The Treaty of Paris

Top 2. Feb 22, 2004 11:47 AM

» John_Barr - Re: Oh NO!!!

In response to message posted by lollies100:

Yes, of course you were a well established kingdom by 1856, my apologies for a slip of the pen. I must confess I have shied away from the complexities surrounding the creation of Belgium as being far too difficult for my feeble intellect to get a proper grasp of. I understand that Leopold of Saxe Cobourg was elected king, as there was no established dynasty. So presumably there was a form of republican administration immediately after independence in 1830 to organise and supervise the election? And were there several candidates?

-- posted by John_Barr

Top 3. Oct 5, 2005 8:24 AM

» John_Barr - Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands

This posting is a catch-up on direct e-mail correspondence between Graham Robins of the Aland Board of Antiquities and Project Leader of the Bomarsund Site, and myself. We both feel that the subject will benefit from exposure to a wider audience and will hopefully attract additional comment.

The text of Graham's first message:

I have just read your article regarding the Treaty of Paris, 1856, on the Suite101 homepage. I found it very interesting, particularly with regard to the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands: "Orlov had accepted without demur Britain's demand to demilitarise the Aaland Islands."
I have also recently read Trevor Royle's account of the Crimean War (1999) and was interested to note that his account of the peace negotiations in 1856, particularly the British approach, is not what I have read, for example, in Greenhill & Giffard's "The British Assault on Finland" or the Swedish-language publications. My understanding was that the Åland Islands were demilitarised in order to limit Russian expansion in the Baltic Sea region and to place a buffer between the Russian Empire and Sweden (even that it was Sweden that pushed for the inclusion of Åland's demilitarisation in the negotiations). Royle gives all this a subtle twist by stating that the inclusion of Åland's demilitarisation, together with other requirements as part of the fifth clause was intended to make it impossible for Russia to accept the peace terms, thereby extending the war and allowing Britian to inflict more damage on Russia's military capability - perhaps Kronstadt being the most obvious target. If this is true then it means that the demilitarisation of the Åland Islands is something of a bi-product of altogether more hostile intentions from the British. What is your opinion?
Why this is so interesting is that the Åland government is intending to invest sizeable sums of money in the commemoration of Åland's demilitarisation and I feel that it is important to get as close to the truth as is possible after 150 years. Åland's demilitarisation is held up in discussions regarding conflicts around the world as being a model of conflict solution - but was this more by good luck than by good management? I work for the Åland Board of Antiquities as project leader for the site of Bomarsund, the Russian fortress that was attacked and destroyed by allied forces in August 1854.
I would be interested to hear what you think on the subject. It would also be interesting for me to know if there are original protocols from the various sessions in Paris, in which language these exist and if it is possible to gain access to them.
Best wishes
Graham Robins

-- posted by John_Barr

Top 4. Oct 5, 2005 9:09 AM

» John_Barr - Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands

Dear Graham,

Many thanks for your interesting comments and questions. First I would hasten to point out that the diplomatic aspects of the Crimean War do not constitute my strong suite - Trevor Royle whom you mention, has researched these aspects in far greater detail than I, and his admirable work on the War reflects as much.

Notwithstanding, you have asked for my opinions on the status of the Aland Islands in the end of war negotiations, so here goes. There is no doubt that the fifth point - effectively the job description free-for-all we are all familiar with; "any other duties as directed "(!!) - was added to the terms for armistice at Britain's request in the hope that the Tsar would reject them. And this would probably have been the case, viz Count Nesselrode's January 1856 note
to Prince Gortchakov: 'Before entering into the examination of the details of the document of the cabinet of Vienna, we have two general observations to make; the one relates to the content of the fifth point. In reading it, we
asked ourselves if on a principle so vaguely conceived, and which opens the door to a negotiation altogether new, even in case an agreement was made upon the four points, the hopes of peace could be realised?....The uncertainty which the reserve in question inspires cannot have but a vexatious influence in
depriving the preliminaries, even when accepted and signed, of the character of definite stipulations. It is then, in the well-understood interest of peace that we insist on the striking out of the fifth clause.'

What arguably sealed Russian acceptance of the clause came from the Prussian side. It was spread abroad by the French that Louis Napoleon wanted to open a second front in spring 56 advancing into Russia through Prussia and Poland. On the probable successful outcome of this campaign, Poland would be reconstituted as an independant kingdom, Prussia thus giving up Posen, Austria would acquire Moldavia and Wallachia, - suitable compensation being agreed for the Sultan - and would give up Galicia. This alarmed the Prussian king to such an extent that he leant on his nephew the Tsar, threatening that if he did not
accept the fifth clause, Prussia would join the allies.

Thus we have the fifth clause accepted as arguably the main negotiating area at the peace conference. Britain, obviously disappointed that her fifth clause ploy had not torpedoed the conference outright, set out to make sure it
would happen at the conference table. To this extent in my view, the demilitarisation of the Aland Island was only a pawn, if a vital one. Again personally, I do not believe that it was a contentious issue. My reading of Trevor Royle's
opinion supports this view, page 456-7 'And under the terms of the Fifth Point the allies should insist on the neutralisation and demilitarisation of the Aaland Islands in the Baltic as a means of protecting Sweden from Russian aggression. As the territory included the fortress of Bomarsund, destroyed by the allies in 1854, Palmerston believed that the claim could not lightly be refused by the Russians.'

In fact, the Alands had been offered to Sweden after the allies had taken them in 1854, and been refused. OK, there were strings attached in terms of Sweden's support for the allies, but the Swedish position suggests that possession
of the Alands was not considered significant in terms of Sweden's security against Russian aggression, itself not considered high risk at the time. In political terms however, the demilitarisation of the islands became significant. The fact that Britain easily obtained support from France and Austria for the
measure looked to demonstrate that the fifth clause was credible and created to address sensible issues , and not at all a negative device. The Russians were happy to accept willingly on the basis that it would show them as
conciliatory on clause five, and therefore more likely to attract support against the
more contentious British demands, which in fact happened.

Hope this helps. The agreement on Aland was conditional in it not appearing in the main treaty - It is referred to in article 33 as being an annex, and attached as Convention III. The full protocols are reproduced in E.H Nolan's
Illustrated History of the War Against Russia, which is probably the most practical option for you, obtainable via the usual internet bookshops.

I hope that the anniversary festivities go well.

Best regards

-- posted by John_Barr

Top 5. Oct 5, 2005 10:32 AM

» John_Barr - Re: Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands

In response to Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands posted by John_Barr:Graham Robins wrote:

Dear John,

Many thanks for a rapid and comprehensive reply. This is all very interesting from a local (Aland) perspective, though both the destruction of Bomarsund and the demilitarisation were, relatively speaking, minor elements of the Crimean War. The international dimension is a bit more relevant when considering Aland's role in modern politics, where Aland is often cited as a model in the solution of regional conflict. The recent solution to the problems in Aceh Province, Indonesia, was proposed by a Finn, using the 'Aland model' as an example. Our Peace Institute has even been used as a discussion forum by representatives from the Ukraine and Crimea (a touch of historical irony) in their attempts to resolve autonomy problems. It seems to me that events surrounding the 150th anniversary of the Paris Treaty being concluded would create a suitable arena for this matter to be thoroughly investigated. i have also had contact with Andrew Lambert, King's College, London, with regard to this question. His view is that the fifth point was more a pragmatic attempt to ensure that Russia's war losses matched the expectations that the allies had had at the beginning of the war, and the effort that had gone into the war - perhaps also to more clearly define who had won and who had lost.

I hope to be able to establish contact with Trevor Royle and put the question directly to him. I hope that you do not mind if I contact you again in this matter.

Best regards,

Graham

-- posted by John_Barr

Top 6. Oct 5, 2005 11:23 AM

» John_Barr - Re: Re: Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands

In response to Re: Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands posted by Graham Roberts:

Dear Graham,

Thank you for your most interesting mail today. The present day significance of the Aland demilitarisation in dealing with comparable disputes was entirely new to me, and certainly a delicious irony in the case of the Crimea! Against this background, the 150th anniversary certainly looks to merit more prominence for the Aland Islands Convention than it received in the overall context of the Treaty.

Whilst I remain of the firm opinion that Clause Five was devised with a view to ensuring Russia's refusal to accept the armistice terms and hence to ensure the continuance of the War, I can certainly accept Andrew Lambert's view as a
valid alternative interpretation of Britain's negotiating aims once the conference had been convened.

By all means feel free to contact me further, and I shall be interested in the further factual details and opinions that you obtain.

Best regards

John

-- posted by John_Barr