Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evernote Export
They must formulate an independent foreign policy aimed at establishing mutual cooperation among states.
They should support independence and right to self determination.
They should not be a member of any military alliance created by big powers out of their conflict.
They should not have any bilateral or regional alliance created out of the conflict of big powers.
They should not host foreign bases created out of the conflict of big powers.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
1/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
2/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
the civil liberties were higher and the parliamentary system was stronger, the socialists tended to organize themselves in the form of social democratic parties
which used parliamentary means to secure power and reforms. Wherever the scope offered by the parliamentary system was non existent or weak the
communists or believers in revolution were stronger.
2. Moreover the parliamentary socialists were better representatives of the organized labor unions and they tended to be more popular when business was brisk.
This was because the employers were more willing to grant concessions during such times. But in downturns the communists and class struggle theories
tended to become more popular.
3. Another common phenomenon among the socialists was a split in their ranks on multiple questions. Thus we have seen above there were those who
advocated parliamentary means, and there were those who advocated revolution. There were anarchists who were against any form of state as well and
believed in setting up small local bodies.
4. But the question which really led to their downfall was the attitude towards nationalism. They were often caught on wrong footing there when they raised a
rhetoric against nationalism. Sometimes they would preach against nationalism but their actions would be pro nationalism. Thus they lost their credibility.
Paris Commune, 1871
1. After the defeat at the hands of Germany the workers in Paris rose in revolt against the liberal government which had surrendered to Germany in order to
preserve its existence. It was seen as a betrayal and compromise and the government lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The various socialists and
communists and workers parties united and overthrew the government. But this revolt can't be seen as a class revolt as put forward by Marx because the
workers had not risen against the exploitation. On the other hand they had revolted guided by patriotism and anti-German sentiments. Paris had seen a large
influx of workers from the German occupied northern areas and the bourgeoise class had fled Paris in the wake of its siege.
2. The confusion (that it was a great example of a revolution symbolizing the class struggle) also seems to come from the choice of words used by Marx in
describing it. He called it a moment of great triumph for his followers and the International. He called the workers communards (supporters of the Commune)
and the politicians "capitulards" which meant the government which had capitulated. But people mistook it as communists vs capitalists.
Growth of Social Democratic Parties
1. In Germany the lower house Reichstag was elected by universal male suffrage and the socialists there organized themselves on the parliamentary lines to form
social democratic parties. In 1875 the main socialist parties in Germany united where they accepted the Marxian doctrines of class struggle and his
interpretation of history, but they decided to press for it within the parliamentary framework. The party grew rapidly and soon became the largest party in
Germany. Similar parliamentary socialist parties came up in and France as well.
2. In places like Italy where universal suffrage was late in coming, the socialist parliamentarian parties couldn't claim to be effective. Thus revolutionary socialism
grew in such places. Similarly in Russia there was no parliamentary system and thus the socialism there was revolutionary.
World Wars
Created: 5/22/2012 2:18 PM
Total Wars
Societal Implications
WW1
Causes
Military Factors
1. Germany was trying to expand its navy to match naval supremacy. This was less out of the concerns to protect its colonial empire and more for its ambitions
to become the strongest power by combining her traditional land supremacy with naval supremacy. That opposed it not because of the threat it posed to her
colonial empire but because her naval supremacy was the only guarantee for her own independence.
2. The shocking defeat of Russia in the war with Japan dangerously exposed the changed balance of power in Europe. It allayed the traditional German nightmare
of a 2 front war and thus made it more aggressive. It made France more insecure and thus made it go deeper into laps and strengthen their alliance.
The Contradictions of Versailles
Contradictions with Fourteen Points
1. The first of the Fourteen Points was that no secret negotiations and alliances will take place and all conferences will be held in open. When this was applied to
the Paris peace conference, it led to a hopelessly slow conference and had to be abandoned there itself. The small and the defeated powers were kept out.
2. Freedom of seas was something which refused to guarantee.
3. The Fourteen Points nowhere stipulated the harsh treatment which was met out to Germany in the treaties.
Imposition of Democracies
1. The wartime slogan of the allies was 'war for democracy'. Naturally after the war, democracies were setup in the defeated countries. For some time it seemed
that the experiment had succeeded and the world had become safer for democracy, but it wasn't to be for long. No attention was paid to the socio-economic
fabric of these countries. They wanted to setup democracies in these countries and yet force them to accept severely penalizing peace conditions. How is it
possible for any democratic government to do that and yet retain legitimacy in the country. Then they kept these democratic government weak in the fear that
if they become too strong they might rise again. Obviously democracy can't work in such situation and specially when these countries had been ruled by
monarchies and aristocracies for centuries and were not ready for democracy immediately. Thus within a few years democracies were overthrown and
replaced by military dictatorship.
2. The assumption of the treaty was that a democratic government will be a peace loving government and would keep radical nationalism and militarism under
check. Obviously this was to backfire.
3. In Germany, a republican, democratic form of government with came up where the president was elected by a popular vote for 7 years and the government
was run by the chancellor who was responsible to the Reichstag and was nominated by the president. But under extreme nationalism and economic duress,
the government didn't have any legitimacy, there were coups and counter-coups and soon Hitler came up.
4. In Italy the government was weak anyways and lost all its credibility when she failed to gain anything out of Versailles. The economic hardships meant there
were large strikes and deterioration of law and order. Communists and anarchists tend to gain in such an environment and fearing them, the bourgeoisie
handed over the power to the thugs of Mussolini in 1924.
5. In Hungary, democracy lasted for only 5 months. A liberal government was setup initially which pleaded Hungary to be treated as a successor state and not
enemy state. But the demand was rejected. Subsequently, Hungary negotiated a separate treaty with France in the hope of getting better terms. But
Rumanians continued to invade in its eastern territories (in defiance of all treaties) and she was forced to retreat even from the agreed frontiers. This led to its
collapse and power went into the hands of a communist. This alarmed the western powers who blockaded Hungary and threatened military action. This led to
power going into the hands of a military general.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
3/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
6. Austria wanted to unite with Germany but when allies forbade it, she had to setup her own democratic institutions. She knew no nationalism before that and
was held together by loyalty to Habsburgs. So she chose a federal structure but it was kept very week by vested interests. This led to the establishment of a
far right army soon which proved disastrous for it in 1934.
Issue of Communism
1. This formed an overriding factor for which all other principles could be sacrificed. We have seen how a communist government in Hungary was overthrown
with a show of force by the allies. It also served to make states like Finland, Poland, Rumania as large and strong as possible so as to counter communist
Russia @ her borders.
Constituting Nations
1. The newly created nations were a mere collection of diverse territories not bound by any common feelings of nationalism. Though the right to self
determination and nationalism were the mainstay of the fourteen points, the treaties were signed keeping in mind the considerations of economic viability and
keeping the balance of power against Germany so as to prevent her resurgence as an aggressive state again (by surrounding her with large, military
defensible neighbors). This led to multiple violations of nationalistic principles and sowed seeds for further discontent. Also it seemed wise to follow the
existing lines of communication and roads and to combine industrial and agricultural areas into one nation so as to make the nation viable.
2. Thus Yugoslavia comprised not only Serbia but westernized areas of Croatia and easternized areas of Macedonia. She was given Albania in order to give her
access to the sea, but this clashed directly with Italian interests. Also that such a large nation come up in Balkans which could rival Italy again stoked discontent
in Italy. Yugoslavia comprised of multiple races and minority ethnic groups which just before the war had been fighting each other and after the war were put
in one nation!
3. Czechoslovakia comprised of industrialized areas of Bohemia along with the backward peasant areas of Slovakia and Ruthenia. In order to make here
industrially viable and militarily defensible, she was also given Sudenteland where more than 3 million Germans lived but it was believed that the Bohemian
mountains were the only militarily defensible frontier for her.
4. Access to sea to Poland could only be given at the cost of Germany by giving her territories of W Prussia and the Polish corridor. This would leave Germany
with a permanent grudge.
5. Rumania got Transylvania from Hungary and Bessarabia from Russia and thus nearly doubled in size. But this meant that Hungary was ceding to Rumania more
territory then she herself kept which definitely created a permanent grudge. Similarly Austria was made to cede many territories as well.
Issue of Minorities
1. Since the principles of nationalism had to be sacrificed for the principles of economic viability and military defensibility, many nationalities were left in other
states as minorities. The treaty makers for some reason had hoped that the new states would be peace loving and these minorities would be treated well. But
the treaty was wrong again. These states had been fighting each other before and during the war and as such the minorities were often seen as the 'enemy' in
these nations. How could then it be expected that Hungarians would be treated well in Romania and Yugoslavia, Germans in Poland, Poles in Germany,
Bulgarians in Yugoslavia and so on.
2. To handle this issue, the allied tried to induce the successor states and the defeated states to guarantee the protection of minority rights. But the treaty didn't
create any mechanism to ensure the implementation of these provisions and the protection of minority rights except by creating a feeble minorities commission
in LoN which had no powers. It was hoped that the danger of international publicity would deter the new nations from harshly treating their minorities but it
had no such effect. On the other hand, such allegations fanned more radical nationalism.
Issue of International Trade
1. The treaty created multiple mid size states and enhanced the length of borders in Europe by 4000 miles. This had an important effect in the post war world of
prohibitive tariffs.
War Guilt Clause
1. This met with universal resistance in Germany for it essentially meant that all the Germans who had died in the war had died for an unjust cause. This
complicated situation in Germany on many fronts (anti-semitism, extreme nationalism, loss of credibility of the government etc.).
Reparations Clause
1. At the time of signing the treaty the allies were not able to come up with any figure on reparations. Thus they created a Reparation Commission and asked
Germany to sign that she will pay whatever be the amount fixed by the Commission. This was like signing a blank check and leaving the question of reparations
to post war politics. had suffered little destruction on land herself and saw Germany as a potential valuable market. So she was not interested in fixing very
high reparations. France on the other hands saw these reparations not only as a means to compensate her for the losses of the war but also as a potential tool
to keep Germany weak in future and ensure her security. So she wanted highest possible reparations. After prolonged haggling an amount of 6.6 bio was
fixed which was so high that it actually aroused sympathies for Germans. This meant that when Germans violated it, public opinion would not automatically
mobilize against it.
2. The first payment of the reparations was received only after a French threat of occupying Ruhr. During next 3 years Germany made payments in kind but in
1923 she announced she couldn't make any further payments. Thereupon the Belgian and French troops occupied Ruhr arousing much sympathy for Germany
in and other countries. The government and the workers resisted passively and the production came to a standstill. Paper currency was printed on a large
scale and by November, 1923 Germany suffered from one of the worst hyperinflation in the history. It was thus clear enough that she won't be able to make
any more payments.
3. An allied committee of financial experts was setup and it came up with the Dawes Plan in 1924 which proposed a 2 year moratorium on reparations, return of
Ruhr and a 40 mm loan to Germany. After 2 years Germany was to repay in increasing annual annuities only. In 1929, another commission was setup and it
came up with the Young Plan which envisaged a new international loan of 60 mm and a payment of reparations over a period of 59 years in cash. As a result
of these foreign loans and new FDI Germany was able to buildup her infrastructure and industries back. Finally in 1932 in the Lausanne Conference, the
reparations ceased and in any case in 1933 after the Nazis captured power even the repayment of the foreign loans made earlier (under the Dawes and the
Young plans) also ceased. Thus it can be questioned how much in reparations she actually paid except for the first 3 years when she paid in kind. These
reparations (in kind) were also not free from trouble in the allied countries for it was like dumping which would ruin the domestic production.
Addressing French Security Concerns
1. France was the most anxious state and she wanted to prevent a resurgence of Germany in future at any cost. Thus many German territories were given to her
neighbors in order to make them strong and defensible. Other restrictions were also imposed. Clemenceau even wanted the bridges of Rhineland for France to
guarantee her future security but the allies refused since they feared it would create an Alsace-Lorraine in reverse. Instead they offered him a joint -US
guarantee for automatic and immediate military support in case French security was threatened by Germany. France agreed reluctantly but this guarantee was
soon rendered void when the US senate refused to ratify the treaty and too backed off saying such an action by US invalidated her obligations also.
2. As a result France was forced to create a 'Little Entente' by making a network of alliances with the succession states like Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia
and Rumania whose very survival depended upon the maintenance of the Versailles order. But this meant that she now was guaranteeing their security against
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
4/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Russia, Lithuania, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria as well. She had now assumed the role of preserving the Versailles order just as Austria had taken
the role of preserving the Vienna order. This led to diplomatic and military overburdening of France.
3. France was also increasingly worried that an alliance might come out of Germany and Russia and this nightmare seemed to be coming true for some years as
Germany and Russia increased bilateral relations. This was made worse by the apparent shifting of interest of to outside europe into her colonial empire and
US in pacific. The unbalance of power on which the treaty depended so much for its fulfillment was now rapidly being redressed in Germany's favor.
4. To allay her security concerns, France first proposed in LoN in 1923 a Treaty of Mutual Assistance which stipulated that in the event of an aggression, within 4
days of the outbreak of hostilities, the LoN should decide which party is the aggressor and automatically be obliged to give military aid against it. Earlier the
military obligations of LoN were optional. rejected it since she was against automatic obligations. As a compromise in 1924, the Geneva protocol was
proposed by France where it sought to plug the loopholes (condition of unanimity and optional nature of sanctions) in LoN by proposing that if there was no
unanimity then the matter may be referred to arbitrators and the member nations will abide by the decision of such arbitrators. But again and her dominions
refused it.
5. Locarno: Due to above rejections, France began to seek guarantee for her border with Germany. By 1925, was in a more conciliatory mood and was
prepared to give a guarantee for the Franco-German border against an aggression by any party. This guarantee was extended to include Belgium-German
border as well as the demilitarized areas of Rhineland. Italy too joined in and it was decided that Germany should join LoN. In October 1925, 3 set of treaties
were signed - (a) Treaty guaranteeing Franco-German and Belgium-German border, (b) Treaty of mutual guarantee between France on one side and
Czechoslovakia and Poland on the other, and (c) Treaty of arbitration between Germany on hand and France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Belgium on the
other. The effect of the last 2 treaties was that since would not guarantee the eastern borders, France should and that Germany would submit any border
dispute to arbitration. It was the first treaty which recognized the needs of both Germany and France. This was the best security arrangement which France
could get while Germany came back in the international circle of powers (and also reduced its chances of affiliating with Soviet Union). But it had grave
implications as well for now it graded the borders with the western borders being ranked more sacrosanct than the eastern. distinction between the frontiers
which she would guarantee and which she would not guarantee undermined the general obligations of the whole Covenant. It divided the indivisible peace of
Versailles and made it clear that now the Versailles order depended upon the willingness of Germany and didn't have any international backing. She could now
easily disregard her eastern borders without any threat of action (in fact without threat of French action as well since if French attacked Germany, wouldn't
come to French aid and France alone couldn't harm Germany). France clearly overburdened herself without the partnership of . It also undermined the
authority of LoN since now it distinguished between its members and the idea of collective security went into drain. There were technical absurdities too for
how could armed forces prepare a joint defence plan with French if they could be made to fight against France also. This also had the effect of weakening
LoN further since while Germany was being inducted as a permanent member, Poland, Span and Brazil too raised the same demand. Inducting Poland as a
permanent member would have canceled out Germany's vote, so a new level of semi-permanent members was created and Poland was admitted to it. But
Spain and Portugal declined and resigned from LoN. LoN now had no representative from Americas. As a result of increasing pacifism (borne out of Locarno
and otherwise), all the concessions which allies had made to Germany became a source of tension. Allied military control of Germany had ended in 1927. The
Young Plan of 1929 gave her loans and removed the financial controls imposed on her. pressed for ending the allied occupation of rhineland and by 1930, all
Allied troops were withdrawn from Rhineland. Now it was only Germany's willingness which lay between peace and the war.
Treatment of Colonies
1. The allied powers had gotten their support from the colonies in the name of providing right to self determination after the war. But once they won the war,
they made it clear that such a rule was not to be applied to the colonies (a direct violation of Fourteen points as well). Obviously this created resentment
everywhere.
2. Moreover as a settlement of Turkey under the treaty of Severes, got Palestine, Iraq and Jordan while French got Syria and Lebanon as 'mandates'. Plans
were made even to partition Anatolia itself among the allies. While Mustafa Kemal accepted the loss of Arab territories he could in no way accept the partition
of Turkey itself. and France sent their troops. This led to a nationalistic revolution in 1924 and treaty of Severes had to be abolished.
Failure of League of Nations
1. It was the last of the Fourteen Points but the form in which it was actually implemented reflected the modifications to suit and French interests. One way of
looking at it is a wider extension of Concert of Europe where all the member states may meet regularly to discuss common problems and issues threatening
world peace. The League merely provided a standing machinery for doing this. Another way of looking at it was like a multilateral treaty where each member
state committed itself to not only seek peaceful means to settle any dispute it may get involved in but also to share some responsibility for defending every
other signatory against aggression. This notion of collective security was supposed to keep world peace by deterring the aggressor and in this the LoN failed
miserably.
2. A system like LoN was not any supra governmental agency but merely a body used by various governments. It could thus function only when most of the
governments wanted peace and would be willing to use the LoN to maintain peace. But this in turn could only work when there was balance of power among
nations with rival interests. It was also hoped that democracy and good treatment of minorities would enable such governments. It was believed that it was
unfulfilled nationalism which had caused the war and the 'perfect' settlement after the war would remove the militancy from nationalism. But once such
assumptions were nullified, there was no mechanism to restore the efficacy of LoN. It also had no method to ensure that only democratic governments become
and remain a member.
3. The LoN was borne out of and was an integral part of the Versailles settlement and it endorsed all the settlements reached in Versailles including all their
weaknesses. Thus it too endorsed the 'war guilt' clause. Thus from the start itself this (the integration with the treaty) made LoN a suspect to Germany and
Russia and all the neutral states who didn't wish to be associated with the allied war plans.
4. Article 10 of the Covenant was its strength as well as weakness. Article 10 was the collective security clause which obligated each member state to respect
and preserve the territorial integrity of all other member states against any external aggression. In the event of any such aggression, the LoN was obliged to
take an action after discussion which could include military and economic actions. But it was this clause which was used by US senate to reject the treaty and
hence the LoN.
5. Thus US, Germany and Russia kept out of it. Italy and Japan were very dissatisfied from the Versailles settlement and by extension had no interest in LoN and
chose to openly violate it. Everything was left on and France and when France in defiance of opinion occupied Ruhr in 1923, it further reduced any
enthusiasm in LoN. A system like LoN can work when there is balance of power among multiple nations which have rival interests but clearly the power
realities of the world were not reflected in the LoN. Otherwise there is no one left to check the aggressions of the powerful nation in the system and hence the
credibility of the system gets eroded. Thus no action was taken against French aggression and this emboldened Italy to violate it later in Ethiopia and Albania
and then Japan in Manchuria. Even France was apprehensive about its efficacy and thus sought to secure its security outside LoN by signing pacts with Poland,
Czechoslovakia and Rumania.
6. The procedure of decision making in LoN was ill suited to taking any international action. Any international action could be taken only by its assembly in which
every state had one vote and a complete unanimity was required. This amounted to giving a veto even to the smallest of the power. On the other hand the
council which had major powers had mere recommendatory role and it could recommend only on subjects which were referred to it by the assembly.
WW2
Causes
Consequences
Industrialization
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
5/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Japan
Industrialization and Globalization
Disintegration of USSR
Created: 5/22/2012 2:23 PM
Soviet Communism Collapse (1985-91)
Factors
Eastern Europe (1989-2001)
US Ascendancy
Unification of Europe
Created: 12/7/2011 7:03 PM
Unity in Eastern Europe
Nature & Character
1. It was a coerced unity unlike the W European unity which was voluntary.
2. This unity was like making carbon copies of USSR in E Europe. They were all to have same economic and political system, same education, same five year
plans.
3. The bulk of their trade was to be with USSR & their foreign policy and military were to be controlled from Kremlin.
Evolution
The Molotov Plan of 1947
1. This was in response to the Marshall aid. Since USSR had forbidden the E European countries from accessing the Marshall aid, it felt it imperative to offer an
alternative.
2. This was basically a set of trade agreements which boosted the trade within the communist bloc.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
6/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Nation-State Systems
Created: 12/17/2011 1:33 AM
Rise of Nationalism in 19th Century
Nature and Character
1. In W Europe, while national unity already existed, situation was complex in the East. Here, multiple nationalities were divided into multiple empires.
2. This nationalism essentially was based on cultural nationalism. The nationalists laid emphasis on shared history, traditions, folk songs, language
etc. and asserted that it must be preserved. The nationalists were often inspired by romantic literature and art.
3. Since the empires were against nationalism, the nationalist movements were underground movements.
4. Leading philosophers of the age like Mazzini, Hagel pitched for national unity.
Impact of French Revolution
Theory
1. The Revolution in its Declaration of Rights of Man had declared the rights of every man who wants to be free, not just French. These rights directly challenged
the established systems in rest of Europe. So wars followed the Revolution, which was followed by dictatorship, then a French Empire.
2. Subsequently the struggle of the people to get rid of the tyranny of Napoleon led to birth of modern nationalism.
Critique
1. While no doubt French Revolution and its ideas played an important role, they were not the only factors at play.
2. The meaning of the state was changing in Europe where the state and its citizens were to have closer interaction. People were no longer passive players and
the state affairs were no longer to remain confined to the aristocracy.
3. The forces which were bringing these changes were growing population and the industrialization.
The Contradictions of Vienna
1. It completely ignored the regional and national aspirations of various localities. Thus theIt was learnt Rhineland provinces (lesser Germanic states) which were
catholic and traditionally enjoyed closer links with France and benefitted from her legal system (from Napoleon's time) were now brought closer to Prussia
which represented the conservative elements. Italian states didn't even get the loose federal structure of the German Bund. Instead it was to be directly
controlled by Habsburg princes and old ruling families in an autocratic way.
2. It also sought to reverse the changes introduced by Napoleon and restore the old feudal values and system. Thus in Italy it gave all the important posts and
power to the aristocratic nobles and that too from non Italians. The people were naturally offended as they had tasted the Napoleonic virtues of career based
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
7/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
on merit.
3. Matternich system was based on the notion that the internal and international affairs were inseparable. This was because it represented an attempt to turn
black the clock of history and its entire structure was dependent upon feudal relations. Large number of people had tasted the sweetness of liberty (in
territories conquered by Napoleon) and in other areas had watched their fellow brethren tasting it. In such an environment any success of the new liberal and
national movements anywhere would have had a domino effect throughout. It was quickly realized that the congress system meant magnification of any issue
anywhere. Peace was established but it was fragile as each power became interested in preserving its own interests which conflicted with each other most of
the time.
4. Europe was divided into 2 types of powers. The center and the east were dominated by feudal systems while France and had modern systems and economy.
Thus while Russia wanted a system of automatic intervention in the internal affairs, and France were opposed to any such automatic interference and
instead wanted to decide on a case by case basis (with in general reluctant to interfere). While religion formed an important factor for the tsar, Matternich,
and France had no such considerations while formulating their foreign policy. In the end each power ended up interfering to secure its own interest void of any
accepted system. Thus while intervention favored monarchs in Naples and Spain, liberals gained in Portugal and Greece.
Emergence of Nationalism in 19th Century Europe
1. Nationalism in its primitive form was a sense of belonging of a community of people to a particular land, customs, language etc. In its modern form, when such
communities began to assert their independence and sovereignty, nationalism emerged only in 19th century.
2. The Jacobian doctrine of "sovereignty of people" contributed to it. It not only gave the people right to chose and control their government, but also made the
government a voice of the people.
3. Countries which witnessed strongest nationalistic feelings were the ones which were occupied by Napoleon for he unwittingly through his measures promoted
nationalism in these lands.
4. The Prussian victory in Leipzig became a popular symbol of triumph of German nationalism. Germany had a strong middle class as well which was to champion
the cause of nationalism.
5. Similarly nationalist feelings were strong in Italy as well though they were not so much anti-French in character.
6. In
Russia,
the
scorched
earth
techniques
could
have
become
the
ultimate
example
of
nationalism but so backward was the national feeling in Russia, so divorced from the popular life was the regime, that these events had little effect on nationali
sm.
Contribution of Romantic Movement
1. Despite the fact that most of the romantic writers after 1815 were conservatives, their work helped in eroding the cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic outlook
on which absolutism had prospered. Thus even though they opposed liberalism, their works encouraged nationalistic sentiments. This can be seen in the
cultural movement in Germany as they began to take pride in German culture and history. Gradually the younger writers themselves began to be influenced by
liberal ideas and began to preach liberalism as well.
2. The greek war of independence aroused many passions and flared up the romantic literature in praise of nationalistic ideals. The most famous hero became
Lord Byron who died in the greek war.
Emergence of Nationalism in Poland
1. Napoleon's act of creating a Duchy of Warsaw was welcomed by Poles.
2. The system of Matternich failed to check the growth of nationalism in Poland. The reason was that the Polish landed aristocracy didn't owe their position to
Habsburgs (like in Italy) and never forgot they were Poles. Their imaginations were fired when the Russian tzar Alexander I created a small kingdom of Poland
which even though severely truncated in size as well as real authority served as a source of inspiration.
The Revolt of 1830
1. Like Italy the revolt was led by secret societies and students (wherever forces of nationalization were stronger revolts were led by secret societies and students
and wherever forces of liberalism were stronger the revolts were led by liberal parliamentarians). The leader of army stationed in Poland fled and the rebels
setup a provisional government and began to negotiate with the tsar for reforms. The tsar refused to grant reforms and in 1831 Russian army invaded Poland.
Again the hope of rebels was western support which was never coming.
The Revolt of 1846
1. Poland broke out in revolt in 1830. But the most serious revolt was in 1846 which was led by the nobles and intellectuals. It was checked in the characteristic
Matternich patter of suppression and 'divide and rule' - the peasants were pitched against the nobles. But to win over the peasants, Matternich had to abolish
the hated Robot or the forced labor feudal levy. This tax had held the peasants to the land and its abolition freed them to move and thus paved the way for a
socio-economic transformation.
2. The reasons why Poland didn't break out in revolt in 1848 were - (a) The abolition of Robot in 1846 had taken the basic impulse out of any potential peasant
revolt in Galicia (the Austrian held territory and most prone to revolt). (b) The Russian held part was held too tightly by the tsar and had been crushed badly in
1831.
Emergence of Nationalism in Spain
During Napoleonic Rule
1. In Spain, the guerilla war against Napoleon became a symbol of nationalist triumph as well, tough there was no middle class to take its advantage and after
the fall of Napoleon the country fell back in autocratic rule.
2. But the liberal elements were able to draft the 1812 in the aftermath of the defeat of Napoleon in Spain. It was a classic example of how people hated
French occupation while still loved the ideals of French Revolution. The was drafted based on the 1791 French Constitution. A single legislative assembly
based on universal suffrage, sovereignty of people, freedom of press and individual liberty were its pillars.
Spanish Revolution of 1820
1. Against the autocratic rule of the king, a successful military revolution occurred and it forced the king to revive the liberal 1812 . This alarmed the tsar
Alexander of Russia who called for an international congress and if need be an armed international interference. But this was resisted by which insisted that
the Spanish revolution was entirely an internal affair and to setup a system for automatic international action against such internal events was not acceptable
to .
2. Matternich too was first opposed to summoning of such a congress but accepted it when revolutions spread out to Italy and Portugal as well. In the congress @
Troppau in 1820, and France only sent observers (they couldn't support the aristocratic powers and didn't want to oppose them over such small an issue
either) and the congress (Prussia, Austria and Russia) announced that it could never accept the right of people to restrict the power of their king. Austria
subsequently sent armies to crush the Italian revolts.
3. With no international interference, things became more worrisome by 1822 to the extent that in 1823 France sent her own troops to restore the king. The king,
after regaining the power, crushed all liberals with unprecedented fury. But Spain couldn't re-establish her control over her latam assets as was interested in
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
8/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
preventing her monopoly. So she was able to convince US to warn Spain and in 1823 president Monroe warned european powers to keep their hands off
latam.
Disintegration of Empires
Turkey / The Eastern Question
1821 Revolt of Greeks - 1830 Independence
1. It broke out as a revolt inspired by nationalism (not by any economic factors). It was seen as a revolt of christians Greeks against the tyranny of muslim Turks
by the tsar. He was also naturally interested in extending his own power in the region at the obvious expense of the disintegrating Turkish empire. But this
possibility (of his interfering in the revolt on Greek side) alarmed other powers (as they didn't want an increased Russian influence in the region). Matternich
was most interested in maintaining the interests of monarchies and balance of power. So he called for a congress @ Verona in 1822.
2. By the time the congress began the affairs in Spain had become more worrisome and France showed willingness of interfering there. had decided to embark
upon a policy of golden isolation in european affairs (so long as there wasn't a big change in balance of power or a threat of war in europe). As a result of the
congress, the danger of Russian interference in Turkey was avoided as was able to extract a promise from the Turkish government that it would institute
more reforms. The question of Spain was resolved against a joint intervention but letting France to intervene solely.
3. When the sultan refused to implement any such reforms and instead got the help of Egypt in crushing the Greeks, Russia couldn't hold back any longer. and
France had to resort to additional pressure including a threat of use of force. In 1827, the Turkish and Egyptian naval fleets were destroyed by , France and
Russia, in 1828 Russia declared war on Turkey and France too sent her troops. By 1830 Greek independence was secured.
1850 - 1875: The Aftermath of the Crimean War & Reforms
1. Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia had been made autonomous provinces within the Turkish empire. It now faced a series of separatist national movements and
had become the playground for european powers. It was composed of a vast mixture of races, linguistic groups etc. which were held together only by a harsh
central authority. It had become clear that Turkish empire would crumble soon against the pressure of Austria and Russia and when it did, it would alter the
balance of power in the region. and France were hesitant in supporting so cruel and so failing regime against Russia and Austria. Yet the regime was failing
and this became the eastern question.
2. In 1856 the sultan tried to implement reforms which included a universal Turkish national citizenship, equality in administration and before law and for taxation
irrespective of religion and race etc. But these reforms failed as the local ruling class and the clergy opposed the end of their domination. Moreover the
nationalism in non Turkish communities had grown to such an extent that they resisted any attempts to impose a common law etc. on them.
3. In these years between 1850 and 1870, Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia along with Rumanians pressed for and secured more autonomy for themselves.
1875 - 1878: The Turkish Crisis
1. As the reforms failed the restlessness of the different nationalities in the Turkish empire began to grow. This was stroked by Austria and Russia. Austria was
now more interested in order to recover the prestige it had lost in Italy and Germany. By 1876 full scale revolts were raging in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Macedonia
and Bulgaria which were fueled by Austria and Hungary. Soon Montenegro and Serbia too went to war against the Turks and the sultan of Turkey was
overthrown by a local coup.
2. The attitude of foreign powers reflected their self interests. Russia wanted to press on for a dissolution of Turkish empire so that she may herself gain the
erstwhile Turkish territories and open her way to the Black sea. Austria was alarmed of this possibility and was oscillating between supporting Turks against
Russia or pressing for a negotiated breakup of the Turkish empire so that she may herself gain some territories and thus be able to check the Russian
influence. Bismarck's sole concern was the preservation of the international order he had so created and he was thus willing to be an honest broker. He
believed that if Turkish empire had to come down it should come down in an agreed and negotiated way so that peace is maintained. France was still reeling
under the defeat of 1871 and was recovering. She was not strong enough to gain substantially from any settlement in the east and thus favored that no power
should intervene in the east. 's first priority was to check any increased Russian influence in near east but it was in a dilemma whether this was best achieved
by a Turkish state or by strong independent smaller states.
3. In late 1876 the Turkish armies inflicted such heavy a defeat on the Serbian forces that Serbia sought the intervention of the great powers. Under the pressure
from Russia the new sultan agreed to submit the matter to the international conference which was held in December in Constantinople. As an outcome, Russia
struck a pact with Austria where she undertook to respect the independence of Serbia and Montenegro and offered Austria a free hand in Bosnia and
Herzegovina in return for a free hand in Bulgaria and Rumania.
4. In April 1877, Russia declared war again on the Turks (on the pretext that the sultan was not honoring the terms of the agreement) and got the support of
Rumania, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria. In the treaty which followed, the sultan recognized the independence of Serbia and Montenegro and greatly
enlarged Rumania and Bulgaria. She was also to cede some territories to Russia and pay her war indemnity and carry out reforms in Bosnia. This treaty
aroused the traditional jealousies and fears of various parties (Austria and feared the increased Russian influence while Greece, Rumania and Serbia
resented the increased Bulgaria) and the matter had to be submitted to the international conference again.
5. The 1878 conference @ Berlin (where Bismarck again acted as an 'honest broker') decided that the state of Bulgaria be cut down (as Austria and feared an
increased Russian influence over Bulgaria so by cutting down Bulgaria they hoped to limit her influence). Areas of Macedonia and Rumelia were taken away
from her. She was not to be an independent state but merely an autonomous province under the Sultan. Similar was the status assigned to Macedonia and
Rumelia. The independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Rumania was acknowledged. Austria was allowed to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, got the island
of Cyprus and France got the Ottoman territory of Tunisia in N Africa. Greece was left dissatisfied as she didn't get some territories and the island of Crete she
wanted (which were left under Turks).
6. Thus the concert of Europe had sacrificed the nationalist aspirations of all Balkan people and instead chosen to satisfy the wishes of the great powers. The
handling of the situation made sure that the Balkans would erupt again in near future. Also by the handling of the territories of the Turkish empire, it was made
aptly clear to the sultan that unless Turkey became strong on its own it couldn't hope to prevent its abuse by the big European powers. So the sultan set upon
the task of strengthening his empire with the help of Germans and Germany got a valuable ally in Turkey. Apart from this advantage of befriending Turkey,
Germany also lost from the conference. Russia now held a grudge against Germany itself (for it had cut down Bulgaria) and the fate of the League of the Three
Emperors was doomed. For France the possibilities of an end of diplomatic isolation and an alliance with Russia had opened up. Austria-Hungary became the
key piece in Bismarck's diplomacy and because of this importance of Austria-Hungary, the eastern question became the dominant determinant of his foreign
policy now (because the fate of Austria-Hungary was intricately tied to the eastern question whether it wanted to or not). Russia was obviously dissatisfied and
so were Austria-Hungary (despite her addition of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and (despite her acquisition of Cyprus) for their main interest lay with a strong
Ottoman empire (while the conference had weakened it further).
Bulgarian Crisis - 1880s
1. Bulgaria had looked upon favorably @ Russia but soon realized that Russian interests lay in just exploiting her and filling her top posts with Russians. So she
began to turn anti-Russian. The Bulgarian parliament was soon full of anti-Russian majority and in its display of independence, Bulgaria began to receive
support (for she hoped to check Russian influence now through a strong Bulgaria instead of a weak Turkey).
2. In 1885, Rumelia and some other parts of Bulgaria which had been taken away in the 1878 concert revolted and demanded union with Bulgaria. Bulgaria
accepted it. This naturally angered both Turkey and Russia and a war would have broken out had not come on the side of Bulgarians. But Serbia was very
much jealous of Bulgarian rise and she declared a war on Bulgaria. Bulgarian forces defeated Serbia but Austria (as a protector of Serbia) intervened and
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
9/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
10/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Condition in 1815
1. The Austrian provinces themselves as well as the periphery nationalities like Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croats, Rumanians and Poles had the medieval
provincial diets or 'estates'. But these estates met rarely and the power was in the hand of local nobles who had links with Vienna and depended on its
support. Thus the system was highly conservative and disregarded any national aspirations.
2. This system was that of a lose confederacy where the power lay in the hands of the highly conservative aristocratic elements. The center depended upon them
for its continuation and they in turn depended upon the center to crush any rebellions which may threaten them. Such a system necessitated it for Matternich
to be opposed to any strands of liberalism.
3. The center had realized that it was impossible to bring the various parts under more centralized control. Instead it depended upon the divide and rule policy to
keep all the areas within the empire. Thus it posted German regiments in non- German areas, Hungarian regiments in Italy and so on. It even devised a
German confederation to keep its influence over the different Germanic states.
Liberal and National Movements
1. In 1815 the student bodies in Germany called burschenshaften revolted and were banned by the Carlsbad Decree by Matternich.
2. In 1848 the much hated feudal levy Robot had to be abolished (following the revolt). This was the last tie which held the peasant with the land and thus paved
way for a more general socio-economic transformation which changed the political landscape as well. This was because the foundation of the Habsburg
empire was on the traditional system based on feudal land relations and now that itself was shaken.
Austrian Revolt of 1848
1. Here the intensity of revolt was very serious (since it also received support of the nobles and court factions who were against Matternich) and he had to flee in
March. A moderate government was setup but the ruling elements just played a waiting game as in Prussia to let the revolutionary movement pass and yet
retain enough power in their hands to lead a counter revolution later. The king was forced to create a Reichstag which would be based on restricted adult
suffrage. The nobility would lose their exemption from taxation and the towns would get a representation in the parliament. The parliament represented mainly
the gentry and the middle class.
2. In Prussia, Austria and Hungary the initial successes of the revolutionaries were followed by subsequent failures. They had no common agenda and couldn't
agree upon what to do next. Moreover they had settled for too little or weak reforms while they had the chance and allowed the counter revolutionary
elements to retain sufficient powers. By May the revolution had spent its force.
3. There was another revolt in September but by then the aristocratic powers were securely in place and crushed it as now they had the support of the Slavs and
the Czechs.
Hungarian Revolt of 1848
1. The king of Austria ruled Hungary but it had an aristocratic diet of its own. But in 1848 a nationalist leader Louis Kossuth emerged. He led the anti-feudal
movement in Hungary and kindled the nationalist sentiments. Following the revolution in Vienna, he raised the demand for home rule in Hungary which were
granted in the form of March Laws (where the king still remained the Austrian emperor but Hungary was to have its own parliament elected on a restricted
suffrage. The nobility would lose their exemption from taxation and the towns would get a representation in the parliament). The parliament represented
mainly the gentry and the middle class.
2. But in the new assembly there were large majorities which wanted to avoid a complete break from Austria. The Croats and Slovaks were opposed to being left
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
11/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
under the Magyar rule and so opposed independence from Austria. The Austrian government utilized their fear and relied on its old policy of divide and rule.
Kossuth on the other hand wanted an independent Magyar led nation (and found favor with the Great German programme since it left Hungary out).
3. Soon the slavs in Croatia and Serbia broke out in revolt (with encouragement of Austria). Such a revolt increased the possibility of a Russian interference in
Balkans and under such a scenario Hungary preferred to side with Austria than Russia. Soon Austrian army invaded Hungary from Croatia, Kossuth appealed to
the Austrian parliament to mediate between Hungary and the Habsburgs, but the German and Slav elements together refused to help Hungary. By the end of
the year the Austrian army even occupied Budapest but Kossuth had raised the Magyar nationalistic fervor to a state of frenzy and the Austrians were forced to
withdraw from Budapest in April 1849. Kossuth was made the governor and he proclaimed independence of Hungary.
4. But his rule lasted only for a few weeks. The popular feeling began to turn against republicanism and the excesses of the revolution. Moreover there was split
in the ranks of the nationalists as well. Under such circumstances, tsar Nicholas sent his armies for he believed that people shouldn't depose their kings and
also was scared of the impact of Hungarian revolution on Poland. Kossuth fled.
19th Century European Revolutions
Factors Behind 1830 Revolts
Economic Factors
1. The period between 1790 and 1830 saw progressive freer trade within the national borders (as internal tariffs and other NTTBs were eliminated) and rising
protection against international products (specially manufacturers). Thus large free trade areas like zollverein and UK ( + Ireland) were created. This led to
great strengthening of the middle class in europe (particularly west). This new middle class sought policies more favorable to them and hence more political
representation. An example is the agitation in to repeal Corn Laws and to allow freer trade.
Factors Behind 1848 Revolts
Economic Factors
1. These years witnessed a tremendous progress in industrialization and modern means of communications. Railways came up in big way across wester europe,
coal and iron industries developed which led to further development via backward and forward linkages. From virtually nought, railways had grown to 6K
miles, Germany to 3K miles and French to 2 K miles. Better integration also led to higher trade, closer contacts and stroked national sentiments.
2. The economic progress meant growth of labor class as well. But the years preceding 1848 were marked by international trade and financial crisis. Fluctuation
in cotton prices and winding up of Bank of the US led to tremendous losses for european capital. Bank of England had to be bailed out by Bank of France.
Speculation in commodities led to aggravation of business cycles. The resulting economic crisis led to growing resentment among workers.
Political Factors
1. The reforms after 1830 revolution had failed to produce a just society. Even though liberal steps were taken but they were so marred with preserving the self
interests of the middle class that they actually committed more injustice than what they were seeking to undo. The limitation of suffrage to men of property
only led bred manipulation and led to exclusion. Corruption marred the electoral process and there were no effective checks on the misuse of power. So
demand for inclusion began to grow.
2. Moreover the workers had seen how the middle class had used the political power to its own material advancement and thus they too wanted a share in the
same.
3. The revolts were stroked by growing sentiments of nationalism and they in turned stroked nationalism further and even took it to chauvinistic levels. As can be
seen the German interests collided with Magyars, Magyars with Slavs, Czechs with Germans and so on.
Social Factors
1. Demographic growth had created new pressures. For instance the population in Austria increased at the same rate as that in France (but Austria was a
backward country) and that in Hungary grew even faster. But the existing feudal relations created lot of tensions in such a case and hence revolts broke out. It
may be recalled here that the Emancipation Act of 1848 passed by Austria was one of the most significant achievements of the revolt as it abolished (without
any compensation) the hereditary rights of feudal lords in jurisdiction and administration. It was this ending of feudalism which brought about real industrial
revolution in central and eastern europe.
2. Due to the abolition of feudal levies the landlords had no incentive to keep a large number of peasants. So the smaller peasants sold their lands to the the
bigger landlords and moved to the cities. This created additional pressures. It can be easily seen that the 1848 revolutions were primarily urban in character.
France
The Revolution of 1830
1. The restored monarchy under Louis XVIII had liberal features as it adopted to be guided by a liberal which had elements like equality before law, right to
property, protection of life and liberty, equality of opportunity etc. But at the same time it retained the absolutist character in insisting that he had been king
from the time of execution of his brother Louis XVI and called 1814 as the 19th year of his reign. Further he insisted that he liberal was an act of grace by
the king (i.e. voluntarily given by the king to his subjects and hence could be taken back by him also). To this weakness of the systems in France was added
its relative inexperience with such methods and absence of conventions. Thus the liberal system which emerged in France remained vulnerable to the attitude
of the king.
2. Thus when he was succeeded by the new king (Charles) and the new king began to assert his absolutist powers, tensions broke out between the liberals and
the royalists. The new king dismissed the parliament and called for fresh elections and when the liberals returned with a stronger majority in the elections the
king tried to stage a coup de teat. The king issued a set of 5 ordinances where he dismissed the new parliament before it could meet, reduced the number of
voters from 100K to 25K only, called for new elections on this basis and imposed censorship. Thus he destroyed the charter issued by Louis XVIII for all
practical purposes. This led to the revolution of 1830.
3. After the revolution, the Charter was liberalized (lowering of voter qualifications, weakening of upper house which was nominated by the king etc.) further and
imposed upon the new king. But it must be kept in mind that this was a liberal revolution and not a democratic or socialist revolution.
The Revolution of 1848
1. The king was forced to abdicate in February by the rising mob. A group of liberal parliamentarians sought to establish a provisional government but it could
command no authority. Under the pressure of the mob, the resulting government had to adopt certain socialistic resolutions like the right to work, reduced
working hours, national workshops and universal male suffrage.
2. But there were attempts of coups and counter coups as there was no unity among the rebels and by summer the counter revolution commenced and in the end
most of the socialist gains were lost. The national workshops were closed, the rebels were executed, in the new in November 1848, there was no mention
of the right to work. Napoleon's nephew was elected the president who soon tore down the other democratic elements of the as well.
Belgian Independence of 1830
1. The Belgians comprised of the Catholic, French and Flemish sections of south Holland and they had been forced to accept the union with Holland in 1815.
Naturally they resented this and nationalist sentiments grew. Within the union the Belgians outnumbered the Dutch 2:1 yet had equal share only in the
parliament. The fall of 1815 monarchy in France inspired them and they too rose in revolt against the Matternich system.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
12/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
2. The Prince of Orange tried to reconcile the rebels by agreeing to Belgian separation and guaranteeing complete separation leaving no point of contact except
the ruling dynasty. But it failed and in 1831 a new was promulgated which declared independence and that all powers have their source in the nation. The
powers of the king were severely curtailed and he was to be elected by the parliament.
3. Matternich, Prussia and Russia wanted to check this development but and France stood by Belgium. A congress was called and it accepted Belgian
independence and guaranteed its perpetual neutrality. In 1831 Dutch invaded Belgium but France sent her troops and forced the Dutch to withdraw.
Italy
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
13/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Germany
The Revolution of 1848
1. Germany had neither a liberal parliamentarian tradition like nor a violent social democratic tradition like France. German liberalism as represented
by zollverein had no appetite for democracy and the social revolutionaries too were small and insignificant and mainly confined to industrialized Rhineland. The
central sentiment was that of nationalism.
2. Riots broke out in Berlin in March and the king decided to make some concessions. He declared himself to be in favor of a federal German Reich in place of the
Germanic Confederation (presided over by Austria). But the resulting reich had no powers and it was limited to debates only. He also proposed other measures
like one national citizenship, one national army, freedom of press but all these remained proposals only.
3. After the initial success, the liberals were divided on the next course of action. They couldn't even agree on the territorial extent of Germany. There was a
group which called for Greater Germany which was to include Germany, Poland and Austria (except Hungary but including the lands inhabited by Slavs). But
this would necessitate offering the crown to Austrian Habsburg. On the other hand the little Germans were willing to leave out the Austrian lands to unify rest
of Germany free of Austrian influence and in such a case the crown was to be offered to the Prussian king. Catholics supported Austria, protestants supported
Prussia as the leader. By May, a state of inaction had taken over.
4. The Greater German programme was opposed by Czechs (who preferred the lose Austrian confederacy) as well as the Slovaks (who didn't want to be left
alone with the Magyars of Hungary). The Slavs demanded creation of 3 separate states of Czechs and Slovaks, Serbs and Croats (later to form Yugoslavia)
and Poles. The slavs were afraid of being partitioned between the Greater Germany and Hungary and thus opposed them. Poles wanted a separate state as
well.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
14/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
indivisible peace of Versailles and made it clear that now the Versailles order depended upon the willingness of Germany and didn't have any international
backing. She could now easily disregard her eastern borders without any threat of action (in fact without threat of French action as well since if French
attacked Germany, wouldn't come to French aid and France alone couldn't harm Germany). France clearly overburdened herself without the partnership of
.
3. It also undermined the authority of LoN since now it distinguished between its members and the idea of collective security went into drain. There were
technical absurdities too for how could armed forces prepare a joint defence plan with French if they could be made to fight against France also. This also
had the effect of weakening LoN further since while Germany was being inducted as a permanent member, Poland, Span and Brazil too raised the same
demand. Inducting Poland as a permanent member would have canceled out Germany's vote, so a new level of semi-permanent members was created and
Poland was admitted to it. But Spain and Portugal declined and resigned from LoN. LoN now had no representative from Americas.
4. As a result of increasing pacifism (borne out of Locarno and otherwise), all the concessions which allies had made to Germany became a source of tension.
Allied military control of Germany had ended in 1927. The Young Plan of 1929 gave her loans and removed the financial controls imposed on her. pressed for
ending the allied occupation of rhineland and by 1930, all Allied troops were withdrawn from Rhineland. Now it was only Germany's willingness which lay
between peace and the war.
Reoccupation of Rhineland
1. In March 1936, Germany reoccupied Rhineland. This was his most open challenge to the Versailles order and the most crucial of all. This was also in direct
violation of Locarno which Germany had signed voluntarily and not under any duress. Had or France shown any resistance even now, he was in no position to
counter. His political career could have ended. This was the last chance WW2 could have been avoided. Belgium asked to be relieved from her Locarno
commitments and huddled back in her neutrality. France lodged a protest in LoN but did nothing else. extracted a promise from Germany that the 'period of
surprises' is over.
2. The strategic significance of the move was that now Hitler could build fortifications @ Siegfried line which would render any attack by France impossible and
thus he isolated the eastern members of the 'Little Entente' from the protection of France and put them @ German mercy.
Anschluss
1. was trying to use Italy against any German occupation of Austria and was engaging it in negotiations. But taking even Mussolini by surprise, Hitler occupied
Austria in March 1938. Even though Italy had commercial and strategic interests in Austria and such an action even aroused popular concerns in Italy, Mussolini
was helpless.
2. Anschluss was an important step in fulfilling Hitler's concept of 'lebensraum' or the living space for Germans. It used all the characteristic Nazi propaganda like
beating up some racial ideology (lebensraum), instigating an Austrian Nazi revolts in the territory and then intervening to support them. In this case, the
government of Austria aborted a Nazi putsch but Hitler first forced her to include the putsch leader in the government. Then the Nazi party in Austria instigated
violence in the streets of Vienna and then invited Hitler to invade and restore order.
3. Possession of Austria brought him in touch with Hungary, Yugoslavia and enabled him to surround Czechoslovakia from 3 sides. It also gave him strategic
control over road, rail and river communication in central Europe.
Czechoslovakia
1. Czechoslovakia had treaties both with France and Soviet Union for protection from Germany but for the treaty with Soviet Union to come into force, France
should have implemented her guarantee first. So it was sufficient to ensure that France didn't declare a war on Germany over Czechoslovakia. In March 1938,
both Soviet Union and France reaffirmed their intention of honoring the treaty. But Chamberlin refused to guarantee help to France in the event of a war with
Germany over Czechoslovakia. This cleared the way for Hitler and was another high watermark of the PoA. Now all Hitler needed to do was to engage over
Czechoslovakia.
2. Hitler tried to rely on his usual method of instigating violence via the Nazi party in the German dominated area in Czechoslovakia. The local Nazi party
demanded more autonomy which was rejected by the government and instead it gave more minority rights. Hitler tried to build up pressure but a warning
failed his ploy. However negotiations began between Germany and over the issue.
3. Seeing international pressure building up, Czechoslovakia government became ready to grant autonomy to the German dominated region but not the local Nazi
leader rejected all offers and broke off from the negotiations. Subsequently in his negotiations with Chamberlain, Hitler demanded the application of the
principle of self determination to the Germans in Sudenteland i.e. entire Sudenteland. Carrying the PoA to its climax, Chamberlain agreed to put pressure on
Czechoslovakia.
4. Doing so would have meant creating a Sudenteland in reverse i.e. putting ~1 mm Czechs in Germany and also to violate the principle of military defensibility of
Versailles since Sudenteland formed the only defensible frontier of Czechoslovakia. Czech government refused initially but then announced that she won't be
able to guarantee her independence at all. A meeting happened @ Munich, agreed to give Sudenteland to Germany (although it wanted a slow internationally
monitored occupation) and Chamberlain flew back holding a paper saying, "I have bought peace for our generation."
5. In March 1939, against all obligations, Hitler occupied whole of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlin scrambled to explain his guarantee could not apply to a state which
had ceased to exist!
Poland
1. Munich had taught the bitter lesson to . All hopes of avoiding war had been lost and rearmament in had begun in full earnest and she even introduced
conscription for the first time in her history. now extended guarantees to Poland, Greece, Romania and Turkey and France followed. Soviet Union proposed a
6 party talks over Poland but it was rejected. reaffirmed its stance to stand by Poland.
2. Hitler now knew that invading Poland will invoke a war on the western front. So he sought to calm down the eastern front by making a pact with Soviet Union.
Stalin knew this too for geography necessitated that to attack Soviet Union, Hitler must attack Poland first which would invoke a war with and France. So he
too sought to buy some time. Soviet Union and the western powers didn't trust each other anyways so Stalin thought he can get a better deal with Germany
which would give him a larger share of Poland which can act as a buffer also. Thus he got both space and time. It was -French guarantee of Poland which
gave birth to the Nazi-Soviet pact.
3. Hitler resorted to his usual propaganda demanding the free city of Danzig and routes to east Prussia. Just a week before the attack, signed a mutual
assistance pact with Poland and this too didn't deter Hitler. It is thus clear, Hitler knew he may trigger a world war.
Spanish Civil War
1. When they should be helping out the democratic forces in Spain, and France chose to stay out. Additionally they sought to contain the involvement of
'additional' international parties in the war without making any attempts to check the participation of 'existing' parties. It was clear that without additional
support, the republican forces in Spain would lose out in front of the unchecked Italian and German support to the military.
2. Furthermore and France got a resolution passed in LoN to ban international transfer of weapons to Spain. While Germany and Italy (who were not member
states) continued to transfer weapons no attempts were made to check these. On the other hand, the republican government which relied on the member
nations for support was deprived of weapons.
Italian Fascism
Chinese Revolution (1949)
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
15/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
16/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
2. As the free settlers were trickling in (and they were used to a democratic government unlike the convicts), they began to press for democracy. Thus even
before the Eureka incident in 1854, movement for democratization had begun and political parties had come up to demand for a democratic government.
Slowly voting rights were extended and by the end of century even women became eligible to vote and contest parliamentary elections.
3. Improvement in transport and communication channels meant increasing trade and economic interdependence between the various colonies that had come up
in different parts of the continent. Gradually demands began to be raised to unite these colonies. The population had reached 3.5 mm by the end of 19th
century and in 1900 the colonies decided to come together and form a federation.
4. However the political system which was established was highly racist and discriminatory. One of the first acts of the federal government was to pass the
Immigration Restriction Act, 1901 which restricted the entry of colored immigrants. And the act was justified on racist grounds!
Neo Imperialism
Colonialism was at its lowest ebb in 1815
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Except for Tangier held by Spain, no colonies existed in N Africa and the Mediterranean Sea was the line of divide between Islam and Christian world.
The slave trade had been abolished. This greatly reduced the importance of west African colonies.
Cape Colony was a stoppage en route to India and Australia was a dumping ground for convicts.
Much of America had won her independence or strong freedom struggle was going on.
The Dutch had only island of Java under her control.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
17/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
18/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
3. In WW2, Japanese occupied Indonesia. After the war, Dutch tried to fight back but Indonesia won freedom in 1949 and in 1963 Indonesian armies freed the
last remaining colony of Dutch New Guinea as well.
SE Asia - Indo China
1. While was busy consolidating its empire in India and extending it in Malacca, France was carving out its empire in Indo-China. But these efforts were not free
of the mutual jealousies which had come to be associated with imperialism everywhere. Thus when France secured from the Burmese king to construct a
railway from Tonkin to Mandalay in 1880s, (fearing a French expansion) waged a war on Burma and annexed it.
2. France came to control Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and Thailand remained between possessions and the French possessions as a buffer state. Yet both
countries meddled freely in its internal affairs.
3. French had commercial interests in Indo - China (also called Annam) from 17th century but no concerted effort was made to colonize it since held the
supremacy in Indian Ocean (and any large scale French colonization would have invited their wrath). After the 1850s, French imperialism was driven by the
needs of balancing acts (of imperialism) in the wake of the scramble for colonies and was supported by the doctrines of racial and cultural superiority and
the 'white man's burden'. Initially Christian missionaries were sent in Indo-China and soldiers followed and the areas were occupied on the false pretext of
protecting the missionaries. Thus protection of religious men became the pretext of occupying Saigon, Da Nang and other areas in 1850s.
4. By the Treaty of Saigon in 1862, the Vietnamese emperor ceded the territories of S Vietnam to French (which French merged with their other areas to form
the colony of Cochinchina) and also the French secured trade and religious privileges over entire Vietnam and a control over her foreign policy. Gradually they
spread their influence and in 1882 occupied Hanoi. This led to a war with China and a French victory confirmed their supremacy in the region. Thus entire
Vietnam and Laos came under French control as 'protectorates'.
5. In these places even though they nominally retained the old administrative structures but all the effective power lay with them. They resorted to making the
elite native class dependent on them for survival and also heavy cultural propaganda.
SE Asia - Philippines
1. The Filipinos revolted against Spain in 1896 and proclaimed the First Philippines Republic in 1898. However, the 1898 Treaty of Paris transferred the control
from Spanish to US. The Philippines government didn't recognize this Treaty and declared war against US in 1899. The US unilaterally declared peace in 1902
and this was followed by Philippine Organic Act, 1902. This Act provided for the establishment of a bicameral legislature where the lower house was to be
popularly elected. Thus Philippines became a US colony and like Canada, Australia etc. it had modern colonial practices. English was also made the official
language along with Spanish.
2. The Philippine Autonomy Act, 1916 officially declared US commitment to grant independence to her as soon as possible. Partial autonomy was granted in 1936
and plans were made to grant independence in 1946. But in the WW2, Japanese conquered her. Philippines welcomed US forces reconquering her and in
1946, independence was granted.
3. During WW2, the People's Army which was affiliated to the Communist Party of Philippines (PKP) fought against the Japanese and gained popularity. In the
1946 elections, PKP participated. However, with the onset of cold war, its growing strength drew ire from US and the ruling government. They resorted to
repression of PKP and in 1948, an armed struggle began between PKP and the government + US military forces present in Philippines. The insurgency lasted till
1956 when PKP gave up arms.
Theories of Neo-Imperialism
Hobson's and Lenin's Accumulation Theory
(a) Features
1. The European capitalist markets suffered from under consumption due to concentration of wealth in few hands. The workers were merely paid sustenance
wages and hence were not able to absorb the vast amount of goods being produced. This led to migration of capital which was the essential feature of NeoImperialism. This could have been avoided by a more equal distribution of wealth in these countries so as to raise the domestic consumption itself.
2. Lenin argued that in the colonies the imperialists found a new proletariat to exploit and the benefits were reaped by even the workers of the industrial
countries which led them to forget their revolutionary fervor and support their bourgeoise. Thus the war which happened in 1914 was one where both sides
were imperialists.
3. After 1870s, this capital migration was more towards Latam and rest of Commonwealth and less towards Europe, US and India. However, this capital was
accompanied with policies and attitudes which served to dominate the native systems instead of industrializing them. This is called the Dependency Theory. It
must also be noted that the need to find secure markets for capital and manufactured goods was higher than the need for raw materials since the raw
materials could have been secured even without political control.
(b) Criticism
1. Doesn't explain why countries with very little surplus capital like Italy wanted colonies. It also doesn't explain why US & Russia, both of who were net importers
of capital, engaged in imperialism. Some of the native rulers like Ismail Pasha themselves requested foreign capital.
2. Moreover Scandinavian countries which had the highest labor standards engaged in little imperialism.
3. In the scramble for Africa, sometimes the military and bureaucratic costs of maintaining the rule overshadowed the economic benefits.
Wallerstein's World Systems Theory
1. It
contends
that
with
the
spread
of
industrialization,
other
powers
developed.
The
core
imperialist
Britain
and
the
new
peripheral
powers
were
Germany,
France
etc.
The
peripheral
powers
displace the core powers and become core themselves. This contributed to the emergence of an era of aggressive national rivalry.
power
wanted
was
to
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
19/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Socio-Cultural
1.
2.
3.
4.
Colonial Collisions
1. The colonial considerations in distant always remained secondary to the considerations related to national security and interests in europe. Had they been
supreme in guiding the foreign policies of these countries, one would have expected to ally with Germany and not France or Russia. Whenever colonial
disputes arose, as far as possible, an attempt was made to resolve them by negotiating an outcome beneficial to all. Thus Africa was partitioned in Berlin in
1884-85. In the case of the Boxer rebellion in China in 1900 and in case of Japan in 1905 the colonial powers united and worked together to secure an outcome
which was beneficial for them all. They were also united in preventing the rise of a strong imperial Japan.
2. In fact a satisfactory settlement of colonial disputes became a prerequisite for alliances back home. Thus the Anglo - French alliance was made after settling
the colonial disputes in Egypt and Morocco, Anglo - Russian alliance was made after settling the dispute over Iran (by carving it out in separate spheres of
influence and keeping a buffer zone). The only country which let its foreign policy be dictated by colonial considerations was Italy and it proved to be an
unreliable ally and eventually gained nothing.
Moroccan Crisis
1. France had influence over Morocco yet it was politically independent. There were some disputed areas between the two and France wanted to expand her
territories. had trading concerns in Morocco as well as wanted to possess Gibraltar on the other side of the straits. Naturally a French expansion into Morocco
would have raised concern for them. So Germany decided to exploit the issue to break the -French alliance and the Kaiser visited Morocco in 1905 and
indicated support for recognition of Moroccan independence. Since Germany had no direct interest in Morocco, such an action was perceived as directly hostile
and aggressive by both and France.
2. But and France refused to let their foreign policy be guided by colonial interests (overriding the interests in europe) and reached an agreement over Morocco.
Germany (unaware of the agreement) called for an international conference to discuss Morocco. The situation was worsened when German pressure forced
French foreign minister (who had worked to strengthen the alliance with ) to resign. This further strengthened opinion against Germany. In the conference
which was held, except for Austria-Hungary, no one supported Germany and it came as a big defeat to German diplomacy. France was given effective control
of Morocco.
3. In 1910, French troops occupied Fez, the most important city of Morocco. Germany was infuriated and without much consideration sent a gunboat to the
Moroccan port. This was the gunboat diplomacy.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
20/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
They didn't preach Revolution and in fact most were ready to lend support to any monarch who would patronize them and adopt their teachings.
Their followers were mainly aristocrats and the lawyers, businessmen, local dignitaries etc. who by no means were the oppressed lot.
The doctrines of the philosophers were used by the revolutionaries later on only to justify their actions.
Their contribution was that they made men more ready to question the existing system.
What made people revolt in spite of themselves was the revolutionary situation
1. The core of the revolutionary situation was a king in desperate financial crisis. All the conventional ways of taxation had been exhausted.
2. France was a large, powerful, rich country in Europe at that time. It had a larger middle class and a better off peasantry compared to rest of Europe. But even
these conditions turned against the establishment.
3. Its not the people who have something to gain who revolt, its people who have something to lose who revolt. These people wanted to protect their belongings.
4. The decision of the king to summon estates-generale won him popularity initially, but he could not capitalize on it and ultimately it led to the revolution.
5. By now the socio-economic system in France had greatly outgrown her politico-administrative system. The decision to summon Estates-Generale brought
various people together who wanted social and political reforms.
6. Thus the act of summoning actually crystallized the revolutionary situation.
It was only the King, in the eighteenth-century France, who could create a Republic
1. Despite the revolutionary situation, no one of significance was demanding the head of the King.
2. The king had in fact won popularity by his decision to summon the Estates-General and then by increasing the strength of the 3rd Estate representatives.
3. If he had followed it up by declaring a joint session of the Estates-General then with one stroke he would have gained immense popularity with the people and
also destroy the nobles and clergymen which had been keeping checks on him.
4. However, his indecisive policies since then led to a failure on his part to actually be a part and leader of the revolution and gave opportunities to others.
5. Despite this, until the very last act of the King, republicanism was not a popular opinion. People were looking for reforms under the king and didn't want to
depose him.
Only a monarch prepared to be a revolutionary could have escaped the dilemma which plagued the eighteenth century French monarchy
1.
2.
3.
4.
The French monarchy was absolute in theory and the kings claimed to be ruling by divine right.
In the past, his authority had been checked only by powerful nobles and local parliaments which had been considered generally illegitimate.
However, his wielding of absolute authority was so enmeshed in the system that he became a slave of the system to rule that way.
He could rule only through the privileged orders of the society and through wasteful expenditures. Any other way of ruling would have been considered a
weakness and brought about his own downfall.
5. But if he continued to rule that way, he was fueling the revolutionary situation by perpetuating the reactionary socio-administrative system.
6. Thus only a monarch who was prepared to provide leadership to the revolution could have save the monarchy in France.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
21/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
The significant pressure exerted by the Paris mob forced each parliamentarian to become more radical.
The familiar forms of government had been tried and had failed. So there was chaos.
There was threat of foreign invasion and internal challenges.
The large scale emigrations helped strengthen the notion that enemies of the revolution were enemies of the state as well and hence should be prosecuted.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
22/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
5. Eventually the terror was used just to prolong the dictatorial rule of Robespierre.
Impact of the Revolution on War
1. The notion that in times of emergency ordinary public could be called upon to render service and sacrifice property emerged and gained ground. Thus it
eventually turned wars from being battles between armies to being conflicts between whole nations.
2. It transformed the wars into one of economic attrition through the Continental system and British blockade.
3. It led to the notion of the duties of the state towards its citizens because if the citizens could be called upon to sacrifice, the state should take care of their
welfare. Overall it made the relationship between citizens and state more intricate and intimate.
The nature and character of the post-Jacobian phase of the Revolution
1. It was not a royalist reaction nor was it a Giordin reaction. It was a turn towards moderate Jacobianism. A new constitution was drafted which was neither
Giordin nor Jacobian but it sought to end the feat of executive as well as the Paris mob.
2. The migrs began to come back in some numbers and Law of Maximum was discontinued. Law of Maximum meant fixing a ceiling on the prices of
commodities.
3. It wanted a new parliamentary system on a narrow social basis so that its moderate and avoids personal dictatorship.
Weaknesses of the Directory
1. The directors were self seeking politicians with little credibility.
2. Their support base was narrow and was limited to businessmen, lawyers, landlords etc.
3. So they had to resort to constant use of force against their own people to maintain their authority.
The Babeuf Conspiracy
1. Babeuf attracted a group of radical Jacobians and organized a secret society called the Society of the Pantheon.
2. In February 1796, Napoleon was personally sent to close the meeting place and dismantle the society. Babeuf and his
supporters retaliated by forming a secret directory and preparing for a revolt. They wanted to revive Jacobian constitution of 1793
and create a truly equal society in France.
Domestic circumstances leading to Napoleon's success
1. The Directory had become very unpopular due to their policy paralysis. Their unpopularity was reflected in a successive defeat in the elections which they
refused to recognize.
2. Finally in 1799, the situation could no longer be contained and two directors planned a coup with Napoleon's help.
Factors behind French success in the wars
1. Her enemies were never united despite being organized into a coalition. The coalition was merely superficial and they were only interested in furthering their
own gains.
19th century Europe would have been a place of profound change and great expansion even if French Revolution had never taken place or Napoleon would never have
been born
1. The declared war aims gave way slowly to imperialist tendency with policy of establishing natural French frontiers being followed. Thus the revolutionary war
became no different from Louis XIV's imperialistic wars.
2. In
the
conquered
areas,
French
laws
and
institutions
were
imposed
with
no
regard
of
local
aspirations. The locals merely found themselves serving a different set of masters. Areas like Italy and Holland were turned into French colonies. The
introduction of machines was encouraged only in France and discouraged everywhere else.
3. The people of these areas had already become acquainted with the principles of the revolution. There began a cultural and ideological movement in these
areas to forge themselves into independent nations. However, the importance of French Revolution and Napoleonic wars should not be overemphasized.
4. American Revolution had already taken place which was based on revolutionary ideals.
5. The British democracy was already turning towards being more inclusive and liberal.
6. The forces of Industrial Revolution would have been unstoppable.
7. It was not just the political revolution which changed lives, but the scientific and cultural revolutions led by people like Adam Smith, James Watt, Beethoven etc.
which had more profound impact on the age. So what French Revolution did was merely to accelerate the changes.
The Treaty of Tilsit was a high watermark of Napoleonic Empire
1. Even though the powers in the coalition were always divided and were busy in pursuing their narrow self interests (e.g.. Prussia in N Germany and E Europe,
Russia in Poland and Turkey, Austria in Danube Valley), they still put up some sort of semblance of being united.
2. However, by this treaty, Napoleon completely broke even the semblance of unity. He convinced the tsar of Russia that his real enemy was England as her
interests in Turkey and Asia conflicted with that of England's.
3. He convinced the tsar that he would be recognized the ruler of the east if Napoleon was recognized the ruler of the west. So Russia and along with Prussia
agreed to follow the Continental system and Austria even declared war on England. Thus not only was the third coalition smashed, it was reversed.
Unification in the West had to be accompanied by constant division and conflict in the East ; and his power was never consolidated east of the Elbe and the Adriatic
1. The first three coalitions which were formed against France were more a result of British strategy and superficial coincidence of interests of the eastern
European powers than anything else. Prussia, Austria and Russia were the three eastern powers and any real combination of them would indeed have been
formidable as was proved in the Fourth Coalition.
2. So Napoleon while consolidating his direct rule in the line west of and including S Germanic states and Italy, used diplomacy to keep the east divided. He
avoided any international conferences or multilateral pacts and instead insisted on settling issues bilaterally thus fostering mistrust among the eastern powers.
Only the threat posed by Napoleon could have united the governments of Europe in so solid and formidable an alliance: he made the Grand Empire and he destroyed
it
1. 3 Coalitions had been formed and shattered. One big reason was the internal squabbling among the coalition powers and absence of any fundamental unifying
cause.
2. But the way Napoleon inflicted defeats after defeats on them and snatched the territories, they felt their survival itself was dependent on defeat of Napoleon.
3. England had stifled Napoleon through her naval supremacy and blockade. The challenge was so great that they forgot all their differences.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
23/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
To embark on so vast an undertaking in the East while Britain remained unconquered in the west was a mistake that Hitler was to repeat 130 years later
1. Bot the would be conquerors of Europe - Napoleon and Hitler - faced this dilemma. The naval supremacy of England had made her conquest look
impossible. Both were land powers, so fell in the temptation of solidifying their power by capturing the vast east.
2. In both cases, an east-west alliance was precipitated as a result of the aggression and this devastated the aggressor.
The impact of Continental System on economic system in Europe
1. Now brought out in open, the need to focus on and expand the maritime trade, was reinforced by the continental system and the blockade of Europe.
2. Between 1789 to 1815, England's foreign trade trebled and it became more trans-atlantic and far-east in character.
3. France, being cut-off from her overseas connections was forced to focus on its trade with continental Europe and near East.
Other reasons for Napoleon's fall
1. The opponents had all finally united against him. It was this alliance which eventually defeated Napoleon after the nationalist sentiments had played their part
2. Napoleon's war tactics had been learnt by others and now used against him.
3. The Prussian state relied on heavy mass support and conscription to rebuild against Napoleon.
Forces combining the Aristocracies in Europe in 1815
1.
2.
3.
4.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
24/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
Britain
British Democratic Politics (1815-50)
1. The attitude of the government in this period was that of conservatism. The parliamentary system ensured that there was no need for a radical revolt but the
conservative outlook ensured that any reforms could only be piecemeal and cold be achieved only after a prolonged struggle. Such was the case in abolition of
Combination Laws in 1824 (legalizing trade unions) and Emancipation Act in 1829 (giving civil equality to people other than protestants).
Chartists
1. This was a movement of workers which demanded political rights for them. It tried to create an impression that the sole reason for all the miseries of workers
was their lack of representation in the parliament and thus pressed for parliamentary reforms. Their methods were mainly based on submitting mass
petitions etc. The government naturally resorted to repression in the beginning.
2. It became popular specially after 1832 due to the popular resentment against the 1832 reforms (which had set the tax qualification of 10 for voters), the
economic fluctuations and crisis and exploitation of workers. In 1838 William Lovett (a cabinet maker) and Francis Place (a tailor) drew up a list of 6 demands
which is popularly called the "People's Charter". It called for universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, removal of property qualifications for MPs, annual
elections and secret ballot. They emphasized the doctrine of sovereignty of people as against the government doctrine of sovereignty of the parliament
(because in those days parliament was not a representative of the people).
3. It made a call for convening a National Convention near the Parliament where it would present to the parliament a petition with hundreds of thousands of
signatures. But its leaders were indecisive over what to do next should the petition be rejected. While Lovett and Place were in favor of methods only,
O'Connor called for violence. In July 1839 a petition was presented to the parliament with 1.25 mm signatures but was rejected. Riots, strikes etc. broke out.
But the movement got divided as some followed violent means, other stuck to means only.
4. Subsequent petitions were presented in 1842 and 1848 and were rejected each time. The movement died. The middle class which had supported the
movement earlier (because it opposed the Corn Laws) had withdrawn its support once the Corn Laws were abolished. Only the workers were left and the
fortunes of the movement varied inversely with the economic cycles.
Parliamentary Reforms
1. The pressure of the 1830 revolt in other parts of Europe forced parliament to pass the parliamentary reform act of 1832. The Bill was opposed by the upper
house but they were coerced into agreement by the lower house (on the threat that the king would reconstitute the upper house). The Act redistributed the
strength of constituencies. It gave a share in the political power to the rising middle class by redistributing it from the landed aristocracy.
2. The reformed parliament thus created was much more liberal and it proceeded to pass some more liberal reforms like the abolition of slavery in 1833 in the
colonies as well.
Free Traders
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
25/26
7/7/2014
Evernote Export
1. The period between 1790 and 1830 saw progressive freer trade within the national borders (as internal tariffs and other NTTBs were eliminated) and rising
protection against international products (specially manufacturers). Thus large free trade areas like zollverein and UK ( + Ireland) were created. This led to
great strengthening of the middle class in europe (particularly west). This new middle class sought policies more favorable to them and hence more political
representation.
2. But by 1830, UK manufacturers were feeling the constraints of a saturated home market and a protected european market. They had already gained
competitive advantage in manufacturing and were afraid of none. So they pressed their government to set an example and follow a policy of free trade.
3. The reforms of 1832 had given greater power to the liberal and pro free trade elements. Their demand to repeal Corn Laws and to allow freer trade should be
seen in this context only. The mill owners wanted cheap bread for their workers so that they could pay them less. They also opposed the Navigation laws
(which restricted shipping between and her colonies to ships only) which were eventually repealed in 1849.
4. Jeremy Benthem had championed the utilitarian philosophy. This philosophy called for a critical examination of any law from the point of view of its benefit to
the society and thus disregarded all traditionalism. This helped in furthering the reform process.
5. Even though free traders saw independence of colonies as a natural outcome, they paradoxically were instrumental in strengthening of the colonial system.
The Long Depression of 1873-1896 led to increased pressure on European governments to abandon free trade and promote home industries. The protectionist
tendencies among various european nations were getting very strong and by 1870 virtually all european nations had imposed strict tariffs against each other's
goods and capital. In this context, colonies were seen as safe markets (the major reason) for both manufactured products as well as capital
and sources of raw materials. They were now seen less in terms of their commercial value but more in terms of guarantee for free market. Thus in this period
we saw a consolidation of rule in India, coastal colonies in Africa getting inward, expansion of hold in the Cape and Australia and New Zealand emerging as a
full colonized continent.
6.
file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html
26/26