Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române: (1856 - 1859)
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Romanian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Chişinău
Pontos
2010
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Monografii / Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova
9 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Great Britain an the Union of Romanian Principalities (1856 - 1859) |
| Beschreibung: | 188 S. |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV037260259 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20110711 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 110303s2010 |||| 00||| rum d | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)711843864 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV037260259 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rum | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-Re13 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dumitru, Diana |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române |b (1856 - 1859) |c Diana Dumitru |
| 264 | 1 | |a Chişinău |b Pontos |c 2010 | |
| 300 | |a 188 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Monografii / Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova |v 9 | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Great Britain an the Union of Romanian Principalities (1856 - 1859) | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1856-1859 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Unabhängigkeit |0 (DE-588)4186820-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Vereinigung |0 (DE-588)4201989-8 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Rumänien |0 (DE-588)4050939-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Donaufürstentümer |0 (DE-588)4370702-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Großbritannien |0 (DE-588)4022153-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Großbritannien |0 (DE-588)4022153-2 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Donaufürstentümer |0 (DE-588)4370702-6 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Vereinigung |0 (DE-588)4201989-8 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Geschichte 1856-1859 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 1 | 0 | |a Großbritannien |0 (DE-588)4022153-2 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 1 | |a Rumänien |0 (DE-588)4050939-4 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 2 | |a Unabhängigkeit |0 (DE-588)4186820-1 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 3 | |a Geschichte 1856-1859 |A z |
| 689 | 1 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 810 | 2 | |a Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova |t Monografii |v 9 |w (DE-604)BV021255856 |9 9 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021173405 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 41 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 476 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 498 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804143879327318016 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | CUPRINS
INTRODUCERE
..................................................................................................7
I.
POZIŢIA ANGLIEI FAŢĂ DE CHESTIUNEA ROMÂNEASCĂ
DE LA CONGRESUL DE PACE DE LA PARIS
(1856)
PÂNĂ LA
CONVOCAREA DIVANURILOR ylD-HOC
.............................................24
1.
Anglia şi problema unirii Principatelor la Congresul de Pace
de la Paris
(1856).............................................................................................24
2.
Retragerea trupelor de ocupaţie austriece din Principatele Române.
Implicarea Marii Britanii
................................................................................40
3.
Diplomaţia britanică şi elaborarea firmanului de convocare
a Divanurilor ad-hoc în Principatele Române
..............................................54
4.
Marea
Britanie
şi delimitarea graniţei basarabene
..................................67
II.
DIVANURILE
AD
-НОС
Şl DIPLOMAŢIA ENGLEZĂ
...................77
1.
Diplomaţia britanică şi alegerile în primul Divan ad-hoc
din Moldova
.....................................................................................................77
2.
Acordul de la Osborne
..............................................................................97
3.
Anglia şi problema unirii Principatelor Române în ajunul
Conferinţei de la Paris
..................................................................................106
III. ACTIVITATEA DIPLOMAŢIEI BRITANICE ÎN PERIOADA
CONFERINŢEI DE LA PARIS
(1858)
ŞI DUBLEI ALEGERI
A LUI A.
I.
CUZA
............................................................................................115
1.
Rolul Marii Britanii în rezolvarea chestiunii româneşti
la Conferinţa de la Paris
(1858)..................................................................115
2.
Poziţia Angliei în problema unirii Principatelor Române
după Conferinţa de la Paris
.........................................................................124
3.
Marea
Britanie
şi dubla alegere a lui A.
I.
Cuza
...................................131
CONCLUZII
......................................................................................................141
REZUMAT
.........................................................................................................154
BIBLIOGRAFIE
...............................................................................................168
INDICE
..............................................................................................................182
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................7
I. GREAT BRITAIN S POSITION TOWARDS THE ROMANIAN
QUESTION FROM THE
1856
PARIS PEACE CONGRESS UNTIL
THE CONVOCATION OF DIVANS AD-HOC.
.......................................24
1.
Great Britain and the problem of the union of the Romanian
Principalities at the Paris Peace Congress
(1856).......................................24
2.
The withdrawal of Austrian occupation troops from
the Romanian Principalities. Great Britain s involvement
........................40
3.
British diplomacy and the decree about the convocation
of Divans ad-hocin the Romanian Principalities
.........................................54
4.
Great Britain and the delimitation of the Bessarabian border
.....................67
II. DIVANS AD-HOC AND BRITISH DIPLOMACY
...............................77
1.
British diplomacy and the elections in the first Divan ad-hoc
from Moldova
..................................................................................................77
2.
The Pact of Osborne
..................................................................................97
3.
Great Britain and the problem of the union of the Romanian
Principalities on the eve of the
1858
Conference of Paris
......................106
III. BRITISH DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITY DURING
THE CONFERENCE OF PARIS
(1858)
AND THE DUAL
ELECTORAL VICTORY OF
ALEXANDRU
I. CUZA
..........................115
1.
Great Britain s role in the solution of the Romanian question
at the Conference of Paris
(1858)...............................................................115
2.
Great Britain s position regarding the union of the Romanian
Principalities after the Conference of Paris
...............................................124
3.
Great Britain and the dual electoral victory of
Alexandru
I. Cuza....l31
CONCLUSION
..................................................................................................141
SUMMARY
..........................................................................................................154
BIBLIOGRAPHY
..............................................................................................168
INDEX
.................................................................................................................182
■і сд
Diana
Dumitru
SUMMARY
GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNION
OF ROMANIAN PRINCIPALITIES
(1856-1859)
Towards the middle of 19th Century Great Britain reached the zenith of its
economic and political power. Possessing an unmatched navy and enormous
financial capital, the Empire sought to protect its interest in various corners
of the world. British foreign policy, although assessed by some experts as the
policy of splendid isolation , aimed to maintain a decisive influence on Euro¬
pean and world affairs, and succeeded in installing a period of relative peace,
labeled by historians as the century of Pax
Britannica1
.
Confident in the supre¬
macy of the British economic and political model, British elites supported the
world renewal based on the principles of commerce, Christianity, educa¬
tion, and constitutional regime as the main vehicles through which to ensure
humanity s progress. Among the central aims of British foreign policy was
the intention to facilitate commerce and open foreign markets in regions
that henceforth remained closed, while using the threat of force to maintain
extant commercial connections2.
While British political horizons were too wide to offer special attention
to problems associated with the two Romanian Principalities of Moldova
and Wallachia, during the period of
1856
to
1859
these territories came to
the attention of Great Britain as a possible territorial union grew in internati¬
onal significance. At this time, the British Foreign Office was forced to give
serious consideration to the issue, and its position was modified over a three
year period, adapting to the constantly shifting conditions on the internati¬
onal political scene. What was primarily perceived by historians as a series of
contradictory oscillations of British diplomats to the problem of the union
of Romanian Principalities, in reality mirrored a constant and well thought-
through political strategy, which attempted to exploit existing contradictions
between the Great Powers while promoting British interests in this region.
Questions surrounding the union of the Romanian Principalities were part
of a bigger problem
-
the fate of the Ottoman Empire
-
and this condi¬
tioned the attitude towards Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Russia,
James S. Olson, Robert Shadle,
eds.,
Historical Dictionary of the British Empire
(Westport:
Greenwood Publishing Group,
1996),
p.285; Andrew Porter, The Nineteenth Century, The
Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. III. (Oxford University Press,
1998),
p.
332.
Andrew Porter,
ed.,
The Nineteenth Century, The
Oxford
History of the British Empire, Vol. III.
(Oxford University Press,
1998),
p.
107.
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 155
although defeated in Crimean War, was still perceived as its main adversary,
sharing imperial ambitions and fearsome capabilities, which could potentially
endanger British dominance in India and other parts of the world. The rivalry
of British-Russian interests in South-East of Europe affected two central
areas of British foreign
роДсу
during this period: i) England s support to
the principle of integrity of the Ottoman Empire, which was deemed the
only means to bar Russia s expansion towards the Bosporus and Dardanelles;
and ii) safeguarding the British-French alliance in order to avoid a possible
Russian-French coalition. The problem of the union of Romanian Principa¬
lities, considered through the prism of the above mentioned factors, was of
interest to London to the extent that it would both place a solid barrier on the
northern border of the Ottoman Empire against Russian expansion and as
a means to maintain influence in this geopolitically significant region. Great
Britain s policy towards the Romanian Principalities shifted depending on the
evolution of these two aspects, placing it both in the camp which supported
union and the opposite camp; each shift in policy had considerable influence
over the political life within and international status of the Principalities.
The activity of British diplomacy referring to the Romanian Principali¬
ties during the three years before the ultimate union passed through several
consecutive stages with various content and impact. During the first phase,
which occurred between the Congress of Paris (February
-
March
1856)
and
the end of
1856,
there were political and diplomatic actions which supported
the Romanian national cause, although this was unbeknownst to British
diplomats at the time. At the Congress of Paris, for example, Great Britain
pursued policies that favored territorial union: its representatives supported
the convocation of consultative bodies (Divans ad-hoc) from the Roma¬
nian territories that would ensure the voice of local Romanian people in the
process. British representatives also insisted, with the exception of fall of
1856,
that the Austrian army depart from the Romanian territories to limit
external influence on the elections to those same consultative bodies. For
British politicians, the issue of the union of Principalities was relatively new
and this policy can therefore be understood as a means for them to under¬
stand the situation better by learning local opinions through the consultative
bodies.
Towards the beginning of
1856
there was no consensus among British
statesmen on the question of the Romanian Principalities. This was especi¬
ally true when officials were estimating the potential impact of this act on the
fate of the Ottoman Empire. Politicians like Palmerston (Prime Minister),
-ι
r s Diana
Dumitru
Clarendon (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), and Stratford
de Redcliffe
(Ambassador in Constantinople) struggled to deduce if the union of Princi¬
palities would manage to create a viable political unit capable of impeding
Russian expansion or if a united Romanian state would become an even bigger
possession of the Russian Empire. Sensibly, when the problem of union
of Romanian Principalities was proposed by a French plenipotentiary for
discussion at the peace conference from Paris in March
1856,
British Foreign
Minister Clarendon, Britain s representative at the conference, suggested that
before making any decision on this matter the population of the Principalities
should be consulted. Given that the Great Powers opinions differed greatly
on the subject, Clarendon s position saved everybody from an unacceptable
decision and gained the support of the participants at the conference.
At that moment Clarendon did not know if each of the Principalities would
support the union, but he deemed useful to find out the wishes of these
populations in order to prevent potential resentment of Romanians against
the Ottoman Empire and potential gravitation towards Russia, since Russia
was frequently identified as the protector of Christians in the Balkans against
abuse by Muslim rulers. Moreover, this solution offered time to British poli¬
ticians necessary to reflect upon various aspects of this complicated problem
and to crystallize an official position, without immediately rejecting or accep¬
ting the union cause.
In essence, Clarendon s decision was of extraordinary importance and
favored the inclusion of this issue in the agenda of the Great Powers, by
launching an institutionalized process of discussion at the highest level both
inside and outside the Principalities. Moreover, as a result of England s posi¬
tion at the peace Conference, the Turkish-Austrian plan to officially separate
the Romanian Principalities as the founding principle of the post-war settle-
ment was subverted. As the conference began, a separation of the Principali¬
ties was deemed probable, and even the French government, which was the
only strong and authoritative supporter of a union, was politically prepared
for this possible outcome. Instead, the congress s decision stipulated that
the Principalities themselves would be consulted and, depending on that
outcome, as well the outcome of a special European Committee sent to the
region, a final decision on this issue would be made at a later conference in
Paris.
The Romanian cause equally benefited from Clarendon s interventions
at the congress, which were meant to guarantee the democratic character
of the future elected assemblies of Principalities. Adept at the workings of
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 157
a parliamentary system, Clarendon insisted on electing a consultative body
which would closely represent the interests of all strata of Romanian society.
He also made sure that the decree (firman) establishing electoral rules for the
Divans ad-hoc would be prepared in common by representatives of the Great
Powers in Constantinople
—
these states being declared the guarantors of the
Principalities by the Peace Congress in order not to leave decisions up to the
Ottoman Empire s discretion. This proved especially useful under conditions
when the Ottoman Empire held a staunch anti-unionist position and was
prepared to go a long way in order to impede a favorable vote coming out
from Principalities.
Even though towards the fall of
1856
England clarified its position on
the issue of the Romanian Principalities, leaning towards an anti-unionist
position, it did not support the Ottoman plan to obstruct the consulta¬
tive assemblies. Correspondingly, British diplomats did not consent to the
proposal of Austria and Turkey to include in the firman on the convocation
of Divans a prohibitive note, which would have excluded the subject of a
union from the topics to be discussed. In addition, during discussions of the
draft of the firman in Constantinople, at the British ambassador s suggestion,
the right of the Romanian serfs to participate in the elections in the Divans
ah-hoc was recognized, a fact which has been evaluated by specialists as the
biggest reform implemented by the modification of the electoral project.
Later, after being elected to the Divans ad-hoc, the representatives of serfs
together with other liberal deputies voted to unite the Principalities.
How various political calculations intertwined and shaped British policy is
clearly visible in the example of Great Britain s position regarding the issue
of the evacuation of the Austrian army from the Romanian Principalities.
Austria displayed a noticeable intention to prolong its presence in the Princi¬
palities in order to influence Romanian opinion and to expand its economic
and political interests in the direction of the Lower Danube and Black Sea.
The Austrian government did not hide its aversion to a united Romania,
chiefly motivated by the danger such an occurrence would have to the secu¬
rity and integrity of the
Habsburg
Empire. Great Britain was dispassionate
about the potential harm that could be induced to Austria by a union, but it
cared significantly about its own commercial interest on the lower Danube.
British economic interests did not allow for excessive growth of Austria
on the Danube and therefore opposed any strengthening of Austria at the
expense of the Romanian Principalities. Primarily out of these considera¬
tions, Clarendon demanded the immediate withdrawal of Austrian troops
л
co
Diana
Dumitru
from the Principalities, pointing out that the presence of the occupation army
could restrain the freedom of expression of Romanians in the Divans ad-hoc.
British diplomats from the Principalities dismissed Austria s allegations that
the departure of Austrian troops would endanger the stability and peace in
the region and stressed that the local Romanian population would greet their
departure with satisfaction.
However, a volte face was undertaken by the British government in the
late summer of
1856.
At that time a bigger problem, those of the delimitation
of the Bessarabian border, captured the attention of London and forced it to
redeploy its political capital. The territorial dispute between Russia and the
Ottoman Empire over the town of Bolgrad considerably irritated England.
More than ever the British government was in a confrontational mood and
insisted required Russia renounce claims to the town. One unpredictable
consequence of this conflict was a temporary bond between Austria and Great
Britain, given the fact that both countries positions coincided perfectly in the
question of Bolgrad, and they were in direct disagreement with the stances
held by France and Russia
vis-à-vis
the same issue. In this particular context,
a rapprochement took place between Britain and Austria over the evacuation
of the Austrian army, while a similar rapprochement was occurring between
French and Russians. In October
1856,
the British cabinet was ready to sanc¬
tion the presence of the Austrian army during the elections in the Romanian
Principalities, at least in some towns of secondary importance .
Nevertheless, it is important to notice that once the controversy over the
Bessarabian border delimitation was settled by an agreement of the Great
Powers (January
1857),
the Foreign Office ceased to support this earlier
position of prolonging the Austrian military presence, and Austria was left
with no choice except to leave Principalities. Moreover, Clarendon resisted
the Ottoman idea (advised by Austria) to occupy the Romanian Principali¬
ties during the elections to the Divans ad-hoc. Clarendon did not hesitate to
stress that an electoral campaign is not the kind of disorder which requires a
military intervention and reminded Constantinople that any military involve¬
ment would require the approval of all signatories of the treaty of Paris.
England s support of Austria was short-lived and intended as additional
leverage in a moment of political crisis, aimed to both offset the strengthening
ties between France and Russia and to obtain a preferred outcome over the
issue of Bolgrad. In the end, to keep Russia at bay was a much more important
priority for British policy, compared to the goal of limiting Austria s influence
in the south-eastern region of Europe. Objectively, debates over the
Bessa-
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 159
rabian
border
were
minor
on the European stage; however, Britain s severe
reaction demonstrated that its political behavior was driven by its ambition
to force Russia into a quarantine and to annihilate its military and maritime
capacity for a long time. But this policy was doomed to failure as long as it
was not supported by another central power
-
France.
England publicly opposed the union of Romanian Principalities in the
next phase, from
1857
to the start of
1858,
marked by the departure of the
British ambassador in Constantinople, Stratford
de Redcliffe.
Again, the atti¬
tude of the British government was shaped by multiple factors. In part, the
anti-union position represented a reaction to the Russian-French political
rapprochement, which took shape after the Congress of Paris and became
clearly visible in their united pro-union position
vis-à-vis
the Principalities.
The British ambassador in Paris, over time, had become convinced that
Napoleon III was more interested in the union of Romanian Principalities
than in the preservation of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans persuasive
arguments that the union would inevitably lead to Principalities secession
from its suzerainty, accompanied by the apprehension that a union of the
Principalities may cause the strengthening of France s influence in South East
Europe to the detriment of England, also helped convince British statesmen
to work against the union. The French-British political rivalry found clear
expression in the diplomatic rivalry between the French and British ambassa¬
dors in Constantinople, culminating with a disquieting international crisis in
the summer of
1857.
A special responsibility for the crisis was borne by Ambassador Stratford
de
Redcliffe who, being driven at once by political and personal motives,
recklessly escalated the relationship between the pro and anti-unionist camps
formed by the Great Powers. The Ambassador happened to be a person
of extraordinary character and experience. A man of a remarkable ambi¬
tion, tenacity, and willpower, Stratford had a long and unchallenged career
in Constantinople, managing to force the departure of three French repre¬
sentatives in the Ottoman Empire:
Edmond de
Lacour,
Achille
Baraguey
d Hilliers, and Vincent
Benedetti.
Achieving such overwhelming influence,
Stratford the Redcliffe became unbearable to the Turks themselves, who
made several unsuccessful attempts to get rid of the man nicknamed The
Padishah .
Stratford, a passionate reformist of the Ottoman Empire, personally beli¬
eved that only a strong unitary Romanian state, which would include the terri¬
tory of Bessarabia, could resist the aggrandizement attempts of both Russia
-ι
¿q
Diana
Dumitru
and Austria and protect the northern border of the Ottoman Empire. Once
Stratford s decision was made, he would settle for nothing less. His position
was such that if he did not receive his first choice of a full union that included
Bessarabia, he preferred no union at all and would support two separate
Romanian Principalities. The dispatch to Constantinople of one of the most
talented and bright French diplomats, thirty-seven year-oid
Antoine Edouard
Thouvenel, overshadowed the unlimited authority of Stratford at the Turkish
court. Although permanently amiable and polite with the British ambassador,
Thouvenel never represented for Stratford anything more than six feet three
inches of Gallic intimidation . From the moment it became clear that the
French and British governments supported opposite views on the Romanian
issue, these two ambassadors competed fiercely in their attempts to influence
decisions made in Constantinople. This rivalry escalated in the summer of
1857,
sparked by events connected to the elections in the first Divan ad-hoc
from Moldova.
The elections in the Divans ad-hoc were transformed into fields of stru¬
ggle, where chicanery, intimidation, and corruption were used by both internal
and external pro-union and anti-union forces, in order to achieve their desired
outcome. The situation became especially tense in Moldova, where the anti-
unionist faction, led by Austria and Turkey, and supported by the kaymakam
Nicolae Vogoride, indulged into excessive abuses of power, which provoked
energetic protests from France, Russia, Prussia, and Sardinia. Encouraged
and pressed by Stratford
de
Redcliffe, Constantinople stubbornly insisted
on recognizing the results of the fraudulent elections in the Divan ad-hoc of
Moldova, while the French ambassador was authorized to ask for the dismissal
of Vogoride and the revision of electoral lists. During that period, Thouvenel
complained to his superiors that Stratford s behavior became the sixth Power
of Europe and that the British ambassador made a personal cause out of the
union question and the support of Vogoride. The situation ended up with the
breaking off of diplomatic relations between the Ottoman Empire and the
other four protesting states (France, Russia, Prussia, and Sardinia).
Yet, it is important to emphasize that the accusations launched by some
20th Century Romanian historians regarding England s direct participation in
and/or encouragement of pro-unionist schemes during the Moldovan elec¬
tions proved to be groundless. In spite of the fact that the British government
preferred to maintain the results of the election of the Moldovan Divan,
which would have probably voted against the union, this did not mean that the
British diplomats participated to the Austrian-Turkish machinations. In fact,
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 161
the circumstances of rigged elections from Moldova offers a perfect example
of the complexity and the ambivalence of the British position
vis-à-vis
Roma¬
nian Principalities and the nuances of opinions that existed among different
currents of British politicians. Stratford
de Redcliffe,
for example, was iden¬
tified with an extreme anti-unionist position, ready to overcome many reaso¬
nable limits and rigors in order to see this goal accomplished. However, one
should not disregard the fact that the energetic actions of the British ambas¬
sador in Constantinople were prompted not only by indications referring to
the political course of the British government, but especially by the personal
fight of Stratford with the French ambassador Thouvenel.
On the other hand, Henry Bulwer, the British Commissar in the Prin¬
cipalities embodied the voice of reason and the pragmatic spirit of the
English statesman, who felt obliged to condemn the abuses and frauds taking
place in Moldova and who did not hesitate to openly press for an honest and
sincere way to solve this thorny problem. During the electoral period, Henry
Bulwer warned both Turkish and Moldovan authorities several times against
the disastrous consequences of a policy of intimidation and corruption of the
electoral process, suggesting as a better alternative an honest and legal way .
The solution suggested to the British government and Ottoman Empire by
this Bulwer was to insist as much they would like on the separation of the
Principalities at the future forum of Great Powers but to allow the arrange¬
ments agreed during Paris Peace Conference to take place without disruption.
The essence of British policy was still formulated by Clarendon, who
demonstrated an approach that can be classified as utilitarian . The issue
of the Romanian Principalities, considered at the level of the British Foreign
Office, had an importance only to the extent it had direct repercussions on
the stability of the Ottoman Empire, the balance of power in Europe, and
international peace; considerations of Romanians local and national interests
came at the end of Clarendon s list of priorities. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs had little concern over the fraudulent Moldovan elections and, if
possible, would have preferred a Divan that would vote against the union.
At the same time, he did not want to be engulfed by international complica¬
tions caused by such insignificant matters as the elections in the Principali¬
ties. Although the Minister presented Stratford with serious accusations for
inciting this political conflict, the British government nevertheless was wary
not allow the predominance of France in Constantinople and not to create
a precedent of France imposing a decision (unilaterally, or in concert with
other powers) that circumvented Great Britain as a decisive factor. The solu-
162
Diana
Dumitru
tion,
London believed, should be achieved by mutual agreement between the
rivaling allies of France and Britain.
The crisis was kept under control as a result of personal meeting between
Napoleon III and Queen Victoria, at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight.
These were accompanied by their Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Walewski
and Clarendon, and Prime Minister Palmerston was also present during the
discussions which took place between August
6
and
10, 1857.
As a result of
long and intense negotiations, France and Great Britain agreed on the cance-
lation of the fraudulent Moldovan elections, both states displaying predispo¬
sitions for conciliation and reciprocal concessions regarding the problems
associated with the union of the Romanian Principalities. Since the negotia¬
tions at Osborne House were kept secret and the agreement was not formu¬
lated in any written documents signed by both parties, it remains difficult to
accurately assess the terms of the compromise. Despite various contradictory
information provided by French and English sources, it is clear that the two
sides were prepared to sacrifice the interests of those within the Principalities
to save the Franco
—
British alliance.
England s concession at Osborne House was immediate and visible to the
international community, while France s concession was more opaque and
therefore subjected to numerous speculations. France did promise it would
renounce to the idea of a foreign prince ruling the Principalities and assured
Britain it would agree to her requests during the next conference dedicated to
the issue of Romanian Principalities. This promise had a vague and uncertain
character and the French were the ones who first tried to convince them¬
selves that this did not mean renouncing the idea of a Romanian union.
It is plausible that, in exchange for the support for new and fair elections
in Moldova, the British side tried to obtain France s promise to support a
narrower platform at the next conference, such as preserving separate gover¬
nments within the Principalities, even in the case of a large administrative
union . France may have agreed to this to this for, within the framework of
the existing balance of power in international relations, it was apparent even
for the French government that it might be necessary to delay or accomplish
only a gradual union of the Romanian Principalities. With the exception of
the idea of a foreign prince, France had not yet decided what exactly it would
eradicate from the program of complete union. It also continued to hope that
in the case of a positive voice expressed by the Divans ad-hoc, the British
government, influenced by public opinion, could ultimately change its mind
and accept the union.
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 163
Lord
Stratford
de Redcliffe
was not prepared to put up with the situation
imposed by the Osborne accord and he did not rush to fulfill his orders to
convince the Ottomans to annul the elections to the Moldovan Divan ad-hoc.
Frustrated by tergiversations and the futility of messages from London, the
Foreign Office achieved the desired annulment by threatening to cease its
official ties with Constantinople if the Ottomans did not accept this demand.
Clearly, after the Osborne accord, Stratford s career was coming to a close.
The continuation of the personal fight between Stratford and Thouvenel
in Constantinople was detrimental for one of the most important elements
of Britain s foreign policy: the Anglo-French relationship. At the beginning
of
1858,
a new cabinet was swift to accept Stratford s letter of resignation
and Henry Bulwer, the British Commissar in the Principalities, was sent to
Constantinople as the new British Ambassador. The moderate and concilia¬
tory spirit of Bulwer was much more suitable to the British political course
than the recalcitrance and ultra-patriotism of Redcliffe.
The controversy over the issue of the Romanian Principalities and the
overwhelmingly pro-unionist voices within the elected Divans ad-hoc
attracted the attention of the British public. The debates that took place over
the issue in the House of Commons on May 4th,
1858
are quite evocative.
A prominent politician and future Prime Minister, Gladstone, put forward
a motion that asked for support of the Romanian national cause. The vigo¬
rous deliberations that followed involved Lord Russell, Roebuck, Palmerson,
Disraeli, and others, resulting in
292
votes against Gladstone s proposal and
114
in support. These debates demonstrated that many English statesmen
shared the opinion that the Romanian Principalities were an integral part
of the Ottoman Empire to the same extent as other provinces of European
Turkey, and concern that any status changes of the Principalities could ulti¬
mately lead to their secession from direct rule by Constantinople. In addition,
many wanted to believe that this problem had already been resolved with the
Osborne accords.
In the final phase of British diplomacy
vis-à-vis
the Romanian Princi¬
palities, from the Conference of Paris
(1858)
until the double elections as
the head of both Principalities of
Alexandru
loan Cuza, England demons¬
trated more reticence regarding the issue, with Westminster demanding that
its representatives on the ground maintain a strict principle of neutrality.
Confronted simultaneously with the Rebellion of Sepoys in India and the
second opium war with China, Great Britain was trying to avoid triggering a
repeated crisis in Europe, which could destabilize the international situation.
164
Diana
Dumitru
At the same time, the British government requested an analogous neutra¬
lity to be displayed by France regarding the Principalities, thus tempering
France s official expression of support for the Romanian cause.
At the Conference of Paris in May
1858
the British representative,
Cowley, while accepting that his government was unenthusiastic about the
idea of a Romanian union, opted for a compromise between the wishes
of the Ottoman Empire and the desire expressed by the Romanians in the
elections; he believed such a compromise could be achieved through some
sort of assimilation of administrative institutions . Following the advice
of the new Prime Minister, Malmesbury, Cowley avoided directly rejecting
the French proposal on the future organization of the Principalities (deemed
too unionist by Austria and Turkey), and instead embarked on a strategy
of making it inoffensive through the inclusion of numerous amendments.
Through this approach, the British representatives adjudicated among the
pro- an anti-unionist powers and guided the compromise that was ultimately
reflected in the Convention of August
19,1858.
Although during some of the
meetings of the Conference there was a notable tendency of British represen¬
tatives to contribute to the
instauration
of a more liberal regime which would
favor the economical and social development of the Principalities, in many
cases England offered suggestions which give preference to the interests of
Constantinople and damaged the Romanian national cause.
In sum, the Convention violated the plea of Romanians by keeping the
Principalities separate, although a common legislative body was established
as well as a higher Court of Justice and Court of Appeal to deal with cases
from both Principalities. Officially, the Principalities received the name of
United Principalities of Moldova and Walachia , but this was a small conso¬
lation for the Romanians who had voted for a union under one government
with leadership from a foreign prince from a European dynasty. Certainly,
had Great Britain supported the union of the Principalities, the consequence
could have been much more favorable for the Romanian cause. However, is
equally true that British authority and flexibility saved the cordial atmosphere
at the conference among the Great Powers, several of which had threatened
to desert the conference as a result of escalating tensions. It is due to the agre¬
ement that emerged from this conference, and its vague promise of union,
that the pro-unionist Romanians did not lose hope, and delayed their energies
until elections of a new prince were scheduled.
The issue of Romanian Principalities was temporarily sidelined once the
Paris Convention was signed by the Great Powers. European diplomatic acti-
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 165
vity
related to the issue moderated as the problem was perceived to be effecti¬
vely resolved. In addition, European diplomacy was already preoccupied with
alarming signals of a new conflagration on the continent. Napoleon III and
the Prime Minister of Piedmont Cavour were planning to draw Austria into
a military conflict in order to seize its Italian possessions and start the unifi¬
cation of Italy. For France, the benevolent neutrality of Great Britain, Russia,
and Prussia were crucial to achieve Austria s political isolation.
In preparation for elections for the heads of the Principalities, British
diplomats were instructed to follow a line of strict impartiality and were
pleased to observe that, with minor exceptions, French diplomats were
pursuing a moderate path. Still, England did not hesitate to manifest itself
as the guardian of Ottoman interests, demanding respect from the disobe¬
dient kaymakams from Moldova. The kaymakams recalled their representa¬
tive to Constantinople, considered to be overly submissive to the Ottomans,
and prohibited the Ottoman commissar to Moldova from engaging in any
encoded correspondence between him and his government. In November
1858
representatives of the Great Powers gathered at the British embassy in
Constantinople and unanimously adopted a memorandum asking the kayma¬
kams from both Principalities to demonstrate respect towards the Ottomans
and not to bypass legal limits established by firman. British diplomats also
advised the conservative kaymakams from Walachia to renounce its parti¬
sanship attitude and to focus on the entrusted mission of preparing for the
elections.
With time, Great Britain grew increasingly impatient over the Romanian
Principalities issue. Towards the end of
1858,
one of the main goals of British
diplomacy was to establish a regular government in the Principalities and
close this chapter of the international affairs. Correspondingly, it put more
pressure on the Ottoman authorities, asking it to disregard the unauthorized
behavior of kaymakams and to accept the results of the elections. But the
tranquility over the issue did not hold for long. In January
1859
the internati¬
onal community was caught by the surprise of the election of
Alexandru
loan
Cuza in each Principality.
Great Britain did not rush to express its opinion concerning this extra¬
ordinary occurrence, but Prime Minister Maimesbury addressed the crown
lawyers for legal consultancy and found that the Ottomans could legally
refuse the confirmation of Cuza. However, just two weeks later, the cabinet
from London came to the conclusion that the double election was acceptable
and consequently advised the Ottoman s to recognize it. A number of factors
166
Diana
Dumitru
influenced London s position. First, information provided by British diplo¬
mats based in the Principalities warned that the Romanians would disregard
the Ottoman s rejection and that it would then be necessary to use force to
impose its decision. This was an utterly unpleasant scenario for Great Britain.
Second, both Austria and Russia had direct interests in the Principalities and
had demonstrated conflicting opinions on double election issue, and this
meant a danger that hostilities could start in the Principalities, with Russia or
Austria .eventually absorbing them into one of their spheres. Third, London
wanted to safeguard the Franco-British alliance given the possibility of an
imminent European war.
These factors, coupled with the favorable communications London
received from its agents in the Principalities who emphasized that the elected
prince was balanced, wise, and politically moderate, managed to supersede
persistent doubts and determined their recognition of Cuza as the ruler of
the United-Principalities. Eventually, England s position decisively tipped the
balance in favor of international recognition of the personal union of Princi¬
palities by
Alexandru
loan Cuza.
The research contained in this book helps us to reestablish the role and
influence of Great Britain in the process of realization of the union of the
Romanian Principalities. Empirical information revealed that British diplo¬
macy demonstrated an exceptional flexibility, adjusting to new political
modifications occurring on the international stage. Compared to the other
Great Powers involved in the resolution of the Romanian question, Great
Britain was not connected by any significant cultural, historical, economical,
or political ties with the Romanian Principalities. Absent of any direct inte¬
rests in these territories, the British government frequently refused to look at
the question as a matter in itself, but instead treated it within the ensemble
of larger regional and global issues. Maneuvering successfully between the
contradictions of the Great Powers, England was prepared to support or
oppose the unionist cause in order to obtain certain advantages in settling
other more important problems for itself.
This analysis of British position towards the union of the Romanian
Principalities allows us to assert that during the period of
1856-1859,
Great
Britain exerted an enormous influence on evolution of the union issue. This
influence was only superseded by that of France, the country which declared,
from the very beginning, its firm support for the Romanian national cause.
This book has highlighted the necessity to reassess the Great Britain s posi¬
tion, which in most cases of Romanian historiography is pictured negatively.
Marea
Britanie
şi Unirea Principatelor Române
(1856-1859) 167
It seems erroneous to identify England s position with that of Austria s or
Turkey s, and it is worth emphasizing that the main distinction between these
players is that that Great Britain, lacking direct interests in the Romanian
Principalities, followed a legal path towards a solution, placing great value on
abiding by the regulations as laid out in the Treaty of Paris.
The immense distance that separated the Romanian Principalities from
Great Britain, both literally and figuratively, including the existence of diffe¬
rent political systems, traditions, economic and religious mores, did not faci¬
litate a more considerate attitude form England s side towards the national
aspirations of Romanians. The numerous pleads in favor of the unionist posi¬
tion, expressed in London by eminent politicians such as Dmitrie
Brătianu,
Nicolae Golescu, and Vasile Alecsandri, along with the persistence displayed
by the Romanian people who were defending their right to decide their
future, managed to only partially impress British public opinion and its poli¬
tical circles. Primarily, the British Empire remained continuously faithful to
its policy of preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, as an important
link in maintaining the balance of power in Europe and the world.
Simultaneously, the present study demonstrates the degree to which needs
of global powers trump the preferences of smaller states and lay people.
Despite national aspirations expressed by a clear majority of Romanians for a
united state, the union of the Principalities only occurred when such actions
aligned with the interests of Europe s Great Powers. Then, as today, the poli¬
tical relations between of these Great Powers, and their tendency for deci¬
sions based on complicated strategies of compensation and concessions have
priority over the desiderata of a given people. Nevertheless, this analysis also
identified the relevance of popular voices and the role that such a majority
opinion can play in global affairs. The free elections that took place in the
Principalities influenced the decisions of the Great Powers, ever-conscious
of the complications and conflict that could arise by going against popular
opinion. In the end, it was the confluence of both Great Power interests
and the mature, genuine expression of the will of the majority that led to
Romania s initial territorial union.
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Dumitru, Diana |
| author_facet | Dumitru, Diana |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Dumitru, Diana |
| author_variant | d d dd |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV037260259 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)711843864 (DE-599)BVBBV037260259 |
| era | Geschichte 1856-1859 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1856-1859 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02475nam a2200553 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV037260259</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20110711 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">110303s2010 |||| 00||| rum d</controlfield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)711843864</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV037260259</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rum</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dumitru, Diana</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române</subfield><subfield code="b">(1856 - 1859)</subfield><subfield code="c">Diana Dumitru</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Chişinău</subfield><subfield code="b">Pontos</subfield><subfield code="c">2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">188 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Monografii / Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova</subfield><subfield code="v">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Great Britain an the Union of Romanian Principalities (1856 - 1859)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1856-1859</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Unabhängigkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186820-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Vereinigung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4201989-8</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Rumänien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4050939-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Donaufürstentümer</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4370702-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Großbritannien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4022153-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Großbritannien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4022153-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Donaufürstentümer</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4370702-6</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Vereinigung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4201989-8</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1856-1859</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Großbritannien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4022153-2</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Rumänien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4050939-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Unabhängigkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186820-1</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1856-1859</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova</subfield><subfield code="t">Monografii</subfield><subfield code="v">9</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV021255856</subfield><subfield code="9">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021173405</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">41</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">476</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 gnd Donaufürstentümer (DE-588)4370702-6 gnd Großbritannien (DE-588)4022153-2 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Rumänien Donaufürstentümer Großbritannien |
| id | DE-604.BV037260259 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T22:54:40Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | Romanian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-021173405 |
| oclc_num | 711843864 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| physical | 188 S. |
| publishDate | 2010 |
| publishDateSearch | 2010 |
| publishDateSort | 2010 |
| publisher | Pontos |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Monografii / Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova |
| spelling | Dumitru, Diana Verfasser aut Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) Diana Dumitru Chişinău Pontos 2010 188 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Monografii / Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova 9 Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Great Britain an the Union of Romanian Principalities (1856 - 1859) Geschichte 1856-1859 gnd rswk-swf Unabhängigkeit (DE-588)4186820-1 gnd rswk-swf Vereinigung (DE-588)4201989-8 gnd rswk-swf Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 gnd rswk-swf Donaufürstentümer (DE-588)4370702-6 gnd rswk-swf Großbritannien (DE-588)4022153-2 gnd rswk-swf Großbritannien (DE-588)4022153-2 g Donaufürstentümer (DE-588)4370702-6 g Vereinigung (DE-588)4201989-8 s Geschichte 1856-1859 z DE-604 Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 g Unabhängigkeit (DE-588)4186820-1 s Asociaţia Naţională a Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova Monografii 9 (DE-604)BV021255856 9 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Dumitru, Diana Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) Unabhängigkeit (DE-588)4186820-1 gnd Vereinigung (DE-588)4201989-8 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4186820-1 (DE-588)4201989-8 (DE-588)4050939-4 (DE-588)4370702-6 (DE-588)4022153-2 |
| title | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) |
| title_auth | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) |
| title_exact_search | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) |
| title_full | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) Diana Dumitru |
| title_fullStr | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) Diana Dumitru |
| title_full_unstemmed | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române (1856 - 1859) Diana Dumitru |
| title_short | Marea Britanie şi Unirea Principatelor Române |
| title_sort | marea britanie si unirea principatelor romane 1856 1859 |
| title_sub | (1856 - 1859) |
| topic | Unabhängigkeit (DE-588)4186820-1 gnd Vereinigung (DE-588)4201989-8 gnd |
| topic_facet | Unabhängigkeit Vereinigung Rumänien Donaufürstentümer Großbritannien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=021173405&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV021255856 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dumitrudiana mareabritaniesiunireaprincipatelorromane18561859 |