The Treaty of Paris: Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands

» John_Barr - Re: Demilitarisation of the Aland Islands

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