The lesser aims of the Great Powers did differ, and as such, may have had a destabilizing effect upon the Congress System. An example of this occurred during the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, the first congress between the Great Powers after the Congress of Vienna. Wilmot states that “the Powers went on to reveal the poor prospects for future international cooperation as the search for common ground proved fruitless.” Some examples of this include Tsar Alexander’s proposal for disarmament, Castlereigh's attempts to stop the slave trade and the Barnabary Pirates, all of which were rejected by the other parties. Other suggestions such as an international army to enforce borders, and a union of states opposed to revolution were also rejected. These examples show that without a common goal/aim (the defeat/containment of Napoleon, who was interred on St. Helena), the Quadruple Alliance lacked direction and cohesion. Other disputes/differences in objective included Britain and France not sending delegations to the Congress of Troppau, and Austria crushing revolutions in Italy although Britain disagreed with Austria’s right to do so. Austria had Russian and Prussian support for these actions. These examples help to show how two separate power blocks were forming within the Congress System, which undermined the Great Powers’ ability to function as a cohesive whole to determine and enforce European policy. This helps to show how a difference of interests between the Great Powers led to a weakening of the Congress System, which ultimately led to the demise and collapse of the System. In this sense the quote is proven to apply to the collapse of the Congress System, in that diverse interests did in fact stop the System from achieving its full potential.
Another factor that led to the collapse of the Congress System was a confusion over what document was to control the direction and methods of the Great Powers actions. There were two documents that could have a ‘claim’ over the Congresses, and all parties were signatories to each document. These documents were Article VI of the Quadruple Alliance, and the Holy Alliance. The Quadruple Alliance was an alliance forced between the powers who combined to defeat Napoleon, while the Holy Alliance was drawn up by Tsar Alexander to “involve his fellow sovereigns in a moral and spiritual association based on Christian principles” (Wilmot). Both alliances sought to promote international cooperation, yet neither had any clear guidelines as to how to go about this. However, each document came to be associated with different things, even if these ‘things’ weren’t explicitly in the documents. The Quadruple Alliance was associated with retaining the status quo with France, and preventing the revival of Bonapartism. The Holy Alliance came to be associated with the Eastern power block of the Congress System (Austria, Russia and Prussia) and its associated stance against revolutions. This confusion over which document was to “serve as the basis for international cooperation” (Seaman) helped lead to the collapse of the System. As Seaman points out, the League of Nations only had one Covenant, and the United Nations only has one Charter. These more successful organizations lacked the confusion caused by having multiple documents forming the basis of the organization. Therefore the confusion caused by two documents, each having a different interpretation, could have easily contributed to a collapse of the Congress System. The difference in interpretations of the documents would also have served to highlight the difference between the parties involved with the conferences, due to the Holy Alliance being largely linked to one power block. In this way, the quote doesn’t apply to a large extent, as the difference in documents led to the collapse, rather than the diverse interests. However, as the diverse interests were highlighted by the different documents, the quote can be said to apply to a small extent.
These arguments all lead to the conclusion that the quote can only apply to the Congress System to a medium extent. Weather or not the Congress System was or wasn’t a failure in the first place is highly contentious. This immediately undermines the degree to which the quote can apply. While the diverse interests of the parties involved did definitely play a part in the dissolution of the Congress System, the confusion over which document was the correct “controlling” document would also have played a part. Therefore the ‘diverse aspects’ part of the quote can only apply to a medium extent. This, combined with the medium extend of the quote to weather the System was a failure or not, results in the quote only being able to be said to apply to a medium extent.