книги / Международные отношения России теория и история

were not represented at the two assemblies. Some scholars of international relations credit the treaties with providing the foundation of the modern state system and articulating the concept of territorial sovereignty.

The delegates

The chief representative of the Holy Roman emperor was Maximilian, Graf (count) von Trauttmansdorff, to whose sagacity the conclusion of peace was largely due. The French envoys were nominally under Henri II d’Orléans, duc de Longueville, but the marquis de Sablé and the comte d’Avaux were the real agents of France. Sweden was represented by John Oxenstierna, son of the chancellor of that name, and by John Adler Salvius, who had previously acted for Sweden in negotiating the Treaty of Hamburg (1641). The papal nuncio was Fabio Chigi, later Pope Alexander VII. Brandenburg, represented by Johann, Graf von Sayn-Wittgenstein, played the foremost part among the Protestant states of the empire. On June 1, 1645, France and Sweden brought forward propositions of peace, which were discussed by the estates of the empire from October 1645 to April 1646. The settlement of religious matters was effected between February 1646 and March 1648. The war continued during the deliberations.

The decisions

Under the terms of the peace settlement, a number of countries received territories or were confirmed in their sovereignty over territories. The territorial clauses all favoured Sweden, France, and their allies. Sweden obtained western Pomerania (with the city of Stettin), the port of Wismar, the archbishopric of Bremen, and the bishopric of Verden. These gains gave Sweden control of the Baltic Sea and the estuaries of the Oder, Elbe, and Weser rivers. France obtained sovereignty over Alsace and was confirmed in its possession of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, which it had seized a century before; France thus gained a firm frontier west of the Rhine River. Brandenburg obtained eastern Pomerania and several other smaller territories. Bavaria was able to keep the Upper Palatinate, while the Rhenish Palatinate was restored

31

to Charles Louis, the son of the elector palatine Frederick V. Two other important results of the territorial settlement were the confirmation of the United Provinces of the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation as independent republics, thus formally recognizing a status which those two states had actually held for many decades. Apart from these territorial changes, a universal and unconditional amnesty to all those who had been deprived of their possessions was declared, and it was decreed that all secular lands (with specified exceptions) should be restored to those who had held them in 1618.

The Thirty Years’ War Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Even more important than the territorial redistribution was the ecclesiastical settlement. The Peace of Westphalia confirmed the Peace of Augsburg (1555), which had granted Lutherans religious tolerance in the empire and which had been rescinded by the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II in his Edict of Restitution (1629). Moreover, the peace settlement extended the Peace of Augsburg’s provisions for religious toleration to the Reformed (Calvinist) church, thus securing toleration for the three great religious communities of the empire–Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist. Within these limits the member states of the empire were bound to allow at least private worship, liberty of conscience, and the right of emigration to all religious minorities and dissidents within their domains. These measures of toleration did not extend to nonCatholics in the hereditary lands of the house of Habsburg, however.

The difficult question of the ownership of spiritual lands was decided by a compromise. The year 1624 was declared the “standard year” according to which territories should be deemed to be in Roman Catholic or Protestant possession. By the important provision that a prince should forfeit his lands if he changed his religion, an obstacle was placed in the way of a further spread of both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. The declaration that all protests or vetoes of the Peace of Westphalia by whomsoever pronounced should be null and void dealt a blow at the intervention of the Roman Curia in German affairs.

The constitutional changes made by the treaty had far-reaching effects. For Germany, the settlement ended the century-long struggle

32

between the monarchical tendencies of the Holy Roman emperors and the federalistic aspirations of the empire’s German princes. The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire. They were empowered to contract treaties with one another and with foreign powers, provided that the emperor and the empire suffered no prejudice. By this and other changes the princes of the empire became absolute sovereigns in their own dominions. The Holy Roman emperor and the Diet were left with a mere shadow of their former power.

Not only was the central authority of the empire replaced almost entirely by the sovereignty of about 300 princes, but the power of the empire was materially weakened in other ways. It lost about 40,000 square miles (100,000 square km) of territory and obtained a frontier against France that was incapable of defense. Sweden and France as guarantors of the peace acquired the right of interference in the affairs of the empire, and Sweden also gained a voice in its councils (as a member of the Diet). For many years Germany thus became the principal theatre of European diplomacy and war, and the natural development of German national unity was delayed. But if the Treaty of Westphalia pronounced the dissolution of the old order in the empire, it facilitated the growth of new powers in its component parts, especially Austria, Bavaria, and Brandenburg. The treaty was recognized as a fundamental law of the German constitution and formed the basis of all subsequent treaties until the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

6. Проведите контент-анализ статьи из «Washington Post» о Французской революции. Какие выводы вы можете сделать в отношении позиций автора статьи?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-the- french-revolution/2015/07/09/6f27c6f0-25af-11e5-b72c- 2b7d516e1e0e_story.html?utm_term=.a84b5c9a8a0e

5 myths about the French Revolution

By David A. Bell Contributor, PostEverything July 9, 2015

David A. Bell teaches French history at Princeton. His “Shadows of Revolution: Reflections on France, Past and Present” is forthcoming from Oxford University Press.

33

Two hundred twenty-six years after the fall of the Bastille, the French Revolution stirs passions mostly among historians like myself. But many of the myths surrounding the revolution have proved more difficult to extinguish. Even the name Bastille Day is something of a misnomer. France’s national holiday actually commemorates two separate events: the fall of the Bastille fortress in Paris to revolutionary crowds on July 14, 1789, but also – because 19th-century legislators wanted something less bloody to celebrate – the massive, peaceful “Festival of Federation” held throughout the country on July 14, 1790, to express the French people’s commitment to liberty and unity. To mark this year’s remembrance, here are the real stories behind five other canards.

1. When told that the starving poor had no bread to eat, Queen Marie-Antoinette replied, “Let "them eat cake.”

Just three years ago, the New York Post not only repeated this myth but claimed that it “reputedly sparked the French Revolution.” In fact, the French word was not “gâteau” (cake) but “brioche” (a breadlike pastry), and the queen never made the remark. Versions of it, attributed to several earlier French rulers, circulated as early as the 1600s and appeared most famously in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Confessions,” which was written before Marie-Antoinette even married the future Louis XVI . It expressed the widespread popular conviction that luxurybesotted royals neither understood nor cared for the famine-prone poor.

Marie-Antoinette, while no paragon of humility or simplicity, had genuine charitable instincts toward poor people. But after 1789, her opposition to the French Revolution made her one of the most hated figures in the country. Misogynistic journalists depicted her as a murderous, hedonistic, sexually insatiable lesbian plotting to betray the country to France’s enemy, her native Austria (their pamphlets had titles like “The Royal Dildo” and “National Bordello Under the Auspices of the Queen”). The purported callous remark about the poor was just icing, so to speak, on the brioche.

In the fall of 1793, less than a year after the execution of her husband, King Louis XVI, the revolutionary government put MarieAntoinette on trial for crimes that included the alleged sexual abuse of her son. Found guilty, she died on the guillotine.

34

2. The French Revolution was an uprising of the downtrodden.

Charles Dickens’s “A Tale of Two Cities” is only the best known of many novels that portray France’s wretched poor taking revenge on their aristocratic oppressors during the revolution. (Not on the list, please note, is Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” source of the popular musical, whose climactic scenes take place during the Parisian insurrection of 1832, not the events of 1789).

But the poorest of the poor played relatively little part in a revolution that began among wealthy nobles and professionals in meeting halls at Versailles, weeks before the fall of the Bastille. Even the dramatic popular violence that repeatedly drove the revolution forward was mostly carried out by men with more than a little to lose. In the countryside, as many historians have shown, it was directed against elite fief-holders, and the taxes and tolls they collected above all from well-off, entrepreneurial peasants. In the cities, the urban militants who called themselves “sansculottes” (“without breeches” – i.e. those who did not dress like the wealthy) mostly came from the ranks of artisans, shopkeepers and clerks. Their leaders, though they often called themselves simple laborers, in fact included professionals and workshop owners.

3. The French Revolution invented the guillotine.

In the popular imagination, nothing symbolizes the revolution more vividly than the guillotine, which became its principal means of public execution, accounting for some 16,000 deaths during the “Reign of Terror” of 1793-1794. No less an intellectual celebrity than the French philosopher Jacques Derrida has attributed the device to the revolutionary legislator and doctor Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, who himself barely escaped it after being imprisoned during the Terror in 1794.

The book “French Revolutions for Beginners” gets somewhat closer to the truth, maintaining that while the device first saw the light of day during the revolution, Guillotin did not invent it. In fact, he opposed the death penalty, and advocated humane and painless execution by a decapitation machine as a first step on the way to the abolition of capital punishment altogether.

What’s more, similar devices had been developed centuries earlier, including the nearly identical “Halifax Gibbet” in West Yorkshire,

35

England, and the “Scottish Maiden,” which can be seen at the Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. The guillotine remained in use in France as late as 1977.

4. Maximilien Robespierre was a bloodthirsty dictator.

The figure most closely associated with the revolutionary Reign of Terror, Robespierre is widely seen, particularly on the European and American right, as a proto-totalitarian who lusted after absolute power. As Ann Coulter put it in her 2011 book, “Demonic”: “Hitler got his playbook from Robespierre.” Even Jonathan Israel of the Institute for Advanced Study, a somewhat more reputable authority, spoke repeatedly of Robespierre’s “dictatorship” in his 2014 history of the revolution.

Robespierre, a stiff-mannered lawyer from the northern French town of Arras, was just one of 12 members of the Committee of Public Safety, which exercised quasi-dictatorial powers for less than a year in 17931794. He was the committee’s most influential member, and his writings and speeches did more than anything else to define the ideology of the Terror. But the incessant demands of revolutionary politics took a heavy mental and physical toll, and as the Terror rushed toward its climax, he spent crucial weeks confined to his bed – “less . . . the man who ruined the Revolution than . . . a man the Revolution ruined,” to quote the historian Colin Jones. Robespierre’s unstable mental condition, and his inability to exercise dictatorial control over events, led directly to his fall and execution, along with several of his key allies, at the end of July 1794 (or, according to the new revolutionary calendar, the month of Thermidor, Year II).

5. The revolutionaries stormed the Bastille to free the political prisoners held there.

This myth dates back to the revolution itself and still appears regularly every July 14. “On this day in 1789, crowds stormed the Bastille prison in Paris, which is where King Louis XVI kept his enemies,” NPR’s Steve Inskeep repeated just a year ago.

It is true that during the 17th and 18th centuries, the French monarchy imprisoned hundreds of supposedly seditious writers – including, most famously, Voltaire – in the large, sinister fortress that loomed over eastern Paris. But it largely discontinued the practice years

36

before the revolution, and on July 14, 1789, the Bastille held only seven prisoners: four counterfeiters, two madmen and a nobleman accused of sexual perversion.

The Parisian crowds marched on it to seize gunpowder stored there so they could arm themselves against a feared attack on the city and the new revolutionary assembly by the royal army. The memory of the Bastille’s earlier role, however, gave its fall tremendous symbolic importance. Soon afterward, the assembly triumphantly ordered the building’s demolition. Incidentally, the column that stands on the site today does not commemorate the fall of the Bastille but rather the “three glorious days” of a later French revolution, in 1830.

Тема 6 Международные отношения в XIX веке

1.Ознакомьтесь с хронологической таблицей важных для международных отношений исторических событий XIX века. Какое значение они имели для России?

2.Проведите ивент-анализ наиболее важных, по вашему мнению, событий.

3.Какие ключевые понятия связаны с данными событиями?

4.На основании метода когнитивного картирования сделайте вывод о целях, стратегиях наиболее значимых исторических личностей периода.

37

38

39

5.Прочитайте статью о поражении армии Наполеона в России. Составьте словарь прецизионной лексики по данной теме (имена, события, топографические названия и т.д.), учитывая традиции её перевода на русский язык.

6.Составьте список русскоязычных источников по теме «Великая отечественная война 1812 г.».

7.Изучите данные источники. Какие различия в трактовках событий вы можете заметить. Чем они объясняются?

http://www.history.com/news/napoleons-disastrous-invasion-of- russia-200-years-ago

Napoleon’s Disastrous Invasion of Russia

June 22, 2012 By Jesse Greenspan

Napoleon Bonaparte is generally regarded as one of history’s top military tacticians. But 200 years ago this Sunday, he committed a grave error by leading his Grande Armée–likely the largest European armed force ever assembled to that point–across the Niemen River into Russia. Although it never lost a pitched battle there, the Grande Armée was almost completely wiped out within six months by freezing temperatures, food shortages, disease and Russian assaults. This proved to be the beginning of the end for Napoleon, who was forced into exile in April 1814.

After taking power in 1799, French leader Napoleon Bonaparte won a string of military victories that gave him control over most of Europe. He annexed present-day Belgium and Holland, along with large chunks of present-day Italy, Croatia and Germany, and he set up dependencies in Switzerland, Poland and various German states. Spain was largely under his hegemony despite continuing guerilla warfare there, and Austria, Prussia and Russia had been browbeaten into becoming allies. Only Great Britain remained completely outside of his grasp.

In 1806 Napoleon decided to punish the British with an embargo that became known as the Continental System. But by the end of 1810, Czar Alexander I had stopped complying due to its deleterious effect on Russian trade and the value of the ruble. Alexander also imposed a heavy tax on French luxury products like lace and rebuffed Napoleon’s attempt to marry one of his sisters. Exacerbating tensions was the 1807

40