. Russia made ??for Finnish nationality will no doubt appreciated by impartial persons; hostile camp, of course, raises it until just resentment which sometimes ridiculously. In my stay in Norway I seriously one Swede assured that the Russian government, of hostility to Sweden, induced Finnish nationality and writing, with precisely this purpose, an epic poem Kalevala. Amazing government, which, in the opinion of the Poles, decrees creates Russian language and teaches him his Mongolian nationals and Review Swedes composes folk epics!For Finland, skipping Ingria [8] - for the possession of which to us does not seem to roll in reproaches, though she was repulsed by the Swedes, - we find the so-called German Baltic provinces (die deutschen Ostsee - Provinzen), ie ownership by the German shores of the Baltic Sea . By name can perhaps think that it is a question of the conquered and annexed by Russian - from the Holy Roman Empire or replace it with the German Confederation - the provinces of Prussia and Pomerania, which now constitute the only truly German provinces in the Baltic Sea, not the locality Estonians Latvians and space from Peipsi and Narva River to the Prussian border - native Russian supplies where else Yaroslav founded Yuriev, then renamed in Dorpat[9] - about the space on which the first settlement in Riga bishops considered it necessary to seek permission from Polotsk princes. Who were the invaders in this country: whether Russian, ie Slavs who, in alliance with different Chudsko tribes laid the foundation of the Russian state and peacefully have made ??Christianity with the rudiments of education in this Baltic country in the same way as in other parts of their own, one component of the whole physical state area - or uninvited and unwelcome German adventurers, which were the fire and sword here propagate spiritual dominion dads pay natives into slavery and prisvoivat yourself someone else's property? Russia has never recognized this alien invasion! Pskov and Novgorod, standing guard over the land here in the Russian heavy Tatar rate, never ceased to protest against him in arms. When Moscow has united Russia, she found her first duty to destroy the nest of knighthood and return its Russian heritage. The first failed at the outset, but the country was taken over by Poland and Sweden, and the struggle for it merged with the struggle for other areas, alienated these states on Russia. But this is just one more aspect of the matter, most joining the main part of the Baltic region is done even against the wishes of the alien nobility, and at his own request and promptings, with diligence and care agent - hero Patkul[10] . It can be argued that for most people, the indigenous owner country, Estonians and Latvians, although Russia has already done something, but then, not all of what they could expect from it, but certainly not for that accuses her of Europe, not that she sees that trait on which her ??eyes accession of the Baltic region has hated aggressive character. Quite the contrary, in the little that is made ??- or, better said, in what she fears from Russia - for the true liberation of the people and the country, and it sees itself, usurpation of Russian, German and insult all of European civilization.For the Baltic regions begins country, now known under the names of the North-West and South-West region, and previously called Polish provinces. Near the time when it would be superfluous to fill a more than one page of all kinds of evidence for the belief that it is Russian territory, which Russia had never won: because you can not win that without our conquest, so it was always, always thought so even all Russian people, while the upper classes have not started to dry up his lively sense of folk and popular feeling alive - yet, due to the fact many of these layers are not allowed otumanit your mind humanitarian ridiculous nonsense that do not have even the dignity of sincerity and fairness. Poles and Europe have committed themselves, fortunately, several sobered Russian work in this regard[11] , and although, unfortunately, despite their best efforts, not much more time to this, as he should wish - so tightly huddled in Russian humanitarian nonsense head - reached, however, what did not would be the most thorough and long dissertation - freed from labor to prove that the North-West and South-West region - is exactly the same and Russia on exactly the same basis as the most Moscow.But in the North West province has a small bit of land, namely Belostotskaya area in which it is useful to stop a few. This area, along with the northern part of the present Kingdom of Poland and the Duchy Poznansky West Prussia, went with the partition of Poland the share of Prussia. In the seventh year, in the Treaty of Tilsit, it was ceded to Russia[12] . How many cheers for the occasion in German writings of Russian perfidy, shamefully agreed to take part in the looting of its former ally unhappy! One has only to look at a map to make sure the bad faith of the prosecution.Belostotskaya area adjacent to the eastern border of the Kingdom of Poland. From the northern part of the present kingdom, which two years later was attached and the south, and the province of Posen was Napoleon Duchy of Warsaw. This was broken connection between the Bialystok region and survivors from the destruction of Prussian possessions. Prussia thus Belostotskaya area was, in any case, lost, Prussia remained one of two things: to see her in the hands of a hostile or her Duchy of Warsaw, coupled with a hostile Saxony, or in the hands of a friendly Russia. Could there be any doubt in choosing the most Prussia? As for Russia, it is obvious that she considered the Bialystok region joins her not from Prussia - from which this area has already been taken away by the fact of the Duchy of Warsaw education - and of the latter, both of them hostile state. Where is the perfidy? Subsequently, when the Kingdom of Poland in retaliation for services rendered Russia Europe was annexed to Russia[13] , Prussia received adequate compensation for departed from her part of Poland, and Belostotskaya region could not be returned to her, because she remained separated from the Kingdom of Poland, as before the Duchy of Warsaw, which (except for isolated from his duchy of Poznan) only variable name.Can not, however, to be called the Kingdom of Poland is the conquest of Russia, as in force immediately before the definition was, apparently, the national murder? This question deserves consideration because judgments and actions in Europe, in relation to it, is also evident - if not more, than the Eastern question in comparison with the Schleswig-Holstein - that duality measures and that the falsity of weights, which it measure and weighed Russia and other states.Partition of Poland in the opinion of Europe is considered the greatest crime against international law committed in modern times, and the entire burden falls on the Russian him. And this opinion is not screamers newspaper, not the crowd, but the opinion of most of the leading people of Europe. What, however, Russia's fault? The western half of the Tartar domination was conquered by Lithuania shortly Russified, then through Lithuania - first chance (by marital union), and then forcibly (Liublin union) - ceded to Poland[14] . Eastern Russia will never put up with this situation. This is evidenced by the continuous series of wars in which the preponderance of first belonged to Poland for the most part, but since reunification Khmelnitsky and Ruthenia finally went to Russia. When Alexis Russia had more happiness to belong to the political system of the European states, and because in her free hand, and she was the only judge in their own backyard. While there was a first partition of Poland. Russia, without asking, took from her, she could - Ruthenia on the left side of the Dnieper, Kiev and Smolensk, - and would take more if the hopes of the Polish crown not deceived the king and forced to miss a good time[15] . Partition of Poland as it involved Russia, could have been accomplished already - a little over a hundred years earlier than it actually occurred, and, of course, with a huge benefit for Russia, because then not wander more humanitarian ideas in the minds of Russian, and region would be assigned to Orthodoxy and Russian nationality before they could be to perdition on Russian business Czartoryskis with their many followers and supporters, thriving under different types of images, and even to this day[16] . Be that as it may, the case has not been completed, and only barely begun when Alexei, and once lost a good time not previously returned as a hundred years, under Catherine II. But why what was legal in half of the XVII century, it becomes illegal to end XVIII? Most casus belli when Alexei same - all the same oppression of the Orthodox population, asking for help to his native Russia. And if it was true return of Smolensk and Kiev, then why was not only unfair to return Vilna, Podolia, Polotsk, Minsk, but even Galic, who unfortunately, was not returned? But this was only the partition of Poland and how it participated Russia[17] ! Form was, however, different. In the hundred years Russia had the good fortune to join the political system of the European states, and her hands were tied. Whether its not his ancestral property you return, as if talking to her neighbors, we do not care, only strengthens you, and we ought to strengthen as much. The situation was such that Russia was not able to regain its rightful owned, avoiding at the same time, Austria and Prussia to own a part of Poland and even Russia - Galich - to which neither the one nor the other, of course, did not have any right to . The initial idea of this section belongs, as we know, Friedrich[18] , and in this destruction of Poland, in its legal limits, Russia had no benefits. Quite the contrary, Russia certainly would retain its influence in Poland and separation from her Russian regions, especially because it alone could hope to find support Poland against their German neighbors, who (especially Prussia) was highly desirable, even essential need get some part of the self Poland. But it was not to risk Russia because of this war with Prussia and Austria! Is it not obvious that all that was unfair to the partition of Poland, - so to say, the murder of Polish nationality - on the conscience of Prussia, Austria, and Russia does not, be content with your domain, whose return was not only their right, but also the sacred duty. - Or there maybe humanitarian head, who would say that generosity demanded from Russia soon abandon its rightful than accept the destruction of Poland itself? After all, that's all you can blame Russia, becoming for the most quixotic viewpoint. Such a course of action would be, perhaps, possible if Poland otherwise deal with their Russian and Orthodox subjects, in these same circumstances, it would be ridiculous and pathetic velikodushnichanem at someone else's expense. If a private person deprived part of his heritage, to return it was forced, without being able to achieve this otherwise, enter into an agreement with the neighbors, obviously wishing to take advantage of a favorable opportunity sim, so without the slightest the fact that the right to capture and share an unjust property owner which undoubtedly belongs to him - we are, no doubt, would have to say that he acted disagrees with the rules of Christian morality. But the application of these rules to the inter-state and even international relations it would be strange confusion, misunderstanding proving only those grounds on which these institutions are founded highest moral demands. The requirement of moral course of action is nothing, as a requirement of self-sacrifice. Sacrifice is the highest moral law. Strictly speaking, it is identical concepts. But the only basis for self-sacrifice has immortality, eternity inner self, for to the strict law of morality or self-sacrifice was not absurd, enclosing an internal contradiction, it is obviously necessary that he came out of the inner nature of who should on this basis act in the same way as in all natural, or that the same divine law. (...) But if the person ends all life here, then, no doubt, and the laws of its activities can not nowhere else had drawn both from the requirements of that same life - of what constitutes its essence, that is, of the requirements of the interim peace, happiness and prosperity in which every creature is finite, and even the only imaginable purpose of their existence. Just in case, if not in this, is an inner need of our essence, the spirit, as we call it - if it contains something other than a non-exhaustive content of temporary earthly life - maybe vystavlyaemo and different beginning for its activities, the beginning of morality , love and sacrifice. But the state and the people are transient phenomena that exist only in time and, therefore, only on the requirement of their temporal existence may be based laws of their activity, that is politics. This is justified by Machiavellianism and approved only that its every that for every category of beings and phenomena have their own law. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a strict law bentamovsky principle of utility, that is understood health benefits[19] - that the foreign policy of the law, the law of state to state relations. There is no place for the law of love and sacrifice. Inappropriately applied, this supreme moral law takes the form of mysticism and sentimental, as we have seen in the example of blessed memory, the Holy Alliance[20] . Incidentally, we note that the beginning of health benefits understood clearly inadequate and useless as the basis of morality, should give much better results as a political principle, for the very simple reason that it is applied here to its present site. In fact, for long-lasting life of the state has a greater likelihood that the threat that provides the basis of utilitarian beginning - ie, its sanction, is in the words: "She has the same measure you use - and you vozmeritsya"[21] , - time to conceive its action; whereas in short-term human life, each having enough money, power, cunning, may very thoroughly hope that he will be able to avoid the consequences expressed in the words quoted above.Thus, the partition of Poland as it participated Russia, was a matter of perfectly legitimate and fair, was the fulfillment of a sacred duty to the children of her own, which it did not have to embarrass sentimental impulses and false generosity as Catherine after they unfortunately and common misfortune of Russia and Poland, and her troubled confuse many more still. If the partition of Poland was an injustice on the part of Russia, it was unique in that Galic was not reunited with Russia. Despite all this, the indignation of Europe collapsed, however, with all its weight not really guilty - Prussia and Austria - and in Russia. In the eyes of all Europe's crime division of Poland lies in the fact that Russia has increased by returning their property. If not for that sad fact that Germanization of Slavic peoples - although her ??most accommodating of all, yet still-Slavic - not opened to so many tears and crying. I even think that, quite the contrary, after due-hypocritical condolences she'd secretly adopted obscheyu with joy as desired victory of civilization over barbarism. After all, we know that she is not scared and our European humanitarian progressives, even when is in the form of an Austrian policeman (see Athenaeum) [22] . Did some Frenchmen would have regretted that they have lost a convenient tool to stir up Germany. This direction of European public opinion is very well understood and the Polish intelligentsia, and she knows how to appease Europe and refuses blood Heritage, Poland, Austria and Prussia inherited, if only she were returned to what it once took from Russia; stolen her dearer his. Who happened to see the disgusting, but curious spectacle fights between large poisonous spiders, called phalanges, who, of course, notice how often this evil beast devouring fury of one of his opponents, does not feel that another otel his ass already. Not whether these phalanx true emblem of the Polish gentry and Jesuit - its symbol, emblem, expressing its state character's much more than a single-headed eagle?But no matter how Russia was right at the partition of Poland, now she already owns this part of Poland and therefore should bear the reproach of the acquisition of the wrong, at least on a par with Prussia and Austria. Yes, unfortunately, the owner! But again, not owned by conquest, but by the sentimental generosity, which has just been said. If Russia, liberated Europe, partly restored Napoleon gave Poland its former fate, that is divided between Austria and Prussia, and reward their invaluable, though poorly evaluated, merit demanded for themselves the eastern Galicia, part of which - Tarnopolsky district - at the already owned, it would remain on the same ground on which stood at Catherine, and no nothing could reproach her. Russia would receive significantly less space, not much less on Population, but how much more Inland acquired dignity, since it would increase the number of his subjects not hostile element Polish and Russian people present[23] . What made the Emperor Alexander to lose sight of this essential benefit? That blinded his eyes? Not aggressive plans, and the desire to fulfill his youthful dream - to restore the Polish nation and thus atone for what he thought of his great grandmother misdemeanor. It was really so, we prove that the so looked on the Poles. When the enemy camp, Austria, France and England began to make all sorts of obstacles to this plan, the restoration of Poland, even threatening war, the Emperor Alexander sent the Grand Duke Constantine in Warsaw Poles to call to arms to defend their national independence. Europe, as usual, seen in this part of Russia trick - desire, under the pretext of restoring the Polish nation, little by little to take in hand and those of the former Kingdom of Poland, which is not got it - and therefore agreed to the perfect incorporation[* 2] of Poland, but not for the independent existence of the kingdom in personal dynastic union with Russia, which is now so wish. Only when Hardenberg, who, as a Prussian, was closer acquainted with Polish and Russian affairs, explained that Russia requires its own harm diplomats agreed on the independence of the kingdom[* 3] [24] . Subsequent events proved that Russia's plans were not ambitious, but only generous. If the Russian government supported the Poles hope to join the realm of Prussian and Austrian parts of former Poland, like this, for example, later wished Marquis Wielopolski, or would only condoned by tending to the intrigue, of course, would not have happened that rebellion broke out in the Kingdom of Poland[25] and not in Poznan or in Galicia, for internal reasons, consisting in unsatisfactory condition of the land for this uprising was not. Whatever anyone as judged given the kingdom constitution - freedom, which it enjoyed was, in any case, much greater than in selected provinces of Prussia and Austria than in most of Prussia and Austria, than even in most of Europe at the time. Time from 1815 to 1830, in which the kingdom enjoyed independent control and special army own finances and constitutional forms of government, was, no doubt, materially and morally happiest time in Polish history. The uprising was not what others can not be explained as vexation Poles failure of their plans to restore the ancient grandeur of Poland, even though it was under the scepter of the Russian rulers, of course, just for starters[26] . But these plans were not aimed at Galicia and Poznan, and Russia to the west, because there were only a free hand of the Polish intelligentsia - as many polyachit and Latin. It was only when, in the opinion of the Polish intelligentsia, was provided enough indulgence, or rather, to promote Russian government - for indulgence was still pretty - to opolyacheniyu western Russia, while Poles outrage erupted and led to an uprising of 1830, as well as and 1863. Here's how ambitious and aggressive plans were Russia, prompted her to solicit the Congress of Vienna joining the Kingdom of Poland!In the southwest corner of Russia Bessarabia is also a recent acquisition. Here the Christian Orthodox population was plucked out of the hands of those who afflicted his wild and rough conquerors, the Turks - a population that has triumphed this event as a deliverance from captivity. If that was the conquest, then Cyrus freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity was their conqueror[27] . This spread and no longer stands.All southern Russian steppes were also taken out of the hands of the Turks. Steppes these belong to the Russian plain. Spokon century, since the time of Svyatoslav, fought for the hordes of nomads first Russian princes, then Russian Cossack communities and Russian tsars. Why and with what right here skidded Turkish rule, patronized predatory raids? The same must be said of the Crimean peninsula, though not belonging to Russia from time immemorial, but serve as a safe haven not only for its implacable enemies, but the enemies of any citizenship, which makes him a raid at every opportunity, pozhigali fire and sword posekali southern Russian region to Moscow itself. You can probably agree that there was conquered by the state, deprived of its independence nation, but what kind of state and nation? If I called every general conquest national murder, in this case it was a murder, and that allowed human and divine laws - a murder committed in self-defense and with a fair punishment[28] . Remains Caucasus. Under this mnogoobemlyuschim name ought to distinguish, in this respect here, Caucasian Christian area Mohammedan Transcaucasian region and the Caucasian highlanders.Small Caucasian Christian kingdoms since the time of Ivan the Terrible and Godunov pleaded for Russian assistance and offered to accept Russian citizenship. But the Emperor Alexander I, in the beginning of his reign, after long hesitation, finally agreed to fulfill this desire, first ensuring that the Georgian kingdom, utterly exhausted by the age-old struggle against the Turks, Persians, and the Caucasian mountaineers, could not lead an independent existence any longer and had to either die or join coreligionist Russia. In taking this step, Russia knew that assumes a heavy burden, though maybe not to anticipate that it will be so heavy that it would cost her sixty years of continuous struggle. Whatever it was, or spirit of the case or to its form there was not conquest, and was filed on the fading and die. First of all, it involved a twofold struggle in Russia and Persia, and Russia was not the instigator[29] . Throughout this struggle, she managed to free some Christian population from double yoke of small sovereign khans and Persian rule. With this together were subdued Mohammedan Khanate: Kuban, Baku, Shirvan, Sheki, Ganja and Talyshenskoe constituting now the same county, and Erivan region. We say that, perhaps, is the conquest, although it won only won through. Not so happy, however, Russian conquest of the Caucasus mountaineers.Here exactly killed many, if not independent of, the independent tribes. After the partition of Poland, hardly what other action Russia in Europe is excited general indignation and regret as the war on the Caucasian mountaineers and Especially recently made a conquest of the Caucasus[30] . No matter how trying our publicists put this thing as a great victory won by human civilization - nothing helps. Dislikes Europe to Russia took on the case. - Well, on the Syr Darya, Kokand, Samarkand, in wild-stone Kyrgyz else, wherever you went, you can just barely tolerate such civilizing - yet like cantharis delays, although, unfortunately, not enough strength in Russia, and then we have at hand, in the Caucasus, and we would do here potsivilizirovali (...). And this Caucasian (like the Polish, like ET, as well as on every) issue can be judged on the benevolence of Europe to Russia.About Siberia and say nothing. What is there, in fact, the conquest? Where's the conquered peoples and conquered the kingdom? One has only to consider how much in Russian Siberia and many foreigners, to make sure that for the most part it was a futile exercise space, perfect (as history shows) Cossack prowess and resettlement of the Russian people with almost no government assistance. Is still among the Russian conquests added Amur region, inhabited by nobody, where every relocation was even forbidden by the Chinese government, it is unknown why and for what is considered his his property?So, in the Russian conquest all that can be at different stretch to call this name is limited to the Turkestan region, the Caucasus mountain range, five-six counties of the Caucasus and, if anything, even the Crimean peninsula. If the same thing to disassemble and clean conscience justice, none of the possessions of Russia can not be called winning - in a bad, anti-national and therefore hated humanity sense. How many states that can say to myself the same thing? England at near by independent Celtic won the state[31] - and both won! - Robbed the people ownership of his native land, hunger forced him to move out to America, and at a distance of nearly a semicircle of land conquered kingdoms and nations, including India in nearly two hundred million souls; robbed Gibraltar from Spain, from France to Canada, Cape of Good Hope in Holland, etc. Lands, vacuous or inhabited by wild tribes ahistorical, in the amount of nearly 300,000 square miles, I do not think conquests. France robbed Germany of Alsace, Lorraine, Franche-Comte, in Italy - Corsica and Nice; overseas conquered Algeria. And how was it conquered and taken away from her again! Prussia rolled and joined his scattered members at the expense of Poland, which had no right. Austria little or almost nothing is taken away by the sword, but its very existence is a crime against the rights of peoples. Spain had in the old days the Netherlands, mostly Italy, conquered and destroyed entire civilizations in America.If you can not accuse Russia really committed to her conquests, then maybe, they were sent to her desire: the failure of the attempt still does not justify criminal. Glance at the nature of the warrior that she led. No need to go far. All wars are conducted before Peter Russia for their own survival - for what a miserable time in its history was torn away its neighbors. The first war, which she has not, to this end, and which, in fact, began its intervention in European affairs, was vedena against Prussia. Sufficient reason to participate in the Seven Years' War from Russia, of course, was not. Backbiting offended Elizabeth Friedrich, his actions, rightly or wrongly, regarded as the whole of Europe as brazen violations of international law in general, and the laws of the Holy German-Roman Empire in particular[32] . If there was a fault, it shared Russia with Europe, so or not, but it was a chance phenomenon, not lying in the general direction of Russian policy. During the reign of Catherine the Great Russian effectual way to intervene in European affairs, pursuing its own goals, and objectives of these, as we have seen, were the right goals. With the Emperor Paul, in fact, begin European war Russia. War in 1799, in a purely military sense, almost all of the glorious Russian Doing was an act of political magnanimity exalted, selflessness, chivalry in true spirit of the Maltese[33] . Was it an act of the same political prudence - is another question. For Russia, however, this war has had considerable moral result: it showed what can Russian military affairs. The same character of the war in 1805 and had 1807. Russia took to heart the interests, completely alien to her, and worthy of any surprise heroism brought sacrifices for Europe. Tilsit forced her to take time off from this policy and dedication to turn to the former Catherine rut, but the benefits that she could, obviously, buy, continuing to go on it did not satisfy her, had nothing in her eyes primanchivogo. Interests in Europe, Especially German interests, lying so close to her heart, it was beating just for them. That the efforts made ??by Russia in 1813 and 1814, were made ??in favor of Europe - in this agreement and now even unbiased people, of whatever political camp they belong to, and then all glorified unparalleled selflessness Russia. But what's the twelfth year of the struggle was undertaken in the interests of Russia in Europe - is hardly many confesses. Of course, the war was the twelfth year of the war for the most nationalities - People in the full sense of the word, if you take into account the best way of doing it and the feelings that while inspired the Russian people. But is there was this glorious war in its causes, that is whether the desire to break the Russian interests prompted Napoleon to take her? It is hardly possible to answer in the affirmative. The reasons for this colossal struggle - which overthrew Napoleon and led to such enormous consequences - before insignificant that it is impossible to understand how they could make Napoleon rush into such a dangerous, risky venture needlessly, having on hand at Spain. Prov