Central and Southeastern Europe in the 1920s

As a result of the First World War in Europe, state borders were changed at the request of the Entente. The largest territorial acquisitions were received by Romania (Transylvania, Bessarabia and Dobruja) and Poland (Galicia, Upper Silesia and Pomerania). On the contrary, territories were cut off from Bulgaria and Hungary. The formation of two multinational states - Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia - led to an aggravation of interethnic problems.

The economic crisis after the First World War brought democratic forces to power. They began to modernize the economy (especially successfully in Czechoslovakia). The following transformations were carried out:

• concentration of production and capital;
• carrying out agrarian reform;
• attraction of foreign investments.

In Poland and Romania, the implementation of agrarian reform met with resistance from large landowners. Polish peasants could acquire land at market value. Romanian peasants were allotted land up to 5 hectares. In Yugoslavia, the land remained with large owners.

In the 1920s, authoritarian regimes were formed in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. This was facilitated by the desire of the population strong hand ruler to lead the country out of the post-war crisis. The first country with the strengthening of power were committed in Poland (General Piłsudski) and Hungary (Admiral Milos Horthy). In other countries, the establishment of an authoritarian regime was associated with the preservation of the monarchy. For example, in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the king himself initiated the coup.

Central and Southeastern Europe in the 1930s

In the 1930s, the strengthening of authoritarian regimes in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe continued. In 1930, in Romania, Carol II, relying on the nationalists, began to militarize the economy. In 1934, with the support of Tsar Boris, the political group "Link" and its leader Kimon Georgiev seized power. Having come to power, the new rulers suspended the functioning of the constitution, banned the activities of political parties and public organizations, which led to the establishment of a strong power of the state.

Authoritarian dictatorships received the support of the population. This was due to the curtailment of reforms and the restoration of patriarchal moral values. The people were proclaimed as a superclass value, which led to the spread of nationalism. The differences between the authoritarian regimes of Central and South-Eastern Europe and the fascist dictatorships were the absence of a national political leader (Pilsudski and Horthy are the exception rather than the rule) and the politicization of the masses.

The unification of the camps into the Little Entente was seen by the European states as a defense against the revolutionary influence of Soviet Russia.

Definition 1

The Little Entente is a military alliance of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania. They were supported and sought to join the union by Poland.

The intensification of German aggression in the late 1930s led to an attack on Czechoslovakia and Poland, to which territories with a German population were annexed by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938, the Munich Agreement secured the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In 1939 Germany attacked Poland.

Central and Southeastern Europe in World War II

During the Second World War, the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe turned into a zone of influence of the Third Reich.

Remark 1

Poland and Yugoslavia were subjected to German aggression and were dismembered. Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary became German satellites and contributed troops to the eastern front.

Nazi Germany planned to use the resources of countries to wage war in the east. But she did not take into account the patriotic mood of the peoples. All four years of occupation failed to suppress the aspirations for national liberation. Since 1944, despite the weakness of the resistance movement, the expulsion of the Nazis from the territory of states begins. The liberation armies relied on the support of the Soviet army and the army of the allies (USA and Great Britain). Practically in all countries the regime of people's democracy was established.

List of Eastern European countries. Tourism: capitals, cities and resorts. Maps of foreign states of the Eastern Europe region.

• Tours for May around the world
• Hot tours around the world

“Eastern Europe is what we are” - so even some 20 years ago a citizen of the USSR could confidently say. Times have changed, but this statement is still not far from the truth: Eastern Europe includes Russia proper, Ukraine and Belarus, and also, depending on the speaker's pan-Slavic views, Moldavia, Bulgaria and Romania. Actually, this division is even more arbitrary than the division of the rainbow into seven colors: sometimes this term is understood as the countries of the former socialist camp (which means that the Czech Republic, Slovakia, as well as the once constituent parts of Yugoslavia - now six Balkan republics), sometimes go deep into history even further, including here parts of Austria, Hungary, etc.

Eastern Europe

Be that as it may, one thing is indisputable: Eastern Europe is the closest geographically and spiritually to Russia part of the Old World, which, although not on the list of the most popular destinations for outbound tourism, has its devoted army of fans. It would not be an exaggeration to say that only a lazy and principled supporter of “real” foreign tourism did not bother to visit the resorts of Crimea. Well, even though Belarus does not have a gentle sea and wide beaches, it can offer a real eco-vacation in the green expanses of Central Russia: centuries-old oak forests, a delicious abundance of mushrooms and berries, a variety of game and wild “hunting” animals, lakes, nature reserves, healing mud and mineral waters ... in general, there is a complete "gentleman's set" of a tourist destination.

Eastern Europe is the closest geographically and spiritually to Russia part of the Old World, which, although not on the list of the most popular outbound tourism destinations, has its own dedicated army of fans.

For those who want to “break away” from Russian reality a little more radically and at the same time not go too far to the west, we advise you to pay attention to our distant Eastern European neighbors. In Moldova, for example, in addition to all kinds of eco-baits (dales and villages, forests and fields ...) there is also a very specific result of this very ecosystem - wine, cognac and champagne wines. It is not surprising that the tours "under the degree" here fly away simply "with a bang": a lot of wine roads pass through the country, and everyone will be able to choose their own path - literally and figuratively - based on the level of physical and moral preparation. In addition, lovers of national history should definitely get here: you won’t find such a number of Jewish and Gypsy memorial sites on the entire planet!

The objects of tourist interest in Bulgaria are the talk of the town Golden Sands (as well as lesser-known resorts Black Sea coast) plus a remarkable amount mineral springs and other deposits of natural therapeutic "appliances". Don't forget to grab the well-known bottle of rose oil from the Valley of the Roses. Romania, in addition to the above (beaches, balneology, ecotourism), offers tourists a gloomy but attractive Middle Ages: Transylvania and the castle of the notorious Count Dracula, fortified churches and monasteries and entire ancient cities, as if descended from a medieval engraving.

Among the pleasant "chips" of tourist Eastern Europe are a trifling flight (no more than 2 hours in the air), the familiar climate, the absence of a language barrier and a completely native, benevolent population. Among other things, it is easy to come to the nearest Eastern European countries by simply driving your own car!

It is generally accepted to distinguish four regions within Europe: Northern, Southern, Western and Eastern. The countries of Eastern Europe are distinguished by a lower level of economic development than their western neighbors on the continent. However, they have preserved their cultural and ethnic identity much better. What countries are included in the Eastern European region?

Eastern Europe: the problem of region identification

The issue of regionalization of Europe is rather problematic. It should be noted right away that Eastern Europe is, first of all, a historical and cultural region, and not a geographical one. Indeed, by territorial standards, only the expanses of the Russian Federation can be attributed to the eastern part of Europe. BUT geographic center Europe and is completely within Ukraine.

Let's try to list all the countries of Eastern Europe. In this issue, too, not everything is so simple, since it is Eastern Europe that is the most problematic in the process of regionalization. Germany, for example, clearly does not belong to it. But such a country as Belarus belongs, moreover, according to all existing regional maps.

To date, there are several classifications. For example, according to one of them, only Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are included in the region of Eastern Europe. The most problematic are two regions: the Baltics and the Balkans. Some geographers believe that the Balkan and Baltic countries should be attributed to this region, while others are sure that they "do not belong" there.

It is worth noting an interesting feature in the process of regionalization of Europe: all the states of the Eastern European region previously belonged to the so-called Eastern bloc of states. These are the countries that, after the end of World War II, somehow fell under the influence of the USSR.

Eastern Europe: countries, list

Interestingly, before the outbreak of World War II, geographers drew the border between Eastern and Western Europe clearly along the line of demarcation between the German and Slavic nations.

Today the most popular is the regionalization of Europe from the UN statistics department. According to this international organization, 10 countries are currently part of the Eastern Europe region. Countries (the list is presented below) of this region are ranked by the number of people who live in each of them:

1. European part of Russia (capital - Moscow).
2. Ukraine, Kiev).
3. Poland Warsaw).
4. Romania (Bucharest).
5. Czech Republic, Prague).
6. Hungary (Budapest).
7. Belarus, Minsk).
8. Bulgaria (Sofia).
9. Slovakia (Bratislava).
10. Moldova, Kishinev).

Almost all countries of Eastern Europe, with the exception of Hungary, Romania and Moldova, are Slavic states. Let's pay special attention to some of them.

Czech Republic - the tourist mecca of the region

The Czech Republic is a small state in the very center of Europe with a population of ten million inhabitants. Has no access to the seas. The basis of the economy of this country is the metallurgical industry, the chemical complex and mechanical engineering. It is here that the well-known in Europe automobile company Skoda, founded back in 1895, is located.

The Czech Republic is the country with the most developed tourism in the region. Tourists are attracted by ancient and beautiful cities, architecture and museums of old Prague, as well as stunning ski resorts. In addition, the Czech Republic is also considered the beer capital of Europe!

Poland - a country of storks and castles

Poland is a state in Eastern Europe with a rich history and a huge number of monuments. It is the "most Catholic" country in Europe. About 39 million people live here, 85% of whom profess Catholicism. More recently, Poland was in a deep economic crisis. However, in the 1990s, reforms were successfully carried out in the country, and today Poland is one of the most dynamically developing countries in Europe.

Delicious national cuisine, beautiful brick Gothic, hundreds of well-preserved castles - that's what makes Poland very attractive for tourists and travelers.

Romania is the most mysterious country in Eastern Europe

Speaking of Eastern Europe, one cannot fail to mention Romania. This mountainous country has always attracted attention with its mystery and mysticism. After all, it was here, in Transylvania, that the legendary Count Dracula lived, and today Romania successfully uses this moment to attract tourists to the country.

The Romanian economy is largely dependent on oil. Moreover, the country both extracts this natural resource and produces high-quality equipment for the oil industry. Income from tourism is growing every year. Since the early 2000s, Romanian exports have been on the rise, but the state is still in dire need of investment.

Finally...

Thus, the countries of Eastern Europe today are ten independent states. All of them are very colorful, original and have preserved the richest cultural heritage on their lands.

A manufacturing economy developed in the Aegean Sea region even before the middle of the 7th millennium BC. So far, we do not know whether this Neolithic way of life was to some extent brought by new settlers, or whether the corresponding ideas penetrated here from Anatolia over many generations gradually and without the mediation of large-scale migrations. And what happened to the Mesolithic population, was it absorbed? Based on the available data, all of these factors may have played a role. Indeed, in the earliest Neolithic settlements of the South-East

Europe's main types of livestock. ___________ sheep and goats would be

already completely domesticated. Significant transformation

LEDE.T-GIS JTom9.il NIU ANIMAL NI. L DIVOY fhjlVнOT "t Y3.- Vt butVTf^tyUCi J\ GT I iT "rt e ll n f* th TTIWY LL^K And "ChT-K^G"T"NT"TY HJ1M Hf^OTTW-

tic settlements,

assumptions that both people and cattle once came

went to Europe from other places

Gimbutas M. Civilization I Great Goddess

Unfortunately, we have almost no archaeological data on the period preceding the Neolithic. The warming of the climate in the post-glacial period led to a rise in sea levels, and it is possible that many Mesolithic sites on the islands of the Aegean Sea and in coastal areas were mostly flooded. Traces of Mesolithic and Neolithic dwellings have been found only in the Argolis region of the Peloponnese, in the Franhti Cave, but cultural continuity is not entirely obvious here either. The remains of skeletons found in this cave allow us to put forward two assumptions: either the original population belonged to local Mesolithic groups, or they were of eastern origin.

Physical type heterogeneity

Anthropological material discovered to the north, in Greek Macedonia (the settlement of Nea-Nicomedia), from the point of view of taxonomy, is heterogeneous. As Angel points out, several types were represented there: the Dinaric - Mediterranean and the so-called basic white type with Cro-Magnon features. This variability is explained by the fact that over the centuries there has been a gradual mixing of the agricultural population with hunter-gatherers. The heterogeneity of the physical type is also noted in the Starchevo culture of the Central and Northern Balkans (see Chapter II).

On the Danube, in the area of ​​the Iron Gates, one can trace a continuous cultural continuity that has existed from the late Paleolithic through the Mesolithic, as evidenced by the stability of the local European, Cro-Magnon population, stone processing, religion and art. This is the so-called "Balkan-Danubian culture of the Epigravets and Mesolithic", or "the culture of Lepenski-Vir" (Lepenski-Vir is one of the fourteen excavated settlements, famous for its sanctuaries and sculptures, to which we will return in chapters II and VII). The productive economy came here along with the Central Balkan (Starchev) culture brought by the Neolithic tribes around 6000 BC

I I R IIT e TTTTGI e s YUTA GRATTILNYR ST^e GTI How NOL/f OUTSTANDING

or ousted those who inhabited this region for more than a month

f1 \L"P¥ GTchT Y V P 1"H \L il T FT".L T TTT AT1 TT \ZhR f4 ТТ о f "1 Т*еТТ.е¥ ТТ i f\ j-tzh zht ttu "\\gt ^ s*

friend mingled 9

Navigation and trade exchange - gavnye

culture catalysts

Apparently, the skills of navigation, trade and barter, increasing the intensity of contacts between people, served as a catalyst for the unprecedented flowering of Neolithic culture. Starting from the 8th millennium BC, i.e. even before the onset of the Neolithic, traces of the existence of a trade exchange of flint and obsidian can be found 10 . After the establishment of a productive way of life, the constant growth of contacts is evidenced by the obsidian, marble and Spondylus shells brought to these places. Obsidian is a volcanic glass formed from lava saturated with quartz, ideal for sergg blades and cutting tools. Therefore, sttpos on t-gego ftLTjr use TTO ^ TOIWV and find it sometimes

kilometers from the mining sites The main source of obsidian both for the Aegean region and for the whole of Greece was the island of Melos, located in the southern part of the Aegean basin. myoyjpmpgyutgm*

Sicily. And the Carpathian basin and the Danube valleys were supplied with Carpathian obsidian from northeastern Hungary and northwestern Romania. the marble used to make bowls, dishes, ornaments and figurines could come from many places, but, apparently, its main sources were the islands of Paros and Skyros, located respectively in the southern and northern parts of the Aegean Sea, since it was there that Neolithic settlements. Beads, pendants and bracelets were made from spondylus shells characteristic of the Aegean basin. From the shores of the Aegean they are in in large numbers got to the north, to Bulgaria and Romania, and then, along the Danube, to Central Europe. Shells from the shores of the Adriatic were in circulation in the western parts of Yugoslavia and in northeastern Italy.

Chapter I. Occurrence and distribution enenie earthdelia

Developed Neolithic cultures in Greece

by 6500 BC.

By 6500 B.C. in the coastal regions of Greece and in the lowlands adjacent to them, there was a developed Neolithic mode of existence, with its characteristic production of ceramics and domesticated sheep, goats, cattle, pigs and a dog. A complete set of domestic animals appeared here five hundred years earlier than in Southwest Asia. The population already grew wheat, barley, vetch, lentils, peas and flax. It is possible that emmer rye and sheep were brought here from Anatolia, while the domestication of KDvnHoro cattle and pigs took place in South-Eastern Europe, regardless of extraneous influences.

included"
or from deer antlers hoes, wood Rice. 1-1

sunken or bone sickles with blades
viami m obsidian sherta or
kprmnya (pur 1-1) and chrgshptrpk "m ptvti
III, n™„ ^R NOGe R KI ""U"-

In the last decades of the fifteenth century The Ottoman conquest of the Balkan Peninsula ended. Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro became part of the Ottoman Empire. Croatia, after the election in 1526 of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand of Habsburg as the Hungarian-Croatian king, became part of three states - Austria, Venice and Turkey. In the same year, the Dubrovnik (Raguz) Republic on the Adriatic Sea began to pay an annual tribute to the Sultan - Khoradzh. The Dalmatian commune cities on the Adriatic - Zadar, Sibenik, Split, Kotor and Budva, a number of coastal areas on the coast of the Peloponnese and Albania, as well as part of the islands on the Adriatic, Ionian and Mediterranean seas continued to be ruled by Venice. During the Venetian-Ottoman wars of the XVI-XVIII centuries. the Turks gradually passed the Balkan possessions and the islands of Venice. The latter, towards the end of the 18th century. held the Dalmatian cities, several settlements of the Peloponnese and Albania, the Ionian Islands. Moldavia and Wallachia, located north of the Danube, in the Danubian-Carpathian region, were forced to recognize the vassalage of the Sultan: the first - in 1476, the second - in 1501.

All the possessions of the Ottoman Empire were controlled from Istanbul (Constantinople), where the Sultan's court and the High Port, the government of the empire, were located. The local civil and military administration was headed by governors - beglerbegs. At first, all the lands subject to the Porte - Rumelia - were under the jurisdiction of the Rumelian beglerbeg. Later, the beglerbeg began to be called a pashalyk, then a vilayet, and there were about ten of them. Smaller administrative units - sanjaks and nahiyas - were ruled by lower Ottoman officials subordinate to the respective beglerbegs and the whole Port. Management was carried out according to Ottoman laws and Islamic law. The Sultan's empire arose in South-Eastern Europe and Asia through very extensive conquests of other faiths and other ethnic territories, which resulted in the destruction of such independent Christian states as Byzantium, Serbia, Bulgaria, Bosnia, etc., and the transformation of the conquered peoples of this part European continent into the population subject to the Porte and the Ottoman feudal class. The absence of independent statehood of the local population meant the conservation of the most serious forms of dependence and oppression and medieval political structures.

A characteristic feature of the Ottoman domination was the discrimination against Christians. The most difficult and offensive for them was the so-called "devshirme" - a blood tax - that existed from the 15th to the beginning of the 18th century. the practice of forcibly removing boys from those families where there were several sons to be placed in special military schools in Istanbul, Smyrna and Adrianople. There they were converted to Islam and prepared for service at the court and in the elite sultan's Janissary army. The Porte pursued a policy of Islamization and achieved partial success: Muslims made up up to a third of the population of its European possessions, their enclaves spread to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Macedonia, this belief was adhered to by the majority of the population of Albania. But the bulk of the inhabitants steadfastly adhered to Orthodoxy. Religion determined their way of life, helped preserve their language and culture, contributed to the development of ethnic, and then national identity.

With the formation of the political structure of the Sultan's empire and its Balkan possessions, in essence and origin hostile to the aspirations of the population of the conquered countries, features of theocratic domination also appeared. The Ottoman conquerors extended the theocratic principle of power not only to the relations between the ruling people and the conquered peoples, but also to relations among the heterodox, non-Muslim subjects of the Sultan. After the conquest of the Balkan lands, the so-called system of millets - religious communities - was introduced. She strengthened the Ottoman power in the Balkans, ensuring the cooperation of the higher clergy of non-Muslim peoples with the Sultan's government. Representatives of the millets, receiving certain privileges from the Porte, permission to collect church fees in their favor, to conduct legal cases of fellow believers, acted as not only religious, but also secular leaders of their flock under the auspices of the Porte. At the same time, they to some extent supported the ethno-state traditions of their peoples, which repeatedly caused cruel repressions by the Ottoman authorities. In an effort to ensure the support of the local Christian clergy to ensure its dominance, Porta made the head of the first and most numerous Greek millet - the community of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The latter was not only a church hierarch, but also a person vested with secular power, responsible for the district (non-Muslim population), for paying taxes, fulfilling duties, for supplying food to the Turkish capital, maintaining roads, and in general for the loyalty of the Orthodox authorities. Outwardly, this was manifested in the fact that the patriarch had the rank of a two-bunch pasha (lieutenant general) and the rank of vizier, and he was even entitled to guards from the Janissaries. The highest Greek clergy, which became the authorized and sole mediator of all the Orthodox inhabitants of the Empire in relations with the Porte, was able to consolidate their privileged position in the South Slavic lands, where the independent Tarnovo (Bulgarian) and Pech (Serbian) patriarchates were destroyed. Only after the restoration of the Serbian Patriarchy in 1557, with the permission of the Porte, Serbian hierarchs could play the same role, competing with the Greek patriarchs and Catholic clerics. The higher Serbian clergy played a big role in the political life of the country, and the church organization in maintaining national identity and folk traditions (an independent Bulgarian church headed by an exarch was established only in 1870).

An important role in the strengthening of the Ottoman administration in the Balkans was played, along with the millet system, by the local self-government of the conquered population - Greeks, Albanians, South Slavs, preserved by Istanbul. The semi-feudal elite of non-Muslim peoples, receiving small tax breaks and certain privileges from the Ottoman authorities, carried out their orders to collect taxes, sent peasants to perform state duties, and assisted the envoys and detachments of the Porte. The inclusion of local self-government in the system of the Ottoman administration facilitated the conduct of business by the officials of the Porte, but at the same time created opportunities for uniting the subjugated population, for speaking out against the Turkish authorities.

These features of the Ottoman administration of the Balkan lands led to the appearance here already in the 16th century, and even more so in the 17th century. independent or semi-independent regions, usually in mountainous, inaccessible areas, where the local residents, in the course of a long and stubborn struggle, achieved the actual abolition of the Sultan's administration, Porte taxes were paid only sporadically, often only as a result of the punitive campaigns of the Turks. In this situation were the Montenegrin tribes, the highlanders of the coastal region of southern Albania - the Himars, the inhabitants of Montenegro, the Mani district in the Southern Peloponnese. Similar rights and privileges were achieved by the inhabitants of the Greek islands of the Aegean Sea - Naxos, Thassos, Paros, Psara, etc. (The Aegean Islands were under the special control of the commander-in-chief of the naval forces of the Ottoman Empire, Kapudan Pasha.) in the late 16th and early 18th centuries, these de facto autonomous or semi-autonomous regions were only nominally dependent on the Porte. At a later time, due to the weakening of the Turkish military force and the disorganization of the administrative system, in Northern Albania (Shkodra - Scutari) from 1756 to 1831, the Bushati feudal family ruled, and the ruler of the Yanin Pashalik (Southern Albania with the Greek regions adjacent to it in Thessaly and Epirus) from the end of the 80s of the XVIII century. until 1822 was Ali Pasha Tepelen. These semi-independent pashaliks contributed to the consolidation of the Albanian community.

The Balkan peoples waged a constant partisan struggle against the enslavers: in Bulgaria and Serbia there was a movement of the Haiduks, on the Dalmatian coast, in Croatia - the Uskoks, in Greece - the Klefts. Detachments of partisans sometimes reached large sizes and acted in an organized manner. They made not only small attacks, but sometimes raids on large cities. Living in the forests and mountains, the partisans maintained close ties with the surrounding population, receiving constant support and assistance from them.

Vassals of the Ottoman Empire - the Danubian Principalities and the Dubrovnik Republic - had their own political systems.

The dependence of Moldavia and Wallachia, in addition to the annual tribute to the imperial treasury and numerous gifts to the Sultan and his dignitaries on the occasion of Muslim holidays and solemn events associated with the appointment to the post, was expressed in the participation of their troops in the Ottoman campaigns, in the maintenance of the Turkish army during its stays on the territories of the principalities, in the supply of labor for the construction of fortifications, as well as food, in the establishment of the Ottoman trade monopoly (since the 17th century). As a sign of obedience, the rulers sent their sons and close relatives as hostages to Istanbul. The principalities retained their statehood, religious and administrative autonomy. However, civil strife and the struggle for power of boyar groups, resorting to outside help, allowed the Porte to interfere in the internal affairs of the principalities and strengthen their dominance there. The sultans approved the rulers, and by the end of the 16th century. started appointing them. The rulers also paid for the preservation of the throne. As a result, in practice, this position became an object of purchase and sale, and the rulers often changed on the throne. Only for the XVI-XVII centuries. 48 rulers were replaced on the Wallachian throne, 50 on the Moldavian throne. In connection with the appearance in the principalities in the 17th century. among the service boyars, immigrants from various regions of the Ottoman Empire, the penetration into the administration of the principalities of the Greeks - Phanariots, who came from the wealthy Istanbul quarter of Phanar, begins. The infringement of the local boyars intensified the struggle between the various factions of the ruling class. Porta, supporting the Phanariotes, encouraged this struggle, used it to strengthen its influence in the principalities. From the beginning of the XVIII century. and up to the 20s of the XIX century. from among Phanariots, the sultan appointed rulers of the Danubian principalities.

The Moldavian and Wallachian peoples waged a stubborn struggle against the Ottoman enslavers. The wars of the Habsburgs with the Ottomans and Russia with Turkey supported the hopes of the principalities for liberation from the foreign yoke. driving forces in the struggle for independence were the masses. The rulers, who at times ventured into open confrontation with the Porte, found support among the minor service nobility, who advocated the strengthening of central power as opposed to the boyars. Fearing the combined efforts of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Sultan's authorities kindled contradictions both within the ruling class of the principalities and between the principalities themselves. The struggle against the Porte was also complicated by the relations of the Danubian principalities with Poland (the Commonwealth), Transylvania, and the Habsburgs, who attempted to subdue them.

Of great importance for Moldavia and Wallachia was the victory of Russia over Turkey in the war of 1768-1774. The Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhy peace treaty of 1774 expanded the autonomy of the principalities. It regulated the payment of tribute to the Porte, limited its monopoly on trade with the principalities, protected the Orthodox Church in them from interference by the Sultan's government, and forbade the Turks to settle in the territories of Moldavia and Wallachia. Russia received the right to act "in favor of the two principalities", to protect their interests. The Russian-Turkish agreement of 1802 on the status of Moldavia and Wallachia introduced a provision that the rulers could not be removed without the approval of St. Petersburg. Moldavia and Wallachia formally remained under the rule of Turkey, but in fact they were already under the protectorate of Russia.

The Dubrovnik Republic retained almost unchanged features of the communal system that had previously developed here, associated with the complete dominance of the local patriciate (ruler, in Serbo-Croatian). All state power in the republic belonged to a closed caste of patricians, which prevented the expansion of the circle of the ruling patrician families of Dubrovnik, not to mention the inhabitants of the surrounding villages and islands. The political dominance of the Dubrovnik nobles was facilitated by very favorable economic conditions, the flourishing of trade, and increased differentiation in the popolan (“puchan”) class. The separation of the most prosperous strata of the gentiles led to the creation of new closed corporations, separated from the mass of city dwellers, but not given access to power.

The political structure of the estate-representative monarchy of the Habsburgs and its South Slavic possessions was significantly different from that of European Turkey.

The Habsburg centralization policy naturally led to the restriction of traditional national state-legal institutions, to a noticeable infringement of the class privileges of the feudal elite in the lands subject to Austria, which opened up opportunities for their Germanization. But in Croatia, Vienna had to make concessions to the local nobility. The long-term Ottoman threat and military confrontation that existed there led to the administrative division of Croatian lands into Civil Croatia and the Military Frontier. Later, the territories of Slavonia, liberated from the Turks by Croatian and Austrian troops (1699), were included in their composition. The Military Frontier, which included territories on the border with the Sultan's empire, was under the direct control of the Austrian military authorities. In Civic Croatia, which was part of the lands of the Hungarian crown, noble self-government operated - the Croatian cathedral (representative assembly), zhupan (regional) assemblies that elected officials. The administration was headed by a ban appointed by the Viennese court, usually from local magnates. In the late 70s and early 80s of the 18th century, under Empress Maria Theresa and Emperor Joseph II, the Croatian administration was transformed. Following the model of the Kingdom of Hungary, a Government Council headed by a ban was created. His powers were transferred to the Hungarian Government Council, which included a representative from Croatia and a Croatian ban. In Croatia, the institution of an imperial commissar with broad powers was also established. German was proclaimed the official language. The centralization course of the Habsburgs aroused opposition from the Croatian nobility, who stood up for the observance of traditional class freedoms. In 1790, the Croatian Council transferred to the Hungarian Sejm the right to set the war tax paid by Croatia, and renounced its own right to veto the decisions of the Hungarian Sejm concerning the internal affairs of Croatia. The administrative subjugation of Civil Croatia and Slavonia allowed the Hungarian government and the nobility to embark on a consistent policy of Magyarization.

Venice, in its South Slavic and Greek coastal regions and islands, completely subjugated the local population politically and economically. In independent city communes, the government of the republic appointed its Venetian ruler. He exercised real power within the commune, participating in legal proceedings, along with elected from among the local nobles, overseeing the defense of the city and the activities of the lower officials of the commune. Strengthening control over its Adriatic possessions, Venice created at the end of the 16th century. also the post of the supreme ruler of the Balkan provinces - the general providur of Dalmatia and Albania with the residence in Zadar; her other viceroy controlled the Greek colonies. By sharply limiting the autonomy of the Dalmatian city communes subordinate to it, Venice at the same time was forced to allow the preservation of the former local governments, which continued to conduct city affairs under the constant control of the Venetian rulers. The discontent of the local population aggravated the struggle of the main classes - the patricians and popolans in the communes. The Popolans sought to achieve participation in the Great Council - the Great Council of the city, where the patricians ruled everything, and the equalization of the rights of the Popolansky councils with the Great Council. After a stubborn struggle in many communes of Dalmatia, the popolans nevertheless achieved the expansion of their political rights, participation in solving the main urban problems.

National Revival

The idea of ​​liberation has never been banished from the hearts of the Balkan peoples. But special conditions were needed so that from dreams captured in songs and ballads, from spontaneous uprisings, they grew into an integral movement. The Napoleonic epic, which captured certain areas of the southeast of the continent, served as a generator of the liberation movement and the development of programs for the reconstruction of national states.

By the end of the XVIII century. The military system of the Ottoman Empire ceased to meet the requirements of the time. The Turkish economy, aimed at maintaining and developing a powerful military machine capable of protecting the borders of the empire, not only did not develop, but was also in a state of crisis. This was expressed in the emergence of new forms of ownership, the flourishing of the farming system and usury, which did not correspond to the basic state principles of the Porte - strict centralization and control over land ownership. In political terms, the crisis of power resulted in the growth of a separatist movement within the empire, when the rebellious pashas took up arms against the power of the Sultan. At the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th century. such performances shake Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina and even the center of the empire - the Vilayet of Rumelia. A particular danger to Istanbul was the reformed Janissary corps and the bashi-bazouks that were inactive between wars. Both were used by local feudal lords, were easy-going and brave in battle. The situation was complicated by the fall of the military power of the empire, defeats in wars. Military defeats contributed to the deepening of the crisis, undermining the foundations of the regime. Along with the victories, the booty also disappeared, whether through the treasury enriched by the war, whether in the form of primitive robbery. Sipahis (military class) lost interest in service and turned to economic affairs; income from the estate became the fundamental basis of their existence; there was a growing desire to turn their conditional holdings into private ownership (chiftlik) and to intensify the exploitation of the peasants. The merciless Janissaries turned into a trade and craft class. In 1770, in the battle of Cahul, the 17,000th corps of General P.A. Rumyantsev put to flight the 150,000-strong army of the Grand Vizier. In the last quarter of the XVIII century. in the peace treaties of Turkey with the European states at war with it, clauses began to be included regarding the position of the Christian population of the Balkan Peninsula subject to the Porte. Thus, the right of Russia to protect the interests of the Orthodox population of the Sultan's empire was introduced into the text of the Kyuchuk-Kainarji peace of 1774, and according to the Sistov peace of 1791, which marked the victorious end of the war between Russia and Austria against Turkey, it was envisaged to carry out reforms in the Belgrade pashalik bordering on the Habsburg monarchy.

It was not by chance that the Belgrade Pashalik became the center of the reconstruction of the Serbian state and the first Slavic territory of the Ottoman Empire to receive autonomy. Several factors led to the specific development of this one of the most restless pashaliks of Porta. First of all, its geographical position on the border with Austria. On the Austrian coast of the border rivers Danube and Sava (modern Vojvodina) compactly lived from the end of the 18th century. Serbian population who migrated from Central Serbia. The Austrian Serbs, according to a number of rescripts of the Austrian monarchs, had certain national-ecclesiastical autonomous rights. Direct contacts with fellow tribesmen in Austria accelerated the process of formation of the national identity of the Serbs of the Belgrade Pashalik. The second feature of the pashalik was its ethnic homogeneity - the absolute majority of the population were Orthodox Serbs, while Muslims (both Turks and representatives of other nationalities) lived mainly in fortresses and towns. The social structure of Serbian society was also homogeneous. The Serbian population of the pashalik was made up of peasants, and the process of differentiation in the countryside was very weak. The third factor that determined the exceptional role of the Belgrade Pashalik in the creation of Serbian statehood was external, namely the active intervention of Austria and Russia in the struggle of the Serbs. Under the terms of the Sistov peace, the pashalik received significant privileges, issued by special firmans of the Sultan in 1793–1794. Taxation was streamlined, a fixed amount of monetary tribute was established for the entire pashalyk, the construction of churches was allowed, elements of local self-government were introduced, the rights and obligations of knezes (village elders elected from several villages) were defined, and, finally, Janissaries were forbidden to live on the territory of the pashalyk. The latter was a very relevant decision for the end of the 18th century, because at that time the Janissary freemen devastated villages throughout the Balkan Peninsula with excessive taxes and direct robberies. In return for the privileges they received, the Serbs were obliged to carry out border guards, which meant the creation of police detachments and the right to bear arms, although the rest of the region did not have this right, since military service was an honorary duty only for the “faithful”.

In February 1804, the First Serbian Uprising broke out. It began with a spontaneous protest of the Serbian elders against the arbitrariness of the rebellious Janissary military leaders who seized the pashalyk in 1802 and completely ignored the privileges given by the Sultan to the Serbs. The Janissaries established their own rates of requisitions, frankly robbed the population, abolished local self-government, refused to carry out the orders of the Sultan and killed the pasha appointed by him. After the massacre carried out by the Janissaries at the end of 1804 and aimed at exterminating the leaders of possible resistance, Serbian representatives gathered in the town of Orašac for an assembly (people's assembly), where they decided to start an armed struggle against the Janissaries.

They chose as their supreme leader someone who had experience military service in the Austrian army of Georgy Petrovich, nicknamed Karageorgy (1768–1817). The assembly announced the beginning of an uprising that swept the entire pashalik and lasted 9 years.

At the first stage of the uprising (winter - spring 1804), the question was actually only about the expulsion of the Janissaries from the pashalyk and the return of the granted privileges. At this stage, the rebels were quite legitimate in relation to the Sultan's government and actually acted on its side against the rebellious Janissary commanders. But already in the summer - autumn of 1804, the second stage of the uprising began, lasting until 1807, when it develops into a nationwide armed struggle under the slogans of broad political autonomy and a change in the tax system. From August 1805, the rebels begin battles with the Sultan's army. At this stage, they make contact with Russia and negotiate for Russian patronage and assistance to the Serbs. With the Russian-Turkish war that began in 1806, the third stage of the uprising began, already under the slogan of creating a state independent of the Porte, headed by a hereditary Serbian dynasty. The rebels are fighting together with the Russian army, fighting in the Balkan theater. The rebels capture Belgrade, win a number of victories over the Sultan's troops, but also suffer defeats. In the summer of 1809, near the town of Chegry, a terrible evidence of the brutal reprisals against the rebels was the tower built by the Turks from the skulls of Serbs who died in battle. During this period, the first institutions of state power appear in Serbia. A government of six ministers (Governing Council) is formed. In 1811, at the assembly in Belgrade, Karageorgy was proclaimed hereditary ruler and supreme leader of the Serbian people. In 1812, Russia signed peace with Turkey, including in the Treaty of Bucharest an article on amnesty for the rebels and recognition of the autonomy of the Serbian Principality. But this article was not carried out by the Porte. Taking advantage of the fact that Russia was occupied with the war with Napoleon, the Turkish troops brutally suppressed the uprising, in September 1813 occupied Belgrade and, declaring jihad, dealt with the rebels.

Member of the First Serbian uprising Milos Obrenovic (1780-1860) soon led the Second Serbian uprising - (spring - summer 1815). His successful move forced the Turks to negotiate with the rebels and satisfy some of their demands. Over the next 15 years, Milos negotiated with the Porte and, with the support of Russia, became the first Serbian ruler to be officially recognized as a sultan and the founder of the Obrenović dynasty ruling in Serbia. Two peasants - the leaders of the Serbian uprisings Karageorgi and Milos Obrenovic - were the founders of two dynasties on the Serbian throne - Karageorgievich and Obrenović, who succeeded each other during a fierce struggle from 1833 to 1903. In 1830-1833. on the basis of agreements with St. Petersburg, the sultan issued firmans granting autonomy to Serbia (within the borders of the Belgrade Pashalik), and Milos Obrenovic was proclaimed the hereditary Serbian ruler - prince. Since that time, Belgrade began to seek from the Porte the expansion of autonomy and began to develop a strategy and tactics for the struggle for complete independence and expansion of borders.

In 1833, the autonomous Principality of Serbia, which was part of the Ottoman Empire and was obliged to pay tribute to the Sultan, embarked on the path of state building. The task was complicated not only by the fact that over the 400 years of Turkish rule the traditions of national statehood were lost, but also by the absence of a national intellectual and cultural elite. Serbian society was made up of peasants. There was neither the national nobility, which was exterminated during the Turkish conquest, nor even the guild handicraft class. And yet, in a relatively short period, by the beginning of the 20th century, all the necessary attributes of a European state were created in Serbia: government, parliament, army, police, banks, a medical service system, a wide network of educational institutions from primary schools to the university, institutions culture and arts, infrastructure, including the railway network. A new class-stratum, the bureaucracy, was rapidly forming. This necessary component of the state apparatus is endowed in Serbia with special privileges and becomes a powerful support for the regime. At the same time, there was a process of formation of the intelligentsia, which created the first Serbian political parties, determined the directions of Serbian diplomacy, laid the foundations for the development of Serbian literature and art. At the same time, the patriarchal, peasant type of society, the general economic backwardness of the country left its mark both on the nature of power and on all aspects of state development.

A distinctive feature of political life in Serbia was the continuous struggle for power. On the one hand, this is a confrontation between the Obrenovych and Karageorgiyevich dynasties, who alternately seized the throne and expelled rivals from the country. On the other hand, it is the struggle of various circles of Serbian society to limit the power of the prince. Formally, the Serbian Principality remained a constitutional monarchy, but in fact, the authoritarian regime in Serbia was replaced by an oligarchic one.

The main task facing Serbian society - the desire to unite all Serbian lands and achieve complete state independence - received in 1844 the form of an official state program. Drawn up with the help of the leaders of the Polish emigration, whose emissaries came to Serbia from France, the program, called "Inscription", until 1918 was the basis of Serbia's foreign policy concept. The document was secret and contained a plan to create a strong and vast state of Greater Serbia. According to one of the creators of the program, Iliya Garashanin, who for many years led the foreign policy of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, first of all, should have been annexed to the Serbian principality, and access to the sea should have been achieved. To implement this plan, negotiations were held with Montenegro on the possibility of uniting it with Serbia. It was planned to raise a pan-Balkan anti-Turkish uprising and enlist the support of the great powers. The “inscription” also determined the priorities of domestic policy, among which the main one was the creation of a modern, well-armed army.

In 1866–1868 Serbia becomes the center for the preparation and creation of a bloc of anti-Turkish forces in the Balkans - the Balkan Union. Secret agreements were signed with Greece, Montenegro, Romania, negotiations were held with the leaders of the Croatian and Bulgarian national liberation organizations, a wide network of agents was deployed preparing an uprising in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Old Serbia (a historical region that included the basin of the South Morava, Nishava, Lim and the region of Kosovo, where, along with the Serbian, the Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian population lived). The task of the Balkan Union was a joint action against Turkey, the liberation of the Balkan Peninsula and the division of its territory between the allies. But this task was not carried out, since in the spring of 1868 the leader of the Balkan Union, Prince Mikhail Obrenovich, was killed in Belgrade by conspirators.

The liberation struggle of the Greek population acquired at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 19th century. new political and socio-economic content. If part of the top of the Greek society (Phanariots, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the highest Greek clergy) fit into the Ottoman hierarchy, then the rich and enlightened trading and maritime environment was one of the generators of liberating ideas. At the same time, the role of the Greek diaspora, who lived in other countries, in particular, in large port cities, was significant. In 1797 K. Rigas published in Vienna a pamphlet called "The New Political Rule". It contained a call for the brotherhood of the Balkan peoples, for the establishment of equality between Christians and Muslims, for their joint struggle against the Ottoman Empire, and outlined a plan for the creation of the Hellenic Republic. Rigas wrote the battle hymns and the "Greek Marseillaise" that were widely used in Greece. The liberation plan of Rigas became known to the Austrian police. The Greek educator and revolutionary, along with his associates, were handed over to Porte, and they were executed. In 1814, in Odessa, the Greeks living there created a secret “Feliki Eteria” (“Friendly Society”), which set the goal of liberating Greece and recruited supporters not only at home, but also among the large diaspora. In 1820, the society was headed by the general of the Russian service A. Ypsilanti, who came from a noble Phanariot family. (His father at one time occupied the Wallachian throne, for assisting the Russian army in 1806–1812 he was threatened with execution, and he and his family fled to Russia.) Obviously, long-standing ties with the Danubian principalities, the presence of a numerous and influential Greek colony there, prompted Ypsilanti to start an uprising with an invasion of Moldavia, from where he hoped to cross to Greece. In March 1821, the detachment led by him, having crossed the Prut, entered the territory of Moldova. The expedition also failed Ypsilanti himself, who fled to the Austrian borders, where he was thrown into prison (released in 1827 under pressure from Russia).

The spark struck by Ypsilanti ignited the flames of the national liberation war in Greece, which began in April 1821 and soon engulfed its continental and insular parts. In January of the following year, delegates from all regions gathered in Epidaurus, proclaimed themselves the National Assembly and adopted a declaration of independence and a constitutional act: the country was declared a republic headed by a president, protection of the person and property was proclaimed, civil liberties were declared. Chosen Invasion Ottoman army in the Peloponnese was repulsed. But then strife began in the rebel camp. The movement was deeply divided by social composition: its bulk, which took up arms, were peasants; highly educated representatives of the elite, large landowners - kodzabas and wealthy shipowners, who pushed aside modest merchants and clerks, the founders of Felika Eteria, stood at the head. An important role was played by the captains of klefts and armatols, a kind of free shooters who did not shy away from robberies and robbery. Characteristically, in the Epidaurian "organic status" the question of suffrage was passed over in silence, because it determined the degree of democracy of the future state, and here there was no agreement. Conflicts between kozabas and shipowners, rivalry and intrigues of conceited captains led to two civil wars, greatly weakening the movement. And Sultan Mahmud II managed to attract the ruler of Egypt, Muhammad Ali, to his side, and in February 1825, Egyptian troops landed in the Peloponnese. In April 1826, the Turkish-Egyptian troops captured the important stronghold of Messolongion, and in July 1827 Athens fell. The position of the Greeks became desperate. They were saved by powerful outside support - in March 1828, Russia declared war on Turkey. The Adrianople Peace Treaty of 1829 provided for the recognition by the Porte of broad Greek autonomy. However, the Greeks did not want to put up with the preservation of even a formal dependence on Turkey. In 1830, with the support of Russia, Great Britain and France, the independence of Greece was officially proclaimed, which became the first country in South-Eastern Europe to conquer it. The territory in the south of the Balkan Peninsula became part of the Greek state, but most of the Greek lands were still within the Ottoman Empire. The same three powers - "patrons" imposed a monarchical system on Greece and "recommended" the young Bavarian prince Otto Wittelsbach to her throne; his coronation (he arrived in Athens on a British ship with a detachment of three thousand Bavarians) took place in 1832.

30-40s of the XIX century. took place in Greece under the sign of the formation of statehood. The heavy setbacks in the last stages of the national liberation war convinced its leaders that the movement was doomed to failure without strong support from the great powers. They had to moderate their program, abandon the unification of all ethnic lands, part with republican dreams. In Greek society, three parties were formed - "English", "French" and "Russian". Having matured, Otto began to show a penchant for personal power. At the head of the administration and the army stood the Bavarians brought by Otto from their homeland, who did not know and did not want to reckon with either local conditions or traditions. Public discontent was fueled by the stubborn unwillingness of the Catholic monarch to convert to Orthodoxy. The arbitrariness of the king, "Bavarian rule", high taxes caused in 1843 an uprising of the Athenian garrison, supported by the people and the national bourgeoisie. The uprising, which took place under the slogan of eliminating the Bavarian ministers and democratizing the state system, was crowned with success: the ministers were resigned, the Bavarian regiments were sent home, the National Assembly adopted a Constitution that established a bicameral parliament, a qualifying electoral system and the responsibility of ministers to parliament. Economic devastation, the severity of taxation, the lack of democratic freedoms, Otto's disdain for even the moderate Constitution of 1844 - all this was the cause of the revolution that broke out in 1862. The uprising of the army garrisons tipped the scales in her favor, Otto was deposed from the throne, and he left the country. The National Assembly elected the Danish prince Wilhelm Glücksburg as the new king, who assumed the throne under the name Georgios I (1863–1913). The new Constitution adopted in 1864 introduced universal suffrage for men and a unicameral parliament, proclaimed the basic democratic rights of the population. Significant changes also affected the territorial and administrative administration, as the rights of local self-government, which operated on the basis of the Napoleonic Code, were expanded.

The adoption of the Constitution of 1864 meant the end of a whole period of modern Greek history, the main stages of which were the National Liberation War for the independence of the country and the formation of the political structure of the new state from a presidential republic to an absolutist, and then a constitutional monarchy. The internal political situation in the country continued to be characterized by an intensified struggle between various clans and regional groups, and unresolved issues remained in foreign policy, the main of which was the liberation of the Greeks and national Greek territories remaining under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. In many respects, against this background, the proclamation of Georgios I was not “King of Greece”, but “King of the Greeks”, which gave reason to believe that the number of subjects of the Greek monarch is not limited to the inhabitants of the country, but also includes those Greeks who live outside the kingdom and are citizens. other (primarily the Ottoman Empire) states.

Back in 1844, in the parliamentary speech of the prominent political figure I. Kolletis, the Megali (Great) Idea was first formulated: the kingdom is only the smallest and poorest part of Greece; Greece is wherever Greeks live. Its starting point was a completely understandable and historically justified desire for the state unification of all Greeks. But the “megalists” did not stop there, but, appealing to history, encroached on territories with a long-standing mixed, and even predominantly alien, population. Crimean War 1853-1856 inspired Greek society. The news of the Sinop victory of the Russian fleet over the Turkish fleet was perceived in Athens as a national holiday, and a large-scale uprising began in Epirus, located within the Ottoman borders. King Otto dreamed of the laurels of a crusader and was preparing to personally lead the campaign of his army. The reaction of France and Great Britain was quick and tough: their squadrons blocked the shores of Hellas, and the landing force landed near the Greek capital. The government of the kingdom was forced to retreat. The Anglo-French occupiers left the country only in 1857, after the British and French cabinets imposed on Greece international control over its finances. In 1863, Great Britain handed over to Greece the Ionian Islands, which had been under its control since 1815. (A movement for joining Greece grew on the islands, which forced the British to take such a step; for this concession in London, they demanded that Athens erect their protege Wilhelm Glucksburg on the Greek throne.) But the question of uniting national lands continued to be the most burning. The uprising of the Greeks of the island of Crete in 1866 did not culminate in its unification with Greece; the Christian islanders obtained from the Porte only the right to limited self-government.

The Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 played a major role in the fate of Moldavia and Wallachia. It brought them a significant strengthening and expansion of autonomy: the “Phanariotic” period in the history of the Danubian principalities ended. Gospodarstvo became lifelong, the throne was occupied only by local natives; they could only be removed for serious crimes and with the sanction of the Russian government. Turkish fortresses were to be demolished, and the Muslim population was to be evicted beyond the Danube. A number of articles of the agreement created favorable conditions for the development of the economy of Moldova and Wallachia - instead of numerous payments, a firmly fixed tribute was introduced; trade of the principalities with other countries was no longer limited, free navigation was allowed along the Danube and the Black Sea. The Sultan refused to interfere in the internal affairs of the principalities and agreed in advance to reforms in them.

In 1829–1834 the supreme ruler of Moldova and Wallachia (both principalities) - the chairman of the boyar councils - was appointed the statesman of Russia, the enlightened nobleman P.D. Kiselev. The Russian administration had to overcome the consequences of military devastation, to fight the plague epidemic. Internal customs were abolished, freedom of trade with foreign countries was introduced, the national armed forces were recreated after more than a century of interruption, and almost identical "Organic Regulations" were adopted for the two principalities. The regulations were constitutional acts that determined the state and administrative system, the rule of law, agrarian relations and the position of different classes in society. According to them, the principle of separation of powers was introduced, ministries, the prosecutor's office and the bar were established, the police, which had previously supported itself at the expense of extortions from the population, were transferred to a salary, and the right of the merchants to entrepreneurship was proclaimed. Despite the preservation of feudal foundations, the streamlining of the state system and the implementation of reforms led in the 30-40s to rapid economic, social and cultural progress in the principalities. Political life proceeded stormily, although only a small percentage of literate residents were involved in it. Everyone quarreled with everyone: the rulers - with the big boyars, the latter - with the small ones, the emerging democratic movement opposed the boyar privilege to power and exemption from taxes. Placed on the thrones by agreement between Istanbul and St. Petersburg, the rulers exercised control in the interests of the camarilla surrounding them, handing out warm places in government, turning a blind eye to bribery and arbitrariness, and extorting themselves. Since the Russian autocracy in the principalities relied on the conservative boyars and rulers, the opposition took on a political character, they began to call it the "national party", to see it as the guardian of state interests, and to consider tsarism as a kind of guarantor of semi-feudal rotten foundations, a regime of privileges and abuses. The economic upsurge could not be long-lasting on a "boyar basis"; the hope of carrying out bourgeois reforms by the forces of the big feudal lords turned out to be utopian. The enthusiastically accepted "Organic Regulations" turned into an object of sharp criticism. Kiselev, upon his departure from Bucharest, was seen off by an enthusiastic crowd, and 10 years later, official Russia began to be viewed as a bitter enemy. Unlike Russia, France - the "Latin sister" - enjoyed the aura of a beacon of enlightenment, a treasury of progressive ideas, and the intelligentsia hoped for its support in solving national problems.

Moldavia and, to a greater extent, Wallachia found themselves in the zone of the European revolution of 1848. In Moldavia, the anti-government opposition manifested itself at a meeting on April 8, 1848, in the Peterburg Hotel in Iasi. It adopted a "Petition-Proclamation" calling for the observance of the "Organic Regulation", the guarantee of the inviolability of the person, the abolition of corporal punishment and censorship, and the creation of a responsible ministry. The document reflected the heterogeneity of the views of the audience, as evidenced by such incompatible points as loyalty to the "regulations", which reflected the opinion of the boyars, and the demand of a responsible ministry. In July, Russian troops entered the principality and the movement was nipped in the bud. In Wallachia as early as 1843, a secret society "Fretsie" ("Brotherhood") appeared, one of the organizers of which was the revolutionary democrat N. Balcescu. The society put forward slogans for the elimination of feudal privileges, the allocation of land to the peasants for ransom, national liberation and the democratization of the state and social system. In the spring of 1848, "Fretsie" resumed its activities. An executive committee was established, which was entrusted with the leadership of the revolutionary movement. Its representatives were sent to a number of counties to prepare there, with the assistance of military units, anti-government demonstrations. On June 21, in the village of Islaz, a program (the Islaz Proclamation) was read out to a crowd of peasants and a lined up company of soldiers, which provided for administrative and legislative independence, equality of citizens before the law, the abolition of titles and ranks (liquidation of the boyars), freedom of speech, assembly and press, the formation of a responsible ministry , the introduction of a progressive income tax, free education for children under 12, "direct, free and broad elections." The gospodar was to be elected for five years and turned, in fact, into the president of the republic. Two days later, the population of Bucharest rose. The frightened ruler left the country. The provisional government that was formed turned out to be moderate in composition. Most of its members did not think about the further development of the revolution, but about bringing it into the framework of "law and order" and reaching an agreement with conservative circles. Illusions about the supposedly coming brotherhood were quickly dispelled. The government turned out to be unable to solve the only issue that worried the majority of the population - the agrarian one. The boyar origin of the ministers, the close ties of merchants with large landed property, the unwillingness to encroach on the "sacred and inviolable" doomed the government to helplessness; it asked the "peasant brothers" to be patient, and the "landlord brothers" to part with part of their lands. The appeal of a few revolutionaries, led by Balcescu, "not to delay" did not meet with a response; the social base of the revolution has narrowed. In the autumn of 1848, Turkish and then Russian troops entered the principality. The Wallachian Republic ceased to exist. In 1849, Russia and Turkey concluded the Balta-Liman Convention, appointing new rulers in Moldavia and Wallachia and restoring the operation of the Organic Regulations, in other words, they tried to prolong the life of the semi-feudal system.

After the tragic lessons of 1848, in both principalities, the desire for their unification, union, and the formation of the Romanian state was widely spread: an easy reprisal against two weak countries led to the idea that in a united Romania, the people would gain strength to repulse both external and internal reaction, as well as the prospect of moving forward. Conditions for the creation of a unified state were ripe after the Crimean War. The unionists were supported, guided by completely different considerations, France and Russia. This largely contributed to the success of the unionist movement, which included representatives of various social groups (opponents of the union were conservative-minded large landowners, who feared that any reforms would affect their interests).

In 1859–1862 Wallachia and Moldova united into the Romanian Principality, which officially remained under the suzerainty of the Sultan. The first ruler of Romania was Alexander Cuza, a man of broad outlook and a supporter of reforms. Under him, monastic land ownership was liquidated, a moderate agrarian reform was carried out; peasants for ransom received plots of land on the rights of private ownership. The legal and administrative systems were reorganized in the French manner, the foundations of university education were laid, the translation of the Romanian language from the historically established Slavic alphabet (Cyrillic) into Latin was completed, and the army was strengthened. But Cuza's reign was short-lived. The reforms were costly, numerous officials robbed the population, the landowners expressed dissatisfaction with the "excesses" in the implementation of the land law. The radicals condemned the prince's inclination towards a regime of personal power and the persecution of the opposition press that had begun. The common goals of the struggle for influence and power in the state rallied for a time representatives of various political groups - from conservative landowners to petty-bourgeois radicals. In 1866, through the efforts of this coalition (contemporaries called it "monstrous" - this alliance seemed so unnatural to them), Cuza was overthrown. The "monstrous coalition" hastened to legitimize the coup. The candidate for the throne was found in the person of the German prince Karl Hohenzollern-Sigma-Ringen. A hereditary monarchy was established in the country, around which landlord-bourgeois circles rallied. The adopted constitutional and other legislative provisions (borrowed from the best European examples) did not correspond to social, economic and state-political realities and remained on paper. Before the First World War, not a single peasant, not a single worker crossed the threshold of parliament, the authorities always provided the majority in it to the government appointed by the monarch, and the gendarmerie made sure that there were no misfires in the elections.

Montenegro throughout the Turkish domination in the Balkans was in a special position. This small mountainous country, with a complete absence of cities and well-defined borders, actually never recognized the power of the conquerors. The collection of taxes by them in Montenegro was carried out only in the form of occasional military executions carried out by the Turks. In conditions of isolation from the outside world, a semi-theocratic Orthodox state was formed here, headed by metropolitans, whose residence was the Cetinje Monastery. Since the time of Peter I, contacts have been established with Russia, where material assistance came from, including cash subsidies; from the end of the 18th century Russia almost annually supplied Montenegro with bread. The political program of the Montenegrin rulers was the acquisition of fertile lands in the valleys of Herzegovina, in the area of ​​Lake Skadar and access to the Adriatic Sea, along with obtaining official independence.

The national tasks of Montenegro required the consolidation of all forces, and the country was constantly in a state of inter-tribal hostility. Even Bishop Danilo Negosh (1697–1735), the founder of the Petrovich Negosh dynasty, pursued a policy of strengthening the unity of Montenegro. Important reforms promoting the centralization of administration were carried out during the reigns of Peter I Njegoš (1782–1830) and Peter II Njegoš (1830–1851). Danilo Petrovich did not want to accept monasticism, became a secular ruler and in 1852 proclaimed himself the Prince of Montenegro. He introduced income tax, customs duties, adopted a new code of laws. "The Lawyer of Prince Danila" declared the equality of all Montenegrins before the law, determined the rights and obligations of the prince and others officials regulated family and property relations. The law book, drawn up in accordance with European norms of bourgeois law, was an important tool for pursuing a policy of centralization and stabilization. Prince Danilo also sought to expand the Montenegrin territories. As a result of the successful military operations of the Montenegrins against the Turks in 1858, the Montenegrin-Turkish delimitation was carried out, which increased the territory of the principality. Nikola Petrovich Negosh, who succeeded the throne after the death of Prince Danila (1860), directed his main efforts towards the acquisition of independence by Montenegro. He sought to solve this problem jointly with Serbia. Montenegro in 1867 joined the Balkan Union and participated in the development of a plan for joint military operations. Prince Nikola claimed leadership in the union and even expected to take the throne of the united Serbo-Montenegrin state.

Territories of Croatia in the late 18th - early 19th centuries. passed from the hands of Austria to the hands of France and vice versa. In 1797, as a result of the Italian campaign of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Venetian Republic ceased to exist and its South Slavic possessions in Dalmatia and Istria fell under Austrian rule. In 1805 they went to France, and from 1809 to 1813 they were part of the Illyrian provinces created by Napoleon. In 1815, all Croatian lands (with the exception of a small part of the so-called Turkish Croatia, which was part of the Bosnian Vilayet) were finally assigned to the Habsburg monarchy. They were subject to different imperial centers. Civil Croatia and Slavonia were part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and Dalmatia (including the former Adriatic city-communes of Dubrovnik, Zadar, Sibenek, Split, Kotor and Budva with a Romanesque, Romanized and Slavic population) and Istria with islands on the Adriatic Sea, together with the Military Frontier directly subordinated to Vienna. Thus, Dalmatia and Istria were cut off from continental Croatia, not only administratively, but also culturally - for a long time German and Italian languages ​​​​and culture reigned here. The population of the Croatian lands was not nationally homogeneous, the share of the Serbian population was significant in its composition (from 1/2 in the territories of the Military Border to 1/5 in Dalmatia), in addition, Italians, Hungarians, Germans, Jews lived in different parts of Croatia.

The reunification of the Croatian lands into one administrative unit, for a start, at least within the framework of the Austrian Empire, was the main political task of the Croatian patriots throughout the 19th century. The opponents of the Croatian administrative unification were both the Viennese center and Hungarian politicians, since this interfered with their unitarian aspirations.

In Croatia, the nobility's political tradition was never interrupted. (The Croats were the only one of the South Slavic peoples who retained the national nobility.) From the end of the 18th century. the landowners, although inconsistently, resisted the policy of Magyarization, primarily the introduction of the Hungarian language (instead of German and Latin) into the government. Educated circles - people from the poor nobility, townspeople, clergy - from the middle of the XVIII century. sporadically came up with national educational ideas, but only in the 30s of the XIX century. they received public support. A socio-political and cultural movement arose, called Illyrianism, since its ideologists declared that all southern Slavs were a single people, descendants of the ancient Illyrians. Recognizing the presence of different “branches” in the “people” (Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, Bulgarians), the leaders of Illyrianism - primarily in order to resist denationalization - called on the southern Slavs to unite in the field of culture, but also dreamed of a political union. Illyrianism was based primarily on the Croatian national unifying idea. At the same time, Illyrianism became a source not only for purely Croatian national, and later nationalist political programs, but also for Yugoslavist currents. Objectively, the leaders of Illyrianism solved the problem of uniting the Croatian nation from a population scattered across different lands of Austria and Turkey and speaking related dialects. The founder of Illyrian literature was L. Gai, who carried out the task of creating a common Croatian literary language. In 1830, he wrote and published a grammar of the literary Croatian language (it became the dialect spoken by most Croats and all Serbs - Shtokovshchina), began publishing a newspaper and a magazine in Croatian, and widely promoted the ideas of literary and cultural unity of the southern Slavs. In 1847, the Croatian Sabor proclaimed the introduction of the Croatian language as an official language in the territory of Civic Croatia and Slavonia. In 1832, Count J. Drašković put forward a project to create a Great Illyria within the empire, that is, an association capable of resisting the Hungarian cultural and economic expansion. According to Draskovic, Great Illyria was supposed to include Croatian and Slovenian lands, and later, possibly, Bosnia. But part of the nobility and officials was guided by Hungary, was a supporter of the integration of Croatia and Hungary, and in the 40s Croatia became the scene of a sharp political struggle between the Illyrian ("populists") and the Pro-Hungarian ("Unianists" or "Magyarons") groups.

In March 1848, following the outbreak of revolutions in Austria and Hungary, the Great National Assembly in Zagreb proclaimed a program of political unification and autonomy for the Croatian lands. Ban was elected border colonel I. Elachich, shortly before that, appointed to this position by the Austrian court. The Croats sought equality with Hungary, and, like the Serbs and Slovenes, they sought the transformation of the Austrian Empire into a constitutional federal monarchy, and within its framework, a political union of the South Slavs (the Austro-Lavist concept). All this was strongly opposed by Hungary. Jelacic, loyal to the Habsburgs, issued a circular severing relations with the Hungarian government. The imperial government, playing on the Slavic-Hungarian contradictions, used the Croatian political movement to suppress the Hungarian revolution. In September 1848, the army of Jelachich, following the order of the emperor, crossed the Drava River and moved to the Hungarian capital; The Croatian-Hungarian War began. Revolution of 1848–1849 on the territory of the Austrian Empire was defeated. The hopes of the Croats for an award from Vienna for their active participation in the suppression of the revolution in Hungary did not come true. The demand for the reunification of Croatian territories within the autonomous Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was not fulfilled. The only concession was the secession of Croatia from Hungary and its transfer to the control of the imperial authorities.

It soon became clear that the Habsburgs were primarily interested in a compromise with the strong Hungarian nobility. In 1867, the dualistic state of Austria-Hungary was created. Civilian Croatia and Slavonia again became part of Hungary. And the very next year, the Austro-Hungarian authorities imposed the Hungarian-Croatian agreement on the Croats: Croatia retained its administrative-judicial and cultural autonomy, but the economy and finances of Croatia were in the hands of the Hungarian government; The Hungarian prime minister proposed to the emperor the candidacy of the Croatian ban. In 1871-1881 The Croatian-Slavonian Military Border, which had lost its former importance as a special administrative entity, was demilitarized; 10 of its 12 military districts joined Civil Croatia and fell under the jurisdiction of the Croatian Ban and Sabor. Croatia's population reached 1.5 million, of which Serbs made up one quarter. The problem of relations between Croats and Serbs, especially their legal and administrative status, is becoming one of the topical issues in Croatia.

Vienna's tough course towards centralization, along with the conclusion of the Hungarian-Croatian agreement (1868), caused discontent and opposition in Croatia. The Narodnyak Party still remained the most numerous and influential force in society. Their leaders - Bishop J. Strossmaer and historian F. Rachke - became the ideologists of a new direction in the Croatian integration movement - Yugoslavism. Followers of Illyrianism, they proposed the concept of recreating Croatia in alliance with the Yugoslav peoples of the empire - Serbs and Slovenes - and the formation of a special, Yugoslav unit within the empire. They considered the cultural and ideological cooperation of all the South Slavic peoples to be the real basis for the reconstruction of the Croatian national statehood. Their position on the issue of reforming the empire was reduced to the need for negotiations with the Hungarians on a joint action in Vienna on the autonomy of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. "Narodnyaki" actively searched for allies, widely using the idea of ​​unity of the southern Slavs. In 1870, the party held the Yugoslav Congress in Ljubljana, which was attended by about 100 Croatian, Slovene and Serbian representatives, who discussed the program of a unified Yugoslav policy. The leaders of the Narodnyaks held secret negotiations with the government of the Principality of Serbia, discussing possible joint actions in the Ottoman provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later, Strossmaer and Rachki, continuing to promote Yugoslav ideas, began to advocate for the complete independence of Croatia as part of Hungary. Another party - "right-handers" - headed by lawyers A. Starcevic and E. Kvaternik, came up with a program for the state independence of Croatia. Referring to the lost "historical rights", the "right-handers" put forward the idea of ​​creating a Greater Croatia, which would unite not only the Croats, but also the territories of the Slovenes and Serbs (the latter were declared Croats). Like the great Serbian plans (the Inscription program), pan-Croatism led to an aggravation of Croatian-Serbian relations. A significant part of the Croatian political elite (mainly large landowners in Slavonia) even under the new conditions saw no other way to preserve their socio-political positions and privileges than to remain loyal to the Hungarian authorities. “Magyaronicism” survived until the beginning of the 20th century, when part of the bourgeois nobility drew closer, even merged with the bourgeoisie, and tried to defend national interests both against Vienna and against Budapest.

Eastern Crisis 1875–1878 and its results

In the summer of 1875, a popular uprising against Ottoman rule began in Herzegovina and Bosnia, and the demands of the inhabitants went beyond administrative and economic reforms. The Bosnian rebels expressed their intention to unite with the Serbian principality, and in Herzegovina the supporters of its association with the Montenegrin principality played a decisive role. At the same time, the Catholic population (minority) of both regions put forward a demand to include them in Austria-Hungary, namely in Catholic Croatia. In Serbia and Montenegro, the uprising met with a response, volunteers rushed to the rebels. Bulgaria soon revolted. Since the late 1960s, preparations for a liberation uprising have been going on here. Bulgarian patriots developed programs for the future state structure of their homeland - from the creation of the Bulgarian-Turkish dualistic monarchy headed by the Sultan to the Bulgarian Republic within the framework of the Danube Federation. Bulgarian revolutionaries, led by L. Karavelov, G. Benkovsky, Kh. Botev, raised the Staro-Zagorsk (September 1875) and April (1876) uprisings, which were suppressed. The cruelty of the Sultan's authorities, who exterminated tens of thousands of inhabitants, caused indignation in Europe, especially in Russia and other Slavic countries.

In June 1876, Montenegro and Serbia, having concluded a military-political alliance, declared war on Turkey. The principalities set themselves the task of achieving complete independence and expanding their borders at the expense of neighboring and ethnically close territories. The Montenegrin prince Nikolo Petrovich Negosh pinned his main hopes on the help of Russia, the Serbian prince Milan Obrenovic - mainly on the assistance of Austria-Hungary. The rivalry between the Obrenovichi and Petrovichi dynasties for priority in the South Slavic national liberation movement, mutual distrust on the issue of future borders for the principalities determined the complete absence of ties between the Allied Main Headquarters; Serbian and Montenegrin troops acted in isolation from each other. Russian public opinion expressed ardent sympathy for the struggling Slavic peoples. There was not only a wide collection of funds to help the victims of the punishers, but also for the purchase of weapons. 5 thousand volunteers went to fight in the ranks of the Serbian troops, among them 600 active duty officers. They retained the ranks and seniority in the Russian army - in the Winter Palace they took into account the mood of the public. Despite impressive assistance, the Serbs were defeated. They were saved from a national catastrophe by the ultimatum of the Russian government to Porte. In February 1877, Serbia and Turkey signed a peace treaty restoring the political and territorial status quo in the Principality. Offensive operations of the Montenegrin-Herzegovina troops as a whole developed successfully. The peace negotiations between Cetinje and Istanbul that began in early 1877 were soon interrupted: the Sultan's government did not want to expand the borders of Montenegro.

The Habsburg monarchy sought to prevent the creation of a strong Serbian state and only agreed to limited reforms in European Turkey. The liberation of the Slavic peoples could be a signal for their oppressed fellow tribesmen in Austria-Hungary, moreover, in the fall of 1876, the final decision was made in Vienna to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Berlin cabinet persistently advised the Austro-Hungarian and Russian governments to come to an agreement and occupy one or another, agreed upon among themselves, part of the Balkan Peninsula. The British cabinet stood for the inviolability of Ottoman rule. In St. Petersburg, they wanted to achieve maximum concessions in favor of the Balkan Slavs. At the same time, the Bulgarian problem occupied a central place in his plans, which was explained, first of all, by the obvious geostrategic knowledge of Bulgaria, located in the eastern part of the Balkans, in close proximity to the Black Sea straits. The tsarist government clung to a peaceful solution to the last opportunity. The outbreak of the Serbian-Montenegrin-Turkish war showed that further delay would lead to the loss of Russia's prestige in the eyes of the Balkan peoples and the authority of power among its own subjects. Having achieved the neutrality of Austria-Hungary at the cost of agreeing to its occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Russia on April 24, 1877 declared war on Turkey.

The Balkan countries were in alliance with Russia. On April 16, St. Petersburg and Bucharest signed a military convention regulating the passage of the Russian army through the territory of Romania. With this agreement, Russia actually recognized Romania as a sovereign state. On May 21, the Romanian parliament declared the country's independence, and the government declared war on Porte. Montenegro resumed hostilities with the Turks, and on December 13 Serbia began a second war with Turkey. The Bulgarian militias fought alongside the Russian units. The partisan detachments of the Bosnians and Herzegovinians, despite the punitive measures of the Turks, continued the armed struggle. The Russian-Turkish war led to decisive changes in Southeastern Europe. The largest events of the war were the assaults and siege by the Russian army, which was joined by the Romanian units, the fortresses of Plevna, the defense of the Shipka Pass by the Russians together with the Bulgarians, the passage of the Russian army through the Balkan Range and the defeat of the Turks near Sheinovo. In January 1878, the Russian army reached the approaches to Istanbul. On March 3, 1878, Russia and Turkey signed the pleminary peace of San Stefano. He granted state independence to Romania, Serbia and Montenegro while expanding their territories, proclaimed Bulgaria an autonomous principality, and provided for autonomy for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, the Treaty of San Stefano opened up opportunities for national, economic and cultural progress for the peoples who gained independence, weakened the political and economic power of the Porte over the peoples remaining under its rule. At the same time, the intended territory for Bulgaria - it was called Great Bulgaria - stretched from the Black Sea in the east to the Serbian border and Lake Ohrid in the west and from the Danube in the north to the Aegean Sea in the south, with its enormous size (Great Bulgaria surpassed Romania, Serbia, Montenegro combined) and incorporating areas with Slavic, Turkish, Greek, Albanian populations heated up national contradictions in South-Eastern Europe. The territorial issue also became acute in Russia's relations with its allies in the war with Turkey. Romania did not want to give Russia South Bessarabia, provided for by the Preliminary. Serbia was outraged that it received even less territory than its troops had liberated, which was especially offensive against the backdrop of favorable preliminary conditions for Bulgaria and Montenegro. In Bucharest and Belgrade, they began to seek the intercession of the Western powers for their national interests.

Great Britain and Austria-Hungary met the San Stefano treaty with hostility. Their main objections concerned Great Bulgaria as a stronghold of Russia in the Balkans and its strengthening in Europe as a whole. The tsarist government had to agree to a revision of the treaty in full, and not in part, as planned in the Winter Palace at the beginning. At the international congress in Berlin, which took place from June 13 to July 13, 1878, the borders of Bulgaria were significantly reduced, and it was divided along the Balkan ridge. Northern Bulgaria was declared a vassal state, paying tribute to the Porte, with the right to choose a prince, approved by the sultan with the consent of the great powers, as well as to maintain troops and develop an Organic status (constitution). Southern Bulgaria - it received the name of Eastern Rumelia - having gained administrative autonomy, returned to the Ottoman Empire. The Congress recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, but made changes to their borders. The territory of Montenegro was noticeably reduced, although the principality retained the fertile Herzegovinian lands and a section of the Adriatic coast. Serbia, on the contrary, received increments at the expense of districts in Old Serbia. This happened thanks to the insistence of the Austrians: in Vienna, having received the sanction of the congress for the occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they could now abandon the anti-Serb course of the campaigns of 1876 and 1877-1878. and assume the role of patron of Serbian interests. The expansion of the country was bought by Belgrade in exchange for the abandonment of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the conclusion of a convention with Austria-Hungary on trade and customs issues and the obligation of the princely government to build the Belgrade-Nish railway necessary for the Austrians. Romania somewhat increased its acquisitions in Dobruja, but transferred South Bessarabia to Russia. Herzegovina and Bosnians, instead of gaining freedom, fell under a new yoke. Austrian troops in the summer - autumn of 1878 occupied Bosnia, Herzegovina and part of the Novipazar Sanjak. (Sanjak lay between Serbia and Montenegro, and initially Russian diplomacy sought a common Serbian-Montenegrin border here, with the aim of promoting the rapprochement of both Slavic principalities, their possible future unification and preventing the advance of the Austrians deep into the Balkan Peninsula). Although the sultan continued to be the suzerain of these regions, the Viennese leadership, having introduced its administration there, considered the occupation as permanent, hoping to turn it into an annexation at the right moment.

The Treaty of Berlin of 1878 established a new geopolitical system in Southeastern Europe, the main components of which lasted until the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913. Although the congress significantly curtailed the resolutions of the San Stefa Preliminary, the Western powers were unable to change the main results of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. - granting independence to the Balkan states and the political autonomy of Bulgaria. The Treaty of Berlin was a significant step in the liberation of the Balkans and created the conditions for its peoples to move further towards progress.

Gaining independence contributed, first of all, to the development of statehood in this region. At the same time, common features are clearly visible. Raising the status of the state, the proclamation of Romania (1881), Serbia (1882), Montenegro (1910) kingdoms, Bulgaria - the kingdom (1908). Abroad, their consulates were elevated to the rank of missions. Slow but still steady constitutional development. All of them acquired the corresponding codes of laws, there was a struggle to expand the electoral, civil, political rights of the population, during which it was necessary to overcome not only the resistance of the conservatives, but also such an old disease of monarchs as the desire to strengthen personal power. General trends appeared in a variety of national manifestations.

Greece was the only state in Southeastern Europe that did not fight with Turkey during the Eastern crisis of the 70s. Despite criticism from the general public, the policies of the Hellenic kingdom followed a course of strict neutrality. This was due mainly to the self-serving policy of Athens, which sought to shift the risks and costs of the war onto others, as well as the strong pressure of the Western powers, who did not want a military action by Greece. The official circles tried to expand the borders of the kingdom through diplomacy, relying on the support of the Western powers, primarily Great Britain. And they succeeded. In 1881, in accordance with the wishes expressed at the Berlin Congress, Greece annexed Thessaly and part of Epirus.

A characteristic feature of the development of the country during the last third of the XIX century. became political instability and frequent changes of governments, the heads of which often acted from opposite and mutually exclusive positions. During this period, about 30 prime ministers were replaced, sometimes staying in office for less than a month. Against the background of numerous parties, which often did not have clear political programs, there was a structuring of two main forces, each of which had a solid social base in society. The first party, headed by A. Koumundouros, and then by T. Deliannis, united large and medium landowners who had roots in the patriarchal Greek society and spoke from conservative positions. The second party, known as the "Progressives", was led by H. Trikupis. In its ranks, representatives of the new business strata, the intelligentsia and the urban population, as well as those who were associated with the production and factory industries, united. The program settings of the "progressives" were largely focused on expanding the integration of Greece into the international economic system and increasing the presence of foreign capital in the country. During the 80-90s, the governments of Trikoupis and Deliannis, the two largest Greek politicians of the late XIX century. - succeeded each other, and the struggle between them significantly affected both the political and economic development of the country.

The pro-Western policy of Trikoupis led to the strengthening of Greece's ties with Britain and France on a wide range of issues. The program of action of the "progressives" found expression in concrete reformist activity. First of all, steps were taken to strengthen the efficiency of the parliament and fight corruption in it. To a large extent, this was to be facilitated by the new electoral law, which provided for the creation of electoral colleges, on the one hand, and, on the other, a reduction in the number of parliamentary deputies. The next direction of the reformist course of Trikupis was the reorganization of the army, the administrative apparatus and the judicial system, as well as the organization of the police. It was about strengthening the independence of judges, their irremovability. In the economic field, the governments of Trikupis focused on streamlining the country's financial system. To stabilize and revive it, the head of the "progressives" actively resorted to foreign loans and investments (primarily British), as well as to streamlining the collection of taxes. large-scale construction projects, creation industrial enterprises and reforms of the state system required an infusion of huge funds that Greece did not possess. The amount of external debt in 1879–1893 reached 468 million 358 thousand gold francs. Debt servicing required up to 50% of the country's annual national income. The Deliannis cabinets that came to replace the Trikoupis cabinets could not significantly change the situation for the better. In foreign policy, Deliannis adhered to very radical principles. However, the measures he took increased the economic chaos and led to the weakening of the country's financial system. The increase in the budget deficit became a constant factor in the economic life of Greece.

The financial situation in the country caused concern to foreign creditors, as well as representatives of the local banking elite. Their demands for the creation of the State Bank of Greece, which could act as a responsible guarantor of loans, credits and repaid interest, became more insistent. The issue of introducing international control over the country's finances was becoming increasingly important. Trikoupis' coming to power in 1893 was marked by Greece's announcement of financial bankruptcy. This forced the creditor powers to form in 1898 the International Financial Commission, which included representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy and Germany. Its task was to ensure the payment of interest on Greek loans and external debts. In fact, it turned into the highest financial and administrative body of Greece, which was entrusted with control over all finances, tax collection and the state monopoly in the tobacco and wine industries.

In the late 1990s, the Cretan question became one of the most important in the public and political life of Greece. In 1896, the situation in Crete escalated again, where the Christian population demanded the annexation of the island to Greece or the introduction of broad autonomy. At the beginning of 1897, the support of fellow tribesmen intensified in the Hellenic kingdom. In February, Greek troops landed on Crete in order to achieve the annexation of Crete to Greece, and in April, Greek militias from among the volunteers in large groups began to penetrate into Turkish-occupied Macedonia. On April 17, the Porte declared war on the Greek government, which revealed Greece's financial and military unpreparedness. During fierce battles, part of Thessaly fell into the hands of the Turks. It took the intervention of the great powers (their naval forces landed on Crete), in order to prevent a nationwide catastrophe for the Greeks. December 4, 1897 Istanbul and Athens made peace. Thessaly was returned to Greece, but separate, strategically important points remained in the hands of the Turks. The island of Crete until 1898 remained under the control of the great powers. After the departure of the German and Austro-Hungarian troops, the island was divided into British, French, Russian and Italian sectors. After the uprising in September 1898 in the main city of the island of Cania and the assassination of the British Viceroy there, the situation escalated sharply. On November 13, after the departure of the Turkish units from Crete, the National Administration was convened there, headed by Prince Georgios. Nominally, however, Turkish sovereignty over the island was maintained. A special Constitution was adopted, and in 1899 the National Assembly met for its first meeting. In fact, the island acquired the status of autonomy within the Ottoman Empire, but with very broad rights.

In Rumania, the "monstrous coalition" of landlords and big bourgeoisie that carried out the coup of 1866 proved to be a long-term and enduring alliance. Its specificity lay in the fact that industrialists, bankers, merchants not only entered into an alliance with the "forces of the past", but also adapted to the semi-feudal relations that prevailed in the countryside and only slowly gave way to capitalism. This was explained both by the boyar origin of many representatives of the new class, and by the special social prestige that the possession of the estate gave. The constitutional monarchy as a system that ensures social stability and "order" seemed attractive to proprietary Romania and she did not want any democratic or republican experiments. Political life at the forefront was still turbulent, the opposition raged and protested, but, having come to power, did not repeal the laws adopted by opponents; conservatives and liberals succeeded each other at the helm of government, widely using tenure for personal enrichment. The liberal cabinet of I. Brătianu ruled almost without interruption for 12 years (1876–1888). The last period went down in history under the name of “Vizirata Bratianu” - a former revolutionary, radical, employee of the leader of the Italian Risorgimento G. Mazzini shuffled the government at his own discretion, removing objectionable ones from it, one scandal about the theft of public property followed another, and embezzlers in the military ministry hid in a thick veil of secrecy. The indictment, which was issued by the Chamber of Deputies, spoke of threats against voters, the persecution of opposition journalists, the dispersal of meetings with the help of hired gangs, bribery, extortion, financial fraud, hiding the truth from parliament. Both parties acquired numerous clientele, eager for profitable places that promised abundant side incomes. For all that, a unified internal political course was pursued and continuity was observed during the change of cabinets.

After the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 in Romania there were stable revanchist sentiments and dreamed of a future border with Russia along the Dniester, that is, of the annexation of all of Bessarabia. The ruling circles wanted to achieve this in alliance with Germany. A staunch supporter of the pro-German orientation was the "Prussian on the throne" Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1866–1914). In 1883, Bucharest signed an alliance treaty with Vienna, which was joined by the German government. The treaty, which had an anti-Russian focus, was kept strictly secret and, in violation of the constitution, was not even approved by parliament.

Life in Serbia was marked by the colorful and unbalanced personality of Prince Milan Obrenović (died 1901). In 1881, secretly from the assembly and the government, he concluded a political convention with the Austro-Hungarian government, renouncing claims to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and giving an obligation not to enter into agreements with other countries without the sanction of Vienna. He stopped the struggle for the unification of the Serbian lands and deprived the country of foreign policy independence in exchange for recognition as a hereditary monarch, and, moreover, a king. The convention finally fixed the pro-Austrian direction of Serbia and firmly connected Obrenović with the Habsburgs. In 1885, prompted by Austrian diplomacy, Milan launched a war against Bulgaria. In Belgrade, they hoped to use the difficult political situation of the Bulgarian principality, due to the connection with Eastern Rumelia, in order to capture a number of Bulgarian territories. The adventurous campaign ended a month later with the defeat of Serbia. Milan's position in the country was undermined. The situation was aggravated by strife in the royal family, which became the talk of the town, Milan's quarrels with his wife Natalia. I had to resort to maneuvers, to negotiate with the opposition Republican Party.

The radical party headed by N. Pasic was created in 1881. It relied on the peasants and the petty urban bourgeoisie and was the most significant political force in the country. Combining the demand for broad democratic reforms in the spirit of Western liberalism and the preservation of traditional social institutions and values, the party's program proclaimed the fight against the strengthening of the bureaucratic system, the demand for a "cheap state apparatus", strict accountability and responsibility of the government to the assembly, expansion of civil rights, universal and equal suffrage . In the same 1881, two more parties took shape - liberal (leader - I. Ristic) and progressive (leader - C. Mijatovic). They also advocated reforming the socio-political and economic life, but while maintaining the primacy of the central government, they were supporters of strict centralization and etatism. Liberals and progressives disagreed on the methods of modernizing the country, as well as on the choice of Serbia's foreign policy orientation. The liberals traditionally defended the course of relying on Russia, the progressives considered partnership with neighboring Austria-Hungary to be more profitable.

In 1888, the Constitution was adopted, proclaiming Serbia a parliamentary state, though with a property electoral qualification. In an effort to save the dynasty, Milan abdicated in favor of the minor son Alexander and retired abroad, having negotiated a solid pension for himself. To the disappointment of his many enemies, Alexander, having matured, invited his father home, appointing him commander-in-chief of the Serbian army. Together they established a regime of personal power and repealed the constitution of 1888. The personal life of King Alexander added fuel to the fire of public discontent: he married a lady of dubious reputation, Draga Machine. In 1903, a denouement followed: as a result of a conspiracy prepared by the radicals and carried out by officers, Alexander and Draga were killed, and their bodies were thrown out of the windows of the palace onto the square. The assembly elected Peter Karageorgievich, the grandson of the leader of the First Serbian uprising and the founder of the state, to the throne. The change of dynasty also meant a change in foreign policy. The radicals who came to power resumed the main task of joining other Serbian lands to the state, which was conceivable only with the support of Russia.

Montenegro, after gaining independence, was still surrounded on all sides by Turkish and Austrian possessions. Having received access to the sea, it did not become a real maritime state. There were no equipped ports, no funds for the construction of the fleet. In addition, according to the Berlin Treaty, the entire Montenegrin coast of the Adriatic Sea was controlled by Austria-Hungary. The unresolved national tasks of Serbia and Montenegro were also conditioned by the open rivalry between the two ruling dynasties: Serbian - Obrenović and Montenegrin - Petrovich.

The Montenegrin throne from 1860 to 1918 was occupied by Nikola Petrovich. A skilled diplomat, skillful politician, despotic and cruel ruler, he led a complex political intrigue, seeking to seize leadership in Serbian-Montenegrin relations. He had extensive international connections, including dynastic ones, thanks to his daughters. Elena became the Queen of Italy, Zorka became the wife of the King of Serbia, Peter Kara-Georgievich, Anastasia and Milica were married to the Russian Grand Dukes and were part of the circle of people close to the Russian Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Nikola Petrovich skillfully used these connections to organize international support for his policy. He was virtually the sole ruler of the country. Created by him State Council, the Council of Ministers and the Great Court were appointed by him, and they were subordinate to him. There were no significant reforms in the field of public administration. The composition of the Council of Ministers has not changed for 26 years. The only transformations carried out consistently enough in the country concerned the reorganization of the army. This was the focus of the efforts of the Russian government, which completely took over the weapons and combat support of the Montenegrin army, as well as the training of officers. The constant budget deficit of Montenegro was also covered by the Russian treasury.

The formation of the Bulgarian national state went along the path of consolidating what happened as a result of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878. change. The Constitution adopted in 1879 by the Constituent Assembly in Veliko Tarnovo approved the hereditary constitutional monarchy as the state form of government. At the same time, the monarch was endowed with the right to approve laws, dissolve the National Assembly, and call new parliamentary elections. On the other hand, his powers were limited by Parliament. The National Assembly was divided into Great and Ordinary, that is, regularly convened. The tasks of the Great People's Assembly included the solution of such issues as amending the Constitution, the election of a monarch, the exchange or alienation of territories, and the Ordinary Assembly - the development and adoption of laws, the approval of the budget, and control over the activities of the government. The Constitution guaranteed the equality of all rights of citizens before the law, the inviolability of the person, private property and housing, freedom of speech, press, assembly and organization, the granting of suffrage to all men who have reached the age of 21, and compulsory primary education. The constitution consolidated the beginning of the bourgeois-democratic development of the Bulgarian principality.

The first Bulgarian prince was the German prince Alexander Battenberg, the nephew of the Russian Empress Maria Alexandrovna. Battenberg proved to be a stubborn supporter of personal power, prone to intrigue, and a staunch opponent of the constitutional order. Using domestic and foreign political opportunities, he sought to get rid of the vigilant guardianship of St. Petersburg, and sought support in London and Vienna.

Soon after the liberation, political groups arose in the country, which took shape as parties.

The leading political force, reflecting the moods and interests of the small and middle bourgeoisie of the countryside and city and the intelligentsia, that is, the overwhelming majority of the people, was the liberal party. She consistently defended the principles of public administration of the state, stood for the inviolability of the articles of the Veliko Tarnovo constitution, and in the foreign policy field - the comprehensive development and expansion of friendly ties with her liberator Russia. The views of the party objectively coincided with the interests of the growing commercial and industrial bourgeoisie - both with its doctrine of the state system and with its foreign policy orientation, combined with the upholding of internal independence. The political core grouped around P. Karavelov, trying to protect small owners from the exploitation of the bourgeoisie, hoped to prevent deep social contradictions. The desire of the caravelists to protect capitalist society from the natural phenomena accompanying it was an illusion. The capitalist development of Bulgaria created changes in the social structure of society and in the alignment of political groupings, which led in 1884 and 1886 to. to organizational splits in the ranks of the liberal party. In 1884, D. Tsankov's group left its membership, representing the interests of the enriched middle bourgeoisie. This group was ready for significant deviations from democratic principles, considered it necessary to revise a number of provisions of the Veliko Tarnovo constitution. The Tsankovists coordinated their political line with Russian diplomacy, expressed the latter's point of view on the development of events in Bulgaria, setting as their main task the struggle against the "radicalism" of the Caravelists. The conservative party advocated the creation of a new capitalist society with a developed industry, bourgeois modernization of agriculture, and protectionism in foreign trade. The economic program of its leaders - D. Grekov and G. Nachevich - for the accelerated development of the country was, in principle, more progressive than the utopian idea of ​​the petty-bourgeois equality of the liberal party. The conservatives associated the implementation of their program with the protection of the prerogatives of the monarchical institution and their expansion, but with the preservation of the constitutional regime as a whole. There were no fundamental differences in the internal course of the two parties. The discussions between them were a reflection of the struggle for power between a small section of the big bourgeoisie and the huge petty-bourgeois mass of the Bulgarian people. The close ties of many conservatives with Western European entrepreneurs and financiers had an undeniable influence on the formation of their foreign policy orientation. All party programs expressed gratitude to the Russian Imperial House and the Russian people. However, as the intervention of the tsarist government and its representatives in the affairs of the principality intensified, the desire to limit this interference and achieve complete independence in domestic and foreign policy came to the fore in the program documents and actions of the conservatives. The Conservative Party, which had as its social support the commercial and usurious bourgeoisie, as a rule, associated with Western Europe, as well as large landowners and part of the higher clergy, in 1884 actually disintegrated and ceased to play an independent role. A significant number of conservatives joined the Tzankovists, who from that time took their place in the political arena. Conservative leaders continued to be actively involved in political life, entering the government circles of the New Deal established in 1886, which adopted much of their concept of the political and economic development of Bulgaria.

The nature of Russian-Bulgarian interstate relations had a great influence on the political development of Bulgaria. Their general line after liberation was characterized by mutual understanding and a desire for close cooperation, despite the fact that Bulgarian politicians had their own point of view on a number of issues, which did not coincide with the views of the Russian representatives in the principality (from 1879 to 1885 the Bulgarian military ministry was headed by Russian officers; in 1882-1883 a Russian general was at the head of the Bulgarian government). In the international arena, Russian diplomacy provided assistance to the principality in matters of its policy. At the same time, in relation to Bulgaria, the tsarist government showed a tendency to interfere in its internal affairs, the desire to change the bourgeois-democratic principles of government. This undermined the credibility of Russian policy in the broad circles of the Bulgarian public. In turn, in St. Petersburg, a suspicious attitude towards the liberal political leadership of the principality intensified, people used to look at Karavelov as almost a revolutionary, and they blamed Prince Alexander for the weakening of Russian influence in Bulgaria.

After the decision of the Berlin Congress in 1878 on the division of Bulgaria, the question of unification became the main national task of the Bulgarian people. The movement was headed by the people's committees "Unity". In April 1885, the Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary Central Committee (BTRCC) was established in the capital of Eastern Rumelia, Plovdiv (Philippopolis). One of its leaders was Z. Stoyanov, a fighter for the national cause, a talented publicist, the first historiographer of the liberation movement in Bulgaria. In the program documents of the BTRCC, a goal was set - to achieve the connection of Southern and Northern Bulgaria. The leaders of the movement established contact with the head of the Sofia cabinet, Karavelov, and Prince Alexander. On September 18, 1885, members of the BTRCC, with the help of the people's couples and the Eastern Rumelian military units, carried out a coup in Plovdiv: the Turkish authorities were expelled, and the created provisional government proclaimed the union of Eastern Rumelia with the Bulgarian Principality under the scepter of Battenberg. Prince Alexander and Karavelov arrived in Plovdiv, took control of Eastern Rumelia and turned to the great powers with a request to recognize the unification. In the complex international situation that has developed for Bulgaria, its troops repulsed the military aggression of Serbia, and diplomacy, showing flexibility and decisiveness at the same time, has achieved significant success. On April 5, 1886, in the Sultan's Tophane Palace, representatives of the great powers and Turkey signed an act that meant international recognition of the unification of the Principality with Eastern Rumelia. A large Bulgarian state was created with significant resources that contributed to economic development; strengthened the political independence of the country.

After the unification, the country was faced with a dilemma: Russia or Battenberg. All political forces and groupings in the Principality joined in the discussion of the issue of Russian-Bulgarian relations. In August 1886, a group of Russophile-minded officers overthrew Prince Alexander and expelled him from the country. Battenberg's supporters, led by S. Stambolov, made a counter-coup, and he returned to Sofia. However, not feeling a strong support in the country and not having received the support of the Russian emperor, Alexander left Bulgaria for the second time and this time forever. In September of the same year, the dictatorial regime of Stambolov (1886-1894) was established in the country. Stambolov ruled the country with an iron fist: persecution of the opposition, restriction of civil liberties, forgery of election results, denunciations, beatings, political assassinations - everything was put into action. At the same time, the government of Stambolov, having strengthened in power, contributed to the modernization of the economy, the development of production, the strengthening and enrichment of the bourgeoisie. It concluded trade agreements with a number of countries, launched the construction of railways and highways, and encouraged the development of industry.

The tsarist government tried to resort to the tactics of putting pressure on the new Bulgarian leadership, but it ended in failure - in November 1886, official relations between Sofia and St. Petersburg were severed. In July 1887, the Great People's Assembly elected the German prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg as Bulgarian prince. Having firmly settled in the country, having established ties with the officer corps and the elite of society, Ferdinand was burdened by the guardianship of the almighty minister. In 1894, he gave Stambolov his resignation (a year later, the ex-dictator fell victim to an assassination attempt). In order to reconcile with Russia, Ferdinand agreed to the transition of his heir, the young Boris, from Catholicism to Orthodoxy. In 1896, diplomatic relations were restored, but since the beginning of the twentieth century. Coburg increasingly directed Bulgaria's policy in a pro-German direction.

The Eastern crisis of the 1970s brought neither freedom nor autonomy to the population of Albania and Macedonia. Turkey retained its power over him.

Albania, under the terms of the San Stefano Treaty, was to receive limited administrative autonomy; the preliminary provided for the transfer of a number of lands with an Albanian and mixed Albanian-Slavic population to Montenegro, Serbia and Bulgaria. This was the impetus for the activation of the Albanian national movement, the main content of which was the struggle for the integrity of the Albanian national regions. Great Britain and Austria-Hungary encouraged the development of anti-Slavic sentiments in Albania. The Sultan's government, interested in revising the preliminaries, also inflated the Albanians' hostile feelings towards the neighboring Balkan peoples. Under his patronage, the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Albanian Nation (Istanbul Committee) was created, which set as its task the struggle against the dismemberment of Albania, and in the future - for granting it autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. The members of this organization - merchants, landlords, government officials - believed that the rights to autonomy could be achieved peacefully, based on the premise that the Port itself was interested in this, because only in this way could it maintain sovereign power over Albania. Indeed, the Turkish government did not interfere with either the activities of the Istanbul Committee or the creation of a new organization on the territory of Albania with similar tasks. In the summer of 1878, during the work of the Berlin Congress, the creation of the League, a military-political organization controlled by the Central Council (Council of Elders), was formalized in Prizren. Among its members were many wealthy landowners, heads of feudal families, merchants, high officials and representatives of the Muslim clergy. Along with the Albanians, Slavic feudal lords, Muslims from Bosnia, Herzegovina, the Novipazar Sanjak, Macedonia, took part in the creation of the League. The Porte favorably reacted to the creation of the League, the decisions of which confirmed the desire of its members to fight against the dismemberment of the Muslim lands of European Turkey, regardless of what national groups they were represented by.

The leadership of the League sought to build an organization on the religious principles of Islam, to make it an instrument of the Porte. The 100,000-strong army, which began to be formed by the decision of the League, was to serve these goals in order to protect the borders from Montenegro to the Bulgarian lands. The decision of the Berlin Congress to transfer two districts to Montenegro - Plav and Gusinje - led to armed resistance of the Albanians. In the Central Council, and in the committees of the League, created on the ground, a radical trend emerged, which put at the forefront not religious principles, but the interests of the national and state development of the regions inhabited by Albanians. Some representatives of the movement have already spoken about the creation independent state. The League, fueled by the rising tide of Albanian national identity, was emerging from Turkish influence and control. In September 1878, Marshal Mehmed Ali Pasha, sent by the Sultan to negotiate with the Albanians, was killed in Gyakovo. In the League, the group that came out with the demand for the administrative autonomy of Albania grew stronger. This was reflected in the new program adopted in November by the Central Council of the League. From the beginning of 1879, the struggle of the League developed in two directions: against the decisions adopted by the international delimitation commissions, which infringed on the national interests of the Albanian people, and for autonomy. The defense of the port of Ulcinj (November 1880) turned out to be a failure for the Albanians, and their attempts to achieve recognition of autonomy from Istanbul by force of arms ended in the defeat of the military forces of the League by Turkish troops. By the summer of 1881, the Prizren League ceased to exist, but entered Albanian history as an organization that attempted to revive national statehood.

The cultural and historical revival of the Slavs of Macedonia, most of the inhabitants of this historical region, proceeded in the 19th century. in line with the formation of the Bulgarian nation, and many prominent Bulgarian figures were from Macedonia. The population of the region was very diverse, including also Serbs, Greeks, Albanians, Turks, Kutso-Vlachs, Jews. Since the beginning of the 1980s, Macedonia has become an arena for clashes of interests between Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. In 1903, the teacher K. Misirkov advocated the development of a grammar of the Macedonian language, different from Bulgarian, that is, in fact, he proceeded from the idea of ​​​​a special Macedonian nation. But the process of its formation (as well as the development of the liberation movement in Macedonia) was complex and slow. (Now the Macedonians - one of the Slavic-speaking nations - constitute the dominant population of the Republic of Macedonia.)