The Crimean war is the third violent event in the 19th century eastern question. It was fought
by Turkey, Britain, France and Piedmont against Russia on the island of Crimea in the black
sea from 1854-1856.
The Crimean war was the first major war between the great powers after the Napoleonic war.
It is one of the most wasteful and useless wars fought without strong reasons. A critical view
of the characteristics of the war has made some historians to conclude that it was a war of
insanity and absurdity fought without clear objectives and principles. The immediate event
that sparked off the war was the Russian occupation of the two Turkish provinces of Wallacia
and Moldavia in 1853.
1. The Russian imperialism in the Balkans was a serious threat to the British, French & Turkish interests.
Tsar
Nicholas 1 of Russia exaggerated the conditions of Turkey as a sick-man
of Europe in order to facilitate the disintegration of the Empire.
Russian's interest was to dominate the remains of the Ottoman Empire.
Russia had gained commercial, strategic and economic benefits within the
Turkish Empire through the treaties of Adrianople (1828) and Unkier
Skellessi (1833). This strengthened Russian imperialism in the Balkan
and forced the great powers to intervene (in the Syrian question) and
nullify the treaties in the 1841 straits convention. Russia surprised
the powers in 1853 when she conquered and occupied Moldavia and
Wallacia. By this time Britain and France were fed up with Russian
imperialism and decided to help Turkey to push Russia out of the two
provinces which led to the Crimean war.
2. Besides,
the Crimean war was caused by Russia's false confidence. Russia
disregarded Turkey as a sick man of Europe that would easily collapse
with her invasion. Russia had also relatively been peaceful and free
from revolutions compared to other powers like France, Prussia, Turkey
and Austria. Tsar Nicholas I therefore falsely concluded that such
powers were already weakened by revolutions and Russian victory over
them would be obvious. This encouraged the Tsar to pursue a reckless
policy towards Turkey that led to the outbreak of the Crimean war. On
the other hand, earlier events made Tsar Nicholas 1 to have a
misconception that no other power would support Turkey against his
aggression. He falsely believed that alliance between Britain and Russia
against Napoleon I would still continue against Napoleon III. He was
also mistaken to think that Russia's solidarity with Britain against
France in Egypt, Syrian question and the 1840 London convention were too
recent to make Britain and France ally against him. He also expected
assistance from Austria for he had assisted Austria to suppress the 1848
revolution in Hungary. Above all, he believed that no Christian power
would ally with Turkey being an Islamic state. All these, gave Tsar
Nicholas 1 false confidence that Turkey was an isolated state prompting
him to occupy Moldavia and Wallacia only to be disapproved when France
and Britain joined hands to assist Turkey.
3. The
Franco-Russian scramble for the control of the holy places in Jerusalem
and Bethlehem has been greatly blamed for making the Crimean war
inevitable. France was given the right to protect the holy places by the
treaty of 1740, but she relaxed due to domestic and financial problems.
This made the sultan to give Russia, a nearer neighbour with more
pilgrims the right to protect the holy shrines by the Kurchuk kainardji
treaty of 1774. However, Napoleon III revived the old French claim and
instructed the French ambassador in Constantinople to present this
demand to Russia and the Sultan. The sultan accepted although he didn't
accept to exclude the Russians. Russia protested and occupied Moldavia
and Wallacia to justify her claim, which sparked off the Crimean war.
4.
Napoleon Ill's ambitions to revenge the Moscow campaign of 1812 was
also responsible for the Crimean war. In 1812, Napoleon I who was
Napoleon Ill's uncle was disastrously defeated and humiliated by Russia.
Napoleon I lost over 550,000 troops, which became a turning point and
contributed to his downfall. In 1848, Napoleon III rose to power by
promising to revive the Napoleonic tradition in Europe (i.e. in his
campaign manifesto for the 1848 elections). This made him to look for an
opportunity to fight Russia and revenge the 1812 disastrous defeat of
his great uncle Napoleon I inter-alia. This opportunity came in 1853
when Russia occupied Moldavia and Walachia.
5.
Besides, there were personal and political problems between Tsar
Nicholas I and Napoleon III. Tsar Nicholas 1treated the rise of Napoleon
III to the French throne as a challenge to the Vienna settlement, which
had provided that no one from Napoleon's line should ever again rule
France. He refused to recognize Napoleon III as a legitimate ruler and
kept on addressing him as "my friend" instead of "my brother", which was
traditionally used in addressing fellow monarchs. This irritated
Napoleon III and he decided to teach the Tsar a lesson when he occupied
Moldavia and Wallacia, which made the Crimean war inevitable.
6.
The absence of international organization and a capable statesman left a
vacuum for the explosion of the Crimean war. The congress system and
Metternich had maintained peace after the downfall of Napoleon I. But
the congress system collapsed by 1830 and Metternich fell in 1848
leaving Europe without an organization and incapable men like Stratford
de-Red cliff and Napoleon III who had little provision for diplomacy in
settling conflicts. This is why the Turko-Russian conflict over Moldavia
and Wallacia easily degenerated into the Crimean war.
7.
The weaknesses of Turkey as a sick man of Europe played no small
contribution to the outbreak of the Crimean war. Turkey misgoverned her
subjects, which provoked uprisings within the Empire and attracted the
intervention of European powers (to safeguard their interests). This led
to clashes and rivalry that climaxed into the Crimean war. Besides, it
was Turkey who persecuted Christians in Moldavia and Wallacia and gave
Russia an excuse to occupy the territories with a pretext of protecting
the minority Christian population.lt should be noted that if Turkey was
not sick, there would be no controversy over diagnosis and treatment
since there would be no disease. The crux of the matter is that she was
sick and that is why there was tension over Russian Medicine of
Partitioning the empire to avoid the chaos and quarrels that would
arise.
8. The convergent and conflicting interests
of European powers over the Ottoman Empire made the war inevitable.
Industrial revolution had created an urgent need to acquire colonies and
areas of influence for raw materials, markets, investment and
resettlement of excess population. This is why there was rivalry for
influence in the Ottoman Empire between Russia, Britain and France.
Britain that was the most industrialized hated Russian expansion because
it would jeopardize her trade within the Ottoman Empire, the Far East
and the Mediterranean Sea. This is why Britain and even France decided
to force Russia out of Moldavia and Wallacia leading to the Crimean war.
9.
The Crimean war was also caused by anti-Russian hysteria in Britain and
France. Tsar Nicholas 1 of Russia was very oppressive and despotic to
his subjects plus the poles and Hungarians who were under his influence.
The French and British therefore called for war against Russia so as to
bring peace and Justice to the Russian subjects. The middle class and
the parliament of both countries argued for war as a solution to Russian
oppression, exploitation and despotism. This negative public opinion
against Russia propelled Britain and France to declare war against
Russia in 1854.
10. The downfall of capable
statesmen and the rise of aggressive and self seeking ambitious leaders
in Europe made the outbreak of the Crimean war inevitable. In Austria,
Metternich who had maintained peace in Europe after the downfall of
Napoleon I was forced to flee to exile in 1848. Schwarzenburg and later
Count Boul who replaced Metternich were incompetent in maintaining
diplomatic cooperation between Western and Eastern Europe leave alone
the Balkans. In France, Louis Philippe who pursued a peaceful foreign
policy was replaced by Napoleon III who was determined to pursue an
aggressive foreign policy and revive French influence in Europe. In
Russia, Tsar Alexander I was replaced by Tsar Nicholas I in 1825 who was
more aggressive ^and interested in breaking up the Ottoman Empire. In
Britain, Palmer stone (prime minister) was replaced by Lord Aberdeen who
was weak willed, soft on Russia and not enthusiastic for war as Palmer
stone was, which indirectly encouraged Russia to invade Moldavia and
Wallacia. Thus, one can conclude that the rise and weaknesses of
Schwarzenburg, Count Boul, Napoleon III, Tsar Nicholas I and Lord
Aberdeen brought inexperienced and uncompromising men in sensitive
political offices making the outbreak of the Crimean war inevitable.
11.
The role of men on the spot was also instrumental in the Crimean war.
Prince Menshikoff the Russian representative in Turkey advised Russia to
use force as the only way to safeguard her interest in the Balkans and
holy Shrines. Stratford de-Red-Cliffe consolidated the British
anti-Russian feeling and policy by exaggerating Russian threats in the
Balkans. He advised Turkey to declare war on Russia after the Russian
occupation of Moldavia and Wallacia. Thus, Menshikoff inspired Russia to
forcefully occupy Moldavia and Wallacia and Stratford-de-Red cliffe
influenced Britain and Turkey to fight Russia, which made the Crimean
war inevitable.
12. The Russian occupation of
Moldavia and Wallacia in July 1853 was a major event that led to the
Crimean war. Moldavia and Wallacia were semi-independent provinces of
Ottoman Empire under the Sultan of Turkey. Russia occupied them to press
the sultan to accept her claim of protecting the holy places of
Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The sultan protested the Russian occupation and
declared war against her in October 1853. France and Britain joined
Turkey and shifted the war from Moldavia and Wallacia up to Crimea in
Russia and hence the Crimean or crime war as John Bright the British
liberal politician told his son.
13. The Great
Sinope massacre of November 1853 was the most immediate incident that
triggered the Crimean war. When Turkey declared war on Russia, Russia
reacted by sinking the Turkish warship at Sinope in the black sea. This
was considered an unjustifiable massacre and created war fever in
Britain and France. Britain and France reacted by sending their warships
in the black sea and ordering Russia to withdraw from Moldavia and
Wallacia, to which the Tsar refused. This made Britain and France to
declare war on Russia in March 1854 and follow her up to Crimea in
August when she finally withdrew due to pressure of events.
The Franco Russian scramble for the
holy places of Bethlehem and Jerusalem is one of the issues that made
Russia to occupy Turkey's semi-independent states of Moldavia and
Wallacia. Britain and France encouraged the Sultan to give Russia an
ultimatum to withdraw. At the same time Turkey mobilized her troops,
Britain and France protested the Russian occupation and sent their
warships up to the Dardanelles which violated the 1841 straits
convention.
In spite of all these threats, Russia
refused to withdraw from Moldavia and Wallacia. Omar Pasha, the
commander of Turkey's army declared war on Russia on 4^Get 1853. Russia
attacked and destroyed the Turkey's fleet at Sinope, which is regarded
as the Great Sinope massacre. In March 1854, Britain and France sent
their warships up to the Bosphorus in the Black Sea and ordered Russia
to retreat from the Black Sea to their base at Sebastopol. However,
Russia refused which forced Britain and France to officially declare war
on her on 21th March 1854, which began the armed conflict.
In July, the representatives of Britain, France, Austria and Prussia met
at Vienna and signed the Vienna note which was not wholly accepted by
both Russia and Turkey, so the war continued.
In
August, pressure of events forced the Russian troops to withdraw from
Moldavia and Wallacia to then base at Sebastopol. This was so sudden and
surprising that Britain and France who had mobilized their resources
and soldiers for a full-scale war refused to consider it a victory. They
therefore decided to attack and destroy the Russian naval base at
Sebastopol.
This was absurd because the British and
French principal aim was to force the Russian troops out of Moldavia
and Wallacia. When Russia finally withdrew from the two provinces;
No
excuse for the war except that of teaching the Tsar a lesson existed.
Hence the diversion of the war from the Balkans where it made sense in
relation to the Turkey’s Empire to the Crimean Peninsular where it made
no sense at all.
The diversion of the war meant
that the war that was originally meant for the defense of the Turkey's
Empire was transformed into an act of aggression against Russia.
In
September, the allied troops landed in the Crimean peninsular. They
also conducted naval operations in the Baltic Sea as Turkey and Russia
fought in the Caucasus Sea. The allied troops were disorganized because
they only had sketches and not actual maps of Sebastopol and Crimea.
This affected allied advance towards Sebastopol. After sometime they
landed to the North of Sebastopol and defeated the Russian troops at
River Alma. The next move should have been Sebastopol, which was not yet
well fortified. But the allied commanders relaxed for three weeks
touring the city. This gave the Russians chance to reorganize their
army, re-arm themselves and fortify their naval base. When the allies
started bombarding Sebastopol, it was much stronger than they had first
come. It's this laxity that made the Russians to sustain the war for
three years.
The allies were affected by poor
transport and communication network. It was so difficult to transport
artilleries, which took up to 3 weeks to reach Sebastopol. The
artilleries were even so inefficient that their bombs were falling
outside Sebastopol. Besides, the allied as well as Russian commanders
lacked co-ordination and were suspicious of each other. The worst hazard
was winter for which the allied troops were not prepared. Winter
affected transport and communication. Poor sanitation, diet, medication,
extreme cold and cholera killed both soldiers as well as horses.
Combat
operations began in November 1854 where the allies defeated Russia at
the disastrous battle of Inkerman. The subsequent military campaigns
were fruitless on account of winter and poor medical care.
There
were very few dressing stations yet there were heavy casualties. The
wounded and sick soldiers were transported for three weeks across the
Black Sea to the nearest hospital at Scutari. The hospital lacked basic
equipments like beds, blankets, basins, towels, soap, brooms, scissors,
bandages and drugs.
Medical supplies were either embezzled from Turkish customs houses or delayed by departmental regulations.
The
above desperate condition and sufferings at Scutari attracted the
sympathy and intervention of an English woman known as Florence
Nightingale. She together with some volunteer nurses mobilized money
from friends in England and came to Scutari where they were greeted by
loud cries from the neglected, wounded and sick soldiers. She succeeded
in treating the soldiers, reorganizing the nursing Laundry, Sanitary
conditions, clothings and providing food to the soldiers. By June 1855,
Florence Nightingale and her volunteer nurses had reduced the death rate
from 44% to 2%. This earned Florence a humanitarian credit and a
reputation of a saint.
In 1855, the allied troops
were re-organized and Sebastopol was finally conquered in September 1855
which marked the allied victory over Russia in the Crimean war.
However, the Russians did not surrender until after the death of Tsar
Nicholas I and the rise of liberal Alexander II who had no personal
problem with Napoleon III. In Britain, Lord Aberdeen was replaced by
Palmer stone (1855-58) who was ready to negotiate for peace. At the same
time, Austria issued an ultimatum based on the "allies' minimum terms"
to Russia which meant that Austria could join the war if she (Russia)
refuses to comply. All these factors forced Russia to surrender and
denounce war. The final peace conference was held in Paris in 1856 under
the chairmanship of Napoleon III.
The Crimean war
was characterized by festivities and adventurism. In spite of the war,
many tourists still flocked to Crimea as if there was no war. Some army
officers even went with their wives and girl friends to the battlefield.
The Russians turned the war into free Cinema and holidaymaking. This
means that the Crimean war was a war of insanity and absurdity that was
fought without clear objectives and principles.
Lastly,
the Crimean war was marked by unexpected support from Piedmont. Cavour
sent the Piedmontese troops in 1855 to help the allies and gain a seat
in the post war settlement to champion the Italian unification struggle.
The Piedmontese troops were instrumental in the final bombardment and
surrender of Sebastopol that brought the war to an end.
The powers concerned were Russia, France, Turkey and Britain who were the belligerents (powers at war).
MB:
When apportioning responsibility a student has to analyze the reasons
for a country's involvement in the (provoking), showing why and how it
brought conflict (war) with other powers. However, if strong reasons
exist for a country's involvement in the war, then one has to bring it
in an argument to reduce the blame on that particular power.
Note
further- that although piedmont participated in the war and thus
contributed to the war, she does not share responsibility for the
outbreak of the war. This is because she entered the War late in 1855
when it had already started and-Was thus ending. This does not make her
guilty for the Outbreak/beginning of the War. In any case if piedmont
had not joined the war, it would not have altered the course of events.
1. RUSSIA (TSAR NICHOLAS I AND PRINCE MENSHIEKOEFF
i) Russia under Tsar Nicholas I was primarily responsible for the Outbreak of the Crimean war.
Russian expansionist towards the Balkans created suspicion and mistrust that climaxed into war.
Russian
advance in Balkans was to secure political control over the Ottoman
Empire and monopolize trade. This would be against British economic
interest in the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and the Far East which was
opposed by Britain. This made Britain and France to take the risk of
fighting Russia in 1854.
ii) Russian influence in
the Balkans was a disturbing issue that distorted peace in Europe. The
1828 Treaty of Adrianople gave Russia commercial and territorial gains
in the Ottoman Empire which irritated Britain and France. Again in 1833
Russia signed the Unkier Skellessi treaty in which the straits of
Dardanelles was to be closed to all warships except to those of Russia
and Turkey. Angered Britain and France who sought for an opportunity to
eliminate Russia out of the Balkans (for their economic interest), which
came when Russia occupied Moldavia and Wallacia.
iii)
Tsar Nicholas 1’s careless diagnosis and prescription to Turkish
sickness (problems) was opposed by Britain and France. He had told
Palmer stone that; Your Excellency don’t you think Turkey is a dying man? I think we must partition the Empire to avoid the chaos and disorder that would follow To this, Palmer stone replied; Is it to the Doctor or the heir that you address the question.
The
issue is that Tsar Nicholas I proposed that Turkey's Empire Should be
broken and shared up which was rejected by Britain who wanted Turkey to
survive as a bulwark against Russian imperialism. The blame on Russia is
that- she disguised her imperialism and over exaggerated Turkey's
problems which made Turkey sicker than ever before. She even went to the
extent of supporting revolutionary movements such as that of the Greeks
against Turkey.
iv) Tsar Nicholas 1’s refusal to
recognize Napoleon III as a legitimate ruler and calling him “my great
and dear friend” instead of “my brother” made Napoleon III to fight in
the Crimean war. Tsar Nicolas 1 clung on the Vienna Settlement of 1815
which had provided that no one from Napoleon's family rules France
again.
He saw the rise of Napoleon III as a
challenge to the Vienna settlement and decided not to recognize his
rule. This made Napoleon III to look for an opportunity to discipline
the Tsar that came when Russia occupied Moldavia and Wallacia in 1853.
It should be noted that the Vienna settlement and 1815 were old issues
and too long a period (respectively) that should not have been carried
forward to 1850’s. This implies that Tsar had no value for peace and
reconciliation which makes Russia guilty of the Crimean disaster.
V.
Russia's claims of protecting Orthodox Christians and Slavs who were
scattered within the Turkey's Empire brought her into loggerheads with
Britain and France. This made Russia to intervene and interfere in
Turkey's internal affairs like in Greece, Moldavia and Wallacia, which
caused the Crimean war. In fact, Russia's failure to recognize the
French guardianship over the holy places according to the Kutchuk
kainardji treaty of 1774 is what partly made Napoleon III to declare war
on her.
Vi).Tsar Nicholas I's diplomatic
miscalculation also contributed to the outbreak of the war. Earlier
events blindfolded him to believe that no other power would intervene
against him. He expected British co-operation against either France or
Turkey. He falsely believed that the Anglo-Russian alliance against
Napoleon 1would still be renewed against Napoleon III. He also deceived
himself that Russia's co-operation with Britain against France in Egypt,
Syrian question and the 1842 straits convention were too recent to make
Britain and France ally against her. Above all, he believed that no
Christian power would ally with Turkey being a Moslem state. These gave
Tsar Nicholas 1 false confidence that he would handle Turkey alone,
which prompted him to occupy Moldavia and Wallacia only to be proved
wrong when France and Britain joined hands with Turkey.
Vii).The Russian occupation of Moldavia and Wallacia in July 1853 was a prelude to the Crimean war.
When
Russia occupied the two provinces, Turkey under the influence of
Britain and France sent an ultimatum that she should withdraw. However,
Russia refused to withdraw which made Turkey and later Britain and
France to declare war against her. If Russia had withdrawn peacefully,
Turkey, Britain and France would not have declared war against her and
the Crimean war could have been avoided.
viii).
Russia's sinking of Turkish warship at Sinope (The Great Sinope
Massacre) in the Black Sea was the most immediate event that triggered
the Crimean war. When Turkey declared war on Russia, Russia reacted by
sinking the Turkish warship at Sinope. The French and the British
considered it a savage and barbaric attack intended to wipe out the
Turks. This made them to send their warships in the Black Sea, which was
the Crimean war in progress.
NB: Although Russia
was primarily responsible for the war, she had some genuine reasons. In
the first place, Russia was a great Slav state and most of the Balkan
nationalities spoke Slavonic language. She was therefore morally right
to assist fellow brothers against Turkey's poor administration and
autocracy. Secondly, Russia was a great orthodox Christian state and
Turkey was persecuting Christians. Russia was therefore justified to
help fellow brothers in Christ. Thirdly, Russia was right in claiming
the right to protect the holy places because France had failed to do so.
She had invested a lot in renovating the shrines and she had more
pilgrims than France to the ratio of 100:1. The Russian occupation of
Moldavia and Wallacia was just to express her just demands and make the
Sultan withdraw the concession of protectionship from France. The
Russian withdrawal from Moldavia and Wallacia should have ended the war
but it was Britain and France who followed Russia up to Crimea.
Nevertheless,
although Russia had "genuine claims" in the war, her claims were
brought up pretentiously to camouflage her imperialism in the Balkans.
This did not take other powers time to suspect and even prove. Russia's
greatest blame was her interference in Turkey's internal affairs with a
hidden agenda of breaking the Empire that makes her primarily
responsible for the outbreak of the Crimean war.
2. TURKEY (SULTAN MOHAMOOD11, 1808-1839 AND SULTAN ABDUL MAJID, 1839-1861)
i.
The Sultans and Turkey are blamed for being the "sick man of Europe".
Turkey had created a vast heterogeneous Empire, which became difficult
to administer. The Empire was besieged (surrounded) by a cocktail of
political, social, religious and economic problems that provoked
rebellions and attracted the intervention of Russia, Britain and France.
The scramble by these powers to share the remains of the Ottoman Empire
is what made them to converge and clash at the Crimean Peninsular.
NB:
If Turkey had not been sick (weak), there would have been no
controversy over diagnosis and treatment since there would be no
disease. In other words if Turkey was not weak, the scramble for the
Empire would not have arisen and the war could have been avoided.
ii.
Turkey's anti-Christian and anti-Slav policy played yet another role in
the Crimean war. On many occasions, the Sultans of Turkey were argued
and they even promised fair treatment to Christians, which were never
fulfilled. Instead, there was a vicious cycle of persecution for
example, in Moldavia and Wallacia, which gave Russia a chance to
interfere in her internal affairs. If Turkey had not persecuted
Christians, Russia would have not found any justification of occupying
Moldavia and Wallacia off the war.
iii. Turkey is
accused for refusing to grant independence to her subjects even when she
was aware of her weaknesses. By 1854, Wallacia and Moldavia were
semi-independent states. If Turkey had given full independence to
Wallacia and Moldavia, Russia would not have occupied them and the
Crimean war would have been avoided. Even if Russia was to occupy them,
it would remain a localised affair between them and Russia. This would
also be easy to settle on a round table i.e. peacefully.
iv.
Turkey is blamed for weak and inconsistent foreign policy that
encouraged Russia to interfere into her internal affairs. For instance,
the Unkier Skellesi treaty of 1833 established a strong solidarity with
Russia that threatened the interests of other powers. The treaty
stipulated that Turkey was to close the Dardanelles to all warships
except to those of Russia and Turkey herself. This strengthened Russian
influence within the Ottoman Empire and partly inspired her to occupy
Moldavia and Wallacia which sparked off the war.
V.
Turkey's inconsistency over the right to protect the holy places
consolidated the Franco-Russian scramble and led to the Crimean war. In
1740, the right to protect the holy places was granted to France. But
due to the French negligence, the Sultan again gave the same right to
Russia in 1774 without informing France. When Napoleon revived the Old
French claim in the 1850s, the Sultan was confused whether it should be
Russia or France. This partly made Russia and France to resort to war to
determine who should be the guardian of the holy places, it should be
noted that Russia's occupation of Moldavia and Wallacia was to press the
Sultan to accept his claim and drop that of the French.
vi.
Turkey's alliance with other European powers i.e. Britain and France
against Russia makes her guilty for the outbreak of the Crimean war.
Britain and France had their own grievances against Russia but had
failed to get a convenient opportunity to fight her. By 1854, Napoleon
III of France was longing for war against Russia to revenge the 1812
Moscow campaign and reassert his legitimacy. Britain was interested in
war against Russia in order to destroy Russian influence in the Balkans
and safeguard her commercial interest. These hidden agenda explains why
Britain and France advised the Sultan Abdul Majid of Turkey to declare
war against Russia. Turkey is therefore accused for allowing herself and
empire to be used by Britain and France to fight Russia to defend their
selfish, personal and national interests.
vii.
Turkey is blamed for refusing to accept the Vienna note (July 1854). The
Vienna note was a document prepared by the representatives of Britain,
France, Austria and Prussia. It was to bring reconciliation between
Russia and Turkey in order to avoid war. Russia accepted the Vienna note
but Turkey refused to accept it unless certain amendments were made.
Sultan Abdul Majid I of Turkey was not ready to tolerate Russia's
general right to influence her affairs which was provided in the Vienna
note. Turkey's defiance frustrated European diplomacy, created more
tension and helped to shift the war from Moldavia and Wallacia to
Crimea.
viii. Lastly, Turkey stands in the dock of history for her declaration of war on Russia on October 4th
1853. This was after Russia's refusal to evacuate Moldavia and
Wallacia. Turkey's declaration of war forced the Russians to destroy her
fleet at Sinope, which made Britain and France to join the war.
Besides,
Turkey is blamed for accepting to be used by Britain and France to
fight Russia for their selfish interests in the Balkans.
NB:
The internal problems of Turkey were worsened by the divergent and
conflicting interest of the major powers especially Russia. Russia and
later Britain and France weakened Turkey by supporting nationalistic
movements such as the Greek war from 1821-1832. Britain and France
wanted the territory of Turkey reduced in a manner that would favour
their commercial, strategic and political interests. Thus, the Crimean
war was an opportunity for European powers to safeguard their hidden
selfish interests.
3. FRANCE (NAPOLEON ID, 1848-1871)
i.
Napoleon III and France fought in the war because they wanted
popularity amongst the liberals and Catholics. This made France to ally
with Britain against Russia in the Turko-Russian conflict that developed
into the Crimean war.
ii. Napoleon III of France
is accused for his desire to revenge the 1812 Moscow Campaign. This was
unjustifiable because in the Moscow Campaign, Russia was innocent and
his uncle Napoleon I was the aggressor who had invaded Russia. Besides,
the Moscow Campaign is a minute political issue of the past that should
not have been raised in the interest of peace. It was this spirit of
revenge partly forced Napoleon III and France to embark on fighting
Russia in the Crimean war.
iii. Napoleon Ill's
revival of the old French claim over the holy places brought conflict
with Russia who had a more genuine claim. This is because Russia had
more pilgrims and was closer to the holy places than France. Besides,
France that was granted the right to protect the holy places inl740 had
neglected her role only to resurrect the issue after Russia had invested
and repaired the shrines. It was Napoleon's threats in 1850sthat forced
Russia to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia which sparked off the Crimean
war.
iv. Napoleon III and France are said to have
fought Russia simply because Tsar Nicholas I had failed to recognize
Napoleon Ill's legitimacy and addressed him as "my great and dear
friend" instead of "my brother". Napoleon III took this as a challenge
to his prestige and credibility and looked for an opportunity to fight
and humble Tsar Nicholas II. This opportunity was found when Russia
occupied Moldavia and Wallachia. However, this was so personal and
minute and could have been ignored or settled diplomatically.
V.
Napoleon III and France shares the guilt of the war because Napoleon
III promised support to Turkey which gave her courage to declare war on
Russia. After the Great Sinope massacre, Napoleon III mobilized his
forces and declared war on Russia in March 1854. When Russia withdrew
from Moldavia and Wallacia, France and Britain followed the Russians up
to Crimea within the Russian peninsular. This is what amplified the
Russo-Turkish war into the Crimean war.
vi. France
is accountable for the outbreak of the Crimean war because of her policy
against Russian imperialism in the Balkans. Russian advance in the
Balkans was a threat to France's commercial, political and religious
interests in the region. This is what made France to cooperate with
Britain and Turkey to check Russian advance, which caused the Crimean
war.
4. BRITAIN (ABERDEEN, PALMER STONE AND STRADFORD DE REDCLIFFE)
i.
Britain is held responsible for the Crimean war for resorting to war in
order to safeguard her commercial interest. This was threatened by
Russia's expansionist policy in the Balkans. Besides,
Aberdeen
and later palmer stone (Prime ministers) had preconceived hatred
against the Russian despotic government. These considerations made
Britain to fight Russia in the Crimean war, hence her guilt.
ii.
Britain opposed and rejected Russia's ideas of partitioning Turkey as a
solution to the Eastern Question. Britain wanted to maintain an
integrated Turkey to block Russian advancement in Europe. This put
Russia on tension and made her to occupy the Turkey's semi-independent
states of Moldavia and Walachia, before Turkey could be strengthened.
iii.
The nullification of the Unkier Skelessie treaty by Palmerstone in the
1841 straits convention was rejected by Tsar Alexander I of Russia who
resorted to aggression. Besides in 1854, Palmer stone sent British
forces through the Dardanelles to attack Russia. This was a violation of
the Straits convention and all that it had stood for i.e. peace.
iv.
Stratford De-Red cliffe, the British ambassador in Constantinople made
war on the side of Britain inevitable. He had mastered the British
policy in the Balkans and considered the Russian Prince Menschikoff as
"a mere child". Redcliffe spoilt the relationship between Turkey and
Russia and advised the British government to use force against Russia in
the Balkans. This is partly responsible for the British participation
in the Crimean war.
V. It was Stratford
De-Redcliffe who assured Turkey of British support against Russia. This
encouraged Turkey to issue an ultimatum to Russia and even declare war
on her. If it was not Stratford's assurance, Turkey would not have tried
to tamper with the Russia since she was aware of her weakness as a
"sick man of Europe".
vi. Britain also induced
France under Napoleon III to join the war against Russia. Stratford
co-operated with Napoleon III, which made Napoleon III confident of
fighting Russia. Otherwise, if Britain had not entered a diplomatic
understanding with France, Napoleon III could not have risked fighting
Russia. This is because Napoleon III in his foreign policy was too
fearful of Britain because of the role of Britain in the defeat and
downfall of his great uncle, Napoleon I.
vii.
Britain fueled conflict between France and Russia by supporting Frances'
claim of protecting the holy places. Stratford de-Redcliffe and
Aberdeen encouraged the Sultan Abdul Majid of Turkey to reject Russia's
claim of protecting the holy places and accept the French claim. This
made Tsar Nicholas I of Russia to panic and forcefully occupy Moldavia
and Wallacia, which began the Crimean war.
viii.
Britain's lack of a vigorous and consistent foreign policy towards the
Ottoman Empire on the eve of the Crimean war made the war inevitable. In
1852, Palmer stone was replaced by Aberdeen, as prime minister.
Aberdeen's cabinet was divided and was unable to impose his will on his
ministers. Unlike Palmer stone, Aberdeen was soft on Russia and not
enthusiastic for war. The rise of Aberdeen and his weakness made Tsar
Nicholas 1to falsely assume that Britain would not participate in the
war, which encouraged him to occupy Moldavia and Wallacia. Otherwise, as
V.D Mahajan argues If Palmer stone had been the premier, the Tsar would
have thought twice before sending Menschikoff and provoking a quarrel
in which Great Britain was sure to come in
ix.
Lastly, Britain is guilty because she declared a full-scale war after
the Great Sinope massacre, in August; the Russians retreated to their
base at Sebastopol, which could have averted the war. But Stratford
De-Redcliffe and Palmer stone followed the Russians to their base at
Sebastopol. This is what magnified the Moldavian and Walachian issue
into the Crimean war.
The Crimean war was concluded by the
1856 Paris peace treaty that was signed between Russia and the allied
powers. The war and the treaty had political, social and economic impact
on Europe both in the short run and the long run. The consequences of
the Crimean war were positive and negative in the history of Europe.
1.
The war resulted into massive loss of lives and destruction of property
that ranked highest in the history of Europe from 1816-1914. It is
estimated that Russia lost over 300,000men, France 100,000 and Britain
60,000. These excluded thousands of Italians and Turks. Some of these
died as a result of the actual fighting but % died of famine,
starvation, malnutrition. Cholera, Typhoid, Winter etc.
Besides, there was destruction of properties like ships, estates, buildings and important towns like Sebastopol.
2.
The Crimean war laid foundation for Nursing and International Red Cross
society. The death and sufferings of Russian and allied troops led to
widespread concern about the condition of soldiers in war zones. This
made Florence Nightingale to take care of the Scutari hospital where she
gave medical services and nursing to the wounded and sick. She did this
after realizing that adequate medical attention and services plus
humanitarian assistance could have significantly reduced the death toll.
3.
The war forced Tsar Alexander II to embark on reforms. Russia was
defeated and the 1856 Paris peace treaty was a "bitter pill" for her to
swallow. This together with desperate socio-economic conditions made the
Russians to develop a revolutionary spirit against the government. This
forced Tsar Nicholas II to embark on immediate reforms in agriculture
and industries to improve on the standard of living and strengthen her
military power, in order to win public confidence and avert a
revolution. In 1861, he passed the emancipation act in which ail slaves
were set free. However, the heavy emancipation fee became a source of
tension amongst the peasants that contributed to the outbreak of the
Russian revolution of 1917.
4. The Crimean war
contributed to the unifications of Italy and Germany. Austria, the main
obstacle to both unifications remained neutral during the war. This
isolated Austria from the allied powers that fought and defeated Russia.
On the other hand, Austria's neutrality also alienated her from Russia
because Russia branded Austria "a thankless friend". This is because
Tsar Nicholas I of Russia expected Austria's alliance as a compensation
for his role in suppressing the 1848 revolutions in Hungary, Bohemia and
Vienna that saved the Austrian Empire. This explains why Russia could
not support Austria in the course of Italian and German unifications.
This favoured both unification for it;
Provided a
free and unfettered opportunity for the destruction of the Austrian
power in Germany and Italy to those who had courage ... Bismarck and
Cavour were the chief beneficiaries of the
Crimean war and without it, there might have been neither a Kingdom of Italy nor a German
Empire
for the Italians who actively participated on the side of the allies,
the war won for them British moral support and the French military
support at the 1856 Paris peace treaty. This is why Britain favoured
Garibaldi's liberation of Naples and Sicily while France helped in the
Liberation of Lombardy. The Crimean war also gave the Italians military
experience, which helped in ousting Austria from Italian peninsular.
5.
The war increased the prestige and popularity of Napoleon III in France
and Europe. He achieved his aim of revenging the 1812 Moscow campaign
and disciplining Tsar Nicholas I for failure to recognize his legitimacy
as a rightful monarch. The fact that the peace conference and treaty
were held and signed in Paris under the Chairmanship of Napoleon III
shows how acceptable and recognized
Napoleon III
was amongst the great powers of Europe. It was therefore an honorable
diplomatic achievement for Napoleon III and France. This won for
Napoleon III the loyalty and support of the French Catholics,
Bonapartists, Liberals and glory seekers, which helped to consolidate
his rule.
6. As already noted, the Crimean war was
crowned up at the Paris peace treaty of 1856. By the treaty, the
independence of Turkey was guaranteed and it was clearly spelt out that
no power had the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the
Ottoman Empire. Turkey was admitted into the concert of Europe from
which she had earlier been excluded. In other words, the "Sick-man" got a
new lease of life under the protection of European powers and that is
why V.D. Mahajan argues that It appears that the sick man of Europe was
put on her legs again.
However, in the long run
Russia violated the territorial independence of Turkey by supporting
nationalistic revolts such as the Bulgarian affairs of 1878. She even
defeated Turkey in 1878 and forced her to sign the treaty of San
Stefano.
7. There were some territorial
re-adjustments as a result of the Crimean war. Bessarabia was taken from
Russia and given to Moldavia. The states of Moldavia, Wallacia and
Serbia were granted a large measure of independence and internal
self-government. But they were to acknowledge and honour Turkey's over
lordship. However, this was absurd (unreasonable) because it was a step
towards the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire that the allied powers
had fought to avoid. It also encouraged other oppressed nationalities
under Turkey to rise up for their independence, which gave Russia an
excuse to intervene in the Balkans the way she did in 1878.This is a
testimony that the Paris peace conference settled "almost nothing" and
that the war was a wasteful and useless venture.
8.
The Crimean war temporarily halted Russian imperialism in the Balkans
and made Europe safer from her aggression for some time. Russia was
defeated and left weakened after the war. She lost the right to protect
the Balkan Christians and territories such as Bessarabia, which isolated
her from direct access to the Danube River. The black sea was
neutralized and the states of Moldavia and Wallacia were amalgamated to
form a buffer or barrier state between her and Turkey. These measures
made it impossible for Russia to cause any aggression in the Balkans up
to 1870. However, Russian imperialism could not be suffocated forever.
In 1870, Russia violated the Black Sea clause and by the San Stefano
treaty of 1878, she completely wiped out the humiliation of the Crimea
war by recovering and repossessing Bessarabia.
9. The Paris treaty revived the 1841 straits convention and the Black Sea was once again declared neutral.
Its
waters and ports were made open to all merchant ships and the strait
was to be closed to warships of all nations. Important waters like the
Mediterranean Sea, R. Danube and Adriatic Sea were declared free for
navigation which promoted trade in Europe. However, this was temporal
because Russia with Bismarck's encouragement violated the Black sea
clause in 1870 as France was busy fighting Prussia in the Franco -
Prussian war.
10. The unfortunate death of non-war
combatants and destruction of neutral vessels made the Paris peacemakers
to come up with the maritime law. By this law, neutral and civilian
vessels or even ships were not to be destroyed or confiscated during
war. This also included neutral equipment that could be found in such
vessels or ships. There was also a revision of the international law
governing the "right to search" which restricted the powers of the
British navy from interfering with neutral shipping in times of war.
11.
The Crimean war was the first war in which telegraph and steam warships
were used as a way of bringing the war to a speedy end. The war
therefore laid foundation for the use of steamships and telegraph in
modem wars. This has made modem wars to be fought with better plans,
tactics and organization. This is what makes modem wars more ferocious
and devastating like for instance the First World War.
12.
Lastly, the Sultan of Turkey was forced to promise fair treatment of
Christians on equal status with the Moslems within his Empire. Russian's
claim of protecting Christians was nullified. This temporally ended the
Eastern Question. However, the Paris peacemakers were short sighted to
rely on the sultan's promise of reforming his administration and giving
fair treatment to Christians. By 1876, the sultan had forgotten his
verbal promise and written pledge and the Moslems were intimidating,
harassing, slaughtering, discriminating and abusing Christians as
infidels. For instance, the 1896 Armenian massacres of Christians by
Moslems proved that the big men of Paris were very unrealistic in an
attempt to end religious persecution in the Balkans.
NB:
The fact that neither France nor Britain implored the sultan to reform
his administration and treat Christians fairly meant that commercial
interest and the end of Russian expansion in the Balkans rather than
persecution of Christians were paramount issues in the conflict. In
other words, Britain and France considered Turkish autocratic
administration a lesser evil compared to Russian threat in the Balkans.
One can therefore argue that the Crimean war was accidentally fought in
favour of Turkey irrespective of various problems orchestrated or
committed by the sultan.
No comments:
Post a Comment