Final
Marie_9508
attachment27attachment26attachment25.zipattachment 27.pdf
The Modernization of Russia
Nation building became a strong and determinative factor in
Russia during the mid to late nineteenth century as well as
it had in Italy and Germany, but in a different direction. The
gargantuan size of the country and its plethora of
nationalities, ethnicities and languages meant that Russia
was faced with the challenge of holding the state together,
either by political compromise or by force. The problem was
not unlike that faced by the United States as it grappled
with the issues of territorial expansion and the extension of
slavery, which ultimately resulted in a civil war and the
strengthening of the national government in Washington.
Russian rulers saw national self determination, the factors
which had helped to unify Italy and Germany, as a
subversive ideology which they intended to suppress. Even
so, its rulers knew that the country must modernize if it
were to survive.
The Crimean War and the Great Reforms: Russia at the
middle of the nineteenth century was primarily an agrarian
society. There was little industry, and 90 per cent of the
population lived on the land. Serfdom was still practiced,
although it had been abolished in the rest of Europe over
200 years before. Serf families were tied to the land,
although they could be bought and sold by landlords; were
required to furnish labor for him or pay money rents as he
saw fit. He could choose which of his serfs should serve in
the military for up to twenty five years. If a serf were guilty
of insubordination, he might be exiled to Siberia, literally the
end of the world. Landlords frequently exploited female
serfs sexually. Although it was a moral and political issue for
the Russian government, there was no impetus to end it
prior to the Crimean war.
The Crimean War lasted from 1853 until 1856. In 1853,
Russia sent troops to defend Christians within the Ottoman
Empire. Within months, Russian troops had occupied parts
of the Ottoman Empire and the Turks declared war. Britain
and France were both concerned that Russia would use the
war as an excuse to occupy the Crimea and other Ottoman
territory. On 28 March 1854, looking to prevent Russian
expansion, Britain and France (with Austrian backing)
declared war on Russia. The war was fought almost
exclusively on the Crimean peninsula off the Black Sea. In
September 1854, Allied troops invaded the Crimea and
within a month were besieging the Russian held city of
Sebastopol. Russia’s transportation network of rivers and
wagons was not sufficient to supply troops adequately, and
the Russian Army suffered a humiliating defeat.
The Crimean War was at first unpopular in Great Britain, as
Turkey was Islamic and Russia was Christian; however the
success of British troops gave rise to an overwhelming surge
of nationalism. Political cartoons of the day showed Queen
Victoria "taming" the Russian Bear. Although the War did not
result in significant diplomatic or geographic changes, a
charge of British light horsemen into Russian cannon due to
a mistaken order was the basis of Tennyson’s famous poem,
"The Charge of the Light Brigade." "There’s not to reason
why; theirs but to do and die." A lesson all AP students
should learn and heed.
The loss of the Crimean War was both a blow and a wakeup
call to the Russian government. It had not lost a major war
in over 150 years, and the defeat exemplified how far Russia
was behind the industrialized world. The country needed
better armaments, a reorganization of the military and most
importantly, railroads. Also, the war had caused tremendous
hardships and serf rebellions were possible. Reform was
desperately needed and the new Czar, Alexander II (r. 1855-
1881), in true Russian fashion, felt that the reforms must
come from above.
The first great reform was to free the serfs. In 1861, serfdom
was permanently abolished, and the peasants received
about half the land. They still had to pay fairly high prices
for their land, and it was owned collectively (the peasants of
each village were jointly responsible for payments of all
families in the village). The governments plan was to
prevent the development of a class of landless peasants;
everyone would have an interest in the land in common. The
plan backfired, however, as the peasants had no incentive
to improve their agricultural methods of leave their villages.
Old habits and attitudes remained, and there was little, if
any, improvement.
Later, in his efforts to force the Soviet Union out of the Great
Depression, Josef Stalin forced peasants into collective
farms. The plan was a colossal failure, and many people
starved while crops rotted in the fields.
In 1864 the government instituted the Zemstvo, a local
government institution in which members were elected by a
three class system of towns, peasant villages and land
owners. An executive council dealt with local problems. This
establishment of the Zemstvos marked a step towards
popular participation in government, and many Russian
liberals hoped it would lead to an elected National
parliament. It didn’t happen, however, as the local councils
were subordinate to the bureaucracy and the local nobility.
The only significant reforms were in education and the legal
system. Censorship, which had long been practiced in
Russia, was relaxed, but not completely removed.
Industrialization: Two great surges of industrialization
improved the Russian economy. The first, after 1860,
involved government subsidies to build railroads. In 1860,
Russia had only about 1,250 miles of track; by 1880 it had
15,500 miles. Railroads allowed Russia to export grain and
urn money for further industrialization. By 1879, Russia had
developed a railway equipment industry, and industrial
suburbs grew around Moscow and St. Petersburg. Industrial
development strengthened Russia’s military and gave rise
to territorial expansion to the south and east. This
expansion caused many nationalists and super patriots to
become very excited, and they became the government’s
most enthusiastic supporters. Industrialization also led to
the spread of Marxist thinking and the transformation of the
Russian revolutionary movement after 1890.
Sadly, political reforms ended with the assassination of
Alexander II in 1881 by a group of Nihilists who called
themselves the "People’s Will.". Alexander knew his life was
in danger from Nihilists, and rode in an iron clad carriage. A
group of terrorists, who planned on killing him, through a
bomb underneath his carriage. The bomb did little damage
to the carriage and Alexander was unhurt, but a number of
his escorts were wounded. The bomber was arrested on the
spot. Although his driver begged him to stay in the coach,
Alexander, ever the consummate military man, thought it
his duty to provide comfort to the wounded members of his
escort and stepped into the street. When he did, a second
terrorist threw a bomb between himself and Alexander, and
both were mortally wounded. Everyone fled the scene,
leaving Alexander bleeding alone in the snow. A group of
military cadets hurried to the scene and lifted him into a
coach for medical attention, with the help of one of the
terrorists, who remained undetected. Alexander died from
his injuries, as did the bomber, several hours later.
Alexander was succeeded by his son, Alexander III, who felt
that the reform had gone too far. All political reforms were
suspended, and Alexander instituted a program of
Russification. Only the Russian language was to be used in
schools, businesses, and government, regardless of the
language his subjects might otherwise have spoken. The
same group who assassinated his father also planned to
assassinate Alexander, but the ring leader, one Aleksander
Ulyanov, who was sentenced to death and hanged. He was
the brother of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, who later adopted the
surname Lenin, and was responsible for the overthrow of the
government of Alexander’s son and the last Russian Czar,
Nicholas II.
Industrial modernization nevertheless continued in Russia.
Under the leadership of Sergei Witte, Alexander’s finance
minister, the railroad network doubled to over 35,000 miles,
including the famous trans-Siberian railway, which runs from
Vladivostok on the Pacific Ocean to Moscow, five thousand
miles away. He also established a series of high protective
tariffs that protected Russian industry; and he also put the
country on the gold standard to strengthen Russian
finances.
Witte ingeniously devised a plan to employ Western capital
to build factories in Russia. He once told Alexander, "The
inflow of foreign capital is …the only way by which our
industry will be able to supply our country quickly with
abundant and cheap goods." Within ten years, on the
strength of foreign investment, a huge steel industry was
developed, so much so that only the U.S. Germany and
Great Britain produced more steel. Russian refineries were
producing half the world’s petroleum by 1900.
Although Witte was a businessman, he was ever the
autocrat and acted that way when dealing with foreign
businessmen. Once when a foreign businessman came to
see him and demanded angrily that the government fulfill a
contract and pay him for it immediately, Witt calmly asked
to see the contract. When he had it in his hands, he read it
carefully, then slowly tore it to shreds and threw it in the
waste basket without a word. He was not one to be bullied.
The Revolution of 1905: Territorial expansion seemed to
be the next step for Russia to take, as this was during the
age of Western Imperialism (as if the country were not large
enough already.) Russia first established influence in
Manchuria (Northern China) and then began casting greedy
eyes upon Korea, much to the dismay of the Japanese, who
were equally imperialistic. When Japan’s diplomatic protests
were ignored, the Japanese launched a surprise attack in
1904, the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War. The typical
European sense of superiority of the day indicated that
Russia would win an easy victory over the Japanese; but the
end result was stunningly opposite. Incompetence more
than anything else doomed the Russians, and although the
Japanese were financially exhausted, Russia collapsed first,
and by the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905,
mediated by President Theodore Roosevelt, Japan gained
substantial territorial rights in Manchuria and Korea. The war
marked the first major victory of an Asian power over a
European power.
Military disaster brought political upheaval at home.
Business and professional people had wanted political
reforms, primarily to turn Europe’s last absolutist monarchy
into a liberal representative government. Factory workers
exhibited all the grievances and complaints that their
counterparts in Western Europe had exhibited years earlier.
The peasants were suffering from poverty and
overpopulation, and nationalist movements among the
internal minorities were growing, particularly among the
Poles and Ukrainians. (It is significant to note that ethnic
Russians were only 45 per cent of the population of the
entire country.) The Russian Army was pinned down in the
war in Manchuria, and all the various sources of disorder
congealed to bring about the Revolution of 1905.
On a January Sunday, 1905, a massive group of workers and
families converged peacefully on the Winter Palace in St.
Petersburg to present a petition to the Czar. They were led
by a priest named Father Gapon, whom the secret police
had supported, as they considered his method of reform
more favorable than some of the radical unionist demands.
The crowds carried icons (a common Russian custom) and
sand "God Save the Czar," the Russian national anthem.
They did not know that the Czar, Nicholas II (son of
Alexander III and a good man but a complete and hopeless
pinhead) had left the city. The palace guard suddenly
opened fire on the crowd without provocation, and hundreds
were killed or wounded. The "Bloody Sunday" massacre
forced those who were noncommittal into the camps of
those who opposed the czar and a wave of general
indignation resulted.
Compare this to Herbert Hoover’s inept handling of the
Bonus Expeditionary Force in Washington after World War I.
Amazing how one can at times snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory.
Revolution was in the air. Outlawed political parties came
out in the open, minority nationalities revolted and troops
mutinied. In October, 1905, a general strike was called
which paralyzed the entire country, and Nicholas was forced
to capitulate. He issued the October Manifestowhich
promised full civil rights, and promised the election of a
Russian Parliament, known as the Duma. The Manifesto did
not go as far as many had hoped, and had the effect of
splitting the opposition to the government. Most moderates
and liberals were satisfied, but the Social Democrats did not
think it went far enough. A bloody workers uprising broke
out in December, 1905 in Moscow. Middle class leaders were
frightened, and helped the government repress the uprising
and survive as a constitutional monarchy.
The government issued a new constitution on the eve of the
convening of the first Duma known as the Fundamental
Laws, and its provisions were disappointing. The Duma was
to be elected indirectly by universal male suffrage and also
consist of an appointive upper house. The Duma could
debate and pass legislation, but the Czar held absolute veto
power. Ministers would be appointed by the Czar without the
need to consult with the Duma.
Things went from bad to worse. When the members of the
Duma tried to work with the Czar’s ministers, there was no
cooperation, and Nicholas dismissed the Duma. The new
Duma, elected in 1907, was even more radical and hostile,
and Nicholas dismissed it after three months. He then
rewrote the electoral law so as to concentrate more power
in the propertied classes at the expense of the workers,
peasants, and national minorities.
The new Duma actually promotes some land reforms.
Agricultural reforms were instituted to break down the
collective village ownership of land and encourage the more
enterprising peasants, a program known as the "wager on
the strong." On the eve of World War One, Russia was
partially modernized, had a conservative constitutional
monarchy, and a peasant based industrial economy.
- 1
attachment 26.pdf
The Bismarckian Empire, 1871-1890
The constitutional order:
Bismarckian Germany represented many compromises.
First, it was a mixture of Prussian-dominated and
confederate state. Prussia, with about two thirds of its
territory and people, was by far the most powerful state in it
(especially with the territories annexed in 1866), but the
others had ways to make their interests felt. Second, the
German Empire was not fully German. It had foreign
minorites and it did not include many Germans outside it.
Bismarck wanted to preserve Austria-Hungary (since 1867 a
dual state under joint rule of the Austrian emperor, who was
also Hungarian king), where most Germans outside his
empire lived. He feared that the disintegration of Austria-
Hungary would bring its Slavic population into the Russian
orbit. On the other hand, including its Germans in the
Second Empire would increase the weight of the Catholic
population and thus increase religious conflict and
strengthen the centrifugal tendencies in the Second Empire.
This would have seemed to Bismarck too much like re-
creating the German Confederation.
The Constitution of 1871, although it granted universal and
equal manhood suffrage for the Reichstag and gave the
Reichstag the right to approve or reject the budget,
contained many conservative safeguards. Most important
was the Bundesrat, the assembly of fifty-one
representatives from the twenty-five single states. With its
seventeen delegates, three more than were necessary for a
veto, the Prussian Bundestag delegation alone could abort
all legislation coming from a potentially more democratically
inclined Reichstag. The representatives to the Bundesrat
were appointed by their governments, and none of these
governments was democratically constituted. In most
states, parliaments continued to be elected by a restricted
franchise that privileged property owners and excluded
large segments of the population. The Prussian lower diet,
for example, was elected by a property-based three-class
suffrage, which allowed the richest men of the state to elect
two thirds of the representatives. Most states also had an
upper chamber, whose members were appointed by the
kings or owed their seat to the privileges of old aristocratic
families. These upper chambers, usually loyal to the rulers,
were able to check the influence of the lower (popular)
chambers.
In addition to this, the selection of mostly conservative
people to work in the bureaucracy, the army, and the
educational system was meant to ensure stability. The state
discriminated against socialists, democrats, and (partly)
Jews. The army, in Prussia as well as in the other states, had
an almost extra-constitutional position and, subject to the
emperor, could largely defy parliaments if necessary.
The conservative attitude of the army was of predominant
importance. Universities and schools — like the
administration — worked efficiently but aspired to remain as
“non-political” as possible, with their non-political attitude
usually clouding an authoritarian and conservative bias.
In short, the German constitutional order after 1871 differed
significantly from American and French political culture in
which constitutions were directed “by the will of the
people.” Bismarck saw the German constitution and the
Reichstag as granted by the German princes, a “gift” they
could always take back. Whenever the Reichstag majority
failed to support his policies he toyed with the idea of a
coup d’état. This happened increasingly often in the years
before 1890, as the social changes associated with the rise
of a large industrial working class made a durable
containment of the democratic forces appear increasingly
difficult.
How united was the new empire?
Did Germans give up their former state loyalty for the sake
of a new adherence to the empire? After all, the war of 1866
can be seen as a German civil war with Bavarians, Saxons
and many others fighting Prussians. How much did things
change with the foundation of the Second Reich?
Apart from the long-term developments in support of
unification (economic and cultural), the empire was founded
during a war with France. As Germans were fighting next to
each other against the same enemy as in the wars of
liberation in 1813-14, they felt a sense of common destiny
forged in war. Prussia’s military effectiveness and economic
prowess to many non-Prussians dwarfed the appeal of
Austria, Prussia’s former rival in Germany. Although regional
identities mattered (and to some extent still matter in
Germany today), strong separate nationalisms never came
into existence. If Germans expressed nationalist feelings,
they usually displayed a German rather than Prussian,
Hessian, or Württembergian nationalism. This sense of
unity, however, proved more fragile than wartime
enthusiasm and the joy of victory suggested.
The Junkers:
One group critical of the new settlement was the Prussian
landed aristocracy (to which Bismarck belonged). Although
the Junkers, who dominated Prussia itself, had strong
influence on national politics as well, they only gradually
reconciled themselves with Bismarck’s foundation of the
new state; they always considered universal suffrage for the
Reichstag a dangerous precedent for further
democratization and — at least initially — saw their power
threatened by the South Germans. Their Prussian loyalty,
moreover, blended only reluctantly with German nationalism
and never lost its distinctive flavor even when many Junkers
adopted German chauvinism after the turn of the century.
The South Germans:
Another potential division in the new Reich came from the
more liberal and democratic South of Germany. Bavaria,
Baden, and Württemberg had all adopted more liberal
constitutions than Prussia, and the democratic movement
held a far stronger position south of the Main River than
north of it. Universal suffrage, however, gave Southern
democrats an opportunity to vent their anti-authoritarian
feeling by sending democratic deputies to the Reichstag.
The Catholics:
Religious division posed another problem to national unity.
The south German states were predominantly Catholic, as
were the Rhineland and Ruhr provinces that only recently
(1815) had become part of Lutheran Prussia. Many Catholics
felt uneasy about living in a state whose highest
administration was so clearly dominated by Prussian
Protestants. The Vatican increased their difficulties by
condemning the encroachment of states on educational and
church affairs. Challenged by growing anti-clericalism
(hostility to the political role of the Church), the Vatican also
issued a dogma of Papal infallibility. In order to defend the
Church and its influence over education, Catholic politicians
in Germany formed a new party, the Center Party.
Bismarck, in turn, saw Catholicism as a threat to the Reich’s
unity and started to impose legal restrictions on Catholic
education and worship (Kulturkampf). He expelled the
Jesuit order and refractory bishops. The liberals, who
considered the papacy backward and unenlightened,
supported Bismarck’s legislation, thus completing a
remarkable rapprochement with the politician the liberals
had hated when he became Prussian prime minister in
1862. By the end of the 1870s, however, repressive
measures seemed incommensurate to the threat
Catholicism posed to the Reich. The fight against
Catholicism also appeared to become counterproductive
because it strengthened the Center Party. Apart from church
issues, Bismarck and the Center Party agreed on many
questions, so Bismarck abandoned the Kulturkampf and
tried to win parliamentary support from the Center Party.
The liberals:
As Geoff Eley argues, national unification fulfilled the main
political vision of the German liberals. Given the reluctance
of the Junkers to support the new Reich, Bismarck, though a
conservative Junker himself, sought support from the
liberals and some moderate conservatives throughout most
of the 1870s. Liberal majorities in the Reichstag helped pass
his anti-Catholic legislation and welcomed his free trade
policy. In 1879, however, big business and Junkers together
demanded protective tariffs to ward off the effects of a
global depression. Frenetic industrialization in Germany and
elsewhere had made industrial production outgrow demand.
Cheaper transportation, moreover, made grain from Russia
and the United States competitive on the German market,
thus threatening the precarious economic position of the
slightly backward Junker domains. The tariff question and
the issue of long-term military spending split the liberals
into an outspokenly nationalist wing dominated by heavy
industry and a democratic left.
The workers:
Another group not easily integrated into the empire were
the workers. Intensive industrialization since the 1850s had
increased the size of Germany’s industrial proletariat. In
1869 workers started to organize a socialist party and trade
unions. Although the Socialist Party remained small and —
to Karl Marx’s dismay — moderate during the 1870s,
Bismarck and the state administration felt threatened by a
potentially revolutionary force that was likely to grow with
industrial progress. In opposition to many liberals, but with
the support of the Center Party and the Conservatives,
Bismarck issued repressive laws against socialist
organizations from 1878 to 1890 (Anti-Socialist Laws).
Socialist meetings and propaganda were forbidden, but the
Socialist Party was still allowed to participate in elections
and to keep its Reichstag group.
At the same time, Bismarck tried to woo the workers away
from socialism by introducing social legislation. As he had
tried to win over the poor masses by an almost
revolutionary concession — universal and equal manhood
suffrage — he now offered them health, old age, and
accident insurance by the state. The German social welfare
system became the most advanced in the world, but the
workers had no interest in alms from the state. They wanted
to be equal partners of the employers and to dictate social
progress themselves. Bismarck’s patriarchal tutelage only
radicalized socialist rhetoric, if not practice. Driven into
partial illegality, the Socialist Party gained more and more
support from the workers.
The national minorities:
One group never reconciled to the Reich were the non-
Germans within its borders. They had the same political and
civil rights as Germans, but administrative pressure tried to
force them to minimize the importance of their non-German
culture. These repressive policies often strengthened group
cohesion among the minorities. Some inhabitants of Alsace
and Lorraine spoke French, and many of those who spoke
German as a first language considered themselves French
rather than German. As a province administered by the
Reich government and — until 1911 — without
representation in the Federal Council, Alsace-Lorraine
remained only half integrated. When the area became
French again in 1918 the local population drove out the
German troops in triumph. The national administration in
Berlin as well as the civilian and — worst of all — the
military authorities on the spot proved insensitive to the
identity of Alsatians and Lorrains, particularly when they
discovered that the German-speakers there were not happy
about being reunited with their German relatives from
across the Rhine.
A non-German minority existed also in the north of
Schleswig, the province Prussia had occupied in 1864. The
Danish population there formed its own party in the
Reichstag but resented being governed by Berlin.
The Poles constituted by far the largest non-German
minority in the Reich. Through the partitions of independent
Poland in the 18th century, Prussia had acquired some
provinces populated mostly by people who spoke Polish and
increasingly felt some common bonds with each other and
their relatives under Russian and Austrian rule. An
independent Polish national state, however, would have
claimed many Prussian, ergo German, territories and made
Germans living there a foreign minority. Bismarck and even
the German liberals, who had once considered Polish
nationalism an admirable cause, therefore felt that strivings
for a free Poland had to be repressed. Bismarck and his
successors at times tried to “Germanize” the Poles in
Prussia by declaring German the only language that could
be spoken in offices and classrooms. (For a document on
this, see H-German: Bismarck and the “Polish Question.”).
Repression tightened in the 1880s when the ratio between
Poles and Germans changed in favor of the Poles because
more Germans than Poles moved westward to Berlin and the
industrial areas of the Ruhr. In spite of the national tensions,
however, eastern Germany remained peaceful. Many
Germans, mainly in the towns, disliked the Germanization
policy of the central government in Berlin, and many Poles
remained lukewarm toward Polish nationalism.
The Jews in Germany, about one percent of the population,
can hardly be considered a national minority, as the great
majority of them was assimilated. Having received full
emancipation right before the foundation of the Reich, the
Jews became a successful intellectual and academic elite.
Anti-Semitic prejudice made careers more difficult but did
not prevented them. Social problems arose when increasing
numbers of mostly orthodox Jews from the Russian Empire
migrated into Germany after 1880. The newcomers were
unwelcome to many Germans and assimilated Jews alike.
Philanthropy toward the mostly poor immigrants often
consisted of a ship ticket to the United States or another
European country.
Living in the Empire:
Although Wehler sees the Bismarckian Reich as a rather
repressive country dominated and held together by the
shrewd intrigues of Bismarck and the preindustrial elites,
most contemporaries considered it a moderately tolerant,
safe, and livable place. Everywhere one could count on
justice and a capable, if often somewhat pedantic,
administration. Although Germany was affected by the
world-wide economic slump from 1873 to 1896, the national
economy continued to grow. Discoveries in chemistry and
electricity even made Germany a leader in these new fields
of the industrial revolution.
The German workers and their families remained poor and
often lived in crowded flats in dark, polluted industrial
districts, but so did their European and American comrades,
who had no social security net to rely on in case of an
accident, sickness, or in old age. Altogether conditions for
the German working class improved slowly, so that by 1914
the proletarian in Germany had more to lose than his
chains, to echo the Communist Manifesto of 1848.
The farmers had either too small plots (as in the west of
Germany) or too antiquated methods of production (in the
case of many Prussian landlords) to defend their position on
the market against the influx of food from Russia and the
United States. Although the tariffs introduced in 1879
protected them for a while, the share of agricultural
production in Germany declined rapidly in comparison to
industrial output. But that was a typical symptom of the
advanced stage of industrial revolution, and one must grant
that agricultural production in Germany, though never fully
competitive with foreign production, became much more
effective during the Second Empire. Although poverty and
social misery persisted just as in other industrialized
countries, the basic food supplies were good enough to
prevent large-scale hunger, and Germans in general
enjoyed some measure of basic rights and protection.
Foreign policy:
After national unification Germany was the strongest
military power on the Continent and probably in the world.
But Bismarck was always worried about Germany’s
dangerous geopolitical position between other great powers
against which no natural protective walls existed. His
foreign policy therefore remained cautious and peaceful. He
considered Germany a saturated state. The loss of Alsace
and Lorraine and the humiliating defeat in 1870 made
French hostility to the German empire a constant element of
European diplomacy. Bismarck thus always tried to keep
France isolated. In 1879 he concluded a secret alliance with
Austria-Hungary (Dual Alliance), and two years later he
signed a defensive treaty with Russia and Austria. In 1882
Italy joined the German-Austrian alliance (Triple Alliance).
Of the five other major powers in Europe three were now
allied with Germany and one, Britain, was not interested in
European alliances for the time being. The main rivals of the
British were the French (in Africa) and the Russians (in Iran
and the far East).
Although most of Bismarck’s agreements represented only
informal commitments rather than strict alliances, he
succeeded in staying on good terms with all powers except
France. This was a remarkable achievement, particularly as
all of Germany’s allies had significant conflicts among each
other: Russia and Austria were the main rivals on the
Balkans, and Italy wanted to “redeem” Austria’s Italian-
speaking areas.
To secure Germany’s European position, Bismarck tried to
stay out of the race for the colonization of African and Asian
territories, which reached a new intensity in the 1880s. He
saw that colonies led to many tensions between European
nations and that most of the more developed and rich areas
had long been claimed by other nations anyway. Only under
strong domestic pressure did he agree to seize some lands
in Africa and several Pacific islands. He made sure, however,
that these acquisitions did not overly strain German
relations to the other European states and seems to have
been willing to trade away the colonies for other
concessions by European powers at an opportune moment.
Altogether, German foreign policy under Bismarck — in spite
of the ambivalence and confusion of his treaties — looked
reliable and stable. Although many European powers had
only grudgingly tolerated the unification of Germany, they
knew that they did not have much to fear from the new
state under Bismarck’s leadership.
- 1
attachment 25.pdf
Germany under Napoleon:
From the 1790s to 1814 French troops successively
conquered and occupied the area that later constituted the
German Empire. French domination helped to modernize
and consolidate Germany and — toward the end — sparked
the first upsurge of German nationalism. In different ways
(and definitely against his intentions) the French emperor
Napoleon I helped German unification. It was important that
he encouraged many of the middle-sized German states to
absorb huge numbers of small independent territories,
mostly bishoprics, church lands, and local principalities. The
more powerful German princes, often in alliance with
France, seized this chance to aggrandize their lands and
flatly refused to restore the annexed units to independence
after Napoleon’s defeat. The number of independent and
semi-independent German states had been around one
thousand in 1790 (with between three and four hundred
fully independent units). Twenty-five years later only a little
over thirty remained.
This consolidation process, called mediation, led to the
dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and brought
the same French legal codes, measurements, and weights to
most German-speaking areas, thus helping to modernize
them. In 1806 Napoleon defeated the last independent and
defiant German state, Prussia. The Prussian royal
administration, quite naturally, were concerned about their
defeat and started a thorough reform and modernization of
the state and army (they “reinvented government”).
Reformed Prussia became the hope of many other Germans
who started to suffer increasingly under French occupation
(which became increasingly repressive and exploiting) and
their often forced cooperation with France, which drafted
large numbers of Germans into its armies and imposed
stifling trade regulations in its efforts to block English goods
from the Continent.
Anti-French sentiment erupted when the Russian armies,
pursuing Napoleon’s defeated invasion force, approached
Germany in the end of 1812, and a popular uprising helped
to drive Napoleon out of Germany in 1813. This common
fight of people from different German states against the
same enemy gave strong impulses to nationalism. A few
intellectuals consequently demanded the unification of all
German-speaking lands, but they still represented a
minority.
Nationalism as a liberal cause:
The Congress of Vienna, striving to restore stability in
Europe in 1814-15, created the so-called German
Confederation, but this unit disappointed the aspirations
of nationalists. The rivalry of its predominant powers,
Austria and Prussia, paralyzed it in a way comparable to the
effects of Soviet-American dualism on the United Nations
during the Cold War. Almost everywhere, moreover, the
princes repressed the nationalist movement (which became
popular particularly among students and professors) after
1815. The German princes opposed nationalism and
national unification because they realized that national unity
required a reform or even destruction of the traditional
monarchic states. In a united Germany, the princes would
have to cede some rights to a central authority. That the
nationalists often voiced liberal demands, such as the
granting of constitutions and parliaments, further alarmed
the princes and their aristocratic supporters. To princes and
aristocrats, nationalism smacked of revolution, democracy,
and popular unrest – all things that the Congress of Vienna
aimed to ban.
The Revolution of 1848:
Following several decades of repression, a strong desire for
liberal reform (particularly the introduction of constitutions
and parliaments) had developed among the educated and
wealthy bourgeoisie, while the peasants resented the feudal
dues (inheritable taxes and services the peasants owed to
landlords) still prevalent in most regions of the German
Confederation. Unemployment among small artisans made
them join the revolutionary cause in hopes of secure jobs.
Inspired by an uprising in France, German liberals and
peasants started to push for their claims with revolutionary
violence in March 1848. Barricades went up in Berlin,
Vienna, and many other capitals of German kingdoms and
duchies. The princes, frightened and poorly prepared for
revolution, granted constitutions and parliamentary
assemblies and appointed liberal ministries all over
Germany. They also pacified the peasants by canceling the
remaining feudal dues. German nationalists called a
National Assembly in Frankfurt to prepare the unification of
Germany as a liberal constitutional state.
However, the professors, who constituted the largest group
in the assembly, found it hard to determine what should
become part of united Germany. The multi-ethnic Austrian
empire posed the most serious problem. It included the
German-speaking Austrian provinces and German lands of
later Czechoslovakia, which all formed part of the German
Confederation, but it also included many non-German parts
(such as Hungary). What should happen with the Austrian
Empire’s vast non-German lands if its German provinces
were integrated into a German national state? A strong
minority in the National Assembly in Frankfurt therefore
advocated the exclusion of Austria from the German nation
state and the foundation of a smaller (kleindeutsch)
Empire under Prussian leadership (kleindeutsch meaning
“smaller German,” as opposed to großdeutsch).
The deliberations of the National Assembly, however, soon
became irrelevant because it lacked the power to resist the
growing tide of reaction. Moreover, it was never clear who
the professors in Frankfurt represented (maybe their
students?). The position of the National Assembly became
precarious when the princes, aware of the power of their still
intact armies, started recalling most of their concessions to
the liberals in the winter of 1848-49.
The monarchs gathered troops for bloody repression of the
liberals, and Prussian armies helped crush democrats in
South Germany. In an act of desperation, the National
Assembly tried to save national unity at least of the
“kleindeutsch” mold by offering a German crown to the
Prussian king. The king, however, refused to accept a crown
from revolutionaries (which he called a “crown from the
gutter”). Prussian troops disbanded the National Assembly,
and the bloody failure of the revolution made many liberals
conclude that military power would be necessary to unite
Germany. The failed revolution was a drawback for the
national cause, but the demand for unification revived in the
late 1850s as a consequence of industrial and economic
development.
Industrial take-off, 1850-1870:
After 1850 the industrial revolution in Germany entered its
decisive phase (take-off). New factories were built at a
breath-taking rate, the production of textiles and iron
soared, railroads grew and started to connect many distant
regions, and coal production and export reached record
levels every year. These advances profited from a high level
of education, the result of an advanced school and
university system. For a long time Prussia (along with
Scotland) had the highest literacy rate in Europe and
exemplary schools (this was partly a consequence of the
reforms in the wake of the Prussian defeat against
Napoleon).
Industrialization was accompanied by rapid population
growth and urbanization, the expansion of the middle
classes and of the proletariat (the industrial working class),
which began to constitute independent organizations. After
having lagged behind Western Europe for three hundred
years, Germany caught up economically within two
decades.
Economic progress was most powerful in Prussia and less
impressive in Austria. Through the Vienna peace settlement
Prussia had received areas that turned out to be enormously
precious for industrialization (the Ruhr district, the
Rhineland, and parts of Saxony – all with rich coal deposits).
Prussia now started to dominate many of the smaller
German states economically, and the smaller states — often
hesitantly — adapted their economies to Prussia. Prussia
also developed great interest in facilitating trade with other
German lands. This was to some extent a geographic issue
since Prussia remained divided into two major regions: the
large lands of traditional Prussia from central Germany to
the borders of the Russian Poland and the smaller, but
economically very powerful, area of the Rhineland and Ruhr
district in the west. To facilitate trade between its own
unconnected parts, Prussia had lower trade barriers with
other German states located in between its territories. This
process led to an inconspicuous economic unification of
Germany on the basis of a customs union (Zollverein),
founded already in 1834 but expanded to most area later
belonging to united Germany. Austria, watching the Prussian
economic policies in Germany with mistrust and finding little
to gain from participating in the customs union, stood aloof.
Railroad building followed the lines of trade, and so
Germany — within the “kleindeutsch” borders of the later
Second Empire — was economically well on its way to
unification already before 1871.
Bismarck:
In the 1850s and 60s Austria, caught in its double role as a
multi-national empire and German state, still hoped to
preserve a loosely united confederation in Germany. Yet
Otto von Bismarck, who became Prussian Minister President
in 1862, accepted the necessity of national unification
without Austria and was determined to bring united
Germany under the hegemony of the conservative, anti-
liberal Prussian monarchy. To Bismarck, unity might be a
good thing if it strengthened Prussia and took the wind out
of the sails of the liberals, who he had provoked by funding
army increases in defiance of the Prussian parliament’s
liberal majority.
Bismarck was a conservative landlord, a Junker. His loyalty
was above all Prussian; he was no German nationalist and
hated liberalism, democracy, and socialism. Above all, he
detested the liberals who were pushing the Prussian king to
strengthen the power of parliaments, work toward German
unification, and limit military spending for the army (the
force against the revolution in 1849). With their majority in
the Prussian parliament, the liberals seemed close to
success in 1862. Bismarck, however, sought a way of
uniting Germany militarily while cutting back liberal power.
Believing that charismatic leaders could become popular
among the industrial and rural masses, he reckoned that
parliaments elected by universal and equal manhood
suffrage could be limited in influence and that government
propaganda and electoral manipulation would ensure pro-
governmental majorities. Bismarck therefore sought an
alliance with the masses in order to isolate and undermine
the liberals, who had much power under the restricted,
property-based Prussian franchise but would be
outnumbered by the industrial and rural masses in a system
based on universal suffrage. If this strategy failed to tame
the liberals, Bismarck was willing to use repression through
the basis of conservative power, the army.
Bismarck thus adopted universal and equal suffrage in his
constitutional settlements of 1867 and 1871; but this step,
welcomed by democrats and many socialists, was meant to
work as a weapon against the liberal bourgeoisie and also
against conservative aristocrats and the Austrians. This
strategy was inspired by the French Emperor Napoleon III,
who had established an autocracy which often resorted to
plebiscites (Bonapartism). By granting universal male
suffrage while limiting the power of parliament, Napoleon III
had often appealed to the people – with success.
Bismarck probably had no long-term scheme for German
unification, although it appears so in retrospect; he
practiced Realpolitik, an opportunistic and pragmatic
approach to politics. He always insisted on the importance
of power: unification would not come about through
speeches and declarations but by “iron and blood.” But this
widely quoted martial phrase (usually misquoted as “blood
and iron”) obscures the astuteness with which he managed
German unification and overcame the domestic conflict with
the Prussian liberals.
The wars against Denmark and Austria:
As in almost all parts of the German Confederation, political
order was complicated in the northernmost German-
speaking lands. The duchies of Schleswig and Holstein
had a predominantly German population, except in the very
north of Schleswig. Both duchies were affiliated with the
Danish crown and had strong historical ties to each other.
Holstein, the southern province, was a member of the
German Confederation, but Schleswig was not. In 1863 the
Danish government, aiming to consolidate its lands,
proceeded to make Schleswig an integral part of Denmark.
The violated international conventions and provoked the
diet of the German Confederation to call for an all-German
war against Denmark. Bismarck, though unwilling to wage
war in the name of the German Confederation, had the
Prussian army fight side by side with the Austrians against
Denmark.
In a constitutional quarrel with the Prussian liberals over
military expenses, Bismarck had earlier ignored the Prussian
parliament and increased the army without necessary
parliamentary approval. He gladly embraced the
opportunity for a victorious war, which might justify his
defiant domestic policy. After a quick victory against
Denmark, which did indeed mitigate liberal criticism of his
high-handed practices, Bismarck signed a settlement that
let Prussia govern Schleswig and Austria Holstein.
Two years later, however, conflicts between Austria and
Prussia over occupation rights escalated. Bismarck, who did
everything to magnify this conflict, made sure that Austria
was diplomatically isolated: Russia was in domestic trouble
following the great reforms of 1861, France was involved in
a political adventure in Mexico, and Britain was committed
to non-intervention on the Continent; Italy, a newly united
state, was lured into a covert alliance with Prussia by the
prospect of gaining some Italian lands from Austria). Thus
prepared, Bismarck ordered Prussian troops to occupy
Holstein in 1866, a blunt provocation; Austria demanded a
German Confederation expedition against Prussia, and most
German states joined Austria against Prussia.
Within seven weeks the Prussians defeated all enemies due
to their own superior military organization and equipment.
Prussia smashed the German Confederation, annexed many
German states north of the Main River and formed a new
union with the remaining ones: the North German
Confederation (1867). Bismarck drafted a constitution that
granted universal and equal manhood suffrage to the
parliament of the North German Confederation. The
parliament got the right to vote the budget, but the
government remained responsible only to the Prussian king,
who headed the North German Confederation.
This constitution was a precursor to the settlement of 1871.
The democratic concession of universal manhood suffrage
mitigated proletarian hostility to the state for a while, but it
bothered the upper bourgeois liberals and the Prussian
conservatives; many liberals, however, welcomed the North
German Confederation as a step toward national unification,
while the Prussian conservatives rejoiced in the
aggrandizement of Prussia.
To win his enemies as future allies, Bismarck imposed mild
peace treaties on Austria and the South German states. The
latter agreed to a defensive treaty with Prussia. Military
victory also solved the constitutional dispute in Prussia in
the government’s interest. The liberals, having fought
Bismarck’s army increases and having insisted on their right
to fund the army, now appeared as petty-minded and
unpatriotic and began to split up.
Although passions soon calmed down, we should take note
that the Prusso-Austrian war was nothing less than a
German civil war (at about the time of the American Civil
War – though much shorter and less bitter). Five years
before unification, German states had been at war against
each other.
The Franco-German war:
The outcome of the Prussian war against Austria and its
South German allies came as a bad surprise mainly to
France. For centuries French policy-makers had aimed to
keep Germany divided and weak; suddenly a strong German
power had been allowed to expand through much of
Germany. Alarmed, France tried to renew its traditional ties
with the South German states, but to no avail. Even the
relatively liberal and anti-Prussian South Germans had
become too nationalistic and economically involved with
Prussia to ally with a foreign power against it.
International tension heightened when a revolutionary
Spanish government invited a cousin of the Prussian king to
become king of Spain in 1870. In reaction to French
pressure, the Prussian candidate refused the offer – much to
Bismarck’s disappointment. This was a French success, but
the French government went further and demanded a
guarantee that no Prussian prince would ever accept the
Spanish Crown, an unnecessary and humiliating demand.
Bismarck, in turn, published the diplomatic communications
in provocative fashion; the hawks in the French and the
Prussian government felt insulted and demanded war.
Napoleon III, hoping for a military victory to stabilize his
weakening régime, declared war on Prussia on 19 July 1870
– the biggest mistake of his life. France was isolated, and its
declaration of war compelled the South German states to
aid Prussia according to the defense treaty. The well-
organized Prussian army with its allies destroyed the main
French army in early September and took Napoleon
prisoner. While the German troops were beleaguering Paris,
Bismarck won the consent of the other princes to unite
Germany (excluding Austria) with the Prussian king as
German emperor. Several princes, mainly the kings of
Bavaria and Württemberg, insisted on retaining some
autonomy, and Bismarck granted them their own postal
service, railroads, and foreign representation.
At Versailles on 18 January 1871 he had his king proclaim
the German Empire. The constitution of the new state was
almost identical with the one of the North German
Confederation. A national parliament, the Reichstag, was
elected by universal, equal manhood suffrage and received
budgetary rights but lacked the power to overthrow the
government, which was solely responsible to the emperor. A
second chamber, the Federal Council (Bundesrat),
consisting exquisitely of the representatives of the German
princes, functioned as a conservative check on the influence
of the Reichstag. Armies remained partly the matter of the
single states but were bound to follow a common Prussian
command at wartime (the emperor was the supreme
warlord). The war with France was concluded by the Treaty
of Frankfurt in May 1871. France had to cede its eastern
provinces Alsace and Lorraine to the new empire and pay
high reparations until 1875.
- 1
attachment 24.pdf
France Under Napoleon III
Nation Building in Italy
Nationalism, the dedication to an identification with a nation
state, became a new organizing principle in the late
nineteenth century, the results of which were not altogether
positive. Early nationalism was a combination of liberal,
idealistic, democratic, and sometimes radical thinking.
Nationalism had been a positive element in European
history since 1789, but it had repeatedly failed to realize its
goals. Nationalism had been an element in the Revolutions
of 1848, all of which had failed. Now, nationalism was
rejuvenated and changed the map of Europe.
France under Napoleon III: Louis Napoleon had played no
part in French politics before 1848; however he received
three times as many votes as the four other presidential
candidates combined in the French Presidential election of
1848, partially due to universal male suffrage. Several
factors led to this result:
Louis Napoleon was the nephew of the famous Napoleon
Bonaparte. Romantic writers had morphed the first
Napoleon from a dictator to a demigod.
Middle class and peasant property owners feared socialist
change from urban workers, and wanted a tough ruler to
protect their interests.
Louis Napoleon presented a positive "program" for France
which would guide him through most of his rule. He had
elaborated on his program in two pamphlets, Napoleonic
Ideas and The Elimination of Poverty, written which he was
imprisoned for an attempt to overthrow the government of
Louis Philippe. The pamphlets had been widely circulated
prior to his election.
Louis Napoleon believed that the government should
represent the people and should try to help them
economically. The problem as he saw it was that
parliaments and political parties represented special
interests, particularly the middle classes. Their form of
parliamentary government stirred up class hatred because
they were not interested in helping the poor. The answer
was a strong national leader like his famous uncle, who
would serve all the people, both rich and poor. Such a leader
should be linked to the people by direct democracy and
uncorrupted by politicians and political parties. His ideas
appealed to the poor, who saw in him a strong man and a
champion of their interests.
Louis Napoleon was elected to a four year term as President
but had to share power with a conservative National
Assembly. He signed a bill to allow the Catholic church to
have a greater role in education, as many saw the church as
a buffer against radicalism. One leader of the church
commented that "There is only one recipe for making those
who own nothing believe in property rights: that is to make
them believe in God, who dictated the Ten Commandments,
and who promises eternal punishment for those who steal."
He also reluctantly signed a law depriving many poor of the
right to vote, primarily because he needed the Assembly to
vote funds to pay his personal debts and he wanted to
change the constitution so that he could run for a second
term. To his great chagrin, the Assembly did neither.
In 1851, Louis Napoleon conspired with key army officers
and on December 2, illegally dismissed the assembly and
seized power in a coup d’etat. Resistance to the coup was
crushed, and Louis Napoleon restored universal male
suffrage; he then called on the French people to legalize his
actions, which they did: 92 percent voted to make him
president for ten years; 97 per cent voted a year later to
make him hereditary emperor. He was proclaimed Emperor
Napoleon III.
Napoleon III had his greatest success in improving the
French economy. He encouraged investment banking and
railroad construction and started a massive public works
program, including the rebuilding of Paris to improve the
urban environment. As a result of his efforts, business
improved dramatically, wages were increased, and jobs
were easy to find. In an attempt to pacify the urban workers
(France’s most dissatisfied group) he regulated pawn shops,
supported better housing, and granted workers the right to
form unions as well as the right to strike.
Napoleon III greatly restricted but did not abolish the
National Assembly. He chose his own ministers who were
very powerful, but he did provide for the Assembly to be
elected by universal male suffrage every six years. He did
manipulate the elections somewhat, however. He tried to
get notable people to run for election, and used appointed
officials and mayors to spread the word that the defeat of
any opposition candidates was the key to roads, tax rebates
and other local concerns. His system worked brilliantly in
1857 and 1863; but began to fall apart thereafter. Napoleon
III was a nationalist, and wanted to reorganize Europe along
Nationalist lines and thereby gain influence for France and
himself. To the contrary, problems at home led to criticism of
his government by those who had supported him previously.
Always sensitive to public opinion, he progressively
liberalized his government. He gave the Assembly greater
power and opposition candidates greater freedom which
they used to good advantage. IN the 1869 elections, the
opposition, mostly republicans, monarchists, and liberals,
polled almost 45 per cent of the vote. The following year,
Napoleon granted France a new Constitution which
established a parliamentary regime with a hereditary
emperor as chief of state. France was slowly moving
towards democracy on the eve of the Franco-Prussian War.
Nation Building in Italy: Prior to 1850, Italy had never
been a united country. It had been divided in the Middle
Ages into competing city-states, which had led the way in
the Renaissance. It had been reorganized in 1815 at the
Congress of Vienna: Lombardy and Venetia became part of
Austria; Sardinia and Piedmont were ruled by an Italian
monarch; central Italy and Rome were part of the Papal
states ruled by the Pope. Naples and Sicily were ruled by a
branch of the Bourbon family.
From 1815 until 1848, three approaches developed to unite
Italy into a unified nation> The first was the program of
Giuseppe Mazzini, who called for a unified democratic
republic based on universal male suffrage and the will of the
people. The second was the vision of Vincenzo Gioberti, a
Catholic priest, who called for a federation of existing states
under the presidency of the Pope. The third looked to the
leadership of the kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont. Austria
ultimately crushed Mazzini’s movement, and the other plans
also failed. The Pope, who some had hoped would support
unification had backed down after he was temporarily driven
from Rome during the revolutions of 1848. In 1864, Pop3
Pius IX issued his Syllabus of Errors in which he denounced
rationalism, socialism, and separation of church and state as
well as religious liberty. He denied that "the roman pontiff
can and ought to reconcile and align himself with progress,
liberalism and modern civilization."
The movement towards consolidation got its greatest boost
from Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, the dominant figure in
the government of Sardinia, which was ruled by Victor
Emmanuel. Cavour wanted to consolidate Sardinia as a
liberal constitutional state and unite it with northern and
possibly central Italy; he did not wish to incorporate the
Papal States or the kingdom of the two Sicilies. He knew he
could not drive Austria from northern Italy without the help
of a powerful ally, whom he thought would be Napoleon III.
In a complicated series of negotiations and events, Cavour
secured a treaty with Napoleon III which provided for an
alliance against Austria. He then provoked Austria into
attacking Sardinia in 1858, at which point Napoleon III was
obligated to attack Austria. The combined Franco-Sardinian
alliance was successful, but Napoleon, not interested in
having a strong Italian state at his back door, and criticized
by many French Catholics for having come to the aid of the
Pope’s avowed enemy, did a sudden about face and
abandoned Cavour. He made a compromise peace with
Austria at Villafranca in July, 1859 which gave Sardinia only
the area of Lombardy around Milan. The rest of the map was
unchanged. Cavour resigned in a rage.
Even so, Cavour’s movement had stirred nationalist
sentiments to the North. Large crowds had marched
chanting "Foreigners, get out of Italy," and chanting "Victor
Emmanuel." Relying on this popular sentiment, middle class
nationalist leaders ignored the compromise of Villafranca
and called for unity with Sardinia. This was completely
contrary to what Napoleon III and the other Great Powers
wanted, but the nationalists refused to budge. Cavour
returned to office to work out a deal with Napoleon III, under
the terms of which, Sardinia had to surrender Savoy and
Nice; however in exchange Napoleon dropped his objection
to unification and the people of central Italy then voted
overwhelmingly to join an enlarged kingdom of Sardinia
under King Victor Emmanuel.
Some were not satisfied, among them Giuseppe Garibaldi, a
superpatriot who long personified the romantic notion of
revolutionary nationalism. In the 1860’s he cooked up a
scheme to "liberate" the kingdom of the two Sicilies with a
private army. Cavour opposed his plan, but did not dare
intervene, because of Garibaldi’s immense popular appeal.
In May, 1860, leading a group of guerilla fighters whom he
called "red shirts" he landed on Sicily and easily outwitted
the twenty thousand man royal army. He won battles and
gained volunteers, and, not unimportantly, gained huge
support from the peasantry. He captured Palermo, and then
crossed over to the mainland where he marched towards
Naples and prepared to attack Rome and the Pope. In the
conquered areas where he was temporary ruler, he
introduced free public education, disbanded the Jesuits, and
nationalized their property. Cavour then moved to profit
from what Garibaldi had done. He feared Garibaldi’s radical
ideas, and sent Sardinian forces to occupy most of the Papal
States but not Rome, as he feared an attack on Rome would
result in a war with France. Cavour then organized a
plebiscite in the conquered territories, which Garibaldi did
not oppose. The people of the South voted to join Sardinia
under King Victor Emmanuel. Garibaldi and Victor
Emmanuel rode through Naples to cheering crowds, sealing
the union of North and South.
The new Kingdom of Italy under Victor Emmanuel was
expanded to include Venice in 1866 and Rome in 1870,
largely because of Prussian victories over Austria and later
France. It was neither radical nor democratic. It was a
parliamentary monarchy but in accordance with the liberal
Sardinian Constitution of 1848, by the terms of which only a
small minority of Italian males could vote. The landed
gentry and commoners were divided. Also, there was a gap
between the industrialized progressive North and the
agrarian (and somewhat stagnant) South. Administrators
from Sardinia immediately cancelled the wartime reforms of
Garibaldi and ruled Sicily and Naples like conquered
territories. Poverty increased dramatically, and millions of
people left the country for a new beginning elsewhere,
many in America. Although politically and on paper, Italy
was a united Kingdom, profound divisions between classes
remained.
- 1
attachment 23.pdf
Reading: HistoryDoctor.net: Dr. Larry E. Gates, Jr.’s
“Liberalism, Nationalism, and Socialism”
Liberalism, Nationalism, and Socialism
Count Metternich and his counterparts at the Congress of
Vienna hoped to return to the old system, with its hereditary
monarchy, established church, and privileged landowning
aristocracy. However, the day of the Old Order had passed;
the American and French revolutions had created profound
changes in political thought that are still extant. They were
radical changes from the established order, which the new
thinkers rejected.
Liberalism: Liberalism was a product of enlightenment
thinking, and held that human progress was inevitable.
Liberals believed that all people should be equal before the
law; all were born free, were basically good, and capable of
improvement. Liberalism expected all governments to be
representative, (rather than autocratic), freedom of the
press, speech, assembly, and from arbitrary arrest.
Nineteenth century liberalism, commonly known as
"classical liberalism," opposed government intervention in
social programs and economic affairs. It is quite different
from modern day American liberalism (represented by the
Democratic Party) which supports active government
intervention to meet social needs and regulate the
economy.
Classical Liberals favored an economic policy of
unrestrained private enterprise, commonly known as Laissez
Faire. The prevailing philosophy was "that government is
best which governs least." Government was to remain
completely aloof from economic interference. This principle
was first proposed by Adam Smith in his Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith had
proposed "free" enterprise, where market forces would
regulate price. He believed that such a system would give
all citizens a free and equal chance to do what they did
best. Under such a system, everyone, not just the rich,
would benefit. Smith’s proposition was in marked contrast to
the old system of mercantilism in which the government
actively intervened to regulate markets. (For instance the
Navigation Acts and Tea Act of the seventeenth/eighteenth
centuries which forced the American Colonies to deal
exclusively with British merchants.) Smith’s argument was
for equal economic opportunity for all. The writings of
Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo were also influential.
Malthus had argued that the population would always grow
faster than the supply of food, and Ricardo’s "Iron Law of
Wages" had said that because of population growth, wages
would always be barely sufficient to keep people from
starving. A fourth liberal economic thinker was Jeremy
Bentham who argued that laws should be judged by their
social utility; did they provide "the greatest good for the
greatest number." The standard question he posited for any
law or regulation was, "Does it work?"
Liberalism became very popular in Britain during the
Industrial revolution, particularly with Factory owners, as the
demand for workers was always much less than the supply.
Smith’s Laissez Faire capitalism was all the justification they
needed to operate their factories and deal with their
employees as they saw fit. They even used it to support the
outlaw labor unions as they presumably interfered with the
employee’s "right to work." The writings of Malthus and
Ricardo were used to justify opposition to any form of
government action to protect the rights of workers. They
argued that if the workers were poor, it was their own fault,
because they multiplied like rabbits.
Politically, liberals supported representative government,
but believed that only male property owners should have
the franchise; although with time, the franchise was
broadened. Few supported universal male suffrage, but the
requirements of property were gradually reduced. Part of
the inspiration for this idea was Jacksonian Democracy in
the United States, in which every man was entitled to vote.
Liberals also supported universal education, as this was
deemed a way for individuals to improve themselves.
Nationalism: Nationalism: Nationalism was a radical
ideology, as was liberalism after the final defeat of
Napoleon. It evolved from a real or imagined cultural
identity, which is represented by a common language,
common history, and common territory. Nationalists
traditionally attempt to turn this cultural identity into a
political identity, whereby political boundaries coincide with
cultural unity*for example, "France" is composed of French
speaking people who consider themselves French. The
preceding example may seem overly simplistic; but when
one considers the large number of ethnic groups forced to
live under a government comprised of another ethnic group,
such as in Russia, or nineteenth century Austria, the
problem becomes more apparent. The overlapping and
intermingling of groups, each seeking to establish its own
identity, can easily become an explosive situation.
Nationalism as a principal was the child of the French
Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. During the Reign of
Terror, the Republic's leaders appealed to the people as
Frenchmen to repel the foreign armies which hoped to
overthrow the republic and re-establish the Ancien Regime.
During Napoleon's invasions, nationalist sentiments
throughout Europe consolidated opposition to his military
campaigns.
Perhaps the most concise definition of Nationalism was that
of the German Philosopher Johann Herder, who argued that
every people has its own particular spirit and genius, which
it expresses through culture and language. Unwittingly,
Herder also alluded to the negative side of nationalism, that
nationalist sentiments often generate feelings of "we" and
"they," when "they" easily devolve into the enemy. The
identification of "we" and "they" quickly led to a sense of
national superiority, and in some cases a sense of a
nationalist mission. Manzini once wrote, "People never stop
before they have achieved the ultimate aim of their
existence, having fulfilled their mission." Nazi Germany is a
classic example of Nationalism gone awry. Yet another
example is the "superiority of France," espoused by Michelet
in 1846, who stated that the principles of the French
Revolution had made France "the salvation of mankind."
Needless to say, nineteenth century German and Spanish
nationalists saw France as an oppressor, not a savior.
Compare this with the Mexican War in which the United
States gained large portions of Mexican territory, and John
Louis O’Sullivan’s declaration that taking land from "an
imbecile and distracted Mexico," was a logical step in the
"fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the
continent allowed by Providence for the free development of
our yearly multiplying millions." Obviously a statement of
superiority and of a mission.
Socialism: Socialism was a radical doctrine with roots in
France. Almost all socialist thinkers were French. They saw
the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in
England as the beginning of a dramatic transformation in
society, but were troubled by what they saw as it’s the end
result of that transformation, such as capitalism and political
competition for votes. They argued that these developments
caused selfish individualism and divided society up into
competing factions. Individual French thinkers went in
different directions, yet all envisioned a utopian concept.
Early French socialists advocated economic planning,
perhaps inspired by the emergency measures in late
eighteenth century France. They argued that the
government should organize the economy and not depend
on competition to do so, as competition was ultimately
destructive. They also had a passionate desire to protect the
poor from exploitation by the rich; arguing that rich and
poor should be economically equal. They also argued that
private property should be regulated by the government, or
abolished altogether and replaced by community ownership.
French Utopian Socialism was a direct result of the post
revolutionary stresses on the French economy. Workers
cherished the memory of the "good old days" of the radical
phase of the revolution when economic life was regulated.
Skilled craftsmen, with a long tradition of guilds,
apprenticeships and wage controls vehemently opposed
laissez faire capitalism, which they believed denied workers
the right to organize and promoted destructive competition.
Yet these ideas had little influence outside of France. Their
economic arguments were weak, and their specific
programs were too fanciful to be taken seriously.
Among the early Socialist thinkers:
Count Henri de Saint-Simon: (1760 – 1825) Saint-Simon in a
fit of utopian fervor once wrote that "the age of gold is upon
us!" He argued that proper social organization was required
if society was to progress. The arrangement required the
"parasites of society," that is the aristocracy, lawyers and
churchmen (imagine anyone calling a lawyer a parasite.
Heavens!) must give way to the "doers," the scientists,
industrialists and engineers. The doers would plan the
economy and guide it forward by means of vast public
works projects and establishing investment banks. Every
social institution ought to have as its main goal
improvement in the condition of the poor.
Charles Fourier: (1772-1837) An unrealistic dreamer (to be
charitable) who went so far as to compute mathematically
the ultimate socialist utopia. He envisioned self-sufficient
communities of 1,620 people living on 50,000 acres which
contained a combination of industry and agriculture. He also
said that marriage was only a form of prostitution, and
should be abolished. He rather argued for "free unions"
based only on love and sexual freedom. Fourier expected a
rich philanthropist to show up at his door any day and put
his plans to work. Needless to say, he died disappointed.
Even so, his ideas were influential in establishing "utopian"
communities in the United States, such as those in New
Harmony, Indiana and Oneida, New York.
Louis Blanc: (1811 – 1882) Argued that the full power of the
state should be directed at setting up government backed
workshops and factories to guarantee full employment; and
that the right to work was a sacred right, just like life,
liberty, etc. In his Organization of Work, he said workers
should agitate for universal voting rights and take control of
the government peacefully.
Pierre Joseph Proudhon: (1809 – 1865): Prudhon advocated
the abolition of private property. In a pamphlet entitled
What is Property? H answered his own question by stating
that property ownership was theft, pure and simple. It was
profit that had been stolen from workers, who were the true
source of all wealth.
Karl Marx and Marxism: Marxist socialism established the
foundation for modern socialism and also planted the seeds
for the devolution of socialism into Communism. Karl Marx
(1818 – 1883) was the German son of a Jewish lawyer who
had converted to Christianity, but was himself an atheist. He
studied philosophy at the University of Berlin and later
journalism and economics. He was particularly influenced by
Fourier’s ideas of the abolition of marriage which he
believed would lead to the "emancipation" of women and
the abolition of the family as a unit. Later, Marx developed
his own ideas about socialism and became its chief
proponent. Marx fled to England as a political refugee after
the revolutions of 1848, discussed later. He adopted the
thoughts of David Ricardo, who said that labor was the
source of all value. Marx later argued that profits were
actually wages stolen from the poor. He also adopted
Friedrich Engels’ ideas of the oppression of the working
class.
Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in
1848 which became the socialist Bible. Marx was also the
author of Das Kapital. Whereas the early French utopian
socialists had argued that the middle class and the state
should help the poor, Marx said that the interests of the
middle class and the working class were unalterably
opposed to one another. The Manifesto argued that the
"history of all previously existing society is the history of
class struggles." Marx argued that one class always
exploited the other, and with modern industry, the division
of classes was more pronounced than ever before. He saw
this division as between the middle class, or bourgeoisie,
and the working class, or proletariat. The bourgeoisie had
reduced everything to money and "naked self interest." "In a
word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political
illusions, the bourgeoisie had substituted naked, shameless
direct brutal exploitation."
To Marx, this class struggle was represented by small
minority who owned the means of production and grew
richer; while the proletariat was growing in size and poorer,
yet also growing in class consciousness. He believed that a
small number of the bourgeoisie would "go over" to the
proletariat and who "had raised themselves to the level of
comprehending theoretically the historical moment."
Ultimately, the proletariat would conquer the bourgeoisie in
a violent revolution, just as the bourgeoisie had defeated
feudal aristocracy. Marx believed that the time of this great
revolution was very near, as stated in the last words of the
Manifesto: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist
revolution. The proletarians have noting to lose but their
chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world
unite!"
Marx’s ideas gained substantially more acceptance than had
the French utopian socialists. He combined his own ideas of
socialism with those of the French thinkers as well as English
classical economics and German philosophy. He based his
theory of historical evolution on the writings of the German
philosopher Georg Hegel who argued that history was "ideas
in motion," Each age characterized by a dominant set of
ideas which also produced opposing ideas and eventually a
new synthesis. He expressed it as the "thesis gives rise to
the antithesis, which together create the synthesis." Marx
adopted this Hegel’s ideas, but saw economic relationships
between classes as the driving force of history. He often
claimed that he had instituted a "scientific study of history."
The historical "thesis" had been aristocracy, and the
"antithesis" the rise of industrial capitalism. To Marx, the
bourgeoisie would now give way to the workers revolution
as the logical next step in the progress of history. Marx’s
ability to combine philosophy, history and economics into
his ideas were largely responsible for the overall success of
communism. Marx, the atheist, called religion "the opiate of
the masses." As part of his communist revolution, organized
religion was to be abolished.
- 1
