EUROPE 1871-1914

1.Europe from 1871 to 1914: The last third of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of the masses as a serious political force in national politics. In Britain, the working classes that had given the country the greatest successes in the industrial revolution clamored to be heard by the ruling elite. Eventually, workers threw their support behind the Labour Party, a political party based on trade unions that advocated the creation of the government welfare state. A similar development took place in Germany, where the Social Democratic party emerged as a political force despite the numerous attempts by the ruling elite to destroy its power. In France, the modernized and centralized state that emerged in the Third Republic united the nation and allowed a mass media culture to emerge. The entire population, receiving the same information and the same interpretation of the news, was galvanized by various events, such as the Dreyfus Affair, which cut right to the heart of French society. In Austria-Hungary, the power of the bourgeoisie, who had identified their interests with those of the aristocracy, began to weaken as the entire outsider population--ethnic minorities, students, radical right-wing groups--began to emerge in Austrian politics in an atmosphere of demagoguery and fantastic politics.

Foreign policy throughout this era was generally dominated by the imperial game. By 1914, nearly the entire continent of Africa was dominated by Europeans. The ancient states of Asia (i.e. China and southeast Asian societies) also generally succumbed to European invasion. Only the Japanese, after years of modernization and westernization, were able to become imperialists themselves and exert their own interests on the Chinese mainland.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the political balance of power that had kept Europe at a moderate level of peace since 1815 began to unravel. With the consolidation of the German Empire,new alliances and new balances had to be formed; however, the new models would not succeed. The balance of power degenerated into the bipolarization of the European world--namely, the separation of alliances into two groups, the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. With an arms race developing and the breakdown of peace in the Balkans, Europe was racing toward utter destruction and World War.

2.Context: After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, Europe entered a period of relatively stable peace. Initiated at the Congress of Vienna, the conservative powers led by Metternich in Austria developed a European geopolitical system based on the maintenance of the status quo and designed to avoid warthrough a balance of powers that eliminated the threat of any one nation gaining extreme strength by ensuring the relative strength of that nation's adversaries. The balance of power held through 1870, with brief periods of revolt in 1830 and 1848 that sprang from class differences exacerbated and made obvious by the industrial revolution. The revolts of 1830 and 1848 were also generated bythe clash of ideologies present through the mid-nineteenth century. While 1815-1848 is often (and not incorrectly) characterized as teetering between conservatism and liberalism, it also saw the rise and maturation of radicalism, romanticism, nationalism, and socialism. Though the 1830 and 1848 revolts were quickly suppressed by the conservative powers, they did demonstrate a general trend toward an increasingly active working class desirous of economic and political power. In 1870 and 1871 Italy and Germany became unified nations, with Germany in particular emerging as an immediate international force.

The years between 1871 and 1914 brought liberal progress in England, social welfare in Germany, imperial expansion throughout the world, the spread of European civilization, and economic

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

strengthening of England, Germany, the United States, and Japan. Newspaper editors and cultural pundits referred to these years contemporaneously as the "dawn of a new era" in scientific development, peace, economic expansion, and cultural civilization. Without war or major conflict insight, Europe set out to perfect its home and spread its perfection throughout the world. The order of the day was, quite simply, self- improvement, national improvement, and attainable perfection; the great successes of Europe during these years seemed to prove that such was possible. Unfortunately, certain paternalistic policies developed out of such a perspective. While we cannot apologize for brutal treatment of Africans and Asians during the imperial period, we can understand such practices as the manifestations of a European polity that thought it was implementing the true inheritance of its liberal heritage. Further, though no major war seemed to threaten, the forty years after 1871 erupted in World War I, a catastrophic war that tore through Europe with a brutality unanticipated by any of its combatants. Any study of the period between 1871 and 1914 must be made with an eye to 1914, and the massive, transformative war that year held.

3.Important Terms, People, and Events:

TermsBalance of Power - The European geopolitical system based on the assumption that nations are inherently expansionist, which maintained peace by pitting various camps or alliances of equal power against each other, thereby minimizing one nation's ability to conquer and disrupt the peace. The system originated after the defeat of Napoleon, continued throughout the nineteenth century in Europe and succeeded at promoting peace. The balance of power collapsed in 1914 under the pressure of the arms race, a shift in the criteria of power, and the mistaken expectation of a short war rather than the World War that seized Europe.

Scramble for Africa - 1875-1912; the term used to describe Europe's rush to colonize and divide up the African continent in the latter part of the nineteenth century; this coincided with imperialism throughout Asia.

Three Emperors' League - 1873; an alliance coordinated by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck between the three most conservative powers in Europe--Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. Each nation pledged to consult the others on matters of mutual interest and guaranteed that in case one went to war with a nation in western Europe, the other two would remain neutral. The league showed Bismarck's plan to eliminate the threat of a two-front war for Germany; also suggests the prevalence of the balance of power.

Labour Party - A British political party that first gained prominence in 1892 with the election if its first representative to the House of Commons; represented the interests of British workers and called for the beginnings of socialist platform, and generally advocated the welfare state, government intervention in the economy, protection to workers, a short work day, et cetera.

Congress of Berlin - 1878; the peace conference concluding the First Balkan Crisis, in which Russia supported the nationalist revolt of Bosnia-Herzegovina against the Ottoman Empire. Bosnia and Herzegovina were turned over to Austria-Hungary and Russia pledged to abandon its support ofSerbia nationalism--all in the name of the balance of power.

Kulturkampf - Literally, "struggle for civilization"; the name given to Germany's campaign against Catholics and the influence of Catholics in government in the name of loyalty to the Germanstate; included barring priests from government office, restricting religious education, and instituting civil marriage. Eventually the policy caused such concern from the general population that the Catholic Center party gained a substantial showing in the Reichstag, forcing the government to back down from its repression.

Triple Alliance - 1882; the alliance as it stood after Italy was asked to join; this maintained the

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

balance of power in Europe in the face of the Triple Entente.

Triple Entente - 1907; informal alliance between France, Russia, and Great Britain; France and Russia had maintained an alliance since 1895. Great Britain joined in reaction to ominous developments on the Continent, especially the formation of the Triple Alliance.

Social Democratic Party - By 1914, the largest single party in the German Reichstag; representedthe left of the political spectrum, held a Marxist political and economic philosophy, and adapted to cooperation within the democratic system. Socialist democrats advocated a state socialist system--welfare state, union power, unemployment insurance, worker protection, et cetera--within the government. Unlike the violent revolutionaries, this party supported a gradual development from capitalism to socialism by making changes beneficial to the worker within the capitalist government.

Afrikaners - The mostly Dutch descendant of whites who had settled in South Africa over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries before British imperialists came. Virulently racist, with strong notions of racial superiority, they came into conflict with the British when gold deposits were discovered in the Afrikaner province of Transvaal.

Treaty of Nanking - 1842; the first of the "unequal treaties" between China and the European powers that gave the west important inroads and economic dominance in China's port cities and trade. An utter humiliation to the Chinese, the treaty forced the Chinese to pay huge indemnities to the British and grant large spheres of influence to its conquerors.

Spheres of influence - Territories, ports, shipping lines, rivers, et cetera in which one nation held exclusive rights to profits and investment; granted to most European states by China after numerousmilitary defeats throughout the second half of the nineteenth century.

Extraterritoriality - The policy that foreigners were exempt from Chinese law enforcement and that, though on Chinese land, they could only be judged and tried by officials of their own nation who generally looked the other way when profit was the goal; contributed to considerable indignation on the part of the Chinese.

PeopleJames Kier Hardie - The first representative of the Labour Party in the British House of Parliament,elected in 1892, and the first real working-man to sit full time in the Commons.

Otto von Bismarck - Chancellor of the German Empire; a keen political operative who understood the geopolitics of modern Europe and worked to change the balance of power to Germany's favor; his main goal was to isolate his strongest enemy, i.e. France, from any other state on the Continent, thus his alliances with Austria-Hungary and Russia prior to 1895. A pragmatist above all else, he was known for his practice of realpolitik, or politics of self-interest.

Menelik II - Emperor of Ethiopia and a skillful politician; realized that his country could only defeat the European imperialists by playing them off one another, therefore, he made small concessions to each in return for weapons. These weapons kept pouring in as numerous nations feared increased influence on the part of their enemy. When Italy did invade Ethiopia to take controlon 1 March 1896, Menelik II used all the modern weaponry he had obtained to defeat the Europeans.

Cecil Rhodes - British investor, politician, and imperial boss who envisioned a railroad connecting all British territory from Cairo, Egypt to Cape Town, South Africa. He was the major investor who, after the discovery of gold in Transvaal, brought the British in to mine the mineral, sparking conflictwith the Afrikaner government. He orchestrated an overthrow of the government that failed and ruined his reputation.

EventsBoulanger Affair - 1889; the attempt by General Georges Boulanger to orchestrate his election to the presidency of France and establish a military dictatorship. He skillfully manipulated the press and photo opportunities to endear himself to the agrarian poor of France, while maintaining his baseof support among conservatives. Still, the coup attempt failed when he did not receive enough votes.

First Balkan Crisis - 1874-1878; Bosnia and Herzegovina rebelled against Ottoman rule, leading to Serbia declaring war on the Ottoman Empire on 30 June 1876. Russia, based on its foreign policy ofpan-Slavism, declared war on the Ottomans in due course. Britain, interested in maintaining the balance of power and protecting its Mediterranean holdings that depended upon the status quo, nominally supported the Turkish sultan. Sultan Hamid II of Turkey sought peace in January 1878.

Second Balkan Crisis - 1885; conflict between Bulgaria and Serbia over territory; Russia warned it was ready to occupy Bulgaria if it did not yield to Serbian claims, at which point Austria-Hungary stepped in to support Bulgaria; Germany supported Austria- Hungary and the Russians backed down; led to the breakdown of the Three Emperors' League because Russia felt betrayed by Germany.

Third Balkan Crisis - 1912-1913; Italy in conflict with the Ottoman Empire over holdings around the Adriatic Sea; Serbia takes advantage of weakened Ottoman Empire to attack Bulgarian lands forher own sea port; Russia supports Serbia and Austria-Hungary supports Bulgaria, while Britain and Germany urged peace; this crisis enraged Serbs against Austria-Hungary for its support of Bulgaria and its continued occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina

Dreyfus Affair - 1894; Alfred Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew, was tried and convicted of treason for selling French military secrets to the Germans. The media went on extensive investigations to discover the truth and when conclusive evidence emerged to prove his innocence, the entire French nation became caught up in the issue. Conservatives generally supported his conviction in the name of national unity and anti-Semitism, while liberals and supporters of the government demanded his exoneration in the name of liberty and truth; he was eventually exonerated.

Berlin Conference - 1884; conference held to legitimize the Belgian King Leopold II's claim to control the Congo Basin. The conference granted him recognition and set out formal requirements for future international recognition: "effective occupation" designed for economic development would be required, meaning that no longer did plunging a flag into the ground mean it was occupied.

Boer War - 1899-1902; a conflict between the British and the Afrikaner population of South Africa caused by British interests in mining gold out of Afrikaner land. The war progressed rather poorly for the better-equipped, better-trained, and larger British army. Under inept leadership and harassed by effective Afrikaner guerrilla tactics, the British were forced fight the Boer War for three years. In1902, the British accepted the conditional surrender of the Afrikaners in which the entire colony was united under British rule; however, the British promised the Afrikaners that no decision to include the black majority in government would be made before rule was returned to the Afrikaners.

Opium Wars - 1839-1842; conflict between China and Britain over Britain's illegal trading of opium in the Chinese market. The British blockaded Chinese ports, besieged Canton, and occupied Shanghai before the Chinese sought peace in the Treaty of Nanking.

Boxer Rebellion - 1900; with secret encouragement from the Chinese empress, the Boxers, dedicated to ending foreign exploitation in north China, killed scores of European and seized the large foreign legation in Beijing. Reacting immediately, an international expeditionary force of Japanese, Russian, British, American, German, French, Austrian and Italian troops sacked Beijing toprotect the interests of their respective countries. Afterward, the European powers propped up a weak central government for their own economic benefit.

4.Timeline: 1878 The end of Germany's Kulturkampf campaign against Catholics. 1879 Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary. 1882 Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. 1884 Berlin Conference held to regulate imperialism in Africa. 1885 Second Balkan Crisis between Bulgaria and Serbia. 1886 Gold discovered in the Transvaal territory in South Africa, heightening British interests in controlling this area. 1889 Boulanger Affair in France. 1890 Kasier Wilhelm II dismisses Otto von Bismarck. 1892 James Kier Hardie is the first representative in the British Parliament from the Labour Party. 1894 "Dreyfus Affair" in France begins and captures the attention of the entire nation for some time. 1896 Battle of Adowa in Ethiopia, allowing Ethiopia to remain independent. 1899-1902 Boer War in South Africa between the British and the Afrikaners. 1900 Boxer Rebellion in China. 1907 Triple Entente between Great Britain, France, and Russia. 1911 National Insurance Act passed in Britain. 1912 Third Balkan Crisis: Italy versus Turkey. 1913 Third Balkan Crisis: Serbia and Bulgaria go to war.

5.Political Change in Britain (1832-1900):

SummaryThrough much of the nineteenth century, Great Britain avoided the kind of social upheaval that intermittently plagued the Continent between 1815 and 1870. Supporters of Britain claimed that thissuccess derived from a tradition of vibrant parliamentary democracy. While this claim holds some truth, the Great Reform Bill of 1832, the landmark legislation that began extending the franchise to more Englishmen, still left the vote to only twenty percent of the male population. A second reform bill passed in 1867 vertically expanded voting rights, but power remained in the hands of a minority--property-owning elites with a common background, a common education, and an essentially common outlook on domestic and foreign policy. The pace of reform in England outdistanced that of the rest of Europe, but for all that remained slow. Though the Liberals and Conservatives did advance different philosophy on the economy and government in its most basic sense, the common brotherhood on all representatives in parliament assured a relatively stable policy-making history.

In the 1880s, problems of unemployment, urban housing, public health, wages, working conditions, and healthcare upset this traditional balance and led the way for the advent of a new and powerful political movement in Great Britain: the Labour Party. By 1900, wages were stagnating while pricescontinued to rise throughout the country. The urban centers of London and Manchester faced crumbling housing and tenements arose throughout every major industrial center. Workers responded to their problems by putting their faith not in the Liberal Party, the group that traditionally received the worker vote since industrialization, but in the oft-militant trade unions, organizations that advanced worker demands in Parliament, cared for disabled workers, and assistedin pension, retirement, and contract matters.

In 1892 James Kier Hardie, an independent workingman from Scotland, became the first such man to sit in the House of Commons. He represented the Labour Party and built upon trade union support to craft a workers' party dedicated to advancing the cause of working Englishmen. For the first time in its history, the British Parliament began to represent class distinctions in English society. By 1906, twenty-nine seats in Parliament went to Labour.

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

Pressured by the new Labour movement, Liberals and Conservatives were forced to act for fear of losing any substantial labor vote. The so-called New Liberals, led by Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George, supported legislation to strengthen the right of unions to picket peacefully. The Liberal government passed the National Insurance Act of 1911, providing payments to workers for sickness and introducing unemployment benefits. In addition, heeding Labour's call for a more democratic House, Lloyd George pushed the Parliament Bill of 1911 that reduced the House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament that had always been dominated by conservatives averse to worker legislation) to a position lower than the House of Commons. Since the Parliament Bill, the Commons could raise taxes without the Lords approval and pay for any needed worker legislation. Finally, in 1913, the powerful Labour movement, about to eclipse the Liberals as the Conservative'sopposition, pushed through the Trade Unions Act. This law granted unions legal rights to settle theirgrievances with management directly, without the interference of a generally conservative Parliament.

CommentaryThe extension of the voting franchise that began in England in 1832 with the Great Reform Bill initiated, albeit slowly, a process of liberalization unseen in the history of the British Parliament. Previously, power rested in the hands of the few aristocrats with enough property and wealth to passa relatively high property requirement for voting and holding office. Yet while the lowering of the wealth prerequisite provided an easy target for modern liberals when arguing for the democratization of Parliament, this democratization at first did not extend to the working class. Most representatives in the Commons came through Eton to either Cambridge or Oxford where, under the tutelage of the same professors, these future leaders developed a similar outlook on the world: the superiority of the British system, the rightness of imperialism, the power of industry, the benefits of trade, and the value of general isolation from the Continent. These views, though subjectto some slight degree differences between Liberals and Conservatives, remained common through most of the House. Such views did not square with the new concerns of the workers who had neither received an elite education, nor, in some cases, an education at all.

However, though it took more than half a century, the British system did gradually change to meet the problems associated with the industrial age. Also important to notice is that it did not require a Labour majority in Parliament--something that would not come until the interwar years--to initiate changes. The political system was malleable enough that pressure from a small minority party in Parliament pushed the traditionally uninterested Liberal and Conservative majority to seriously modify their political goals and actions. Politicians in England were farsighted, keen on capturing the awesome potential power of the worker movement before it got out of hand--namely, before it ignited a powerful party of its own.

6.Politics in Germany (1871-1914):

SummaryThe year 1871 marked the beginning of the German Empire under the Prussian crown. An empire inname, Germany was actually administered by its chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a landed aristocrat (or, Junker) from east Prussia. Though Germany maintained universal manhood suffrage, the Reichstag, the house of Parliament in the German Empire, held only very restricted powers of legislation. Most power remained with Bismarck himself.

Through the 1870s, Bismarck formed expedient alliances with the German center- left parties that had held the majority in German politics since the inception of the empire. These alliances allowed Bismarck to maintain power and thereby establish the main elements of national administration: legal codes, railroad and banking systems, a judicial apparatus, and the civil service structure. In

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

addition, the liberals called on Bismarck's assistance for their anti-Papal campaign, a movement Bismarck was only too happy to lead. Known as the Kulturkampf, or "struggle for civilization", the anti-Church campaign aimed to eliminate Catholics who, Bismarck thought, could never maintain true loyalty to the state because of their higher loyalty to Rome. The legislation of the Kulturkampf removed priests from state service, restricted religious education, elevated civil marriage, and arrested and expelled defiant priests and bishops. Bismarck's attack on the Church was not altogether successful, since it inspired widespread concern over the social fabric of the new state, allowing the Catholic Center party to rally the Catholic vote and other supporters to oppose Bismarck's policies. After his catholic adversaries gained scores of seats in the Reichstag in 1878, Bismarck saw defeat and reached out to the new Pope, Leo XIII, to negotiate a settlement between Germany and the Church. The Kulturkampf ended and Catholic toleration became law.

Without the opposition of the Kulturkampf the Catholic party lost some of its steam, and the powerful Social Democratic Party emerged as Bismarck's key enemy. Led by Eduard Bernstein, the Social Democrats were Marxists who called for a gradual development of the capitalist system into a state socialist system. Among other things, the Social Democrats advocated working within the system to advance the needs of the workers through welfare legislation, trade union power, economic regulation, and nationalization or regulation of industry. Bismarck, recognizing the appealto Germany's growing working classes, initiated a "carrot and stick" approach of simultaneous repression and an overt effort to acquire popular support. To repress (the stick), Bismarck passed theAnti- Socialist Law, expanding police powers and forbidding socialist meetings, fundraising, and the distribution of printed materials. Police could now arrest any suspected socialist under only a minimum of suspicion. To bring popular support to the state (the carrot), Bismarck pushed extensive social welfare legislation through the Reichstag. The state provided accident insurance, sickness benefits, old age pensions, disability payments, et cetera. However, these moderate reformsdid nothing to undermine the growing popularity of the Marxist movement under the Social Democrats. By 1890, the year Kaiser Wilhelm II fired Bismarck, the Social Democrats controlled over twenty percent of the electorate and thirty-five seats in the Reichstag; by 1914, the Social Democrats were the largest single party in German politics.

To keep the Social Democrats in the minority, Wilhelm II required mass conservative support--fromthe traditional aristocrats to the middle classes and the agrarian poor. Wilhelm found that such a coalition could best be built and maintained through the manipulation of nationalist and militaristic sentiments in the name of an aggressive foreign policy that called for colonial expansion, military development, and espoused German superiority in Europe. Such a system characterized German politics through to the end of World War I.

CommentaryIn 1871, Germany was a new nation; by 1890, Germany was arguably the strongest power on the Continent. Its military, though smaller than that of France or Russia, was the most modern, best equipped, and highly disciplined; its economy was the most vibrant due to its great success at industrialization and technological development; its national integrity was solid and unbreakable due to the importance Bismarck had always placed on loyalty and national improvement. If this wasall true, what was Germany's problem? Put less colloquially, why was Germany itching to prosecutea dangerously aggressive foreign policy when its domestic situation was strong and its position in Europe was unrivaled? Let us consider a few possible answers.

As stated above, domestic political concerns could have driven Wilhelm II to pursue a necessarily aggressive foreign policy in order to gain the support of the agrarian poor and middle classes against the Social Democrats. This is entirely possible, though it seems unlikely that Germany would have gone to the lengths that it did--namely, World War I--for political reasons alone.

Let us look at this policy in its historical context. The nineteenth century had been one of great peace--no major conflicts like those of the Napoleonic Era. The conflicts that had developed were

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

short, localized, and all victories for Prussia/Germany. In this context, Wilhelm's policies do not seem so risky.

Consider this final possibility: though hindsight can offer us the benefit of peering into the national situations of the European powers, perhaps Europe did not know Germany was really the most powerful on the Continent. France, the loser in the Franco-Prussian War, may have been out of picture, and Russia, the backward giant, may not have had too much credibility; however, Great Britain was the great question mark. Britain controlled an enormous colonial empire, its industrial economy was aging but still unrivaled, its political system was supreme and the country was at peace because of it. Germany may have felt it ruled the Continent, but it could not rival England. These three elements, domestic political concerns, a historical context that seemed to assure victory,and a perceived need to justify its power, combined to propel Germany into a an aggressive and risky foreign policy, both within Europe and the colonial world.

6.The "Affairs" of the French Third Republic (1871-1914):

SummaryThe French Third Republic rose out of the ashes of Napoleon III's Second Empire after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. The Third Republic was a parliamentary republic, often unstable and constantly seeking legitimacy. By the end of the 1870s, the Third Republic found its home in the center of the French revolutionary and democratic tradition. The government enacted legislation aimed at solidifying the common identity of all Frenchmen: compulsory schooling, centralized curricula, civics education, mandatory military service, and the central control of all media and government information from Paris. But it was the Boulanger Affair and the Dreyfus Affair (so commonly known that the latter simply became known as "The Affair") that, for better or for worse,gave the French Third Republic before World War I its own historical identity.

General Georges Boulanger was a popular figure who captured the imagination of the French press. He found total army support when he reorganized the military as minister of war; he received business support when he led troops to end worker strikes. Most importantly, the agrarian poor wereenchanted with this horseback riding hero as the preeminent French patriot. In 1889, Boulanger decided to use his popularity for his own advancement in the political arena: Boulanger hoped to establish a dictatorship in France on the heels of his election to the presidency by mass mandate. Through skillful manipulation of the media and popular symbols, Boulanger's campaign associated the would-be military dictator with patriotism, military victory, honor, constitutional reform, democracy, social welfare, and a whole litany of policies that gave each constituent group something to look forward to in a Boulanger administration. He was able to amass a large enough group to scare the Third Republic, but failed to gain the support he needed. His effort failed when he lost the election.

However, it was the Dreyfus Affair that truly galvanized and held the attention of the entire French nation. In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jewish army officer accused of passing French militarysecrets to the Germans, was convicted of treason. His trial provided an outlet for virulent French xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Sentenced to exile to Devil's Island, Dreyfus maintained his innocence in the face of a French public captivated by scare tactics from the radical right. Eventually, the evidence crucial in cementing Dreyfuss' conviction was shown to have been forged and fabricated. When the illegal activities and forged evidence came to be known in the mass press, the entire country divided into two camps: the pro-Dreyfusards (usually political allied of the left and the Third Republic) who supported Dreyfus's innocence; and the anti-Dreyfusards (usually allies of traditionally conservative institutions such as the Church and the army, alongside rabid anti-Semites) who maintained his guilt in the name of French honor, national integrity, and racial purity. The entire country organized into leagues of small groups--intellectuals, workers, soldiers, clerics, leftists, et cetera--all in the name of their position on "The Affair". Dreyfus was eventually

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

exonerated in the press and in the court after conclusive evidence unearthed by the media determined that it was one of Dreyfus's colleagues on the General Staff who leaked the secrets and framed the Jewish scapegoat.

CommentaryThe French Third republic from 1871 to 1914 provides the first example of politics in the new era of mass politics and mass media and mass culture. Just as Napoleon III could have been considered the first real modern politician because of his skillful manipulation of pictures, photo-ops, and the media, the French Third Republic can be considered the first fully modern political society. The media provided the essential building block in that scenario. Due to the Third Republic's tendencies toward centralization, farmers in the most remote areas read Parisian newspapers, centralized railroads made communication of news easy and quick, and central education requirements made the French nation into one solid entity and, thus, into a mass culture. That mass culture was susceptible to cheap slogans taking aim at foreigners and outsiders, hence the near success of Boulanger's coup and Dreyfus's accusers. Nothing in particular saved democracy and justice from its conservative enemies--in Boulanger's case, he simply did not receive enough support, and in Dreyfus's case, had conclusive evidence not turned up, who knows what would have happened. Though the Third Republic survived--it, in fact, was never really in danger of collapsing until the interwar years--its new mass media was now a force to be considered.

7.Conservatism in Austria (1871-1914):

SummaryThe Empire of Austria-Hungary, a dominion in which the Magyars of Hungary received a modicum of autonomy under the rule of one monarch who was simultaneously emperor of Austria and king ofHungary, was a multinational empire that controlled the region of Eastern Europe to the south of Russia's Polish lands. In 1860, the Habsburg monarchs were forced to accept constitutional government with a parliamentary system based on a very limited suffrage. As a result, the bourgeoisie, who identified their interests with those of the landed and inherited aristocracy, took control of Austrian politics and society. As testament to their rights as inheritors of Austria's great western and cultural tradition, the Germanic bourgeois leaders in Vienna rebuilt the city as a virtual fortification of grand structures. However, this control led to a popular backlash that limited its longevity.

By 1900, liberal bourgeois politicians who favored free trade and little government involvement in economic affairs were being eliminated by mass politics movements from the right that were based on charisma, fantasy, and mere appearances. These mass parties were formed out of any number of views: anti- Germanic feelings (supported by most ethnic minorities in the empire), anti- capitalist opinions (supported by millions of farmers, peasants, and the very small worker population), anti-Semitic perspectives (supported by everyone from artisans to students to the agrarian poor to the militarists), and nationalist hopes (supported by the lower-middle class). These groups used demagoguery and scapegoating policies to rouse opposition to Jews (who were associated with capitalists and Germanic peoples for irrational reasons--and thus sweep themselves to political victory throughout the empire.

CommentaryThough manifested somewhat differently, the domestic events in Britain, Germany, and France between 1871 and 1914 follow a similar trend: these forty years before the outbreak of World War I mark the emergence of the masses as a political force. In Britain and Germany, we refer to the workers; in France, we refer to the agrarian poor and non-Parisians; in Austria, we refer to everyone

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

save the elite, Germanic bourgeoisie. Each and every group became a powerful force in politics and society during this time period.

So, what does this mean? The growth of popular power in Europe at this time suggests that the fortyyears before World War I can be seen as the beginning of "late modernity", setting the stage for a twentieth century in which the western democracies dedicated themselves to the expansion of democratic civil and individual rights. The domination of traditional aristocratic elements in European society came to its final end in this period of history and, by virtue of that fact alone, the years after 1871 should be viewed as a revolutionary time, even if it was a revolution without blood.

8:The Scramble for Africa (1876-1914):

SummaryHistorians generally agree that the Scramble for Africa, the rushed imperial conquest of the Africa by the major powers of Europe, began with King Leopold II of Belgium. After reading a report in early 1876 that the rich mineral resources of the Congo Basin (the modern-day Republic of the Congo) could return an entrepreneurial capitalist a substantial profit, the Belgian king ordered the creation of the International African Association, under his personal direction, to assume control over the Congo Basin region. When Leopold asked for international recognition of his personal property in the Congo, Europe gathered at the Berlin Conference, called to create policy on imperialclaims. The conference, after much political wrangling, gave the territory to Leopold as the Congo Free State. The conference further decreed that for future imperialist claims to garner international recognition, "effective occupation" would be required. In other words, no longer did plunging a flaginto the ground mean that land was occupied. The conference also created some definition for "effective occupation," noting that significant "economic development" was required.

Given notice by King Leopold, the major European powers sprung into action. Within forty years, by 1914 and the end of the scramble for Africa, Great Britain dominated the breadth of the African continent from Egypt to South Africa, as well as Nigeria and the Gold Coast; the French occupied vast expanses of west Africa; the Germans boasted control over modern-day Tanzania and Namibia;the Portuguese exerted full control over Angola and Mozambique. Only Ethiopia and the African-American state of Liberia remained independent. Conquest was relatively easy for the European states: because of previous agreements not to sell modern weapons to Africans in potential colonial areas, Europe easily held the technological and armament advantage. Bands of just a few hundred men and barely a handful of machine guns could obliterate thousands of Africans in mere hours.

The only notable exception to this was Ethiopia, a strategically (especially after the opening of the Suez Canal) placed state at the horn of Africa. By the early 1870s, Ethiopia was in danger of invasion from the British, French, and Italians. With Britain occupying Egypt in 1882, France taking Djibouti in 1884, and Italy dominating Eritrea in 1885, Ethiopia's Emperor Menelik II hatched a daring plan: he would exploit European rivalries and competing interests for the benefit of his country by playing one European power against the other to obtain the modern weapons he needed to protect the boundaries of his state. After Menelik II gave minor concessions to France in return for weapons, Italy grew nervous of the growing French interest in the country and offered Menelik Italian weapons, as well. Soon, Britain and even Russia joined in the game. Throughout the1880s, Ethiopia grew stronger and stronger as the scramble for Africa went on around it. However, by the early 1890s, Menelik's plans began to unravel as war seemed imminent. In 1889, Italy claimed Ethiopia as an Italian protectorate. When Menelik objected, Italy moved against the emperor all of Europe had armed for over a decade. Italy, longing for a glorious victory to enhance its prestige, ordered its troops into battle. Outnumbered and outequipped, the Italians lost over eight thousand men in the Battle of Adowa on 1 March 1896. Ethiopia remained independent.

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

CommentaryWhy empire? What were the motives for empire in general, and in Africa specifically? We can speak of this in general and specific terms. When one asks, say, "Why did Great Britain decide to take Kenya?", we may answer that it was a necessary stop in London's goal to control a north-south corridor in Africa. Others claimed lands so their enemies would not. Still others dominated certain areas to please missionaries already in place. Various specific reasons dominate any discussion of the specifics of the scramble for Africa; however, what were the motives for empire in general? Let us take a few possibilities in turn.

Economics: The economic potential of empire, as Britain and Spain had been proving for centuries, was unquestionable. Empire could insulate the mother country from dangerous booms and busts in the economic cycle by keeping markets open and exclusive. Mercantile policies could increase revenues and natural resources could shore up the treasury.

Geopolitics: Some of these areas were strategically important for maintaining trade routes to Asia ormaintaining refueling station for a world- wide navy. The Horn of Africa, the southern tip of the continent, and the west- African coast were all strategic locations for world control. Inside the continent, territory was important for its location. Great Britain, hoping to link Cairo in the north with Cape Town in the south, wanted north-south dominion; therefore, all the territory between those two points gained strategic value.

Nationalism: To report back home and throughout Europe that one nation acquired thousands of square miles of territory and millions of captive populations enhanced the prestige of that state throughout the world and for its own people. To be a victor in the imperial game meant great national pride and, thus, the improvement of the ruling party back at home.

Liberalism: Many students tend to overlook or not understand this element, and its counterintuitive nature forces it out of many history textbooks. The liberal tradition of Europe emphasized not equality, as we do today, but self-improvement and the perfectibility of man. This belief, combined with Charles Darwin's New Science and the warping of the statement "survival of the fittest" by social Darwinism, encouraged the view that Europe was going down into the so-called Dark Continent to raise up and civilize the savage natives. Nothing could be more paternalistic or racist in outlook; however, as odd as it may seem, imperialism is thus associated with the liberal view of the perfectibility of man.

While much of Europe enthusiastically participated in and looked upon the colonization of Africa, itwould be simplistic to claim that imperialist policies were everywhere admired. In terms of its depiction of the negative affects of African imperialism on both Africa and Europe, and its depictionof the processes of Imperialism itself, perhaps no account is quite so powerful as Joseph Conrad's 1905 Heart of Darkness. Conrad's personal distaste for colonialism should not be taken as a compendium of all the criticisms of the imperial game, but in addition to the themes and issues it does deal with, it can be seen as an indication that a lively debate did exist as to the motives and affects of imperial actions.

9.Conflict in Africa: the Boer War (1895-1902):

SummaryFor generations, South Africa witnessed conflict between Europeans and white settlers, both of whom wanted political and economic control of the region. Most particularly, conflict developed between Britain and Afrikaners, mostly Dutch descendants of white settlers who had emigrated to South Africa throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Britain wanted total dominion overthe region of South Africa, and the Afrikaners constituted a significant roadblock. In the 1830s Britain began to assert control. From 1837 to 1844 the British forced the Afrikaner population onto

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

the Great Trek, a resettlement plan that moved the Afrikaners from the coastal colonial settlement tothe interior lands of Transvaal and Orange Free State. In 1884, Germany, Britain's archrival in Europe, established itself in neighboring Namibia. Then, in 1886, huge gold deposits were found in the Transvaal territory of South Africa. Faced with the prospect of immense economic gain and the sudden possibility of German political intervention in regard to that financial windfall, the British, under capitalist entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes, took action.

Very quickly, the British came to the conclusion that their interests were not fully served under the political regime of the Afrikaner government in Transvaal. The Afrikaner policies on tariffs and trade did not square with British imperial aims. In 1895, Rhodes and his chief lieutenant, Dr. L. S. Jameson, took advantage of the unrest of British settlers in the Transvaal region to launch an unauthorized overthrow attempt. Jamesone himself led a contingent of British South African police into Transvaal. The invasion proved to be premature and a complete failure. Jameson was captured, turned over to the British and imprisoned for his unauthorized attack. Rhode's was forced to resign his position.

New British leadership did nothing to ease tensions. In 1899, angered over what they perceived as the harsh treatment of British settlers in the Transvaal and still motivated by the prospect of gold, the British began a massive build up of British forces in the area. In October 1899, the Afrikaner President Paul Kruger demanded the withdrawal of these troops and threatened war if his demands went unmet. The British did not comply, and on October 12 the Transvaal and Orange Free State declared war.

The war progressed rather poorly for the better-equipped, better-trained, and larger British army. Under inept leadership and harassed by effective Afrikaner guerrilla tactics, the British were forced to fight the war for three years. By the time the war was over--a war, by the way, that saw the British introduce and effectively use concentration camps as a means of controlling captured populations--over sixty thousand people had died. The British lost almost 30,000 fighting men, while Afrikaner forces lost some 5000. More than 20,000 Afrikaner civilians died in the concentration camps. Numbers of deaths of black Africans placed in the camps went uncounted, though the numbers certainly reached into the thousands. In 1902, after massive effort and expense, and the brutal tactics of the English commander Herbert Horatio Kitchener, the British exhausted the Boer's into submission.

On May 31 the two sides signed the Treaty of Vereeniging, under which the British accepted the conditional surrender of the Afrikaners. The Transvaal and Orange Free State were promised limitedfuture autonomy as British colonies. The British in turn promised to pay three million pounds and promised the Afrikaners that no decision to include the black majority in government would be made before rule was returned to the Afrikaners. This, unfortunately, made twentieth-century apartheid an eventuality.

CommentaryWhen discussing the Boer War, one cannot skip over the brutality the British used against its white enemies in South Africa. Concentration camps were havens for disease, malnutrition, and persecution. Individual rights did not exist in these territories and women and children were raped, abused, and forced into labor for the British government. No one knows the extent of the abuse, though it is clear they did not compare to those perpetrated by Hitler or Stalin in scope or atrocity. However, it is important to note that concentration camps developed under British auspices and were used against fellow whites, fellow Europeans, and fellow imperialists.

Also illustrated by the Boer War is that while European states were quite unwilling to go to war against each other over African territories--the French and British seemed near to blows over the Fashoda Incident in 1898--the powers had no difficulties slaughtering African populations for their own national benefit. This disparity, furthermore, could not derive simply from European racial

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

superiority because, as in the case of the Afrikaners, the British fought whites of European descent who also maintained rabid racist policies toward the black majority. How is it that Britain could not conceive of war against France in Africa--as if Africa was not worth a war--but it was quite easy forCecil Rhodes to demand the conquering of the South African population already in place even before England officially came to Cape Colony?

10.Imperialism in Asia (1830-1900):

SummaryEurope's scramble for Africa did not leave South and East Asia at peace. Beginning in the seventeenth century, Great Britain formed and maintained an economic relationship with India. By the end of the eighteenth century, British rule of India was firmly planted and London came to view India as the jewel of its empire. This view guided its foreign policy. For decades, Britain used its military victories and naval superiority to ensure uninterrupted routes to India and beyond, hence itsisland holdings in the Mediterranean, along the west African coast, at the southern tip of Africa, and, most importantly, the Suez Canal. By the end of the eighteenth century, Indo-British economic ties were so entrenched in a neo-mercantile system that India provided a stepping stone for British trade with China. Britain traded English wool and Indian cotton for Chinese tea and textiles; however, as Chinese demand slackened, Britain sought other means of attracting trade with China.

By the 1830s, Britain realized it could make up the trade deficit with China by selling Indian opium into the Chinese market, making opium Britain's most profitable and important crop in world markets. Eventually, opium poured into China faster than tea poured into British hands; soon, Chinese merchants, already addicted themselves and buying for an addicted population, paid Britishopium traders in pure silver.

Concerned with the sharp rise in opium addiction and the associated social costs and rise in criminalacts, the Chinese government, led by the aging Manchu dynasty, took action against the British. In 1839, the Chinese destroyed British opium in the port city of Canton, sparking the Opium Wars of 1839- 1842. Easily dominating the backward Chinese forces, the British expeditionary force blockaded Chinese ports, occupied Shanghai, and took complete control of Canton. The 1842 Treaty of Nanking granted Britain extensive trading and commercial rights in China, marking the first in a series of unequal treaties between China and European imperial powers. By the end of the century, after five wars between China and various European powers, France, Britain, Germany, Japan, and Russia held territorial and commercial advantages in their respective spheres of influence. These spheres of influence comprised territories, ports, shipping lines, rivers, et cetera in which one nation held exclusive rights to profits and investment. In 1899, the United States, freshly anointed as an inernational force by its crushing victory over Spain in the 1898Spanish-American War, objected to the prevalence of spheres of influence. The US advocated and pushed through a new Open Door Policy, an effectively imperial policy that demanded that all nations be given equal and complete rights to Chinese markets.

In addition, and most irritating to the Chinese, Europeans maintained extraterritoriality inside thousands of Chinese port cities. Extraterritoriality meant that foreigners were exempt from Chineselaw enforcement and that, though on Chinese land, they could only be judged and tried by officials of their own nation who generally looked the other way when profit was the goal. The resulting lawlessness on the part of the Europeans, combined with the actuality of European economic, political, and military domination of the Chinese, contributed to a virulent anti-imperial sentiment. In 1900, the Boxer Rebellion saw that sentiment explode into mass social unrest and war. With secret encouragement from the Chinese empress, the Boxers, dedicated to ending foreign exploitation in north China, killed scores of European and seized the large foreign legation in Beijing. Reacting immediately, an international expeditionary force of Japanese, Russian, British,

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

American, German, French, Austrian, and Italian troops put down the revolt and sacked Beijing to protect the interests of their respective countries. Afterward, the European powers propped up a weak central government for their own economic benefit.

Beyond China, European imperialism in Asia remained strong. Britain moved into Hong Kong in 1842, into Burma in 1886, and into Kowloon in 1898. France took direct control over the provinces of Indochina--Annam, Tonkin, and Cochinchina (which together make up modern day Vietnam), Laos, and Cambodia.

CommentaryWhat were the effects of the European imperial adventure? Some look at the world today through an economic lens and see both great successes and great disasters that emerged from the imperial era: some primitive nations received the necessary infrastructure to develop, as the successful capitalist states in east Asia seem to suggest, while others were destroyed by economic and social exploitation, as the countries of Africa seem to suggest. However, we are looking in the very long run. Let us consider a few contemporaneous consequences of imperialism for European and world society.

An interdependent world economy developed with Europe at its center. Colonies provided necessary raw materials for the advanced industrial production in European factory centers such as London, Manchester, and Berlin. Capital flowed out of the wealthy nations of Western Europe and into colonial areas to support projects that required heavy capital investment and promised strong returns, such as railroad construction, industrial development, et cetera. London became the financial center of the world, serving as a clearing-house for billions of dollars worth of world-wideinvestment. Capital became fluid throughout the world, loans were extended for the long run, domestic stock markets skyrocketed and, depending upon the extent of empire, remained somewhat insulated from the boom and bust cycles of late nineteenth century capitalism.

Barely a handful of countries, outside of the western hemisphere, remained independent. Ethiopia, Siam, and Liberia were three conspicuously colorless locations on a world map tinted with imperial ink. Europe was at the epicenter of political domination of the world due to its imperial successes. Itcould leverage trade, strategic bases, and access to necessary waterways in order to achieve diplomatic success.

The dark side of imperialism, the arguments for cultural and racial superiority of the European peoples, were common throughout the imperial world. Rudyard Kipling, writing about the American imperial venture in the Philippines, spoke of a "White Man's burden" to civilize, improve,and educate the native populations that was in large part based on the social Darwinism advanced by Herbert Spencer'sSocial Statics.

The ecological effects of imperialism were mixed throughout the world. Imperialism led to the dislocation of thousands of small societies--especially in Africa--when the Europeans drew haphazard and illogical lines on the colonial maps. Industrial development disturbed the pristine environment of previously undamaged territories, the traditional societies were replaced by European businessmen and investors. While slavery had gone out of favor some time ago, African and Asian men and women were viewed as cheap labor for European factories; therefore, slavery conditions persisted.

On an intellectual level, the rapid proliferation of empire in the late nineteenth century contributed to a growing critique of capitalism from the Marxist left. In, 1916, Vladimir I. Lenin, the revolutionary communist leader in Russia, argued in his pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage ofCapitalism that capitalist states required vast empires to maintain enough markets with whom to trade. This, in turn, contributed to the exploitation of native populations and, as capitalist investors brought industry to the empire, the awakening of the native workers to their destiny under the Marxist scheme of economic development. With workers of the world--from Europe to the farthest

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

reaches of the empire--then united against capitalism, socialism will follow after imperialism.

11.The Balance of Power in Europe (1871-1914): This summary and commentary is almost identical to a section in the World War I SparkNote. It is included here as a necessary element in the history of Europe from 1871 to 1914; it is included in the World War I SparkNote as a prelude to the eruption of World War I by painting the picture of Europe before war. Try to link the history we have discussed in this SparkNote with the buildup of tensions leading to World War I. If you can do that, you have mastered one important element of historical study--the identification of patterns and links in all historical events.

SummaryAs the imperial game raged throughout the world, the map of Europe was changing as well. From 1815-1870, in the aftermath of Napoleon's near domination of Europe, the European power developed a system of military and political balance. The aptly-named balance of power in Europe was a system that aimed to maintain international order and peace by following any increase in strength of one nation-state with an increase in strength of his geographic or political enemy. By upholding this precarious system, the argument continued, no country would be willing to embark on a course of military expansion for fear of reprisal by an equally powerful force. The years 1870 and 1871 marked the consolidation of Italy and Germany, respectively, into viable and strong nation-states in the heart of Europe, changing the structure of the balance of power.

With the creation of Germany in 1871, the old balance of power involving France, a rump Brandenburg-Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia was replaced by a new system. Under the leadership of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Germany forged ahead in 1873 by joining the two most conservative powers in Europe--Austria-Hungary and Russia-to form the Three Emperors' League. The three empires pledged to consult one another on mutual interests in Europe and to remain neutral when any one member state took military action against a non- member, particularly France or the Balkan nations.

This balance of power program is best illustrated in Europe's relations with the so-called "sick man of Europe", or the Ottoman Empire. At its height, the Ottomans controlled the Middle East, parts of northern Africa, and territories as far north as Bosnia-Herzegovina. Since the Ottomans held dominion over the Balkans, most of Europe preferred to maintain the Ottoman Empire, no matter how weak, in order to prevent any one European state from imposing its own dominion over the Balkan peninsula. By keeping Constantinople intact, the balance of power in Europe proper could be maintained. However, it was the volatile Balkan Peninsula that threatened the very foundation of the European balance of power.

CommentaryThe logic behind a system of power balance dates back to Europe's reaction to the near complete domination of Europe by Napoleon's France. (The following explains its origins and seeks to address the validity of the logic, but digresses from the strong focus on World War I.) In September 1814, the great powers of Europe--then, Russia, Prussia, Austria, France, and Great Britain--met at the Congress of Vienna to redraw the map of Europe after Napoleon's defeat. The main goal: to prevent another instance of French aggression. To accomplish their goal, Austrian Foreign Minister Prince Klemens von Metternich and British Foreign Secretary Viscount Castlereagh probably developed the theory of balance of power. The manifestation of this theory was the strengthening ofall of France's neighbors in an attempt to plug up a previously porous border.

The Congress united the Austrian Netherlands and the Dutch Republic in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Great Britain gave William I, the Netherland's new king, 2 million to fortify his

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

frontier with France. The Italian province of Piedmont--bordering Switzerland and France--was joined with Sardinia into the Kingdom of Sardinia under a new monarchy to contain France to the southeast. The bourbon royal family was re-established in Spain to secure France's southern border, and Prussia was given control over the left bank of the River Rhine, containing France on the east.

The logic was quite simple: if the countries around France are strong enough, their strength will balance out the potential military might of Paris and prevent further French aggression. This doctrine held sway for almost a century. Yet it eventually collapsed into World War One for three main reasons.

1. With all of Europe united against France, the creation of a balance against one enemy was quite simple; however, as time passed and French aggression seemed less and less likely, a more complex Europe emerged in place of the simple All versus France.

2. The consolidation of Germany and Italy as strong nation-states upset the balance completely. With new players in the game of European geopolitics, the old logic did not hold: though Europe failed to react.

3. The advancement of technology in warfare changed the criteria of power. Whereas inNapoleonic times population and infantry forces made a great power, the dawn of the twentieth century saw the increased importance of battleships, submarines, troop mobility via trains, et cetera, that could not be balanced by the fortification of a neighbor, but rather only by a dangerous arms race.

12.Crises in the Balkans and the Road to Destruction:

SummaryThe Balkan crises began in 1874. That year, Bosnia and Herzegovina rebelled against Ottoman rule,beginning the First Balkan Crisis. When Turkey refused to reform its governing structure, Serbia declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 30 June 1876. Russia, based on its foreign policy of pan-Slavism, or fraternal allegiance between all Slavic peoples of eastern Europe, declared war on the Ottomans in due course. Britain, interested in maintaining the balance of power and protecting its Mediterranean holdings that depended upon the status quo, nominally supported the Turkish sultan. On 31 January 1878, Sultan Hamid II of Turkey sought peace.

Otto von Bismarck hosted the peace conference, known as the Congress of Berlin. Britain, concerned that growing Russian power at the expense of the Ottoman Empire would tilt the balance of power in Russia's favor, secured Constantinople and the Balkans away from Moscow's dominion.Bosnia and Herzegovina were turned over to Austria-Hungary and Russia pledged to abandon its support of Serbia nationalism--all in the name of the balance of power. However, with Serbian claims disregarded, continued conflict lay in the future.

As a result of Russia's obvious political losses at the Congress of Berlin, Russia abandoned its alliance with Germany in the Three Emperors' League. Bismarck, in turn, recommitted Germany and Austria-Hungary together in a Dual Alliance in 1879. In 1882, Italy was asked to join the Dual Alliance, thus converting it into a Triple Alliance that lasted until the beginning of World War I in 1914. The balance of power seemed to be working.

When, in 1885, the Second Balkan Crisis erupted between Bulgaria and Serbia, Russia threatened tooccupy Bulgaria, but Austria stepped in to prevent Russian dominance of the Balkans. When Germany supported Austria instead of Russia, the latter removed itself from all treaty obligations with Germany and allied itself with France in 1894. France, previously allied with Great Britain, cemented the Triple Entente when it encouraged the signing of an Anglo-Russian understanding in

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

1907. The balance of power now pitted Britain, France, and Russia against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.

In 1908, however, despite Russian objections, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia- Herzegovina outright. Serbia, along with Russia, believed that these Slavic lands should have been incorporated into a greater Serbian state. Eventually, Russia was forced to back down in the face of German pressure. Undaunted, Serbia took advantage of a weakened Turkey after a 1912 conflict with Italy to increase its Balkan holdings, causing the eruption of a war between Serbia and Bulgaria in 1913, known as the Third Balkan Crisis. Russia backed Serbia; Austria-Hungary backed Bulgaria. ThoughBritain nominally supported Russia and Germany tacitly supported Austria, both urged a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Regardless, Serbia was livid over both Austro-Hungarian support of Bulgaria and its continued dominance in Bosnia-Herzegovina, setting the stage for the spark that ignited World War I.

CommentaryConsider two elements of European politics at the beginning of the twentieth century that made the balance of power so dangerous. The first is an unlikely culprit, but nevertheless important--namely, liberalism. If we define liberalism as Europe did in the nineteenth century, this political, economic, and philosophical doctrine referred to national self-betterment, the perfectibility of man, and the discoverability of natural rules of conduct that all men could understand and follow. Liberalism served to justify imperial conquest with the latter's potential to "civilize" the native populations; liberalism also recognized war, limited and quick, as a legitimate form of foreign policy. Throughout the nineteenth century, wars were localized, had spanned mere weeks, and were fought to preserve the balance of power. If that could be true of all war, the argument continued, war could serve both national and international good when fought properly. That is, when it was based on discoverable rules of conduct.

However, as we have already argued, the balance of power of 1914 differed greatly from the balance of power of 1870. The balance that immediately preceded World War I was a balance of two armed camps--Great Britain, France, and Russia on one side and Germany, Austria-Hungary, and (nominally) Italy on the other side. These permanent partnerships locked policymakers into "blank- checks" of support for their allies in the name of preserving the precarious balance of power. This, in turn, permitted weak nations to act irresponsibly, with the certainty that they would be defended by their more powerful partners. This moral hazard problem explains the Balkan crises of 1874-1913. Combine the belligerent and arrogance of the smaller states with a philosophy of conduct that accepted war and the periphery could easily drag the center into war.

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

AbhishekHighlight

EUROPE 1871-1914TermsPeopleEventsSummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentarySummaryCommentary