What Were the Short-Term Significances of the Crimean War of 1854-1856 in Terms of Foreign Policy?
What were the short-term significances of the Crimean War of 1854-1856 in terms of foreign policy?
The Crimean War was a momentous event in the amendment of foreign policy. Several short-term significances stemmed from the war shaping Britain’s global position, alongside initiating a new aggressive policy led by Palmerston[1] and creating the ‘world power’ ideology. Faults in the military mismanagement, and the failure of Aberdeen’s government led to the realization of the need for reform. Depicted as having caused the army to “change more in those two years than in the previous two hundred,”[2] it is clear that the Crimea influenced a series of short-term significances in the successive twenty years.
The change from Aberdeen’s[3] diplomatic government to Palmerston’s aggressive ministry resulted from growing patriotism in the Crimea. Aberdeen’s cautious attitude towards war was highlighting and became increasingly unpopular as it “lacked Palmerston’s ‘manly vigour”.[4] Aberdeen distaste for war was emphasised when he wrote to Peel[5] “war in order to preserve peace is entirely inapplicable to… the Great Powers”.[6] His involvement in the Napoleonic Wars[7] influenced this attitude as he was less naïve to war conditions than others. Sourced from a letter between Aberdeen and Peel, he was defending his anti-war stance. His belief that peace was not achieved in this way was supported by the Congress System which had held peace without war for 30years. Peel’s attitude differed, believing in “Bellum para, pacem habebis”, [8] - that peace was obtained through war preparation. Peel compared how equipped France[9] was making Aberdeen seem unprepared. Moreover, Aberdeen was blamed for issues raised in Russell’s[10] war reports such as the military mismanagement and unsanitary conditions[11]. This negative publicity influenced John Roebuck[12] to enquire into the management of war. Public opinion contrasted Aberdeen’s approach which John Lowe described as a
The Crimean War was a momentous event in the amendment of foreign policy. Several short-term significances stemmed from the war shaping Britain’s global position, alongside initiating a new aggressive policy led by Palmerston[1] and creating the ‘world power’ ideology. Faults in the military mismanagement, and the failure of Aberdeen’s government led to the realization of the need for reform. Depicted as having caused the army to “change more in those two years than in the previous two hundred,”[2] it is clear that the Crimea influenced a series of short-term significances in the successive twenty years.
The change from Aberdeen’s[3] diplomatic government to Palmerston’s aggressive ministry resulted from growing patriotism in the Crimea. Aberdeen’s cautious attitude towards war was highlighting and became increasingly unpopular as it “lacked Palmerston’s ‘manly vigour”.[4] Aberdeen distaste for war was emphasised when he wrote to Peel[5] “war in order to preserve peace is entirely inapplicable to… the Great Powers”.[6] His involvement in the Napoleonic Wars[7] influenced this attitude as he was less naïve to war conditions than others. Sourced from a letter between Aberdeen and Peel, he was defending his anti-war stance. His belief that peace was not achieved in this way was supported by the Congress System which had held peace without war for 30years. Peel’s attitude differed, believing in “Bellum para, pacem habebis”, [8] - that peace was obtained through war preparation. Peel compared how equipped France[9] was making Aberdeen seem unprepared. Moreover, Aberdeen was blamed for issues raised in Russell’s[10] war reports such as the military mismanagement and unsanitary conditions[11]. This negative publicity influenced John Roebuck[12] to enquire into the management of war. Public opinion contrasted Aberdeen’s approach which John Lowe described as a