Karl Marx is in 1856, working in the library of the British Museum, came upon a collection of documents on the relations between England and Russia in the eighteenth century and argued that the British policy contributed to the creation and strengthening of the Russian Empire. England needed a policeman on the Baltic sea, and they took the role of Russia. Russia “threw” England, when he refused to fight for her against the rebel States. This “kidok” determined policy of England against Russia in the XIX century.
In the USSR, the work of Marx (“Revelations of the diplomatic history of the XVIII century) were not widely known -in Russian it was first published only during the “perestroika”, in 1989. It is not surprising that Marx was just in 1856-1857, was hostile towards Russia, which he after the revolutions of 1848-1849 considered the gendarme of Europe. Fresh was the perception of the Crimean war, to strengthen the perception of Russia as an Asian power.
Marx argued that
Original taken from salatau
Pro-Russian tendency in British politics emerged in the XVIII century, and it began with British Ministers — the contemporaries of Peter I. the Main thesis of Marx was that the English rulers, not having a sufficient hardness in relation to Russia without direct military opposition to the ambitions of Peter, acted contrary to the national interests of England and to the detriment of the freedom of the European peoples, made the creation of the East Europe powerful and aggressive Empire.
Marx wrote: “as a betrayal against Sweden and the connivance plans Russia will never become the subject of a family quarrel between vygskiy rulers, such actions never received the honor to be with historians the same criticism.” He believed that “commercial considerations” referred to by the British Ministers is untenable, because “neither the contemporaries of Peter I, nor the subsequent generation of Englishmen has not received any benefits from the advance of Russia to the Baltic sea. England was not interested in the treacherous support it has provided Russia against Sweden.”
That is the opinion of Marx on the Russian-British relationship was one-sided, writes in the magazine “Rodina” №10, 2014 historian Andrei Sokolov (“whether the Rights of Marx?”).
Sokolov said that England was a pragmatic interest in Russia, and in General, both countries were interested in cooperation. At the same time with the Northern war in Europe, was the war of the Spanish succession (1701-1713), and the position of England in relation to Russia stemmed from this circumstance. The interest of Peter was to obtain from the British the transfer of the trade from Archangelsk to the Baltic sea, which would be an indirect recognition of acquisitions made in the war with Sweden.
In the eighteenth century was signed three trade agreements between Russia and England (1734, 1766 and 1793). Marx believed that the structure of the whole English trade, exports and imports of Russia was negligible and that the benefits are only received by a small group associated with Russian. This view was based on the fact that the balance of trade between the two countries in terms of money has always been in favor of Russia. However, the export from Russia was important for the British, and here is why. In 1729, the English Consul T. ward wrote: “Although we buy here is twice more than sell, but must take into consideration that shipbuilding material not consumed in England, and contributes to the dissemination of its trading in any country of the world and bringing to us from afar recoverable profits, so the price paid for this material involves all of a nation with which we have trade relations”.
In 1700-1720 years of British foreign policy towards Russia in General was at the mercy of the already mentioned private Russian company. According to Marx, it was “a small group of British merchants whose interests coincided with the interests of their Russian colleagues. These gentlemen had raised a cry against Sweden.”
Indeed, the Russian company has always publicly involved in protecting Russian interests. So, she willingly participated in the historic study of the conquests of Peter. In February 1714 the Committee discussed the communication about the documents, “just confirming” that the land on which the Petersburg, was in the possession of the Russian tsars in 1552. And in June of that year, a meeting of members of the company formally approved the document, brought B. Kurakin and testified that not only Ingria and Karelia, and Estonia and Livonia has long belonged to the Russian crown. According to this paper, the Grand Prince Yaroslav, in 1026, he founded there the city of Yuriev Russian, the Baltic lands were to belong to Russia, and when in Livonia rebellion broke out, Alexander Nevsky crushed it up and kill the rebels indemnity. Then these lands were in the possession of “the glorious memory of Ivan, called the Conqueror, Tsar Vasily Ivanovich and Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich. According to members of the English company, proof enough of the veracity of this information was the fact that the document was signed by Chancellor Golovkin and sealed.
In 1714 in England reign of the Hanover dynasty, which was to push Russia to the solution at the expense of their interests in the Baltic the German principalities. Simply put, England has appointed Russia as a “gendarme of the Baltic sea” — it was in the commercial interests of London: Russia defeated England, rein in Denmark and in the region finally for the first time in a couple of hundred years was quiet.
By the middle of XVIII century English political nation and then part of the Russian political elite has developed the idea that England and Russia are “natural allies”. The actual head of the Russian diplomacy in the beginning of the reign of Catherine II, count Nikita Ivanovich Panin in General pushed the idea that the bedrock of security in Europe, Russia and the support should become a “Northern system”, that is, the Union with England, Prussia and Denmark.
The British decades turned a blind eye to the antics of “natural ally”, in particular, on intervention in the internal Affairs of Poland. During the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774 Britain generally gave Russia the opportunity to use their naval base in the Mediterranean and allowed English officers to serve in the Russian Navy. The main reason of their defeat on the seas, in particular, in the battle of Chesma, the Turks believed it was the British aid to Russia. In the course of this war Russia did not want to restrict the independence of the Crimea and freedom of navigation in the Black sea (than London agreed) and began to insist on free passage of its ships from the Black sea to the Mediterranean. But then England did not dare to formal protests (as Russia’s presence in the Eastern Mediterranean played against France, the eternal rival of England).
It is not surprising that Russia’s position during his conflict with the American colonies, England was regarded with deep resentment. Contrary to the prior arrangement Catherine II not only refused to allocate subsidies for troops for the war in America (it was about sending of the Russian corps in 10-15 thousand bayonets to fight in America for England, not only decided to resume negotiations on the Union Treaty, but declared in 1780, the policy of armed neutrality, in fact, directed against Britain
Since 1778 in Petersburg was the British diplomat George.Harris. Marx quotes his letter to Lord Grantham in which Harris reported that almost twice persuaded the Empress to take the side of England, including the promising Russian island of Menorca in the Mediterranean sea (the island East of Spain in the Mediterranean sea, with an area of 650 sq km). The failure of his mission, he explained the intrigue Panina, who became his “relentless and fierce enemy.”
What was the reason of such a sharp turn in Russia’s relationship with England? Historian Roman Rostovtsev said that around this time, Catherine thought about the transfer of the capital from St. Petersburg to Russia. The role of the Baltic sea for Russia in this scenario would decrease significantly, and the main would be the direction of the Mediterranean sea — after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. England such a development is not satisfied. Rostovtsev wrote:
“St. Petersburg was a fruitful debut idea, snatching the Russian rulers of the ring triple encirclement by their own people. But the first pancake, as usual, came out lumpy, and the city on the Neva became the source of many problems.
At the core of these problems lay in the fact that St. Petersburg had absolutely no forage. To supply the city with food required a coordinated work of a huge infrastructure – and more and more. The growth and development of St. Petersburg provision of resources was becoming more difficult, and the city was actually a Martian space station at the time. The Empire worked for the Petersburg, with the slightest failure has led to serious tragedies: it is enough to recall the February revolution and the siege of Leningrad.
Not to say that the Russian authorities did not understand. One solution to the problem of Petersburg was an attempt by the accession of Finland, in the historical scale of failure. Even in the Grand Duchy of Finland was not working in the capital of Peter, because the stability of its personal Union with Russia is constantly subjected to tests.
The transfer of the capital in the new Russia, that is Sevastopol and Odessa was very real. Unlike the marshes of the Neva, the new Russia had a powerful resource base. Had it only right to learn, to prepare to receive the Royal court. It is clear that for starters, the black sea coast had to be cleared of the Turks and Tatars. In 1769, the year Catherine the great sends to the South of its best generals – Potemkin, Suvorov. Within five years of fierce battle, which ended in Kucuk-Kaynarca world.
The peace concluded with the Porte was undoubtedly successful, but threatened for much more. Russia started the war with the call for a General uprising in the Balkans. From the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Serbs and the Greeks waited for the overthrow of the janissary yoke on education, some under the control of the Confederation, so that the new Russia was friendly, and not as a Petersburg (hostile) neighbors. Sporadic rebellion in the Balkans had indeed taken place, but in General, the mission ended in failure: Russia received a piece of the steppe between the Dnieper and the bug, not even annexing the Crimea.
However, the Russian government acted quickly, decisively and with German punctuality, typical of Catherine. Found the new Russia began to settle Germans, Greeks, Serbs, whatever it wound up not actually Russian. Band of population non-Muscovites ethnicity, needed to implement the scenario of St. Petersburg, not in an uninhabited swamps, and fertile black soil. The founding father of the new Russia without Russian was Giuseppe de Ribas”.
The Ochakov crisis of 1791 is considered the beginning of the Eastern question in the form in which it manifested itself in the nineteenth century and entering the twentieth century when England, in the midst of the First world refused to provide promised Russia the Straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles — Interpreter Blog wrote about it. Later, Stalin failed to gain the Straits).
Russia after 1791 realized what a mistake she’d made, turning England from ally to enemy. Marx included in the “Exposure” is a brief excerpt from the manuscript of the monk pitt, chaplain to the factory in St. Petersburg. It was reported that the last words of the Empress before death was told to the Secretary a word about the Union in England: “Tell Prince Zubov that he came to me at twelve o’clock and reminded me that it is necessary to sign a Treaty of Alliance with England”.
In the blog of the Interpreter about the relations of England and Russia:
“Your English Tsar Ivan the terrible is dead!”
In the middle of the XVI century, when they reached Muscovy, the British first perceived its inhabitants as the natives (up to exchange their products on mirrors and combs). They considered the question of colonization of the Russian North. But soon the British realized that it is easier to bind Muscovy to his trade. By the end of his reign, Ivan the terrible already perceived as “English king”.
Like Thatcher in 1983 chose Gorbachev perestroika
In 1983 the world stood on the brink of nuclear war. President Reagan was set up to ensure that the military and economic means to pressure the USSR to the end. But the Prime Minister of England, Thatcher decided to go a different way. In September of 1983 he put together a workshop of scientists, which was the selection of Gorbachev – Gorbachev.