• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The congress of Aix la Chappelle, Troppau and Laibach were admirable and an enlightened attempt to regulate international affairs through peaceful discussions. Do you agree?

Extracts from this document...


The congress of Aix la Chappelle, Troppau and Laibach were admirable and an enlightened attempt to regulate international affairs through peaceful discussions. Do you agree? In theory these three congresses were meant for the good of international affairs but put into practise they managed to do quite the opposite. The congress of Aix la Chappelle was called to consider matters relating to France and to determine France's relationship with the other powers. France seemed to become stable and tranquil so they requested the withdrawal of the foreign army of occupation and the congress agreed. France had been admitted to the peace making process at Vienna under Article VI of the treaty of November 1815 (Quintuple alliance). As a result, this completely contradicted the Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, which was mainly concerned with maintaining the peace settlement imposed upon France and letting her into the deliberations of the victorious allies meant that the new Quintuple Alliance had lost its original purpose. On the positive side it meant that France was now 'stable and tranquil' so it could participate in international affairs and not be seen as a nation, which provoked negativity. The Great Powers motives and involvement in the Congress of Troppau was that there was a succession of disturbances in Europe, which were likely to have international consequences mainly the Spanish, and Neapolitan revolts. ...read more.


What was agreed was quite different to the purpose of peaceful discussions as if any states undergo revolution or change of government the alliance could 'cease to be members of the Holy Alliance and that the assembled members had a duty to use coercion 'to bring it back to the bosom of the Alliance' until there situation guarantees for legal order and stability. The powers bind themselves by peace or by arms'. This was supported by the three eastern powers and suggests the treaty is there to stop the spread of revolution and nationalism and the right of free speech. This is not admirable in any way, as it is not taking into account international affairs but affairs relating to the success of their own nation and preventing liberation. Metternich called this 'the great divide' which had begun, with the failure of the congresses. Europe was divided as well as the Alliances helping Europe to prevent division and outcry. From this we can see a possible hidden France - Russian front. The congress of Laibach was a complete triumph for Metternich. France's attempt to support the cause of moderate revolution had been a failure, serving only to annoy the Tsar. Alexander had been persuaded to abandon the cause of liberalism. In the Greek revolution against the rule of the Sultan of Turkey the Great Powers would not give aid to the rebellious Greeks. ...read more.


So the three Alliances could have done more worse than good. The fact that there was an Alliance does suggest progress in Europe's advancement but the resourcefulness just was not there to see the motives develop and flourish. As a result of the divide their interpretations of the Congress System is quite different. Freidrich von Gentz saw it to 'put a halt to revolts. Suppress revolutionary ideas if its main purpose of Congress was just to keep order in France' suggesting that revolutions should be suppressed with any means necessary, not by peaceful discussion. Metternich interpretation 'acts as a restraint of the potential ambitions of Tsar Alexander' suggesting that Austria's main interest is not to see Russia extend their powers. Whereas the Powers together came to a completely different purpose as it 'should only happen to deal with the affairs of European states of their invitation' which is quite different to the eastern autocracies ides to revolutionary activity 'any states undergo revolution or change of government are to be excluded from the treaty by peaceful means or brute force' which does not suggest peaceful discussion or being invited to help but a means of competing in a war. So from this I can conclude by believing that the Alliance was intentionally there for the good of Europe but the division caused only caused selfish ideas to corrupt the system and use it to benefit them by means of brute force. Riccardo Spagnoli 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. In what ways and with what success did successive British Governments seek to promote ...

    In particular the Conservatives and Liberals were still highly suspicious. At the end of 1924 the Conservatives came back into power and Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin did not ratify the agreement. Britain broke off diplomatic relations and ended all trade agreements with Russia.

  2. Notes on International Relations 1919-1939

    * In March 1918, Lenin signed a unconditional treaty with the Keiser and then the German army took a massive amount of land * In November in the same year the Germans start complaining that the same thing is happening to them by the Allies o Ebert, and by accusation

  1. History - International Relation Coursework

    [4] (b) Why did the League fail to stop Japan's conquest of Manchuria? [6] (c) "The League of Nations failed because in the 1930s most countries were only concerned with their own interests." Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.

  2. The new deal was not a complete success". How far do you agree with ...

    As in the wet season the Tennessee River would over flow, which would lead to a flood in that area. Therefore due to this, the government decided to build a series of dams on the Tennessee River. This provided electricity for under developed areas using hydroelectric schemes.

  1. The apparent division of the Great Powers after 1830 into two opposing ideological camps, ...

    military aid in 1835, sending token forces of volunteers or irregular troops instead. The recriminations between Britain and France was as a result from Palmerston's reluctance to allow France the opportunity to restore her influence in Madrid by lending more effective aid to the liberal causes.

  2. El Salvador and the involvement of the FMLN Strategies

    In the 1980's, the country was devastated by a revolution that claimed thousands of civilian victims and drew an even deeper United States involvement. The plan for El Salvador was carried out by a regime close to the oligarchs. "The decade of the Alliance ended in El Salvador as the

  1. The Congress of Vienna

    They had quarreled with each other. They could not cooperate with each other. b. The small states did not support the settlement of the great powers. c. Two people died. 1. Napoleon died--- their common enemy 2. Castlereagh--- he wanted to maintain peace and suggested having the Congress System.

  2. History Revision notes - International Relations: Why did WW2 break out? 1929-1939

    The Anschluss with Austria, March (1938) Hitler had a major aim to create a union (Anschluss) between the two German speaking countries, Austria and Germany, so that he could continue building a Großdeutschland (greater Germany). Even though the Treaty of Versailles clearly made this union forbidden, Hitler planned to invade Austria.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work