Czy polityka Rosji i Wielkiej Brytani w greckiej bitwie o niepodległość (1824) odniosła sukces? [po ang.]

Was the policy of Russia and Britain towards Greek Struggle for Independence successful?
Give arguments to support your thesis.

The Greek Struggle for Independence is considered to be begun in April 1821, when the Greeks, who were part of the inefficient Ottoman Empire, officially demanded for independence. Then the other powers of Europe estimated, it could have an influence on them. Greece was territorially an important link with Asia and was close to the South, to Egypt, which was also commercially significant. Gaining Greece, it was probable to gain some of the surrounding territories, and to control European- Asian trade. What is more, this country had internal wealth, in cultural aspect, and, weak and almost vulnerable, was a reason of an international greed. Besides the common opinion of Greece was worth of honour, as they were treated as a heroes, the legendary gods, who created Europe.

Firstly each of the powers concerned, so Russia and Great Britain, had its own interest in it. This territory was very important for Russia, because of the trade links as it was mentioned, besides Russia wanted to have influence over the Black Sea, as it had since the earlier wars with Turkey, maintain and expanse it. Furthermore, Tsar used the Orthodox religion as an argument for keeping the peace and good relations between them and Greeks and was discouraged, that Turks, who were governing, were Muslims. Nevertheless he could not decide to come in into the Greek affair, because Russia was involved in Troppau Protocol, and during the next Tsar Nicholas I it had been changed, because of his more individual point of view.
Great Britain, instead, on the beginning, did not want to change anything, and was against Greek movements. Their trade links in Eastern Mediterranean were still increasing, since 1815, because of the new lands they gained, that means Malta and Ionian Islands. Besides, British feared any expansion of Russian control in East.
Later, anxious looking at Russian eagerness in controlling Greece could not allow Britain to maintain the previous settlement. Convinced by public opinion, Canning set up his mind to co – operate with Russia, and, concretely, to hinder her. They signed the St Petersburg Protocol in 1826, and next year, in the Treaty of London, France joined them. They wanted self- governing Greece under Turkish control. During the Treaty of London another condition was inserted. It told, that if Greece of Turkey reject the settled points, the powers will give a naval support to the other one.

Though Turkey rejected firstly their offer, soon it had to agree, because it had no chance to win with Greece, when it had such powers behind. This condition or rather threat was very important for ‘their common interest’, because it eased to fulfill their initial aims.
After all mentioned above unions, the first important event was the Convention of Akkerman in 1826, where Turkey promised to fix in the earlier treaties with Russian, which was following its own interest, when one of the conditions was to give the rights for the Christians. That was rather more advantaged to Russian policy – it increased Russian influence there, as it concerned it, than to the Great Britain, which was rather worried about Russian strength, and to the Greeks either, since it revived their hopes. Generally, it was a successful convention, when thinking of their common interest, made in St Petersburg, because it allowed Turkey to be weakened and under ‘their’ control.
But soon Turks, encouraged of the success of Ibrahim Pasha, strengthen a bit, and rejected the mediation. The Turkish fleet were on the shores of Navarino bay. When the British came there, they fired immediately. Astonished English answered, and after some time defeated the ‘enemy’. This action weakened rebelling Turkey again, so was also in favour of common interest, and now, Russia used some arguments to intervene. Duke of Wellington wanted to prevent somehow Russian plans, as he had his own plans and drew up the Convention of Alexandria, withdrawing his forces, leaving Turks weak, but not destroyed.
Russia, instead, was still fighting, and, soon took Adrianople, and was near Constantinople. Then it negotiated with Turkey and, in 1829, the Treaty of Adrianople was singed. It was a good interest, especially for Russia, who benefited in Asia Minor. The Tsar concluded, heading his interest, Turkey cannot be reduced, because it could influenced other powers in that area. In general, Turks, eventually, accepted the terms of the Treaty of London, were weak and prepared to be under powers’ rule.
Obviously, it was officially successful for powers’ common interests. After so many complications, the conditions were accepted, and the whole affair depended, officially, on them.
Before the final document was signed, the powers increased their demands, to accept the absolute independence of Greece, and in 1830 it was declared as an independent country, under protection of Russia, Great Britain and France, so that three of them could control that.

Although they made many gains, were theoretically quite successful, the problem lied, however, on the other ground. The reason for the union of those countries was to hinder each other, not to allow the expansion or the development of other’s influence on the East, and to benefit in its own interest. Russia was looking forward, at the East, when Great Britain was looking at Russia, to prevent her influence there. Shortly, there was unofficially no common interest, so it is very difficult, to claim if that formal, artificial one was successful or not. Then, the question of prosperity should be entertained in single elements, that means the separated interests of the country.
In the first case of Russia, it can be regarded as a partial failure, when considering the Tsar’s original policy. He wanted to gain all eastern territories, including Greece, and Asia Minor. Thanks to that, his Empire could be the strongest in Europe, and he could control the trade. But, because he did not want to act individually, what could bring the other powers hostility, he signed the Protocol with Great Britain, and, despite his later trials of mastering, the whole affair ended up with the decision of the common, Russian – British –French, acting in the territory of his desire. Besides, Russian army was also weakened of constant fights, and, finally, the Treaty of Adrianople, was to keep Turkey alive. In that time, Russia noticed another point of view – reduced Turkey meant the influence of other powers on that area either. On the other hand, Russia had, all in all, substantial gains in Asia Minor, got the Danube’s delta, Caucasus, recognition of its claims to Georgia and Armenia, cash indemnity and Christian rights in the Romanian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which did not satisfied her.
Great Britain, instead, was in some way successful in its hindrance against Russia. Moreover it benefited, by the way in protecting independent Greece, so then, the trade links were developing constantly. Though it cost British devotion and nerves, and Britain was not completely satisfied, it can be said it was quite a success for her.

To sum up, I think, that the common policy of Russia and Great Britain towards the Greek Struggle for Independence was a success, because they weakened Turkey, and depended it on their requires, recognized Greece as an absolutely independent kingdom, under their protection. There was not the Turkish control of the choice of the Greek ruler, however, but they did not need it. Turkey was vulnerable, and there was no need for them to use Turks to control Greece. Besides, very significant was the fact, I have already mentioned, concerning the reduction of Turkey, and it was in interest of each of that powers to maintain it weak but not dead.