The Eastern Question and Problems of Colonial Expansion While the European political elite was comprehending the new realities that arose after the Franco-Prussian war, the unification of Germany and the formation in the center of Europe of a powerful and aggressive empire, clearly claiming leadership in

Essence of the Eastern question. The "Eastern Question" is the name of a group of contradictions and problems in the history of international relations in the last third of the 18th century - the beginning of the 20th century. The emergence of the "Eastern Question" is associated with the decline of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Starting from the end of the XIII century. and in the 19th century. The Ottoman Empire was already a weak state. The Ottoman Empire included: the Balkan Peninsula, the Middle East and North Africa.

In resolving the "Eastern Question", each side pursued its own plans: The major European powers wanted to divide the territory of the Ottoman Empire among themselves. Russia wanted:

ensure the free navigation of Russian merchant ships, warships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles;

acquire territories at the expense of Turkey.

The peoples under the Turkish yoke wanted to create their own states and launched a national liberation movement for independence.

Western countries have always sought to play Turkey against Russia. With the hands of Turkey, they sought to weaken Russia, not to allow her to conduct active trade in the Black Sea. Solving the "Eastern question", the tsarist government always covered itself with slogans of assistance and patronage to the Balkan peoples, the brothers of the Slavs. Relations between Russia and Turkey developed very unevenly. Periods of peaceful relations were suddenly replaced by a tense situation, which turned into separate military clashes, and then into wars. Crimean War (1853-1856) Causes of the war: Russia's desire to resolve the "Eastern question" in its favor. Western countries knew that Russia was striving for a war with Turkey, and while Russia did not have time to prepare for this war, they provoked its start. Reason for war. The reason for the war was the dispute over the "holy places" in Palestine (it was part of Turkey). In Palestine, on the birthplace of Jesus Christ stands the Bethlehem temple. This Christian temple can be visited by all Christians of the world. European countries asked the Turkish Sultan to hand over the keys to the Bethlehem Church to the Catholic community in Turkey. The Turkish Sultan complied with the request. In turn, Nicholas I demanded that the Sultan give the keys to the Orthodox community in Turkey, but this proposal was rejected by the Sultan. The religious dispute escalated into a diplomatic conflict. In 1853 diplomatic relations with Turkey were severed. Demanding the keys to the temple, Nicholas I decided to scare Turkey and in June 1853

TICKET 10 Board of B. Godunov. His domestic and foreign policy
After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his weak-minded son Fedor was elevated to the throne. Under him, all power was in the hands of the regency council created during the life of Ivan IV. In the struggle of the boyars for the leading role under the new tsar, Godunov Boris Fedorovich emerged victorious, eliminating rivals. From 1585, he ruled Russia for 13 years on behalf of Tsar Fedor. Wife of Boris Godunov was Maria Grigoryevna Skuratova-Belskaya, daughter of the famous Malyuta Skuratov. A profitable marriage helped Boris rise to the heights of power. Personality of Boris Godunov manifested itself as an energetic politician and a talented diplomat. He renewed the truce with Poland, returned the positions near the Gulf of Finland, torn away as a result of the Russian-Swedish war. Concerns about Russian colonization and consolidation of the conquered regions of the Volga region and Western Siberia continued for the Muscovite state. Under Godunov, Russia's ties with Georgia are expanding. The years of Boris Godunov's reign are marked by the scope of urban and church construction. For these purposes, foreign architects and builders were invited. Among the fortresses built under Boris Godunov, the Smolensk fortress wall is called the most grandiose structure to protect the west of Russia from Poland. Godunov in 1588 ensured that Metropolitan Job was appointed patriarch. With his church reform, Boris Godunov gained strong support from the Russian Church in the person of Patriarch Job, who supported Godunov's policy. Having support in the clergy, Boris Fedorovich placed the military class in his favor. Domestic politics Boris Godunov was aimed at strengthening the feudal state and satisfying the interests of the nobility, to whom land was generously distributed.
The way out of the economic crisis of 1570-early 1580. Godunov saw in the strengthening of serfdom. To secure the peasants for their owners, a number of measures were taken: a census was conducted, scribe books were opened, which received the value of a enslaving document, and decrees were issued.
Decrees of Boris Godunov:

• Decree of 1592 prohibiting the exit of peasants (cancellation of St. George's Day)
• Decree of November 1597, according to which fugitive peasants were subject to search and return to the owner within 5 years (“lesson summers”)
• Special Regulations (April 1597) on bonded serfs.

In the cities, the so-called "township buildings" were carried out, which spread the feudal order. Members of the township community were attached to the tax. The urban reform of Boris Godunov exacerbated social contradictions. May 15, 1591 year in Uglich, the younger brother of Fyodor Ivanovich Dmitry died. Then other members of the royal family also die. Popular rumor accused Godunov of murders and even attributed to him the poisoning of Tsar Fedor himself on January 7, 1598. In February 1598 The Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov as the tsar's successor, and on September 1, 1599, he was crowned. He instructed to recruit doctors and various craftsmen abroad. The tsar even thought about establishing a higher school in Moscow with foreign teachers, but, not having time to put his idea into execution, he sent several young people to study in England, France, and Austria. This attempt was unsuccessful, all the students remained there. Apparently, because of the Time of Troubles that followed. Foreign policy Boris Godunov was, one might say, timid. At that time, hostility began between Poland and Sweden, but Boris did not take advantage of such favorable circumstances to acquire at least a part of Livonia, for which so much effort was devoted. Instead of energetic measures, he resorted to useless negotiations. In his zeal to intermarry with the European royal houses, Godunov diligently sought a bride for his son Fyodor and a groom for his daughter Xenia. But all efforts to ensure the strength of his dynasty on the Moscow throne were in vain. Fearing intrigues from his former rivals, Boris Godunov encouraged espionage and denunciations. The ensuing disgrace, torture, exile and even executions (contrary to the promise given during the royal wedding) deprived the tsar of his popular disposition. In 1601-1603, crop failures befell the country, which led to terrible famine and epidemics. Entire villages, cities, towns died out. Bread speculation unfolded. Not all feudal lords could feed their servants, due to which the government allowed the transition of the peasants, in 1603 announced the release of the serfs. There were rumors among the people that the reign of Boris Godunov was lawless, not blessed by God, and therefore the punishment of God fell upon the country for the murder of the legitimate heir throne.The sharp deterioration in the situation of the masses was the main cause of the peasant uprisings. One of these uprisings took place in 1603 under the command of the ataman Khlopka Kosolap. The royal army crushed the uprising. Governor Ivan Basmanov died, and Khlopko was captured and hanged. The Time of Troubles, which began under Boris Godunov, significantly undermined the strength of his throne. Godunov died on April 13, 1605 in the midst of a struggle with False Dmitry. His young son Fyodor was proclaimed king, but in the same year, during a rebellion, he was killed along with his mother. The main result of Boris Godunov's reign was the expansion of Russia's access to the Baltic Sea. But he failed to stabilize the situation in the country and overcome the consequences of the oprichnina.

TICKET 10. TICKET 11. Official ideology and social thought. Russia in the middle of the 19th century
The form of existence of liberal and revolutionary ideas in the 30-40s. became a few mugs. It was in them that the ideology of the main currents of Russian liberalism of those years was determined - Westernism and Slavophilism. Both the Westernizers and the Slavophiles denied revolutionary methods of reorganizing the country, pinning their main hopes on the strength of public opinion and the government's readiness for change. At the center of the disputes between them was the question of the historical path of Russia, its past and future. Westerners(T. N. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin and others) argued that Russia is developing in the same direction and according to the same laws as the European countries. It only lags behind them, and the task is to overcome this lag: abolish serfdom, introduce constitutional forms of government (Russia must become either a constitutional monarchy or a republic), and carry out judicial and military reforms. The ideal for Westerners is Peter I, who resolutely pushed the country onto the European path, trying to overcome its age-old lag. Slavophiles(A. S. Khomyakov, Yu. F. Samarin, S. T. and K. S. Aksakovs, I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky), on the contrary, they were very critical of the personality and activities of Peter I. He violated the original identity of Russia. Unlike Europe, pre-Petrine Russia, in their opinion, did not know social discord and class struggle. The community ensured harmony and concord in society, the norm of life of which was the superiority of the interests of the whole (the collective, the state) over the private interests of the individual. Orthodoxy was the spiritual basis of social harmony. As for the state, it served the interests of society without violating its independence in resolving issues important to it. Peter I, forcibly breaking the established order, turned the autocracy into despotism, approved serfdom with all its savagery, subordinated society to the all-powerful and greedy bureaucracy. The Slavophiles considered it necessary to abolish serfdom, restore the lost connection between the people and autocratic power, revive the Zemsky Sobors, support the peasant community, free it from the guardianship of the landlords and officials. After the end of the Patriotic War of 1812, many in Russia, and especially the peasants, expected changes. The need to abolish serfdom was recognized by both Emperor Alexander I and some of the noble officers. After the emperor's speech at the opening of the Polish Sejm Novosiltsev was instructed to draw up a charter for the whole of Russia. According to Novosiltsev's project, a bicameral legislative body was created in Russia: the Senate was the upper house, some of the deputies were appointed to the lower house, and some were elected. Russia itself was divided into 12 governorships with their own representative bodies. Certain civil liberties were guaranteed. Thus, in the event of the adoption of the Statutory Charter, Russia would have embarked on the path of building a civil society. Due to the revolution in Spain and Italy in 1820–1821, the adoption of the Statutory Charter was postponed. In 1816 a secret officer organization arose Union of Salvation". The organization included Muravyov, Prince Sergei Trubetskoy, Prince Evgeny Obolensky, Pavel Pestel. The purpose of the society was the introduction of a constitution in the country, the restriction of the monarchy, the abolition of serfdom. Having learned about the activities of Alexander I, the union abandoned the idea of ​​regicide and made it its goal to promote reforms. AT In 1818, the Salvation Union was transformed into the more open Welfare Union..After Alexander I postponed Novosiltsev's project, the Welfare Union was dissolved. Instead, two new societies emerged: Northern - in St. Petersburg and Southern - in the army units of Ukraine. The northern society advocated limiting the monarchy, and the southern society advocated the complete overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. After death of Alexander I on November 19, 1825 in Taganrog an interregnum arose. Constantine refused to take the throne and transferred all rights to Nicholas. The Decembrists took advantage of the hitch in the succession to the throne. December 14, 1825 they brought the regiments to the Senate Square in the hope of forcing Nicholas to accept the constitution. But having entered the square, the Decembrists did nothing more and allowed themselves to be shot. The leaders of the Northern and Southern societies were arrested. Having ascended the throne, Nicholas I strengthened the police regime in the country. For this, it was created The third branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, headed by Benckendorff. The third branch carried out the functions of political investigation and supervision. The activities of the press are limited by increased censorship, the teaching of philosophy is prohibited at universities. The main ideologist of the Nikolaev era was the Minister of Education, Count S.S. Uvarov. He put forward theory of official nationality: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”. According to this theory, in Russia all life was built on the basis of the unity of the people with their tsar on the basis of Orthodoxy, and all revolutionary democratic ideas were brought from the West and were not characteristic of Russia. This theory was supported by such a prominent historian as M.P. Pogodin. This theory was opposed Petr Chaadaev, for which he was declared insane. Having suppressed open revolutionary speeches, Nicholas I could not suppress the activity of social thought, which was busy with the problem of determining Russia's place in the world historical process. In the ideological disputes of the 40s of the XIX century, directions are born Westerners and Slavophiles. Supporters of both directions advocated the abolition of serfdom and the restriction of the monarchy. But the Slavophils opposed Russia to the West, sought to understand popular culture and idealized the 17th century. They believed that the Zemsky Sobor should help the monarch in governing the country. The Westerners took the development of Europe as a model, idealized Peter's reforms and advocated a parliamentary path of development. In 1845, the Butashevich-Petrashevsky circle appeared. who took an interest in the European socialist movement. The circle was destroyed in 1849. In 1852 in London A.I. Herzen founded the Free Russian Printing House and began publishing the Kolokol newspaper, which was illegally distributed in Russia. Herzen saw in the peasant community the germ of the future socialism. Thanks to the peasant community, Herzen believed, Russia would be able to enter socialism bypassing capitalism. In the first half of the nineteenth century. in Russia, the socio-political struggle intensified, the essence of which was the future fate of the country. The conservatives advocated the preservation and strengthening of the existing order, the liberals proposed their gradual reform (the evolutionary path of the country's development), the radicals insisted on a radical break in the political system (the revolutionary path). All of them were convinced that they were concerned about the welfare and prosperity of the country. Representatives of the radical movement turned out to be more active. From 1811 to 1825, more than 30 secret revolutionary organizations of the nobility existed in Russia. In 1816, a secret society of future Decembrists arose - the Union of Salvation, and in 1818 - the Union of Welfare. In March 1821, the Southern Society was formed in Ukraine, the founder and leader of which was P.I. Pestel. In 1822, the Northern Society was created in St. Petersburg, its leaders were N.M. Muravyov, K.F. Ryleev, S.P. Trubetskoy, M.S. Lunin.
The main constitutional projects were "Constitution" by N.M. Muravyov and "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestel.
N.M. Muravyov advocated a constitutional monarchy, in which the legislative power belonged to the parliament - the "People's Council". The suffrage of citizens was limited by a high property qualification.
P.I. Pestel advocated the establishment of a parliamentary form of government. He proclaimed the principle of universal suffrage. In solving the agrarian issue, P.I. Pestel and N.M. Ants unanimously recognized the need for the complete abolition of serfdom, the personal liberation of the peasants. N.M. Muravyov proposed a federal structure of the future Russian state, P.P. Pestel insisted on preserving the indivisible Russia. The noble revolutionaries not only came up with a program for the transformation of Russia, but also tried to implement it by raising an uprising. December 14, 1825 Members of the Northern Society brought 3,000 soldiers and sailors to Senate Square. They wanted to force the Senate to accept their program document - "Manifesto to the Russian people" and, instead of swearing an oath to Emperor Nicholas, proclaim the transition to constitutional government. The uprising in Petersburg was crushed. The uprising of the Chernigov regiment (December 29, 1825), which was raised by the leaders of the Southern Society, also ended in defeat.
Nicholas I severely punished the rebels. Five Decembrists - P.I. Pestel, Yu.F. Ryleev, S.Ya. Muraviev-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, P.G. Kakhovsky - were hanged. About 280 Decembrists were exiled to hard labor in Siberia. The main reasons for the defeat of the Decembrists: the stake on a conspiracy and a military coup, the weakness of propaganda activities, inconsistency in actions, wait-and-see tactics at the time of the uprising. However, the Decembrist uprising was a significant event in Russian history. The Decembrists understood that the preservation of serfdom and autocracy was disastrous for the future fate of the country, as it exacerbated Russia's lagging behind the developed countries of Europe. Having gone through the Patriotic War of 1812, the Decembrists realized that the people who saved Russia from enslavement and liberated Europe from Napoleon deserved a better fate. For the first time, they tried to practically change the fate of Russia. The defeat of the Decembrists intensified the activities of conservatives who promote the theory of official nationality. The creator of this theory was the Minister of Education Count S.S. Uvarov. The theory of official nationality was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. Autocracy was recognized as the only possible form of government in Russia, and serfdom was seen as a boon for the people and the state. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and uselessness of fundamental changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen autocracy and serfdom. Liberals criticized the theory of official nationality. Two ideological currents have developed among the liberals - Slavophiles (K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, etc.) and Westerners (K.D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovyov, V. P. Botkin and others). The Slavophiles exaggerated the peculiarity of the historical path of development of Russia, considering the capitalist system to be vicious, they called for a return to pre-Petrine Russia. The Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They criticized serfdom and advocated the enlightenment of the people, seeing this as the only true path to the success of the modernization of the Russian system. In the 40s, there was a new upsurge in a radical direction. He was associated with the activities of V.T. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogareva, M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others. New circles are being created. By the name of the leader, they were called Petrashevites. Petrashevists condemned autocracy and serfdom, called for the destruction of the existing order in a revolutionary way.

TICKET 11 People's militia of Minin and Pozharsky. Expulsion of foreign invaders from Russia
PEOPLE'S MILITIA UNDER THE LEADING OF MININ AND POZHARSKY, the unification of the patriotic forces of the Russian people at the final stage of the struggle against the Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish invaders in the present. 17th century It arose in a difficult situation, after the invaders captured a significant part of the country, including Moscow and Smolensk, and collapsed as a result of sharp contradictions of the first militia in 1611. In September 1611, the zemstvo headman in Nizhny Novgorod Kuzma Minin turned to townspeople with a call to raise funds and create a militia for the liberation of the country. The population of the city was subject to a special tax for the organization of the militia. Its military leader was invited by Prince. D.M. Pozharsky . Letters were sent from Nizhny Novgorod to other cities calling for the collection of the militia. In it, in addition to townspeople and peasants, small and medium-sized nobles also gathered. The main militia forces were formed in the cities and counties of the Volga region. The program of the people's militia consisted in the liberation of Moscow from the interventionists, the refusal to recognize sovereigns of foreign origin on the Russian throne (which the boyar nobility sought, inviting the Polish prince Vladislav to the kingdom), and the creation of a new government. The actions of the militia were supported by the patriarch Hermogenes who refused to fulfill the demands of the Moscow boyars-traitors to condemn the militia and called for a fight against the interventionists.

In March 1612, the militia set out from Nizhny Novgorod and headed for Yaroslavl. A temporary “Council of the Whole Earth” was created here - a government body in which the townspeople and representatives of the small servicemen played the main role. nobility. At the same time, the Volga region was cleared of detachments of Polish-Lithuanian invaders. Leaders Cossacks and the South Russian nobility I.M. Zarutsky and D.T. Trubetskoy entered into negotiations with Minin and Pozharsky on participation in the actions of the militia, but at the same time maintained secret ties with the interventionists.

In connection with the approach of large reinforcements to the Polish-Lithuanian garrison to Moscow, the people's militia set out from Yaroslavl and in the end of July - n. August 1612 approached Moscow, taking up positions along the western walls of the White City. In the battle of August 22 - 24, when Trubetskoy's Cossacks also came to the aid of the militia, the Polish-Lithuanian troops under the command of Hetman Khodkevich, who were trying to break through from the outside into Kremlin. Members of the people's militia showed mass heroism in the battle, and their leaders - high military skills and personal courage. The victory in the battle of August 22-24 sealed the fate of the enemy garrisons in the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod, which capitulated on October 22-26, 1612. the whole country. In November 1612, the leaders of the militia sent letters of convocation to the cities Zemsky Cathedral for the election of a new king. The composition of the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 reflected the prominent role of the townspeople and the lower nobility, as well as the Cossacks in the war of liberation against the interventionists.

TICKET 12. BOARD OF MIKHAIL FEDOROVICH ROMANOV. STRENGTHENING serfdom.
Mikhail Fedorovich was the first Russian tsar of the Romanov dynasty (1613–1917). Born July 12, 1596 in Moscow. The son of the boyar Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, Metropolitan (later Patriarch Filaret) and Xenia Ivanovna Shestova (later nun Martha). The first years he lived in Moscow, in 1601, together with his parents, he was disgraced by Boris Godunov, being a nephew, to Tsar Fedor Ivanovich. He lived in exile, from 1608 he returned to Moscow, where he was captured by the Poles who captured the Kremlin. In November 1612, liberated by the militia of D. Pozharsky and K. Minin, he left for Kostroma. On February 21, 1613, after the expulsion of the interventionists, the Great Zemsky and Local Council took place in Moscow, electing a new tsar. After many years of Troubles, which devastated and bled the country. The election of the new tsar by the Zemsky Sobor was very stormy. Nun Martha was in despair, she tearfully begged her son not to accept such a heavy burden. Under her influence, Mikhail hesitated for a long time and only on March 19, 1613 he left for Moscow. On the way, he stopped in all major cities: Kostroma, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Trinity Monastery, Rostov, Suzdal. Arriving in Moscow, he went through Red Square to the Kremlin. At the Spassky Gates, he was greeted with a religious procession with the main state and church relics. Then he prayed at the tombs of Russian tsars in the Archangel Cathedral and at the shrines of the Mother See of the Assumption Cathedral. On July 11, 1613, the wedding of Michael to the kingdom took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, which marked the founding of a new ruling dynasty of the Romanovs. Metropolitan Ephraim of Kazan crowned him with a royal crown. The gentleness and kindness of the new king, noted by the sources of that time, gave hope to ordinary people, made a good impression on them. His candidacy was supported by the clergy, boyars, nobles, Cossacks, townspeople. One of the participants in the cathedral, the boyar F.I. Sheremetev, his relative, said as if: "Misha Romanov is young, he has not reached his mind and he will be familiar with us." Young Romanov was not even 18 then. His election, however, was of great political importance - for the national integrity of Russia, the salvation of its state sovereignty. True, everyone knew that without the boyars, their advice, Tsar Mikhail would not be able to take a step. Indeed, Tsar Mikhail entrusted all the affairs to the Romanovs, Cherkassky, Saltykov, Sheremetev, Lykov, Repnin. Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich was inexperienced, and until 1619 the great old woman Martha and her relatives also ruled the country.
In 1621, especially for the tsar, the clerks of the Posolsky Prikaz began to prepare the first Russian newspaper - "Vestovye pis". In 1632, Andrei Vinius, with the permission of Mikhail Fedorovich, founded the first iron-smelting, iron-working and weapons factories near Tula. Agriculture also took off. Agriculture began to develop on fertile lands south of the Oka, as well as in Siberia. This was facilitated by the fact that the rural population of Russia was divided into two categories: landowning and black-mossed peasants. The latter accounted for 89.6% of the rural population. By law, they, sitting on state land, had the right to alienate it: sale, mortgage, inheritance. The peasants were personally free, they did not have serfdom. The fulfillment of public duties was monitored by the community with a lay assembly and elected representatives. In 1637, the term for capturing fugitive peasants was increased to 9 years, and in 1641 - for another year. Those taken out by other owners were allowed to search for up to 15 years. This testified to the growth of feudal tendencies in the legislation on land and peasants. During his reign, the creation of regular military units (1630s), "regiments of the new system" was begun, the rank and file of which were "eager free people" and dispossessed boyar children, the officers were foreign military specialists. The tsar and the central institutions paid much attention to the army. According to the list of 1631, one noble regiments included forty thousand people. In addition, there were archers, urban Cossacks, irregular cavalry from the Bashkirs and Kalmyks. The authorities allocated up to three million lines for the maintenance of the army at the rate of the end of the 19th century. At the end of the reign of Michael, cavalry dragoon regiments arose to guard the borders. It is impossible not to note one undoubted success in the foreign policy of the two "great sovereigns" who played a big role in the fate of Russia: the rapid advance to Siberia. It began earlier, from the end of the 15th century. A new stage in this process is the campaign of Yermak and the royal governors a century later. This progress continued in the first half of the 17th century. The vast expanses beyond the Urals, where "unknown people" lived, were included in the Russian state. By the beginning of the reign, Russian explorers were already developing lands in the Yenisei region. Here they founded Yeniseisk (1619); then further to the east - Ust-Kut (1631), Yakutsk (1632). In the thirties, they reached the mouths of the Lena, Yana, Indigirka, Olenyok rivers; In the forties, they explored the lands in the basins of Alazeya, Kolyma, Chaun Bay. Just three years after the death of Tsar Mikhail, the Ustyug and Kholmogory merchants Usovs, Popov, Cossack Dezhnev sailed through the strait that separated Asia and America, later, three-quarters of a century later, rediscovered by Bering. Russian people appeared in Siberia. They established contacts with local residents, began mining (salt in Yakutia, iron in Nice). There has also been progress in the field of culture. The culture of the time of Mikhail Fedorovich and Filaret, while remaining traditionalist in many respects, nevertheless, like political and economic life, experienced some shifts. Innovations appeared, which, in combination with other factors of development, allow us to speak of the 17th century as the epochs of the beginning of the new history of Russia. If new ties appear in the economy, elements of bourgeois relations, in the state-political plan - the flowering, at least temporarily, of the class-representative beginning in the person of the Zemsky Sobors, then in cultural life this is the beginning of democratization, the strengthening of Western influence. In some cases, the elements of the new are still weakly expressed, but the future is behind them. According to S. M. Solovyov, "... Moscow amazed with its splendor, beauty, especially in summer, when the greenery of numerous gardens and kitchen gardens joined the beautiful variety of churches." The monastery opened the first Greek-Latin school in Russia. Literacy spread more and more. Reading, writing, counting wisdom were passed on to students by priests, deacons, townspeople literate, areal clerks; Dozens, hundreds of such teachers worked throughout Russia. Many books were published by the Moscow Printing House. Among them is Vasily Burtsev's primer (first edition - 1634, then - several reprints). Other books have also appeared. In the library of Tsar Michael, in addition to spiritual ones (they are the majority, the monarch was very devout), there were works by Aristotle, “On the Trinity Siege Sitting” (on the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery by the Poles during the Time of Troubles) and others. The only Moscow printing house, destroyed during the Polish occupation, was restored. Unfortunately, the development of the culture of that time was affected by the fact that Mikhail Romanov himself was an exclusively religious person. S. M. Solovyov writes that “the tsar participated in a religious celebration, which the new Russia has never seen the like: a religious procession was moving from the Assumption Cathedral to the Spassky Gates; stewards, solicitors, nobles and clerks in a golden brocade dress walked behind the images and the clergy, behind them the sovereign himself, behind the sovereign the boyars, devious, duma people and guests; on both sides of the path near the tsar were colonels and heads of archers. "Therefore, the greatest scientists of this era were considered correctors and compilers of sacred books, which, of course, greatly hampered progress.
results
An "eternal peace" was concluded with Sweden (the Stolbovsky Peace of 1617).
The borders established by the Peace of Stolbov remained until the start of the Northern War of 1700-1721. Despite the loss of access to the Baltic Sea, large territories previously conquered by Sweden were returned.
1617 - 1618 - Campaign of the Polish army to Moscow. Saving the capital by Prince D. M. Pozharsky
In the 1620s–1640s, diplomatic relations were established with Holland, Austria, Denmark, Turkey, and Persia.
Truce of Deulino (1618) and then "perpetual peace" with Poland
(Polyanovsky Peace of 1634). The Polish king renounced the Russian throne.
Establishment of a strong centralized authority throughout the country through the appointment of governors and local elders.
Overcoming the most difficult consequences of the Time of Troubles, restoring a normal economy and trade.
Reorganization of the army (1631-1634). Creation of regiments of the "new system": Reiter, Dragoon, soldier.
Foundation of the first ironworks near Tula (1632).
Strengthening the feudal oppression of the peasantry.
Foundation of the German settlement in Moscow - settlements of foreign engineers and military specialists. In less than 100 years, many residents of "Kukuy" will play a key role in the reforms of Peter I the Great
1635 - 1636 - Construction of the Terem Palace in the Kremlin.
1636 - The beginning of the creation of the Belgorod border line to protect the borders from the Crimean raids.
06/18/1637 - Unauthorized capture by the Cossacks of the Turkish fortress of Azov.

EASTERN QUESTION

conditional, accepted in diplomacy and East. liter-re, designation of international. controversy con. 18 - beg. 20 centuries, associated with the emerging collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Sultan Turkey) and the struggle of the great powers (Austria (since 1867 - Austria-Hungary), Great Britain, Prussia (since 1871 - Germany), Russia and France) for the division of its possessions, first turn - European. V. in. was generated, on the one hand, by the crisis of the Ottoman Empire, one of the manifestations of which was nat. the movement of the Balkan and other non-Turkish peoples of the empire, on the other hand, by strengthening in Bl. East colonial expansion of Europe. state-in in connection with the development of capitalism in them.

The very term "V. in." was first used at the Verona Congress (1822) of the Holy Alliance during a discussion of the situation that arose in the Balkans as a result of the Greek national liberation uprising of 1821-29 against Turkey.

The first period of V. century. covers a period of time from con. 18th century before the Crimean War of 1853-56. It is characterized by the the predominant role of Russia in Bl. East. Thanks to the victorious wars with Turkey 1768-74, 1787-91 (92), 1806-12, 1828-29, Russia secured the South. Ukraine, Crimea, Bessarabia and the Caucasus, and firmly established itself on the banks of the Black m. At the same time, Russia achieved bargaining. fleet of the right of passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles (see Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhysky world 1774), as well as for their military. ships (see Russo-Turkish Union Treaties of 1799 and 1805). The autonomy of Serbia (1829), the limitation of the Sultan's power over Moldavia and Wallachia (1829), the independence of Greece (1830), as well as the closing of the Dardanelles to the military. courts of foreign state-in (except Russia; see Unkyar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833) in means. least were the results of the successes of the Rus. weapons. Despite the aggressive goals pursued by tsarism in relation to the Ottoman Empire and the territories departing from it, the formation of independent states on the Balkan Peninsula was a historically progressive consequence of the victories of the Russian army over Sultan's Turkey.

The expansionist interests of Russia clashed at Bl. East with the expansion of other European. powers. At the turn of the 18-19 centuries. ch. role here tried to play post-revolutionary. France. In order to conquer the East. markets and the crushing of the colonial predominance of Great Britain Directory, and then Napoleon I sought terr. conquests at the expense of the Ottoman Empire and the acquisition of land approaches to India. The presence of this threat (and, in particular, the invasion of French troops into Egypt (see Egyptian expedition 1798-1801)) explains the conclusion of an alliance with Turkey in 1799 and 1805 and with Great Britain in 1799. Strengthening the Russian-French. contradictions in Europe and, in particular, in V. century. led in 1807-08 to the failure of negotiations between Napoleon I and Alexander I on the partition of the Ottoman Empire. New aggravation of V. century. was caused by the uprising of the Greeks in 1821 against the tour. dominance and the growth of disagreements between Russia and Great Britain, as well as contradictions within the Holy Alliance. Tur.-Egypt. the conflicts of 1831-33, 1839-40, which threatened the preservation of the Sultan's power over the Ottoman Empire, were accompanied by the intervention of the great powers (Egypt was supported by France). The Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833 on an alliance between Russia and Turkey was the apogee of the political and diplomatic. successes of tsarism in V. century. However, pressure from Great Britain and Austria, who sought to eliminate the predominant influence of Russia in the Ottoman Empire, and especially the desire of Nicholas I for political. The isolation of France resulted in the rapprochement between Russia and Great Britain on the basis of the Great Britain. and the conclusion of the London Conventions of 1840 and 1841, which actually meant diplomatic. British victory. The tsarist administration agreed to cancel the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty of 1833 and, together with other powers, agreed to "monitor the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire," and also proclaimed the principle of closing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to foreigners. military courts, including Russian ones.

The second period of V. century. opens with the Crimean War of 1853-56 and ends in the end. 19th century At this time, the interest of Great Britain, France and Austria in the Ottoman Empire increased even more, as a source of colonial raw materials and a market for prom. goods. Expansionist policy of Western Europe. state-in, under convenient circumstances, tearing off its outlying territories from Turkey (the capture of Cyprus in 1878 by Great Britain and Egypt in 1882, the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1878 and Tunisia by France in 1881), was masked by the principles of maintaining the "status quo", " integrity" of the Ottoman Empire and the "balance of power" in Europe. This policy was aimed at achieving the English. and French capital of monopoly domination over Turkey, the elimination of Russian influence in the Balkan Peninsula and the closure of the Black Sea straits for Russian. military courts. At the same time, the ongoing West-Europe. by the powers, the course delayed the liquidation of the historically obsolete domination of the aurochs. feudal lords over the peoples subject to them. The Crimean War of 1853-56 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856 helped to strengthen the position of the English. and French capital in the Ottoman Empire and its transformation to the con. 19th century to a semi-colonial country. At the same time, the revealed weakness of Russia in comparison with the capitalist. state-you Zap. Europe determined the decline of the influence of tsarism in the international. affairs, including in V. century. This was clearly manifested in the decisions of the Berlin Congress of 1878, when, after the war won with Turkey, the tsarist government was forced to revise the San Stefano peace treaty of 1878. Nevertheless, the creation of a single Romanian state (1859-61) and the proclamation of the independence of Romania ( 1877) were achieved thanks to the help of Russia, and the liberation of the Bolg. people from tour. oppression (1878) was the result of Russia's victory in the war with Turkey 1877-73. The desire of Austria-Hungary to economical. and political hegemony in the Balkan Peninsula, where the paths of expansion of the Habsburg monarchy and Tsarist Russia crossed, caused from the 70s. 19th century the growth of the Austro-Russian. antagonism in V. century.

Advance in con. 19th century The era of imperialism opens the third period of the V. century. In connection with the completion of the division of the world, new vast markets appeared for the export of capital and goods, new sources of colonial raw materials, and new hotbeds of world conflicts arose - in the Far East, in Lat. America, in the Center. and Sev. Africa and in other regions of the globe, which led to a decrease in the proportion of V. century. in the system of contradictions in Europe. powers. Nevertheless, the inherent unevenness and spasmodic development of otd. capitalist countries and the struggle for the redistribution of the already divided world led to an intensification of rivalry between them in the semi-colonies, including in Turkey, which also manifested itself in the V. century. Especially rapid expansion was developed by Germany, which managed to oust Great Britain, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary in the Ottoman Empire. The construction of the Baghdad railway and the subordination of the ruling tour. the tops, headed by Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, and somewhat later, the Young Turks military-political. German influence. imperialists ensured Kaiser's Germany predominance in the Ottoman Empire. Germ. expansion contributed to the strengthening of Russian-German. and especially Anglo-German. antagonism. In addition, the activation of the aggressive policy of Austria-Hungary in the Balkan Peninsula (the desire to annex the territories inhabited by the South-Slavic peoples, and to gain access to the Aegean), based on the support of Germany (see the Bosnian crisis of 1908- 09), led to extreme tension in the Austro-Rus. relationships. However, the royal pr-in, postponing in the con. 19th century implementation of their captors. plans in V. century, adhered to a waiting and cautious course. This was explained by the diversion of Russia's forces and attention to the Far East, and then by the weakening of tsarism as a result of the defeat in the war with Japan, and especially thanks to the first Russian. revolutions of 1905-07. The growth of contradictions in V. century. in the era of imperialism and the expansion of its territories. the framework contributed to the further process of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, accompanied, on the one hand, by the further development and expansion of the national liberation. movements of peoples subject to the sultan - Armenians, Macedonians, Albanians, the population of Crete, Arabs and, on the other hand, the intervention of Europe. powers in ext. affairs of Turkey. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the progressive result of which was the liberation of Macedonia, Albania and Greek. islands of the Aegean m. from the tour. oppression, at the same time testified to the extreme exacerbation of V. century.

Turkey's participation in the 1st World War on the side of the German-Austrian. block determined the onset of critical. phases of V. century. As a result of defeats on the fronts, the Ottoman Empire lost b. h. of its territory. At the same time, during the war, the German the imperialists turned the Ottoman Empire "... into their financial and military vassal" (V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 23, p. 172). Secret agreements concluded during the war between the members of the Entente (the Anglo-Russian-French agreement of 1915, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, etc.) provided for the transfer of Constantinople and the Black Sea straits to Russia and the division of Asia. parts of Turkey between the allies.

The plans and calculations of the imperialists in the Great Britain. destroyed the victory in Russia Vel. Oct. socialist. revolution. Owls. pr-in resolutely broke with the policy of tsarism and canceled the secret treaties signed by the tsar and the Time. pr-you, including treaties and agreements relating to the Ottoman Empire. Oct. the revolution gave a powerful impetus to the national liberation. struggle of the peoples of the East and among them - the struggle of the tour. people. The victory of the national-liberate. movements in Turkey in 1919-22 and the collapse of the anti-Turks. imperialist Entente interventions were achieved with moral and political. and material support from the Soviets. Russia. On the ruins of the former multinational The Ottoman Empire formed a national bourgeoisie. tour. state-in. So, the new ist. era opened Oct. revolution, forever removed V. century. from the arena of world politics.

Lit.ra about V. v. very large. There is not a single summary work on the history of diplomacy and international affairs. relations of modern times, and especially in the history of Turkey, Russia, and the Balkan states, in which V. v. would not have been affected to a greater or lesser extent. In addition, there is an extensive scientific and journalistic literature, dedicated to various aspects and periods of V. century. or covering certain events related to V. c. (preferably about the problem of the straits and about the Russian-Turkish wars of the 18-19th centuries). Nevertheless generalizing researches about V. of century. extremely little, which to a certain extent is explained by the complexity and vastness of the issue itself, the interpretation of which requires the study of a large number of documents and extensive literature.

Deep characteristic V. century. given by K. Marx and F. Engels in articles and letters, publ. on the eve and during the Crimean War and the Bosnian (Eastern) crisis of 1875-78 and dedicated to the state of the Ottoman Empire and the intensified struggle of Europe. powers on Bl. East (see Soch., 2nd ed., vols. 9, 10, 11; 1st ed., vols. 15, 24). Marx and Engels acted in them with consistently internationalist. positions dictated by the interests of development in Europe and, in particular, in Russia, revolutionary-democratic. and the proletarian movement. They angrily exposed the invaders. goals pursued in V. century. tsarism. Marx and Engels stigmatized politics in the century with particular force. English bourgeois-aristocratic. oligarchy headed by G. J. T. Palmerston, determined by aggressive aspirations in Bl. East. The best resolution of V. in. Marx and Engels considered the real and complete liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Turks. yoke. But, in their opinion, such a radical elimination of V. century. could be carried out only as a result of the victory of Europe. revolution (see Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 9, pp. 33, 35, 219).

Marxist understanding of V. century. as applied to the period of imperialism, it was developed by V. I. Lenin. In various studies (for example, "Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism") and in numerous. articles ("Combustible material in world politics", "Events in the Balkans and Persia", "A new chapter in world history", "The social significance of Serbian-Bulgarian victories", "Balk. war and bourgeois chauvinism", "Awakening of Asia" , "Under a false flag", "On the right of nations to self-determination", etc.) Lenin characterized the process of turning the Ottoman Empire into an imperialist semi-colony. powers and their predatory policy in Bl. East. At the same time, Lenin claimed for all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, including for the tour. people, the inalienable right to liberation from the imperialist. bondage and feud. dependencies and independence. Existence.

In the owls ist. science V. c. widely interpreted in many studies of M. H. Pokrovsky about external. politics of Russia and international relations of the new time ("Imperialist War", Collection of Articles, 1931; "Diplomacy and Wars of Tsarist Russia in the 19th Century", Collection of Articles, 1923; article "Eastern Question", TSB, 1st ed., vol. 13) . Pokrovsky is credited with exposing and criticizing the aggressive designs and actions of tsarism in the Second Century. But attributing bargaining. capital a decisive role in external. and ext. policy of Russia, Pokrovsky reduced the policy of tsarism in the V. century. to the desire of the Russian landowners and the bourgeoisie to achieve the possession of bargaining. through the Black Sea Straits. However, he exaggerated the value of V. century. in ext. Russian politics and diplomacy. In a number of his works, Pokrovsky characterizes the Russian-German. antagonism in V. century. as the main the cause of the 1st World War of 1914-18, and considers the tsarist government to be the main culprit in unleashing it. This implies the erroneous statement of Pokrovsky that in August-October. 1914 Russia allegedly sought to draw the Ottoman Empire into the world war on the side of the Central European. powers.

Represent scientific. value based on unpubl. doc-tah of the work of E. A. Adamov "The Question of the Straits and Constantinople in International Politics in 1908-1917." (in the collection of documents: "Constantinople and the straits according to the secret docks of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", (vol.) 1, 1925, p. 7 - 151); Ya. M. Zakhera ("On the history of Russian policy on the issue of the straits in the period between the Russian-Japanese and Tripolitan wars", in the book: From the distant and near past, collection in honor of N. I. Kareev, 1923 ; "Constantinople and the Straits", "KA", vol. 6, pp. 48-76, vol. 7, pp. 32-54; "Russian policy on the question of Constantinople and the straits during the Tripolitan War", "Izvestia Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A. I. Herzen", 1928, v. 1, pp. 41-53); M. A. Petrov "Preparation of Russia for a world war at sea" (1926) and V. M. Khvostov "Problems of capturing the Bosphorus in the 90s of the XIX century." ("Historian-Marxist", 1930, vol. 20, pp. 100-129), devoted to ch. arr. development in governments. circles of Russia of various projects for the occupation of the Bosphorus and the preparation of the Navy for the implementation of this operation, as well as the policy of Europe. powers in V. century. before and during World War I. A concise overview of the history of V. V., based on a document. sources, is contained in the articles of E. A. Adamov ("On the question of the historical prospects for the development of the Eastern Question", in the book: "Colonial East", edited by A. Sultan-Zade, 1924, pp. 15-37; " Section of Asian. Turkey", in collection of documents: "Section of Asian. Turkey. According to the secret documents of the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs", edited by E. A. Adamov, 1924, p. 5-101 ). Deep analysis of the struggle of the imperialist. powers in V. century. in con. 19th century is contained in the article by V. M. Khvostov "The Middle East Crisis of 1895-1897." ("Historian-Marxist", 1929, v. 13), in the monographs of A. S. Yerusalimsky "Foreign policy and diplomacy of German imperialism in the late 19th century." (2nd ed., 1951) and G. L. Bondarevsky "The Baghdad road and the penetration of German imperialism into the Middle East. 1888-1903" (1955). Capitalist politics. state-in in V. century. in the 19th century and at the beginning 20th century studied in the works of A. D. Novichev ("Essays on the Turkish Economy before the World War", 1937; "The Turkish Economy during the World War", 1935). Based on the involvement of extensive materials, including archival documents, the predatory goals and methods of penetration into the Ottoman Empire by foreigners are revealed. capital, the conflicting interests of the monopoly. groups of various countries, characterized by the enslavement of Turkey German-Austrian. imperialists during World War I. European politics. powers in V. century. in the 20s 19th century dedicated to the monograph based on archival materials by A. V. Fadeeva "Russia and the Eastern Crisis of the 20s of the XIX century." (1958), articles by I. G. Gutkina "The Greek Question and Diplomatic Relations of the European Powers in 1821-1822." ("Uch. Zap. Leningrad State University", Ser. Historical Sciences, 1951, v. 18, No. 130): N. S. Kinyapina "Russian-Austrian contradictions on the eve and during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-29. " ("Uch. zap. MGU", works of the Department of History of the USSR, 1952, v. 156); O. Shparo "Canning's Foreign Policy and the Greek Question 1822-1827" ("VI", 1947, No 12) and "The Role of Russia in the Greek Struggle for Independence" ("VI", 1949, No 8). In the aforementioned study by A. V. Fadeev and in another work by the same author (“Russia and the Caucasus in the first third of the 19th century,” 1960), an attempt was made to interpret the V. century broadly, as also including political. and economic problems cf. East and Caucasus.

The policy of Russia and France in the V. century. in the beginning. 19th century and international the position of the Ottoman Empire during this period of time is covered in the monograph by A.F. Miller "Mustafa Pasha Bayraktar. The Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 19th century." (1947). Systematic diplomatic presentation. V.'s sides of century. can be found in the corresponding sections of the History of Diplomacy, vol. 1, 2nd ed., 1959, vol. 2, 1945.

Sharpness and politics the topicality of V. in internat. relations of the new time left a strong imprint on the studies of the bourgeoisie. scientists. In their works, the interests of the ruling classes of the country to which this or that historian belongs are clearly visible. Specialist. the study "The Eastern Question" was written by S. M. Solovyov (collected works, St. Petersburg, 1901, pp. 903-48). Considering the most important factor geographic development. environment, Solovyov formulates V. c. as a manifestation of the primordial struggle of Europe, to which he also refers Russia, with Asia, the sea coast and forests with the steppe. Hence his justification of the aggressive policy of tsarism in the V. century, which, in his opinion, is based on the process of colonization of the South Russian. districts, "fight against the Asians", "offensive movement in Asia". In the apologetic spirit illuminates the policy of tsarism in the V. century. in the monograph by S. M. Goryainov "The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles" (1907), covering the period from the end. 18th century by 1878 and retaining its scientific. value due to the extensive use of archival documents.

The unfinished publication of R. P. Martens "Collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers" (vols. 1-15, 1874-1909), although it does not contain treaties between Russia and Turkey, does include a number of international agreements. agreements directly related to V. century. Of scientific interest are also ist. introductions, preceded by most of the published documents. Some of these introductions, based on archival sources, contain valuable material on the history of V. century. in con. 18th century and in the 1st floor. 19th century

Aggressive and anti-Russian. course in V. v. brit. English diplomacy. historians (J. Marriott, A. Toynbee, W. Miller) justify their bargaining by the needs of Great Britain. routes (especially communications linking it with India, and land approaches to this colony) and the importance from this point of view of the Black Sea straits, Istanbul, Egypt and Mesopotamia. So considers V. century. J. A. R. Marriot, "The Eastern question", 4 ed., 1940), trying to present the policy of Great Britain as invariably defensive. and pro-Turkish.

For the French bourgeois historiography is characterized by the substantiation of the "civilizing" and "cultural" mission of France in Bl. East, to-roy she seeks to cover up the expansionist goals pursued in V. century. French capital. Attaching great importance to the right of religion acquired by France. protectorate over the Catholic Sultan's subjects, French historians (E. Drio. J. Ancel. G. Anoto, L. Lamouche) in every possible way extol the activities of Catholic missionaries in the Ottoman Empire, preim. in Syria and Palestine. This trend is visible in the repeatedly reprinted work of E. Driault (E. Driault, "La Question d" Orient depuis ses origines jusgu "a nos jours", 8 ed., 1926) and in the book. J. Ancel (J. Ancel, "Manuel historique de la question d" Orient. 1792-1923 ", 1923).

Austrian historians (G. Ibersberger, E. Wertheimer, T. Sosnosky, A. Pribram), exaggerating the significance of the aggressive policy of the tsarist government in the V. century. and portraying it as a creation of the pan-Slavists allegedly dominating Russia, at the same time they are trying to whitewash the annexationist actions and the invaders. plans on the Balkan Peninsula of the Habsburg monarchy. In this regard, the works of b. Rector of the University of Vienna G. Ubersberger. Wide involvement of Russian. literature and sources, including owls. publications of documents, is used by him for one-sided coverage of Russia's policy in V. century. and a frank justification of antislav. and antirus. politics of Austria (in the later period of Austria-Hungary) (N. Uebersberger, "Russlands Orientpolitik in den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten", 1913; his own, "Das Dardanellenproblem als russische Schicksalsfrage", 1930; his own, "Österreich zwischen Russland und Serbien" , 1958).

A similar point of view is shared by most Germans. bourgeois scientists (G. Franz, G. Herzfeld, H. Holborn, O. Brandenburg), who assert that it was precisely the policy of Russia in the V. century. caused World War I. So, G. Franz believes that Ch. the cause of this war was the desire of tsarism to possess the Black Sea straits. It ignores the value of germ support. imperialism of the Balkan policy of Austria-Hungary, denies that Kaiser Germany had independence. invader goals in V. century. (G. Frantz, "Die Meerengenfrage in der Vorkriegspolitik Russlands", "Deutsche Rundschau", 1927, Bd 210, Februar, S. 142-60).

Typ. bourgeois historiography considers V. v. exclude. from the angle of vnesh.-political. provisions of Turkey 18-20 centuries. Guided by his extremely chauvinistic. the concept of historical process, tour. historians deny the existence of a nat in the Ottoman Empire. oppression. Fight netur. peoples for their independence, they explain the inspiration of Europe. powers. Falsifying history. facts, tour. historians (Yu. X. Bayur, I. X. Uzuncharshyly, E. Urash, A. B. Kuran, and others) argue that the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula by the Turks and its inclusion in the Ottoman Empire was progressive, because it allegedly contributed to the socio-economic. and cultural development of the Balkan peoples. Based on this falsification, tour. official historiography makes false, anti-historical. the conclusion that the wars waged by Sultan Turkey in the 18th-20th centuries were allegedly purely defensive. character for the Ottoman Empire and aggressive for Europe. Powers.

Publ.: Yuzefovich T., Treaties of Russia with the East, St. Petersburg, 1869; Sat. treaties of Russia with other states (1856-1917), M., 1952; Constantinople and the Straits. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. E. A. Adamova, vol. 1-2, M., 1925-26; Section of Asiatic Turkey. According to secret documents b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ed. Edited by E. A. Adamova. Moscow, 1924. Three meetings, foreword. M. Pokrovsky, "Herald of the NKID", 1919, No 1, p. 12-44; From an archivist's notebook. Note by A. I. Nelidov in 1882 on the occupation of the straits, foreword. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, v. 3 (46), p. 179-87; The project of capturing the Bosphorus in 1896, foreword. V. M. Khvostova, "KA", 1931, vol. 4-5 (47-48), p. 50-70; The project of capturing the Bosphorus in 1897, "KA", 1922, v. 1, p. 152-62; The tsarist government on the problem of the straits in 1898-1911, foreword. V. Khvostova, "KA", 1933, v. 6(61), p. 135-40; Noradounghian G., Recueil d "actes internationaux de l" Empire Ottoman, v. 1-3, P., 1897-1903; Strupp K., Ausgewählte diplomatische Aktenstücke zur orientalischen Frage, (Gotha, 1916); A documentary record, 1535-1914, ed. by J. C. Hurewitz, N. Y. - L. - Toronto. 1956.

Lit. (except for the one indicated in the article): Girs A.A., Russia and Bl. Vostok, St. Petersburg, 1906; Dranov B. A., Black Sea Straits, M., 1948; Miller A. P., A Brief History of Turkey, M., 1948; Druzhinina E.I., Kyuchuk-Kainarji world of 1774 (its preparation and conclusion), M., 1955; Ulyanitsky V.A., Dardanelles, Bosphorus and Black Sea in the 18th century. Essays on diplomacy. East history. question, M., 1883; Cahuet A., La question d "Orient dans l" histoire contemporaine (1821-1905), P., 1905; Choublier M., La question d "Orient depuis le Traité de Berlin, P., 1897; Djuvara T. G., Cent projets de partage de la Turquie (1281-1913), P., 1914; Martens F., Etude historique sur la politique russe dans la question d "Orient. Gand-B.-P., 1877; Sorel A., La Question d "Orient au XVIII siècle (Les origines de la triple alliance), P., 1878; Roepell R., Die orientalische Frage in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung 1774-1830, Breslau, 1854; Wurm C. F., Diplomatische Ceschichte der Orientalischen Frage, Lpz., 1858; Bayur Y. H., Türk inkilâbi tarihi, cilt 1-3, Ist., 1940-55 (See also literature at the Black Sea Straits station).

A. S. Silin. Leningrad.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .