History and Foreign Policy: Franco-British Cooperation towards Greek Independence 1828–1830

On 6 July 1827 the Treaty of London committed France, Britain, and Russia to working together to mediate the question of Greek independence. This was one of the first examples of Franco-British cooperation after the Napoleonic Wars. Although officials on both sides of the Channel publicly celebrated Franco-British cooperation over the Greek affair, behind closed doors policy makers remained suspicious of each other's intentions. This article explores how the memory and experience of the Napoleonic conflict influenced French and British policy making during the Greek independence struggle between 1828 and 1830. It argues that the memories of these conflicts fostered cultures of Franco-British rivalry that were discernible in the highest levels of policy making as well as in parliamentary and press opinion. These misgivings, embedded in notions of natural and historic rivalry, played an important role in mediating how policy makers viewed, judged, responded to, and justified their own and their counterpart's policies and policy motivations.

Managing the Insurgency

In this chapter the author describes the novel challenges Venizelos faced in managing the insurgency, which combined planning, procurement and supply, propaganda, diplomacy, man management, finance and administration. In matters of security he insisted on preservation of law and order in the areas controlled by the insurgency, limiting clashes with the gendarmerie so far as possible. Efforts on both sides to limit bloodshed show the insurgency to have been up to a point carefully managed so as to avoid matters getting out of hand and prejudicing relations with the Powers. The powers themselves differed in their approaches and found it hard to agree policies, Russia being closest to the prince. The British policy in the Iraklion area complicated efforts to spread the insurgency to the center of the island. As time passed nervous strains increased, and Venizelos's leadership was questioned by some of his closest colleagues, as his efforts took their toll and signs of his flexibility over the prime aim of union were suspected. Timing also was a concern since it would be difficult to hold the rank and file once winter came.

A Passage from India

In his book Bland Fanatics, Pankaj Mishra reveals that in his thoughts on British imperialism, he is, of course, very much a made member of the moral majority. Whatever British policy, British imperialism was, Mishra believes, evil in its consequences. But reviewer David Berlinski argues that the truth about the British Empire is, as one might expect, very large.

The Image of Great Britain in the Soviet Press in the Context of the Spanish Civil War (1936‒1939)

The developments of the Spanish Civil War in 1936–1939, including its international aspects, have been thoroughly studied both in foreign and in Russian historiography. However, the introduction of new research approaches, in this case imagology, allows us to revisit even the well-established views. The paper examines the сreation and subsequent development of the image of Great Britain in the Soviet press in the context of the Spanish Civil War. The research draws on publications in the Soviet ‘Pravda’ and ‘Izvestiya’ newspapers, as well as in the ‘Ogoniok’, ‘Za rubezhom’ and ‘Agitator’s Sputnik’ magazines. The study reveales a rather ambiguous position of the Soviet press in relation to the British policy in Spain. Several topics played a key role in creating the image of the ‘Foggy Albion’ in the Soviet press. The leitmotif of publications of the Soviet journalists was the image of the empire in decline. In this regard, the Soviet press emphasized the acquiescence of the British government faced with aggressive actions from Francoists backed by Germany and Italy, as well as its inability to protect national interests of its own state. Parallel to this, the image of Great Britain as a split society was created. The Soviet journalists stressed that passivity of the government caused mounting criticism from both political left and right. At the same time, they praised the work of the civil society and volunteers in support of the republic. Finally, the Soviet media bashed London for its gradual drift from non-intervention towards appeasement and even direct inducement of aggressors. The author concludes that the image of Great Britain created in the Soviet press was intended to convince the Soviet public opinion in the fallacy of the British policy. In the face of an impending global war, London was portrayed as an unreliable ally, prone to concessions to aggressors.