understandable to protect their selves.

Britain did not want to go in war, before of their lack in

army. They wanted to concentrate in their navy. Britain eventually agree with France in 1904,
so France has a guarantee. That guarantee was that if France go to war Britain would have its
back. This meant that Britain would end up in a war treated by Russia.

At the same time we have the Triple alliance: Central power (Germany, Austrian-
Hungary, Italy) in common? They were new states, made France nervous… This
connection makes a lot of sense, despite of being different politically. Austrian-
Hungary is a multinational, multilingual empire.
Europe was dominated by this system of alliance. The system of alliances is better
than no alliances at all. The alternative of a system of alliances is ANARCHY (totally
unpredictable, no like alliance which is predictable). The problem of a system of
alliances like this is that when you started you can´t stop it.

Total war evolves massive people, women were recruited. The social and the political
consequences of war are: WWI marks the end of European society and the open to a new era
of civilization.

16 cases, 12 resulting in war. That is what we called the funicity trap. The rise of a new power
generated fears in the existing China, who generates new fears. This fear leads to overreact
and overplate its hand. Instead of reacting sensibly, the declining power is beginning to do this
that makes conflict more likely.

(2 aspect of the funicity trap): The motion that in many of this cases isn’t actually a direct
conflict between the two powers that lead to war, it is very often the two allies that the two
power has established. To taste how serious the hermon is.

Not always pessimistic and he concede that it is actually possible to the emerging power to
coexist and take place without conflict and of course it is possible that we are moving into a
multipolar world (EU, Japan, India, USA).

Long-term causes of WWI: Franco-Prusian War, with the lost of France.

Irrentism is a phenomenon of the desire of gain lost statues. Otto Von Bismarck, father of
modern Germany. Knowing that he defated France, and france wanted to regain ……, this lead
to the isolation of France. Bismarck´s goal was to make France isolated. At the same time we
wanted to empower Germany.

1
1818 was extended to Italy and become the Triple Alliance: Germany, Austria-Hungary
(multinational empire) and Italy. (Separating France and Russia). Russia sells itself as the
protector of Slovenians states.

Bismarck organized a diplomatic conference in Berlin to solve this problem. Essentially to say
that come countries are under the Russia other under the Austrian umbrella and to prevent
conflict. Not Germany which was seen as a neutral mediator.

William II, dismissed Bismarck: why? Germany was a constitution of monarchy (prime
minister). So he fired Bismarck essentially because he was tired of Bismarck telling him what to
do.

Germany began to build up his navy, challenge Britain and become an industrialized country.
When Bismarck was dismissed everything started to happened: DUAL AGREEMENT between
France and Russia 1891 (duo onton) when happened everything that Bismarck tried to avoid.
(Franco-Russia reaction).

Britain changes his mind with the dual agreement. It is now when the alliances started: triple
alliance (German, Austria Italy) and triple onton (France, Britain and Russia).

AS Bismarck feared in the 20 th century the Balkans became the leader of Europe. TWO WARS:
1912-1913: War evolving Serbia who wanted to expelled the Turks with Russian assistants. The
second war took place in June 1913 which evolved Bulgaria and Serbia. As a result of these two
wars the kingdom of Serbian emerged as the largest Balkan state. And secondly this meant
that Austria-Hungary began to see Serbia as a thread because Serbia was seen as a nucleus
because it doubles its population.

Other phenomenon that we have in the early 20 th is ….. Germany concentrated in his land
army and not in his navy.

1911 the person who represent in the British side Churchill 1911. He basically refused to
except Germany to have a better navy because he was an imperialist. And he believe that only
the superiority could protect the British navy. He invest more in the navy with a result of a law
1912, a parity with the German empire.

Churchill wanted a war with germane sooner than later. He did not refuse to provoke a war
with Germany before Germany became even more powerful. Britain wanted to see Germany
happy by expanding the German army in African territories with the condition of taking away
the law of parity, but Germany refused of it. REJECTED BY GERMANY. Naval army became a
goal for Germany after Bismarck´s death.

Short-term: IMMIDIATE CAUSE

28th of June of 1914 Gavrilo Pinkie was a member of the Black Hand (nationalist group) which
was probably in Bosnia Herzegovina. He shot Archiduque in Sarajevo. This is a nationalist who
wanted to make Bosnia Herzegovina to take part of Serbia. They knew about this Black Hand
organization and they tried to warn about this. They knew that a terrorist attacked was taking
place. This was an organization that probably has the concerned of the power.

2
Serbia shot down newspapers when they publish Anti-Austrian propaganda. Secondly shot
down all nationalist organizations. And present formal apologies to the Austrian. Austria was
so weak that they checked that the already have Germany support, known as the blank check.
WE HAVE YOU BACK DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO WE SUPPORT YOU.

Germany has already decided that war was impossible between Serbia and Austria-Hungary
that is why they provided a black check. Austria-Hungary didn’t want to go to war without
Germany backing. Why Germany did think war was good idea in 1914? Germany thought
timing was good: 1st in 1905 the Japanese army defeated the Russian army. Let´s go to War
now because the Russian are weak (was rebuilding his army). 2nd biggest challenge? The train
and railways. Russia realized that they have very poor railways and ask France to invest in a
new railway in Russia. The French were good at this. So Russia could move faster than they
were able to. The final reason of the blank check was simple because Germany could not
abandon Austria because it was it main ally.

Austria-Hungary and Serbia at war, the first was bond…. Russia move his allies and lock in. 1 st
of August

2nd of August of 1914 Luxembourg was invaded by Germans.

German declared war at France in the 3 rd of August. Belgium important for two reasons: France
has built a very strong defense and need to pass by Belgium to go to Paris the Germans.
Belgium was automatically involved. Belgium was a Franco-British creation. The invention of
Belgium created war on the 4 th of August. 6th August Austria declared war to Russia. EVERYONE
IN WAR EXCEPT ITALY. (Italy was offered treats by both sides but he rejected)

German found an excuse to not go to war with Belgium. Germans thought that Britain would
maintain neutral, believing they were not interest in European wars. German thought this war
could be a limited war.

Germany invaded Belgium, without thinking this would lead to British intervention. Conflict to
Russia would lead to a problem to Germany. The only way for Germany to survive was to lock
down France and then turn to Russia. TWO WARS AT THE SAME TIMES WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
Germany was a victim of two decades of strategic military thinking. France is weaker than
Russia so France is easier to defeat. So we defeat France and then center our attention to
Russia.

The second part of this strategic thinking was that France couldn´t be attacked through the
center, but through the north (Belgium) Sliffen plan. One mistake that German did was
murdering aprox 5000 civilians (innecesary in Belgium).

Italy finally joins the war in mid-19 with France and Britain. Portugal also joined the allies (not
very significant role). Spain remain neutral and benefit enormously from neutrality and sell
products to both side. The king Alfonso XIII wanted to fight with the Britain’s and French’s.

Clauwe cause: war consists of three things: 1 military activity (armies, fighting) 2 politics in
government (people with clear strategies) 3 passions of the people.

3
The war break done in summer of 1913: 6 MONTHS WAR. The allies were superior in terms of
populations. In terms of Industry it quite balance (allies superior). The central power had a
great advantage with Germany and Austria (same language, costume to work together).

What are the advantages of democracy in war? In theory in a democracy the leaders could be
more trusted. Censorship: Churchill faced this dilemma to be always truthful, trying to
guarantee. In a democracy society you could provide too much information (disadvantage)
about the war, too much media…

How much information should be made available in society (in democracies)? On one hand
democracy goes into a common goal, but at the same time as a free country people criticized
government decisions.

Literacy is part of a social contract that exists between the people and the government. The
absence of information means that a lot of people become very cenacle about the war: why
are we fighting, who do benefit from war?

Industrialized countries, educated population became normal in European countries. Russian

people were illiterate. Germany has a strong advantage with a great population (bigger than
France). Russia has the biggest army I WWI but the least organized and least educated.

Why WWI evolved as it did? Germany´s dilemma? Germany´s great fear? They were sandwich
between Russia and France. This means that the German plan was to fight France, defeat
France and then turn the east to defeat Russia. BUT THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. France mobilized
and invaded Belgium. Battle of Marne (September) and Battle of Ypres: war of change. Static
war, you could not use tanks, the airfare couldn’t do too much damage. It was not way of
achieving a quick victory. It was winter, wet and frustrated to be living with rats throughout a
year (in France).

Germans set up and tried to invade the France. Russia had two armies; one in Poland and east
Germany fighting Germans. And one fighting Austrian-Hungary. Russia defeated Austria in the
south. The key in Russia was not really the army, but the military army accelerates a change
and produced a revolution. In March in 1917 the czar Nicolas abdicated. Military failure led to
the collapse of the regime.

Russia tried to create a democracy. The war in Russia was not popular, many people fighting,
being illiterate and having no idea of what they were doing. Kerensky faced a determine group
of people, called the Bolsheviks led by Lenin. They were communist, socialist, Marxists. They
refused to fight this war, it was the czar´s war. The German very cleverly used this because
Lenin was in exile in Switzerland and the Germany arrange into trouble back to Russia. Once
the Bolsheviks had the power, became the government they signed a treaty of Brest-Ittovsk
(between Russia and Austria-Hungary).

The main interest was the revolution not the war, signing a treaty with Germans and Austria-
Hungary, despite of losing 30% of the population, 50%of Russia´s industry and 90% of its coal
and highly humiliating.

4
This also affected the economy. Russia because of Brest-Ittovsk lost the possibility of winning
the war. The loss of coal affected the manufacturing of weapons, making Russia out of its
possibility to fight.

Italy joined the war with the France and Russia side. Austria-Hungary fight against Italy making
Britains sends troops for the Italians. Turkey joined the central allies (Germany and Austria).
Turkey was always a rival of France and Britain being seen as a threat in the Middle East.
Churchill made the worst decision of its entire career. He decided to take Constantinople
(Estambul) and destroy the Ottoman Empire by saving Constantinople. This campaign became
a horrible military disaster. Half a million of troops died: Gasllipoli (named of the battle). Most
of the fighting was done by what we called anzac (autralia and new zeland: british empire).

Fifth fence in The Balkans (Serbia and Austria-Hungary). The Austria defeated Serbia and
conquered Belgrade.

Sixth fence in Africa. Germany has acquired colonies in eastern of Africa. This was more a
matter of prestige.

Seven fence in the Middle East. They tried to expel the Middle East Empire from the Middle
East. Britain expelled what is known as Iraq (oil). Britain encourages their nationalism against
the Turks.

October 1917 Britain took Palestine. The British used the war as a pretext to strength their hits
and expanded the strength of its army. Basically by 1918 Turkey was removed of the Middle
East and largely replaces by the Britain.

The intervention of the United States: Joining the alliance (British and France). America was
really young in 1914 (Isolated country) with little interest of the rest of the world. Why did
USA join the war? (+) Because of liberal society and a great affinity (USA loved France). Most
Americans are British colonies. What America didn’t like about France and Britain were the
colonies. Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines… USA didn’t see that with the same eyes as Britain did,
not respecting their wishes etc.

Strong German immigration to American and also Irish immigration to the USA. Irish lived a
heavily famine that lead to the immigration of their population.

Additionally, President Woodrow Wilson gradually moved towards a more understanding

attitude with the British/France. He asked the countries who were fighting to explain their war
aim. He wanted everyone to sit done and reach a deal/agreement. USA was working as a social
mediator. Independence for Serbia, independence for Belgium and Poland, additionally
recover Alsace-Lorraine were the thing British and France order to end the war. Also expelling
the Austria-Hungary Empire. WWI is the first location in which this stated demanded
reparations in cash. Not cattle, crops or whatever, IN CASH. The expected their enemies to pay
for the harm they cause.

What about Germany? Keep Alsace Lorraine; protectorate in Belgium, Poland and the Balkans
States, being able to control those territories. Retain their colonies in Africa and of course
maintain Autrian democracy in the Balkans.

5
NEUTRALITY: Germany would attack any nationality/ship that was sealing… Secondly in
February of 1917 Zimmerman; United Kingdom sent a telegram from the minister to the
Germany embassy in Mexico. Germans were offering an alliance to Mexico to recover Texas,
Arizona and New Mexico if they go to war with the USA.

America could live with Britain and France but the idea of going to war with Russia as an ally
was repulsive.

Abril 1917 president Wilson said the war must be made to safe democracy. He did not talk
about territorial issues, or ethnic issues, he was talking about democracy. But did the existence
of Germany autocracy justifies going to war? The US declared war in Germany and cause the
loss of Russia (France and Britain) but the gain of America. The last reason to explain why USA
joined is because France own America a lot of money.

May 1916 ending in a draw; Germany spent a lot of money building that navy.

Finally what happened with the western of France? February 1916 Germany attacked Verdun
which the French rejected. In July France tried to do the same with Somme (Germany). In the
following spring 1918 …. January 1918 President Wilson speaks to the US congress why
America was in the war but also he said a program for world peace. Wilson 14 points:

-Open covenants openly arrivedat: not more secrecy.

-Freedom of the seas
-Free trade
-Reduction in the of war: desonomant
-Colonization
-Observations in the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire.
-14: Establishment of a general association of nations formed as a specific coverage for
the purpose of giving integrity to small and large nations.

Those 14 points (January 1918 to the USA. Congress) are an expression of idealism and
realism. Interests and values.

The key thing is a general association for the purpose of having mutal guarantees of political
independence and territorial integrity to …

America didn’t want any colonies, coal but he wanted to change the international system
thanks to the war. America wanted to get rid of the ideas of the power politics. The idea of the
worlds as force and army, instead cooperation should go before the army.

Germany rejected Wilson 14 points, it’s rejected the principles and the specific suggestions
referring to the territorial questions. WWI also rejected the German revolution; strikes carry
out by workers; kiel. Germans wanted the end of war and went directly to Wilson no to France.
They expressed President Wilson to be more understandably. Wilson forced everyone to the
negotiation table. 1918 October it was accepted that Germany should be more than Britain
when the executive power was control by the parliament. November of 1918 the German navy

6
reveled against the officers. There was a fear of a revolution in Germany leading to the kaisan
to leave Germany and Germany becomes a republic. This republic tried to sign a peace treating
as soon as possible (11 November 1918) leading to the end of WWI. New law was introduced
in Britain called the representation of the people, which increased the number of people who
could vote in 1918, including for first time women over the age of 30.

Britain has a feeling that millions of people was mobilized in working areas (farms,
industrialized areas), in order to make the government more inclusive. The biggest irony was
President Wilson losing the mid-term elections in November 1918. Wilson lost control of
congress. This is important because in the EEUU the Senet should approved the treaties… This
was an important turning point that proves that the American opinions still was isolated.
President Wilson was weak at the most important point of his career.

Versailles is the royal palace in France. It was decided that negotiations should be taken in
France. French peoples wanted revenge and humiliate Germans in front of the French people.
The prime minister of France was Clemenceau. President Wilson came to Europe and spent
months in Europe negotiation a peace treaty (never happened before). There was a conflict of
context between Clemenceau and Wilson. Wilson on the on hand wanted to create a new
international order and that is what took so much time out of Washington. On the other hand
Clemenceau priority was to rebuild Europe to make sure that Germany could not attack France
again. France had been attacked twice already. Basically France realized that it could no longer
stand hand to hand with Russia, because Russia became communist with Lenin on head. With
France was all about creating a system that creates a survival. France wanted to weaken
Germany (punitive) done in several ways: retake Alsace-Lorraine (has been taken from France
before), after that the Saar region. It was one of the most highly productive areas in the World.
France wanted this region to be place under a protectorate by the leagues of Nations which
would deprived Germany from part lands, and it would not be able to rearmed (build
weapons). Additionally all this area of the Saar would be in reparations, to compensate France
of what they had lost.

On the one hand we have a weakening of France in the west and Germany in the east. The
idea here was to build a cordon sanitaire (like a buffer) creating countries such as Poland and
more capable for a future German progression. The danzig corridor: separating east Russia
from the rest of the country and providing Poland, which was seen as the only country in
eastern Europe that could stand up to the Germans, …

The Germans were also force to resign and they would have a small army 100.000, with no air
force and no navy. Additionally, the German colonies in Africa were place under
French8/British authorities/ mandates. The price of the resignation was 20 million DM for the
Germans to France. Spend your way out of recession.

The economic consequences of the peace in 1919, his arguments were the idea of being guilty.
Secondly it makes no sense to destroy the German’s economy (or weaken) which is the largest
economy in Europe. And thirdly,

A new state was created, Checoslovaquia (French idea of strengthening Europe against the
Germans). Sudentenland

7
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovens, later Yugoslavia and finally Austria-Hungary lost its
Italian speaking minority like TRIESTE. ANSCLUSS

Greater Romania incorporated Transylvania and taken away from Austria-Hungary.

The Ottoman Empire lost the war and deprived his possessions in the Middle East; Lebanon,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Palestine Transjordan. Kemal Ataturk separated the states, create
an alphabet.. He was a reformist, a modernizer wanting turkey to be European.

Versailles (good): Firstly, the new states that were created, except lugoslavia. People have
being criticized of redrawing the map of Europe. Religion, ethnicity don’t go together. It was
difficult to create nations with a predominant culture and language, instead they were
multicultural. Secondly, turkey is expulsed from Europe, and brought stability to both. Balfour
declaration was the british minister who promised the Turkish people that Britain’s would
allow them to settle in Palestine. Thirdly, with the reobtain of assent- Lorren,

Hashemite monarchs in Jordan and Iraq… (rellenar con apuntes maru)

8/4/21

How did the WWI end?

-Most new states survive

-Turkey continued to be a problem. Turkey was moved out of Europe.
-Franco-German issue was at least temporary result. Finally realize in the 1960 that this couldn
´t go on. MOST IMPORTANT SUCCESS.
-The German question. Europe control by Germany or an European Germany; German state
which is the most powerful economic country. Creating a single market with the ability to
trade. Most beneficial for the internal market/single market.
-For the British Empire, Germany should be a …
-For the United States, the war also fell into this debate. Should the US remain isolates or be
part of an emerging power force?
-Both the British and the U.S debate were not result yet.

HOW HISTORIANS HAVE DEBATE WHO WAS THE BLAME: RESPONSABILITY

In the years after WWI the question was focus on the blame; who´s fault was it? The winners
normally win the argument. The arguments were that Germany was aggressive, with the death
of thousands of innocent people. In Germany, Russia was the blame. They accused Russia of
using Sarajevo as a pretext of attacking Germany without cause. The Germans of course
presented the article 132 of the Versailles treaty. Because they were humiliating the losers.
They signed the peace treaty but they still said they were the guilty.

Who exactly is the guilty? The German nations as a whole? The regime? The problem with the
word guilt is that it applied the word guilt to the new regime and political status that has
nothing to do with the out coming regime, blaming the new people that mostly dislike the
Kaiser.

8
RESPONSIBILITY IS A VERY COMPLEX PHENOMENOM INVOLVIND DIFFERENT ACTORS.

Between 1922-1946, they published 14 volumes to prove Germany innocence. This documents
some were force and chosen very selective. Although there was a very good new idea to prove
Germany innocence or the consequences were not conclusive. The positive thing was that it
encourages other countries to do the same. And they started publishing documents too. In the
1920s, it started a battle of narratives: who did what and why. (Historians doing after the war,
pero apoyaban lo suyo propio).

As time go by, and the memories of the war became less prominent. People started to look for
deeper causes. (1)The first popular interpretation, that emerged in the middle 20s, (Dickinson-
International Anarquia) (2) collective diplocacy was the best way to prevent future problems in
Europe. (3) Another interesting analysis became from Lenin. He wrote several pamphlets/
texts which hopefully not very educated people could understand. One of them called,
Imperialism-Highest state of capitalism, a class based analysis. The people wrote about the
responsibility within nation-states, but Lenin talks about the relation between the war and the
capitalism. Lenin blames the imperialist interests of the large powers. And he argued that their
agenda was basically an imperialist agenda with the struggle of markets and trade. This
Marxist-Leninist interpretation was popular in Germany. The adopted this market because for
their individuals simply express their interests. You vote the way you vote because you are
protecting your class status (low taxes…).

Marxist and Leninist believe that the German’s Kaiser and his followers wanted to go to war.
Industrial edits and financial edits. These three groups wanted to go to war because it was a
fair economic condition in WWI and in order to go to the next state or level it was in the
interest of these people to go to war.

Marxist interpretation have problems because: countries that have not a capitalist economy
do not want to go to war. Lenin said there is a link between capitalism and imperialism and
France and Britain were allies. Another problem is that; is war such a good business for theses
capitalist commission? In many cases no (France and Germany export and import their goods,
and at the same time British and Germany trade together)

From a Marxist analysis people from the same class would protect each other and the same
interests. In Germany, there is no evidence that large industrialize lobbied (push) the Kaiser to
encourage it to go to war. This is to avoid risks. Industrializers tried to avoid risks. Wars are
much disrupted, and wars disrupt trade, industrial infrastructure.

The second interpretation tries to move away from people and concentrated more on the class
interests. Why did Germany go to war? Relationship between imperialism and capitalism. After
all, the debate became more academic and less political, more professionalized. The first
(English historian Turner), origins of the WWI; we shouldn’t sub estimated how rational actors
are. There are lots of miscalculations in here. The second part of his analysis is the idea that we
have to look carefully in the relationship between military leaders and the nation as a whole.
Military leaders have different interests; they are interesting in pursuing.

9
Militarism is very important. The idea here is that Germany edits has been militarized.
Germany is a multinational nation, who bring up together with the army. In other countries
like France, is the French revolution the people, the language who brings the nation together.
But talking about Germany is the military that create the nation identity. This interpretation
has been popular, who blame German edits. Franco-Prussia war, WWI, WWII… that is the
blame?

Free Fischer, have access to document in East Germany. Fisher says that Siberians are as
aggressive, imperialist as the military. Secondly, Fisher said this is pre-WWI. Thirdly, he
documented that there is a meeting in 1912 in which German government official told the
Kaiser that they now have evidence that Britain would defense France in a war with Germany.
“Okay, so the sooner the better”. The point is that this could be use to prove that the Kaiser
wanted war long before anything happened on the Balkans He also discover a document which
basically let out German plans.

Once the war finished historian didn’t really behave really professional and they just wanted to
have documents to justify what they have done. Once political struggle resulting from the war
died down the historian took this more seriously.

Louis Dickenson: A pacifist critic from the system of alliances. What this author saw as an
alternative was a system of collective diplomacy, what it will be the League of Nations. The
emphasis was the rivalry between major states. We have a different approach by Lenin. He
was looking for a class analysis, a class explanation for the war and also economic. He argued
about the evolution of world capitalism which made WWI enabled. There was a strong
relationship between capitalism and imperialism. The argument was that the main power
develops empires in order to compete economically.

The problem was: Firstly there were wars in the 19 th before this capitalism existed, secondly
Serbia and Austria (original protagonist of the war) were not capitalism, thirdly the colonial
rivalry was between Britain and France not with Germany, fourthly war is not good for
capitalism and for the economy and finally there is no evidence of Germany abdicating war.

Turner-Origins of WWI: war is messy, politics is messy but secondly is more important that
Turner´s belief that military imposed their wishes on the civilians. This goes against Marxist
analysis. So tuner argued that the military had their own agenda and they not necessarily listen
to industrialists and they will not be part of these capitalist elite.

We have another interesting contribution by Rita; the problem of militarism in Germany. This
emphasis again the idea of Germany militarism, the air forces, the back bone of the German
nation and states… So the idea here is that there is a social historical problem with Germany.
The problem is that Germany has this social militaristic philosophy, and therefore Germany
was an aggressive expansion state.

Fisher—Grasp for world power. His arguments were more sophisticated; he accepted the idea
that Germany was mainly responsible. And the challenge for him was that it was not a military
problem but a Germany problem. He identified some problems/moments which supposedly
prove his thesis.

10
The first was a meeting that took place in December 1912: The Kaiser was informed that the
German intelligent knew that if France go to war with Germany, Britain has made a
commitment to help France. THE SOONER THE BETTER, let’s go to war now, because if not
Britain will have time to build up and army and it will much harder. This proves that Germany
wanted war as early in 1912. In other words, Germany had already decided to give Austria-
Hungary a blank check because it guaranteed that if Austria-Hungary was attacked by Serbia
war would become automatically.

Fisher also published a document dates in September 1914, which was produced by the
German military which basically contain a plan for the domination of the whole of Europe. The
problem with this document is that the fact that you have a military strategy doesn’t
necessarily mean that you are going to carry it out. Fisher´s book cause an enormous
controversy in Germany especially for the continuity thesis. It was with the idea that Germans
started both wars, the idea that both wars reflect a fundamental German problem (militarism,
expansionism). This suggests that there is a social German illness that means that Germany
succumbs to the temptation of expansionism, attacking its neighbors. Fisher´s became a very
accepted thesis until the 1918s, and one of the important thinks is that the continuity thesis is
about German (traditions…) not its relationships with France or Britain.

Other authors continued with this idea like Meer. The countries which went to war they key
was the performance of the ruling elites. Meer argued that WWI took place because
traditional elites were threatened by revolutionary forces. He argued that in the key countries
such as France, Germany, Britain, Russia… you have traditional elites but with the arrival of
industrialization, urbanization and socialism, theses elites felt threatened. And they basically
turned to war as a way to maintain their power.

Debate in France and Meer thesis is not convinced, it is useful for traditional elites. It suggests
that in France there were very little support for taking back Aisance-Laurence. The general
public go into a pacifist moment. Compulsory military service was introduced in France in 1913
(3 years military service). The same happens in the United Kingdom, the government was quite
divided and the public was not very enthusiastic about the war at all. They were aware of their
weakness and tried to find some support from below, by mobilizing nationalism settlement.

The historian evidence said that this might be true in the case of Russia, Germany or Austria-
hungry but there is less evidence in the case of France or Britain. So the possible reason might
be that in democratic government where public opinion matters and government need the
support of public opinion, they may have more reelected to go to war than in Russia or
Germany where the government has a tendency to ignore public opinion.

J.P Taylor- the struggle for mastery in Europe 1848-1918 (most famous book). The idea here is
that ever since 1848, before German unification and Russia still the largest German states, they
wanted continental Germany.

Going back to the origins, another interpretation there is a thesis by James Joll in “The origins
of WWI”. He accepted J.P thesis, of Germany aggressiveness.

11
Finally, another book “The Pity of War” by Niall Ferguson. This book is popular because it
defends the idea that Germany went to war as strike. This book expresses the pessimistic of
German leader, their fears of being surrounding by hustling powers, the awareness of
Austrian-Hungary declined…

The current consensus is that Germany was the only power that wanted war in Europe and the
only power for which the change in the sex… was really quite attractive. And another
conclusion was that this is a collective failure, that all countries lost out including the winning
powers Britain and France because of the social consequences of the war and domestically the
ruling elites disappear (German, Russia…).

WEIMAR REPUBLIC-Impact of the war in Germany

The Weimar republic has often been held up as a great lost opportunity. It’s the best example
we have of how difficult it is to stablish a new democracy. In a country were in many way
offers a sophisticated economy, society and at the same time it’s become a social case study in
the failure of democracy.

None of the reasons for this failure are that the impact of the war was so brutal.

IMPACTS: The war ended and in 1918 the Germany’s national income was a third of what it
has been in the 1913. The wars lead 600000 widows and 2000000 orphans. 1925 the German
state was spending 1/3 of its budget in pensions just trying to help. This lead to a very high
human price for Germans.

September 1919, the highest military authority in Germany, Ludendorff, accepted the defeat.
In October a year later, to avoid invasion from the Allies and with the intention of reaching a
more benevolent peace agreement, the government promoted constitutional reform. Kaiser
still in power here and the Kaiser accepted that in order to avoid his over trough, he accepted
a move toward constitutional monarchy. So the idea was to place the military under the
control of the German parliament, known as the Reichstag. And also the government under
the control of the parliament but not under the control of the Kaiser.

In a way that was quite cynical, because they were trying to shift the responsibility for this
defeat to the new leaders. It was an attempt to prove to Britain and France that they were
changing. The Kaiser was basically shifting blame and responsibility into the new government,
parliament… It very important to understand the “Stab in the back myth”: the military and
conservative argued that the German army did not lost the war but rather the selfish
republicans and communists politicians surrounded in a treasonous way handed over Germany
to the enemy. Jews were also introduced in this equation. There is an honorable German
nation represented by the Kaiser and the armed forced, but suddenly, power was transferred
to the parliament and to the government. Adolf Hitler bought this narrative. He believe that
Germany has been stab in the back by un-German elements (socialist, Jews and communists…)

This did not succeed the Kaiser did not accepted, and in October of 1918 the sailors took the
control of two very important ports. And in November, in Berlin and other large cities, the

12
most radical elements of the German working class imitated the bolcheviques in Russia in 1917
and created workers and soldiers soviets. Soviets were communities of workers and soldiers
which emerged spontaneously in a social revolutionary fashion. And in Biberia, it declared
itself an independent republic and the Germany republic was collapsing and in the 9 th of
November the Kaiser abdicated, fled to Holland and the republic was proclaimed in Germnay.
The Weimar Republic was declared on the 9 th of November of 1918.

The new prime minister was a social democrat Friedrich Ebert (SPD). He was the head of the
SPD. Ebert and the new government signed to stop the fighting and the war. Ebert-Groener´s
agreement to defend the new republic as long as the new republic fought to fight the
revolution. Ebert was a democrat not a revolutionary; he did not defend the soviets. The deal
was that the army will defend the republic if the republic stands up too. Coalition government
formed by two left wing parties: the SPD and USTP. The war is over in November 1918.

Stannous legion agreement, between the trade unions (social democratic and the employers)
this is important because the trade union recognized private property and the market
economy and in return for theses the employers accepted an 8 hours working day and ligand
existence trade union.

Reformist non-revolutionists agreements (2): Ebert + Groener, 10th Novemeber (Army and the
governemt) between the chancellor and the supreme military commander. The military
committed itself to the new government if the government chose to fight for the
revolutionaries and supports the republic. The army wanted to prevent a revolution and
agreed to defend a republic who they didn’t really believe in a republic, but they accepted
because the monarchy no longer existed, on the condition that these should be a anti-
revolutionary government. (Could it being the foundation of a peaceful collaboration of
military and the new republic with a common enemy: soviet stile revolutions) 2. 15th
November there was the Stinnes-Leigen agreement, quite modern, between trade unions and
the employers. The trade union recognized private property and market economy (capitalism)
and the employer of that part accepted that the worker should work 8 hours a day. They do
not want revolution, it was a reformist government.

The left wing in Germany: 1918. Three groups: The largest group SPD, social democrats,
founded in 1875 led by Ebert and their objective was a socialist republic but using
parliamentary democracy. 1912 was the most voted party. They have the idea that the
Germany elites went to war because they realize that the old economic system was already
under thread from the increasingly industrial working class mainly represented by the
socialists. The middle class and some elements in the party who were in the working class
were impressed in what it had happened in Russia. But still moderate who believe in
parliamentary democracy. They wanted to change German society by adopting new laws in the
parliament by reforming the system.

USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party). They wanted a parliament but also soviets
(power). They were led by … Socialists revolutionaries and they were vere close to the
Bolcheviques and Lenin in Russia. They did not believe in Parliamentary democracy, they not

13
believe in gradual change they want a radical change led by Rosa Luxemburg (killed by the
police).

When the SPD repress the more revolutionary elements in the streets of Berlin, this turned
into radical groups against the SPD. The communist country was born in January 1919 as a way
to say that they have nothing to do with the SPD government which have repressed workers
and soldier who wanted a society style revolution.

In February 1919 the situation in Biberia became worst (declared indenpendece) whose leader
was murdered. Ebert government sent the army to Biberia to crush this communist soviet
republic. Spring 1919, the SDP, has become an antirevolutionary party---Socialist republic in
Germany.

Among historians, some people argued that the SPD did not have a choice either communist
revolution or parliament republic and they chose the parliament republic because they were
not communist. Other said that in fact, the possibilities of the revolution was not real and that
the SPD perhaps was too quick to rely into the support of more conservatives elements in
society such as the army.

Ebert, the most powerful leader of the SPD, did not want a Russian style revolution because he
believed directly as a Russian style civil war. The result is that Weimar Republic was born weak,
in the sense that many groups of society that did not really like the republic remain powerful.
Secondly, the old industrial elite retained its economic power that went with that. And finally,
there was not attempt to carry out any type of agricultural reform. There is a crush between
socialist democratic government who wanted to carry out big reforms and this powerful
interest army, civil service, industrial elites, who do not want Ebert to carry out his reform
program.

This was a provisional government (Ebert government) that hadn´t been elected by anyone, so
it has to seek popular support, so general elections were held on the January 1919, in
Germany. 67% voted for democratic parties (liberal democracy), even though people knew
that ebert and his social democratic ministers were responsible for repressing the rebellion;
38% of the votes and 165 seats in parliament for the SPD. The central party (CP) Christian
party. 19.7% and 91 seats (central right party). Another party, even further to the right, was
the liberal party called German Democratic Party (GDP), they believe in free market economy,
not too much state interference in public affairs and won 18.5% of the vote and 75 seats. The
fourth largest party, a right win, conservative party called German National People´s Party
(GNVP) who won 10% of vote and 45 seats. And finally, the USPD (Independent Socialist, far
left-wing)) with 7.6% votes and 22 deputies. Neither the communist nor no the Nazis obtained
any seats. German´s people party (GPP) was slightly right-central liberals. German Democratic
Party (GDP) was another party.

Conclusion is that we have 5 parties from left to right: USPD, SPD, CP, Liberals and GNVP. The
largest parties SPD, CP, GDP were strong enough to form coalition, known as the Weimar
coalition. They believe in freedom of speech, equality… Although they have different
ideologies they could have work together well.

14
These parliament was a constitute assembly, whose main goal was to write a new constitution,
the Weimar Constitution in July 1919, adopted with 262 in favor and 75 against (far left and
right voted against).

Everyone under the age of 20 was able to vote. Secondly, Germany was given a federal
structure, a central government but with autonomy.

This was a presidential parliament where the president was elected directly by the people for 7
years. Underneath him we find the prime minister (chancellor). The chancellor was elected by
the parliament elected for 4 years. The president was also given some specific powers, to
govern by decree. So in emergency situation the president could ignore the parliament and the
prime minister.

Historians have detected two main powers with the Weimar constitution: Firstly, the relation
between the president and the chancellor/parliament, because both were democratically
elected, but they may not be entirely on the same page. You can have a conservative prime
minister and a socialist president. The second issue, refer to the method of election. Two
methods of elections in the world: 1. Proportional representation system-> the important of
an election is to reflect the diversity of society where the lection takes place. (Spain). It
produces multi-party systems. They would be very small it is difficult for a single one to form a
government. The problem with coalition government is that they are potentially unstable.
There is also a good side for coalition program that is that they represent more than one
group; nobody feels left out. 2. Majoritarian system -> tries to concentrate votes (Britain). The
algorithm is calculated such a way to favor the winning party (giving extra 30/40 seats).

Weimar was a classical proportional representation system, which led to fragmental multi-
party parliament. It was a system which never produced a clear winner, so even though the
social democrats have 38% of the votes nevertheless they needed other party to form a stable
government.

Versailles treaty was adopted in May 1919. It was approved by the German parliament by 237
votes to 137. This means that the parties believe that they have no choice but to accepted, not
because they approved it. What did it mean to Germany? First of all, the loss of all overseas
colonies, the loss of 10% German territory and 10% of German population, Assance-Larance
was returned to France, West Prussia went to Poland and separate East Prussia from the rest
of Germany.

No longer the Austria-Hungary Empire, the Allies refused the join of Austrian with Germany
because it would create a larger Germany. The Allies couldn´t accept this. Article 2.3.1 of the
Versailles said that Germany was the blame for starting WWI and had to pay for the damage.
This led to one of the most painful debates, which are reparations. Since money wasn’t enough
for France (6.6 billion pounds), the coal produced in Saar, was due to send to France (free of
charge) until 1935. France expected Germany to send 16% of coal production from the Saar
and 48% of its iron. Both coal and iron were used to produce steal and without it you cannot
produce weapons.

15
 Additionally, the German army will be reduced to 1100 soldier; they will be not compulsory
military service; not tanks; not air force; a very small navy. Finally, Germany was excluded from
the League of Nations but it was expected to respect it.

Historians and people had discussed for many years whether theses treaty was too unfair,
because it was so hash that no self-respecting German government could accept this.

Germany was never occupied during the war; it was the German army who fought against
France and Britain. This means that France and Belgium suffered much more, which meant
that the civilian population of French suffered much more than the German civilians.

Why was the Versailles treaty so harsh on Germany? One should remember that the French
prime minister, George Clemenceau, did not actually obtained he wanted. The czar land, he
wanted France to annex this, but the British and the Americans refused. Secondly, it should be
remember that two of the provinces were given to Poland were not exclusively German in
ethnic terms. And finally, it should remember that Germany was never occupied in WWI. There
were not foreign armies on German territories, and France and Belgium suffered much more.

In June 1920 new elections were held. This second election produced very worrying results.
Because in the elections of 1919, the three main parties (SPD, ZP, DDP) called the Weimar
coalition which had obtained 76% of the votes in 1919, now only obtained 48% in 1920. The
moderate parties received much less support in 1920 than in 1919. This happened because of
the two extreme parties (far left and right increased). The communist party rose from 7.6% to
20% in 1920 (KPD), the DNVP (far right) rose from 10% to 15%. So, in matter of a year, the
result was much less favorable to a stable democratic republic.

We have evidence of the rise of the far left and far right: FAR-LEFT: In the early years of the
Weimar Republic 1919-1923, there was a very active communist party campaign which created
the sense of a revolution was imminent. This sensation was not fully justified, but there was
series of events basically mobilization on street in German cities. There was also an attempt to
create a soviet independent republic in Liberia and also in 1919 there was a communist
uprising in March 1921 and another uprising in 1923. RADICAL LEFT-WING, which scared
moderate voters.

At the same time the rose of the far-right: the extreme feed on each other: ANTI-DEMOCRATIC
ACTIVITY; Nazis, the NSTAP (National Socialist German workers party). This was initially a very
small insignificant party created after the war and Hitler joined in 1919 and became the top
leader in 1921. June 1920 elections, the NSTAP, only won 4 deputies and in 1923 only had
20.000 members. The important far-right party was DNVP which had 15% of the votes in the
1920 elections.

Some right groups simply organized their selves on the streets: Freikorps party, which was a
parliamentary group formed by ex-soldiers who has been angry, demobilized, unemployed…
IDEOLOGY WAS NOT THE MAIN ASPECT, BUT THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE VIOLENCE.

There was another right-wing group called the organization consul, which were active from
1920-1922 and assassinated a catholic council minister called Erzberger because he was one of

16
the people who signed the amnesties and also assassinated a foreign minister form being
Jewish in June 1922. The point is that the Weimar Republic was born in 1919; in the first
elections the tree major parties had most votes and seats but only one year letter the
proportion of people voting for these moderate parties dropped from a 76% to 48% in 1920.

In March 1920, the republic face what is called the Kapp-Putsch in Berlin in March 1920. This
was a semi-military attempt where about 5000 of the Freico ex-soldiers took part. It was
neutralized not but the authorities, but by a general strike. The left, SPD, who had a lot of
followers in the trade union movement, called a general strike and the Kapp-Putsch failed. The
government was not able to use the army against the putschers because the army officers did
not want to fight their formal congrats, the Freikorps. Who were people who fought together
in WWI. It was very difficult for the army to shot at people who have been with them in the
trenches.

It was a left-wing social movement, a general strike, which defeated the Kapp-Putsch, not the
police or the army. The judges were not very interesting in the survival of the Weimar
Republic. Only 1/705 of the people who was persecuted and arrested from the Kapp-Putsch
was convicted. During this period, there was a lot of political violence but only 28/354 right-
wing affiliates were convicted but not executed. At the same time though, 10/22 left-wing
people were executed. They were very conservative judges, they were monarchists, they were
happy under the Kaiser... so they were very harsh when it came to dealing with left-wind
assassins. And they were much more generous when it came to deal with the right-wing
moderates. We are basically talking about impunity; the impunity, with which theses alternate
right-wing groups were able to act. Is nowadays understood to have been one of the major
reasons why the Nazis Party was able to grow.

Talking about the Nazis Party we have the Munich-Putsch. This is the first that many people
outside Germany heard about Hitler. He was the leader of the Munich Putsch. He has seen the
Kapp-Putsch that nothing happened, and they tried again until you succeed. Hitler believe that
Germany was ripe for a left-wing socialist movement, but for the opposite a far right anti-
democratic movement. He hoped to imitate Mussolini. Hitler admired Mussolini and borrowed
ideas, slogans and tactics from Mussolini. Mussolini was already in power and one of the thing
that he did was the famous March on Rome. It was a march of fascist followers to force the
king to appoint him Prime Minister without using violence. And this is what Hitler wanted to
imitate, but this failed. In this occasion the army came out to support the government,
repressing the Nazis. The police also used force and Hitler was arrested and sent to 5 years in
Prison, but he was release after 9 months. In prison he wrote his major contribution,
ideological text: “My struggle” published in 1925.

German economic crisis in the early 20s: Germany has to face an economic crisis. Why? First of
all because of war debt, Germany was in debt. Additionally, Germany was not in a good
position to repay those debts because of Versailles (deprived Germany of a 30% of its territory,
15% agriculture, 75% iron and 25% coal). As a result of the war and Versailles, the fishing and
the navy fled to the allies, which means making impossible to trade and export. 6.6 billion
Deutsch marks, the original amount of money that the allies claimed Germany to pay.
Germany paid very little, in 1921 only paid about 50 million. In 1922 it couldn’t pay anything.

17
The reaction in France and in Belgium was to occupy Ruhr (1923)(most important German
industrialized area) and confiscated the railways.

And how did the German people react? Passive resistance. They refuse to work and the result
was that production fell and prices increase. The French army killed about 100 German
workers and spell about 100.000 from the regions. Here we have the collapses of Germany’s
industrialized regions which are physically occupied by French and Belgium troops in 1923; A
complete collapse of the German currency and the first case of hyper-inflation. Value of the
Deutsche mark collapse with a massive inflation. 35.000 D.M = 1 Pound -> 1922; 16 trillion
D.M= 1 Pound.

Stresemann created a new curacy. Secondly, austerity by reducing the size of the civil service
(reduce debt), he created an incredible 700000 jobs. The result of all of this was a new
reoation plan called the Dawes Plan adopted in 1924.

13/04/2021

The Weimar republic has been a failure of democracy. Germany was very sophisticated and
industrialized and organized in Europe (one of the most). It was modern. And yet it was unable
to sustain a democratic system. Although Germany was highly advanced, it failed to develop
stable democratic institution.

Old empire collapse in 1918; election in 1919 (first elections ever held in Germany) (truly
elections) and the result was what is called the Weimar. Social Democratic Party (SPD), central
party ZP, liberal party (LCP). This three parties occupied the center; 76% of the votes. However,
a year later there were second election, because the first election were for the election of the
parliament whose tasks was to create a constitution. In the second election, June 1920, the
votes dropped 76 to 48%. Why? Because the parties in the extreme communist party 20% and
a far right party German National equal party (DNVP) 15% 835% of the votes were for parties
that did not accept democracy and de Weimar republic).

The far left tried to imitate the Soviet Union. They wanted a socialist revolutionary association,
using force, such as the navy. And the far right began to do the same. The use of political bias.
The Nazi party emerged, with Hitler as the leader. He became and international leader in
November 1923 (putsch). He describes himself as a nationalist hero, a victim of the German
elites.

How do we explain this to France? The impact of the war and the economic crisis: Versailles
treaty deprived Germany of the 13% of its land; 15% of his agriculture; 75% of his iron own;
25% of coal. In addition to that, the allies deprived Germany of its navy and fishing fleets was
also taken down from them. The result of this was a very sharp increase in deaths.
Reparations; the idea to repair something that you have broken. What did Germany broke?:
The peace. The treaty of Versailles declared Germany guilty and also they have to pay
reparations. Factories, railways… 6.6 billion British pounds, which represent a 2% of the GPD.
People thought this was a mistake, Keynes; he wrote a pamphlet called the economic crisis of
the peace. What this was a mistake? If you destroy German economy, you are destroying the

18
Britain economy (they won’t but you more products). If you want them to pay the reparations,
they should be able to pay the reparation.

After the war, people just wanted to punish Germany, being sure that Germany would do that
again. In 1921 Germany was able to pay 50 million of pounds but nothing in 1922. What did
France and Belgium do? They reacted by occupying Ruhr in 1923, a very industrialized country.
What did German workers do? Passive resistance. The French expelled 100000 people to other
parts of Germany. TOTAL COLLAPSE IN PRODUCTION. The ending of German economy. The
impact was terrible, production fell and the German curacy collapsed. This was the first
example we have in world history of a new phenomenon called Hyper-Inflation. Inflation of
more than a 100%. Historically, hyper-inflation has affected the middle class more than
everybody else (people who believe in saving, with hard discipline). Fortunately, Germany has
Gustave Stresemann the finance minister. He did austerity, eliminating 700000 jobs of the
administration. He created a new curacy, because the old money had no value (Renton mark).
Stresemann asked the allies to review the whole reparation question. And the result of this
study was the Dawes plan in 1924. French and Britain will lend money/loan to Germany and in
return Germany will promise to pay a smaller amount of the reparation, to make the Germany
economy work again.

In 1925 the French go out/pull out from Ruhr Valley. This left a very big scar in German
society. The traditional historical interpretation says that hyper-inflation destroys the modern
class and they lost their faith in democracy. Hyper-inflation destroy equal saving and the stand
of living; the value of the money that everyone has dropped.

Who were affected? 1st. Employment was low (only 4% in 1923) among industrial workers. 2 nd.
Peasants suffer much, because they consume their own staff, finding a bias to their agricultural
product. The worst affected were the civil servant, because they receive the money from the
State; pensionists, they also were affected. 3rd the people who live out of their savings.

The traditional view was that it destroys the middle class, and the more recent interpretation
was that high inflation did not affected much to the people at the top or at the bottom, but to
the people in the middle.

How does the Weimar republic not collapse in 1923? 1 st ordinary people directly their anger
against the French, the treaty of Versailles or the allies, they blame outsiders. Secondly,
inflation perhaps was not as damaging as historians used to think. What really destroys society
is a high unemployment, not high inflation. And finally, because in 1923 it has the beginning of
far left and far right parties they were not an alternative for the Weimar Republic. Miracously,
the republic survived. There was a golden age 1924-1929 of the Weimar republic.

Thanks to Stresemann (liberal party), the economic start to recover; exports in Germany
increase a 40%. However, structure problem will remain deep, for example agricultural
production remain below 1914 levels and 1/3 of the German population leave in the country
side. Industrial production levels will not reach again until 1928. . Finally if you have high
inflation people don’t save they spend and if you don’t save banks could no lend you money.
Germany became very dependent of foreign banks. Foreign loans became a very important
part of the system.

19
The government increases public spending of world fairs; social subsidies. A lot of people that
despite the Stresemann affects the German economy was still fundamentally sick. To sum up,
the German economy experience growth between 1924-1929, but still haven’t reach pre-1913
levels by 1929, because of the impact of the war and the economic crisis afterwards.

There were elections in 1924 and 1928, being quite positive to the system. This shows that the
Weimar coalition. The far right party (DNVP) has the great result ever 20% (1924) and in 1928
fell again to the 14%. The Nazis, lost strength, fell from 6.5% (1924) to 2.6% in 1928. The
communist remain stable to the 10%. The parties in the middle did well, the SPD from 20% in
1924 to 30% in 1928. In 1928 the Weimar coalition has about 60% of the seats in Parliament
(SPD, GGP and GDP)

The first big party the SPD, who was always the most voted party from 1918-1938. The social
democratic has two souls: 1 is a working class radical socialist soul and the other is a more
reformist parliamentarian soul. The socialist family has two tendencies. From the more
modernist section the parliament was an end for itself (democracy is good for definition); rule
of law, freedom of expression… were fore theses people very important. The other element
from the socialist family, which is more working class, democracy was not so much an end in
itself as a means to an end. (A way to achieve something else). Equal society, redistribution of
wealth, doing away for more extreme forms of exploitation... This lead to an internal debate;
the big question was, do we participate in government or not? The social democrats refused to
participate in government between 1924-1928; they were in opposition even though they
were the main group of the parliament.. They were the biggest party but not in Parliament as a
fear that they voted vote to another party. (1 st problem). Problem 2, the CP was in every
coalition government between 1919-1930. The CP gradually moved to the right and gradually
lost support by doing narrow their voters. It is very easy to lose votes (became more
conservative). The liberals in general has less weight.

The DNVP (FAR RIGHT PARTY) in the mid-20s they stopped criticizing the republic and joined
coalition governments. They became more accepting of the Weimar Republic. The largest
party in Weimar de SPD, was a socialist party and their main political platform was a social
platform. So for many democratic socialists the republic was not the most important thing.
Similarly, for the Central Party the republic was just something they have to accept.

Finally, there was a systemic/structural problem in this political system. (1 st problem) because
of the electoral system (proportional elections) no single party has an absolute majority. The
socialist who w ere the largest party, between 1919-1930, they were large in term of votes but
not in number of seats. (2nd problem). Proportional elections lead to unstable coalition
government between, 1923-1930, they was seven government and the maximum duration
was 21 months (The CP, GGP and the GPD). (3 rd problem) It was never possible to form a
coalition government between the two biggest parties (not left-right coalition party). Why?
Due to differences over social policy. SPD was the industrial working class and the central party
was quite conservative in terms of social policy. Additionally, they were other in capabilities.
The socialists never formed a coalition with the communists. The point is that to many
countries were neutrally exclusive, making this harder to joined.

20
In 1925, the president of Germany, Ebert, died. This meant new presidential elections.
Hindenburg, new president, was someone from the GDVP. He got 14016 million votes and a
48% of the vote. His rival was a social democratic candidate, called William Max and won the
30% of the votes. The countries were split into two plots.

There was nothing wrong his Hindenburg victory. He was InTouch with the Kaiser, exile in
Poland. It is strange that the president of a republic still in touch with the Kaiser. He was not
totally loyal to the Weimar Republic. This presidential election in 1925, was to have the first
evidence of the fact that although the Weimar republic survived this brutal economic crisis in
1923, nevertheless doesn’t mean anything. All Germans agreed that they don’t like the
Versailles treaty. They were different interpretations of how Germany handles itself. TWO
POSOTIONS: The radicals abdicated no paying reparation. They wanted to abolish Polish
Corridor. Theses radical also wanted the unification with Austria, creating a single state. At the
same time there was another reproach which we called the fulfillment policy and identify
Stresemann. They don’t like Versailles either but they believe that the only solution is to work
with the allies and restored the German strength. THEY BOTH BELIEVE IN DESTROYING THE
VERSAILLES TREATY.

Stresemann achieved three important things in term of policy: the treaty of Rapallo who the
soviets signed with Germany, promising not to fight each other (a not aggression pact). 1924
Stresemann conveyed the Americans to signed the Dawes Plan; it was an agreement to reduce
reparation and two give Germany loans. The US was being pragmatic because they wanted
Fremch and Britain to pay their loan to Washington. They created a dependency triangle. If
American stop lending money to Germany and Germany used that money for reparation to
France and Britain and these two used that money to repaid American for the money they
received at the beginning of WWI; leading to a dependency triangle. Win-win deal. 1925 there
was the Lorcano treaty between France, Belgium and Germany. It was an agreement/treaty
were Germany promised not to modify in future the western borders.

This has a polarizing effect in Germany because the communist fear that by joining closer to
France and Britain, Germany was preparing some future attract to the Soviet Union. And at the
same the far-right were anger because these appeared to being accepting the Versailles treaty.
Stresemann was a centralist, liberal and was successful in facilitating Germany in a European
acceptance. In 1926 Germany was finally allowed entered the League of Nations. In 1928, a
very important treaty called the Kellogg-Briand agreement between France and the US. The
foreign name of this pact was called the general treaty for the renunciation of war. War was
still acceptable in terms to protect yourself, but this was the first time that international law
declared the war illegal. War was described a crime between peace thanks to the Kelogg-
Briand pact.

1929 the allies abandoned the Rhineland in exchange for a new reparations, The Young plan.
The US and Germany negotiated this deal, and in return France agreed to abandoned. The US
works as a mediator and facilitate to pay the reparation to Germany. The amount of money
gradually declined from the Dawes to the yang plan, into a 29%. They reduce reparations to a
1/4 of what it had been in 1921.

21
Stresemann died in 1929. His biggest success was in dealing with the Soviet Union and western
allies. Stresemann was with Ebert the first German president of the Weimar Republic. He was a
great figure of this republic for saving Germany form economic collapse and secondly for
reintroducing it to the League of Nations. We could say that thing were going quiet well, the
country was recovering from the war, there were peace with the soviets and France, the
economy was growing again… FELT RELAXED about the future of Weimar Republic.

1920s in Germany, Weimar in particular, was a place of cultural meeting: Berlin. Berlin became
experimental, so things like jazz, modern contemporary popular music, cabaret was legendary.
It was a period were people were experimenting new types of art. Pornography, shows, was
displayed. Drugs were a Berlin phenomenon in night life in the 1920s. Some German´s groups
found unacceptable this with traditional German values. Conservative Germans thought to
many red lines were cross, thing went too far.

1929 is an abrupt turning point, because of the Wall Street Crushed (October). The most
important financial crisis which started in Wall Street and become and economic crisis when
banks collapses, loans drop up, companies closed… The important thing for Germany was that
American loans to Germany were cancelled and they have to repay the money they have
borrowed, with a shortage of capital. Exports collapse because they were not money to but
Germany products. And the most physical aspect of this crisis was a mass unemployment 1, 8
million in 1929 to 6.9 million in 1932.

1929 is the beginning of hyper-unemployment. Why was German so vulnerable? What is

unique from Germany is how they turned automatically to the Nazis. The answer lies to the
German political system (Weimar). In 1929, we have a coalition government reflecting the
results of the 28 elections (Liberal and Christians). But the far-right including the Nazis fought
against the young plan and forced the government to cause a referendum. But the opponent
of the young plan won more than 6 million votes. The Prime minister, chancellor, he resigned
due to a disagreement between socialists and liberals. Hindenburg offers the prime position to
the leader of the liberal party, riben, but he was weak, submitted a budget to the parliament
and was rejected by it. The government collapse and new election were called for September
1930. It was a very important election. The Nazis, for the first time, success in elections
becoming the 2nd most powerful party (18%). The social democrats still the largest country
(24%) and the communist turn to the 13% of the votes. Declined the GGP and GVP.

In 1930 was a change because of the people who was listening. Golden Crake, author, called
this the negative coalition. The Nazis didn’t represent anything positive but they were good at
creating this coalition of people who were frustrated. The Nazis only response was distractive.
In 1930 for the first time they brought through.

20/04/21 (final del Weimar republic)

Germany was very heavily dependence on the United States, because of the loans that
Germany was receiving from the US. Germany was punished through the whole reparations

22
(Versailles treaty) and through this dependence (loans). The US banks required all that loans
when the US was in crisis (return that money). Germany´s economy was still weak.

To what extent did the Wall Street crush was responsible? The crisis was cat holists. Germany´s
economy was still weak. France and Germany suffer from high unemployment, social issues,
but these not lead the collapse of the democracy.

In 1929, when the Wall Street crash hit Germany there was a coalition government (SPD, ZP,
Liberals). This government was challenge by the far rights (Nazis) holding a referendum called
the Young Plan (December 1929, basically a plan which aimed to reduce the amount of money
that Germany had to paid the allies). 5.8 million Germans voted against the young plan in this
referendum. This gives you an idea of how many people in Germany stilled did not accept the
Versailles Treaty.

The chancellor Muller resigned his post due to a disagreement over tax policy. In Germany
president Hidenburg had the power to suggest to the parliament a new minister, Brening. He
proposed Brening the leader of the ZP, a mistake because this man was a weak and inept, and
tried to push a budget and the parliament rejected it, and this provokes new election in 1930.
These elections were seen as a turning point; the Nazis became the second largest party (18%
votes form the monarchist parliament, conservators…); they were lots of new voters (young
people who became old enough to vote) and also because of the collapse of the two liberals
parties. The socialist, SPD, still the largest country with the 24% of votes and the communists
had 13% of the votes, KPD.

Why the Nazis were so successful? People were listening to them, they proposed simple
answers to very complex issues. In terms of high unemployment was difficult for the socialist
to be in the government, because they found impossible to give their voters what they
wanted. After the election Bruning was appointed Chancellor, the social democrats did not
form part of the government and they refused to take governing in the party.

The Weimar republic began to deteriorate. And they began to use Article 48 with lot of
frequency. The government was ruling by decree, without putting its essence in parliament.
The system was becoming increasingly authoritarian and less accountable. Social spending
increased due to unemployment, increase in taxes. How did the government react to this
economic crisis? 1. Social spending increase, what leads to the increase of taxes. He believes in
austerity. Why did he not do that (expanded policy)? If you inject a lot of cash in the economy
the prices increase-> inflation. If you have more people trying to but the same number of
products inflation is created.

The other option is that the central party moving rapidly towards the right and was becoming
more anti-Versailles and they wanted to prove to the allies that the young plan was
unstainable. Bruning was a conservative who did not understand the magnitude of the
economic crisis and the impact of the Wall Street Crash and underestimated the Nazis.

What do conservative do when they feel threated? 2 reactions: 1 you fight them and exclude
them. The 2 alternative is to embrace them, saying you are more powerful.

23
April 1932, elections: Hindenburg has being in office for seven years. He obtained a 53% of the
votes and defeated Hitler who won 37% of the votes in the presidential elections. This was the
far-right candidates and a month later in May we have a very serious constitutional conflict the
crash between the chancellor and the president. Hindenburg forced the prime minister to
resign by refusing to sign the article 48. It could be used by the prime minister if it was
approved by the president. Although Brunign was a conservative, Bruning wanted to
expropriate the land of very wealthy Prussian and distribute them among lower workers.
Agrarian reform, the ideas was to create allotments, a piece of property, for people to create
their own food. Hindenburg argued that this was Bolshevism, so Bruning was dismissed.

A new chancellor, France Von Papen, center party, was not a member of parliament. He
appointed a cabinet of barons (big land owners, bankers, wealthy people who represented the
establishment).

Von Papen was in favor of bringing Nazis into the government, the first leader that found it
acceptable. However Hitler refused, his conditions were impossible to meet. His conditions
were new elections and that the government should lift the ban on his paramilitary
organizations (SA “Brown Shirts” illegal for them to be armed, but they looked like soldiers, the
police didn´t even want to crush them down because they looked that scary).

The Nazis party was a movement but also has these parliamentary groups: SA Semi-military.
They became increasingly violent. Within the SA they were elite called the SS. Von Papen
reused to give in into Nazi blackmail, but because the center party no longer had the support
of the socialists, the government fell and new elections had to be held anyway.

It was impossible to form a coalition government without the support of the socialists.
President Hindenburg was a conservative monarchist. And why do we have to defend a
republic? This lead to a crucial election in July 1932 (violence elections) the Nazis did
everything they could to intimate opponents. And this election in 1932 has been debated, first
of all the number of Germans voting was high (84%) and for the first time the Nazis became
the biggest party (they become in government democratidly) The NSDAP obtained 17 million
votes, 37%. DDP 2% of the votes, liberal centered disappear with only 2% of the vote. Social
democrats only won 21% of the votes (worst result) and 14% communists. The monarchists
DNVP 6% of the vote.

If you add the extremist parties it added up to 52%, non-democratic parties had won more
votes than democratic parties.

Non-democratic parties won more votes for the first time those democratic parties. Could the
Weimar republic survive with an anti-Weimar part? The Weimar republic died before the Nazis
took the control. The Weimar republic was politically death in July 1932, because the enemies
of the democratic system won the elections.

What are the deeper causes of why the Weimar republic failed to develop a stronger base? 1st
reason that is often given is that the Weimar Republic never overcame the hostility and
animosity (opposition) of very deep seated conservative interests. This refers to the army, civil
service, the state, the police, the large aristocracy, the owners of big companies, the banks

24
community… The old social and economic establishment was not actually destroy by WWI,
although is weakened but it retained much of its influenced and power. They never accepted
the institution of the Weimar republic. They saw Weimar as something they hadn’t chosen,
something un-German and artificial that goes back to the “stab in the back” thesis.

Second major reason is the impact of this economic crisis and unemployment: Weimar always
had a big challenged ahead, dealing with the legacy of military defeat in WWI a big economic
cost. The Versailles treaty weekend the Germans economy. And in addition to that we have
the cost of reconstruction and the cost of reparations to France. So is like rebuilding two
countries (yours and France´s). They began to develop a wealthier state, dedicated to
unemployment benefits. The interesting this is that Weimar survived 1933 high-inflation but
not 1929 mass unemployment. Mass unemployment is more dangerous that high-inflation. As
long as they have jobs and they are productive, social coalition can be maintained.

Reason number three: even the countries that we are describing as democratic where never
entirely committed. SPD (creator of the Weimar republic) was initially committed to its new
democratic republic. They also have a parallel agenda, so part of their agenda was
parliamentary democracy, in other words, representative democracy. But the other agenda
was a more radical social agenda (socialism), redistribution of wealth… These two agenda were
difficult to make them compatible simultaneously. This created internal tension, which was
never resolved.

Central party also had two agendas: One of them was representative of democracy and the
other was a defense of religious values. The Weimar did not ever have the support of the
majority of the German society. The two largest countries (socialist and central parties) had
other agendas and other priorities. Additionally, the socialist moved to the left. Because of the
rise of the Nazis the center party moved to the right. The liberal parties were urban, middle
class, for people who freedom of speech + individual freedom in important, cosmopolitan.

The truly liberal parties were very small. Freedom of speech is very important. This was a
pretty small segment of society, educated liberals, cosmopolitan who did not like the
nationalists of the far-right and neither the Soviet Union.

Two things: the weakness of the Weimar and the second is how did the Nazis come to
power? In 1932 the Nazis won the election but they never had and overall majority in the
parliament (not form a government by themselves). Who voted to the Nazis in July 1932? 37%-
17 million Germans. First of all geographically: there was a lot of support in the north and east
(more than south and west): more in rural areas than urban areas. Which social group
supported the Nazis more than average? Peasant and farmers , secondly what we called the
low middle class (taxi drivers, craftsmen) also strong support among the traditional middle
class (civil servants). The biggest groups were workers. How were the socialist and the
Catholics able to resist the rise of Nazis popularity? Because they had two important allies: the
socialist the trade unions and the catholic had the support of the Church providing you with
assistance and emotional support. STRONG SENSE OF COMMUNITY. And this communities
were better organizes.

25
Two final remarks: this was a very young party (Nazis) supported by young people that did not
about WWI. It is a revolucionalist country. So all the Germans who had experienced the war
has less exited and willing to repeat the mistakes form the past. 1929 Depression deprived
young people from employment. The Nazis youth were easlity to carry by the propaganda.

The second point is that the Nazis party was the only truly multi class party. It was more
successful in attracting support of all the different classes. Farmers, workers, low idle class
people, middle class professionals, lawyer, doctors, and aristocracy the army… That’s why the
called their selves the People´s Party.

After the 1932 elections Hitler was the leader of the largest political party, and demanded the
position of chancellor. Hindenburg refused and allowed Von Papen to stay on. But the
parliament humiliated Von Papen by adopting a motion of censure in 1932. on September 512
voted against the government and 42 in favor, so the left voted with the Nazis against Weimar.
And this led to new election in November 1932.

The Nazis began to lose support (2 million months). Hitler itself interpreted this as a disaster.
Hindenburg introduced Kurt Von Schlechier as chancellor, because he did not like the Nazis. So
he tried to win over the trade unions with different projects, but they rejected this. And
secondly they tried to divide the Nazis but Hitler refused.

Finally January 1933 Hindenburg agreed to a pack that Hitler will become a chancellor.

22/04/2021

Elections were held in 1932 and Nazis was the winner party. However, how did Nazis came to
power? After the 1932 elections Hitler demand to be chancellor. Hindenburg refused and this
led to another election in 1932 and the Nazis lost points in just months.

January 1913, crucial turning point, Von Papen did a deal with Hitler, where Von Papen will
become vi-chancellor and Hitler chancellor and Hindenburg accepted. Hindenburg finally he
agreed because with Von Papen as a vi-chancellor thing would be more controlled.

Hitler in January 1933, was in a weak position. This was a coalition government led by a Nazi.
Additionally, the Nazis did not have a majority in the elections, so its position in parliament
was not strong. Not majority in parliament and Hitler needed to reach agreement with
different groups. His advantages? He was the leader, secondly for conservative Hitler was the
only capable for saving them from civil war and communism. The deal between conservative
and far right coalition did not want to save democracy. And thirdly, Hitler controlled the police.

Hitler called election in 1933, last democratic elections under the Weimar Republic. They were
not really free elections. They were violence election. Nazis attack communist and socialist
leaders.

February 1933, there was a fire. Who started the fire? Traditional conspiracy is that the Nazis
were responsible for the fire. There is however evidence that the fire was started by a Dutch
communist because he wanted to create chaos. Hitler had emergency powers for the
protection of people and state. This was a pretext to suspend constitutional rights. The

26
election that was held on the 15th of March (last election held on the Weimar) was not free
election at all. The Nazis party increase their votes form 33% to 43% votes (pressure they
exercise on the streets).

DNVP was needed and also 2/3 majority in the parliament to pass a constitutional reform.
Democracy can be destroyed if people vote democratically to an anti-democratic party. The
Nazis played very clearly on the fears of the conservative elements in Germany which were not
totalitarian or radically. The Nazis used the Weimar institution to destroy the Weimar republic.
Thanks to the coalition between Nazis and conservative it passes a law which gives the prime
minister exceptional power for four years—enabling act. Central Party also accepted because
the Nazis give them guarantees for religion.

The central party values other things more than the republic. The central party value religion
more than the defense of the republic. The only party that opposes the enabling act was the
socialist party. Communists were not even allowed to enter a parliament to vote. This has
been describes a legal revolution. It was a vote in parliament which destroyed the Weimar
republic.

Hindenburg died in august 1944 and Hitler becomes both chancellor and president
(parliament). The point then is yes the Nazis won the election in 1932 and 1933 but it was
basically the way which they used the parliament and the presidency.

Why did the Weimar republic succumb to the Nazis so easily? That although they indeed
became the largest party the access to it was thanks to Hindenburg (thanks to the
collaboration of traditional conservatives elites).

Few interpretations of historians: the traditional Marxist interpretation is that fascism

and Nazism is basically the expression of the crisis of capitalism. Capitalist elements begin to
feel that democracy is given to much power to their far enemies (peasantry, working class).
CRUED AND SIMPLICIST THIS MARXIST INTERPRETATION-> crisis of capitalism.

A lot of people did not agreed this type of interpretation: Gitter sees Nazism as the
product of the general European crisis, which basically is attributable to WWI; moral crisis
which emphasized for war as the main corporate. The idea that WWI is the blame because it
destroy germnay society and the industry… A decline in traditional morality.

There is a third school of thought known as structuralists: they became Hitler rights on the
structure of German’s society. Mommsen. He argues that Hitler was manipulating by the deep
State; sectors of the army, the police… The argument here is that there is a lot of continuating
in Germany. So the idea is that there is a type of state operators that controlled who loses or
wins the elections. The Nazis were a social and a political movement. They were able to come
to power because the deep state allowed them to come to power, because they were on their
interests. They believe that only the Nazis could prevent the destruction of the German state.

Finally they are those who emphasize the uniqueness of Hitler itself: intensionalists. These are
historians like Kershall. They emphasized the role of actors. We should not underestimate the
role of individuals in history. You can concentrate on structure or you can concentrate and

27
stress the importance of agency. They stress the fact that they were unsuccessful for many
years. They might never have achieved so much. They see Nazism as the result of Hitler’s evil
genius.

The Nazis present theirs eves as a revolutionary party, but they promised a national revolution
not a communist revolution likes the communist. By the times they were receiving money
form the banks. Who is using who? Nazis using this conservative interests or vice versa. This
conservatives interests did quite well out on the Nazis regime.

27/05/2021

Similarities between the collapse of the Italian democracy and the collapse of the Weimar
republic.

Mussolini was a socialists and was expelled by the socialist party because he was on favor of
joining Italy in WWI. He was an anti-establishment figure; he mainly wanted to destroy the
status quo.

After he was expelled he created his newspaper and fought in the war and after the war he
founded the factsheet with the use of violence. Fascists have the idea that violence was a …
phenomenon.

His political program in 1919 was quite a left wing program, stealing left sides’ voters from
social parties. The program was republican, anti-clerical; they supported woman suffered,
minimum wage, 8 hours of work… Populist leftist political program.

This program has initially little political eco, support and therefore Mussolini and his factsheet
force to … destroyed the newspaper Avanti. This was because the socialist party did not want
to fight the war and to … opposition.

In the 1919 elections which the socialists won the fascist only won … and did not have any
representation in parliament. They were saved by the Agrarian Fascism. The Po Valley

Wealthy land owns wanted to destroy this unions and pay this fascist basically to use violence
against the trade unions (bologna, Florence). The rich peasants paid Mussolini to attract the
head courter of the catholic party and destroy the trade unions.

Rais: leader -> in 1920-21 fascism was not an ideology it was simply of expression of political
violence. They killed about 5 hundred people. In 1922 trade union activates practiced
disappeared.

Fascists were low middle class people who feared what we called proletarianatation.
Proletariat people who felt threated by low middle class people and also classes above. It was
a type of sandwich. They see fascism in turn of social class.

Recent research said that fascism was not urban that is traditionally believe, they were more
supporter form the cities. And secondly it was more multi-class (low middle class but also it

28
attracted people of every social group). A lot of servants, teachers, students, employees
(shops, offices…) and more industrial workers that was often been realized. Fascism has a very
broad multi-class appeal and recent research shows that although they were a lot of algerari
not that many agricultural workers supported fascism. Fascism also attracted young people
(25% under 21 years old un 1922) because it was violence.

Industrialists wanted to smash the trade union system in order to have a greater control over
his workers. As a result of the social composition fascism became an extreme right-wing
movement. And in May 1921 election the fascists joined the liberals in an anti-socialist block.
In this election he won a 7% of the votes.

Establishment party (the liberals) used the fascists to try to weaken the socialists. Fascists
never win by their selves. They achieved power with the liberal parties because they embraced
them and bring them on board in order to defeat the left.

Very fragmented

Electoral system: a system of proportional representation: 2 consequneces

A proliferation of political parties (lot in parliament) and none of them are able to win
in majority by their selves. Because the votes are much divided. This lead to coalition parties,
because none of the parties are able to form government by their selves. Liberal parties
needed fascists support. The key thing in Germany and Italy the Nazists organization were
initially quite weak, they used violence, they did not reflect the interest of a single social group.
And finally the establishment parties (liberal, consevrtiev) made Nazism and fascism
respectable in order to deafet the left (socialist and communist).

November in 1919 Partito Nationale Fascit: far right program. Anti-liberal, anti-democractic,
authoritian, ultra-nationalism, and defense the use of force and violence. But it still quite
small. THE SHIFT IN 1919 LEFT-WING PROGRAMM AND IN 1921 HE DEFENDED A RIGHT-WING
PROGRAMM.

How did become to power? Due to the liberal’s attitude to destroy the left-sides parties.
Alkenari saw fascism as a tool that could manipulated to destroy the left. Ride the tiger: they
thought they could manipulated fascism and continue to be in power.

We have a social conservatism coalition that made fascism respectable. The church changed it
policies in 1922 when a new Pope was elected. He was benevolent to fascism. The church was
looking for alliance and they could look for the left, so they chich increasingly look for the
fascist in turn of support.

The army: frustrated by the versaille treaty, conservative officer felt that Italy w¡has been
deprived of the benefits of its victory. The amry wanted an empire on Africa which th fascist
also promise. Amd on generally the army like the fascists becaudse tey respected the army,
they were nationalist, imperialist… The amry was of course as in germnay did not understand
why they just wanted party and they eanted to create a political system.

29
Fascists attacked the town hold (ayuntamienot) in many cities and this provoke a general strije
in July 1922 organized by the socialist party but it felt to mobilized enough workers to make it
clear to the fascist that they techniques or method would not be tolerated.

Mussolini responded to this with a very famous event “march on Rome” in … Thousands of
people going to Rome to take over power, only 2000 people. The army could stopped them
without problem and in fact the leader of the army was ready to act against them and to
imposed them martial law but the king vitolio Emanuele III did not want to use force against
the fascist. Why? The king fear civil war and did not want to see the Italian army shooting
Italian war veterans. And instead even though Mussolini power in government was really small
the king ask the liberal leader to part out. Mussolini in 1922 celebrates it with the march on
Rome.

They did not win election, instead they force to destroy the left and convince the government
to accept fascists as a respectable political movement. If the army has intervened again the
march of Rome, the movement would have felt and Mussolini would disappear. Instead
Mussolini was appointed Prime minister.

In was a transition to a parliamentary monarchy towards a fascism state. Period of ambulance.

Mussolini didn’t try to push ahead to fast, but one important thing he did was to change the
electoral law in Nov. 1923, known as the ACERBOA law. Opposite of proportional
representation. It was a majoritarian system and according to the system the party who won
most of the votes was ultimately given 2/3 of the seats in parliament. Because of the law they
were given 274/275 votes, 4 million votes. The liberal were quite strong in the north but with
the law fascists control parliament.

5 different elements:

1. Rais: party leader who control the fasheet. They wanted to control the state and
the administration. They wanted to control the army and won the elections.
2. Left wing element in the movement led by a former trade union leader Vianki (they
wanted to create a new state with a new form of economic system). Saw fascism
as a revolutionary force.
3. Technocratic group: futurists. They saw fascism as a way of using science and
technology to modernize Italy. The role of the state is to modernize the state
through science.
4. Nationalists: basically imperialism. Their main obsession was the creation fo an
Italian empire in Africa.
5. Moderates, conservatives: saw the fascists as a conventional right-wing party, who
would stop the growth of the socialists. Wanted a strong right-wing party which
not change the society and the economy and maintain Italy as it was.

Fascists were lucky because the left was weak (socialists and communists)and fascists violence
have weaken them. The unions have lost strength. And also the catholic party (pp) and their
trade union movement was also weaken. They also suffer by the part of the Vatican because of
the new people who was quite happy to work with the fascists.

30
This transition movement could last more but something happened that force Mussolini to
press ahead a regime. In June 1924 the fascist assassinated Giacomo Mateoti the leader of the
socialists. The socialists and the Catholics and the liberal parties refused to seat in parliament.
The evidence that we have today suggests that they is that the conservative did not want to
get rid of Mussolini. They fear the left more than they fear the fascist.

Unless you imposed a dictatorship we will go against to (liberals to fascists). Mussolini

accepted this in Jan. 1925. Mateotti assassination this weaken Mussolini initially but neither
the king nor the conservable confronted him and this encourage a more radical movement to
present Mussolini a dictatorship. New law being adopted in Dec, 1925. All opposition parties
were banned, all the trade unions were banned. Many Italian were to exile 200.000 went to
France, USA… Media censorship was introduces, some newspaper were take over a political
police was introduced (OVRA). The radio was nationalized, and became the biggest source of
propaganda. A special court was created for political cases. In 1928 a new electoral law was
established. Single list drawn up by the fascists and in the 1929 election a single fascist list won
8.5 million votes and only 156.000 voted against.

One problem Mussolini faced was: should the party had complete power or was too
dangerous? Should party shared power with other institutions such as the army? Mussolini
was not initially able to resolve.

1929

31
 BOLSHEVIKS REVOLUTION

Russia 1900:

Russia was the worst possible country where a communist revolution could should be
attempted; because of its size and social structure. Marx and other Marxist intellectual had
always assumed that the communist revolution should take place in Britain or Germany
because they had they biggest industrial class and workers movements. Additionally, Britain
and Germany were highly urbanized than any other place in the war. Germany and Britain also
have the best communications in the world; telegraphs.

Marx will be surprised that his ideas where more or less put in practice in a country like Russia,
because it was backward, rural, large, poorly communicated, it has high level of illiteracy…

Main characteristics of Russia society: firstly, Russia in 1900 was very heterogeneous: ethnic,
language, religion, cultural variety with about 100 different nationalities. Only 40% of the
population was 100% Russian. Socially, in terms of social structure about 80% were peasants
and the majority of them where illiterate living in very harsh conditions. With extreme cold,
snow, ice and the land is short supply. 80% of the population lived on the land but arable land
was becoming an increasingly rare. They mainly leave in communes and mainly owned a land
that they cultivated: peasants firmest and the reaches peasant firmest were called KULAKS.

The other extreme of the social scale we have the aristocracy: 1.5% of the population. They
owned about 25% of the land. The rest % of the land was owned by the Russia Orthodox
Church and the rest by this Kulaks land owners peasants. Many were serves, not slaves. They
were people who were attached to the land in which they owned and they were not allowed

32
to leave that land and work somewhere else. So they belong to the land owner. The serve was
very attached to the land more than to the individual. This was a little like being a slave.

They live in the capital, San Pittsburg, and other big cities. It was only in the capital were this
elites could get access to music, opera, theatre… 4% of the population can be considered
urban working class. This was one of the reasons of Marx to think about Russia not to be the
place for a communist revolution, because they were not workers in urban areas.

The political system was an automatic monarchy empire. The Tzar Nikolaus II was an absolut
monarch. They believe that the Tsar was god´s representative on Earth and the spiritual leader
of the people. This was a multinational empire so the most develop parts of the Russian
empire were almost Europeans. San Pittsburg as the capital was quite sophisticated; they were
a lot of French investments. French money finance the steel industry, the Russia railways
(essential to mobilizing troops)…

1904 Russia Empire went to war with Japan and was defeated. This was very humiliating for
the Russia elites. They saw their selves as Europeans, they speak French, watch French plays,
Italian operas, German music, speak French… they were attached to the perception of French
and German as the language of high culture. So they were defeated by an Asian country which
they consider inferior. This came as a big shock.

The word for parliament in Russia was DUMA. Some political parties had been legalized and
were represented in this Duma but of course the duma has very few powers. These parties
were basically liberal parties, although gradually they were also social-democratic parties in
the Russia Duma. Basically they were three parties in Russia Duma (1900): Constitutional
Democratic Party: Kudets; Social democratic party and communist party.

27/04/2021

80% of the population was peasants and illiterate. The urban class represents only a 4% of the
population. There are also small middle class (10%) consisted in artisans that live in more
develop cities such as San Pittsburg, and a very powerful aristocracy consisting in 1.5% of the
population.

Rural and agricultural country. The rest of the country was other ethnic groups some of them
not Russian speaking. What kept this country together was the Orthodox Church and the Tsar,
Nicolaus II. The king was seen as the expression of the divine right, God´s will on Earth.

There was a Parliament, the DUMA, elected by a tiny part of the population. The most
measurable criteria to vote were property, wealth. It has a rational explanation. If you have
property you are probably literate if not you are probably illiterate. Only people with property
are sophisticated enough to vote.

Democracy: one man one vote; liberalism is a system in Europe in the 19 th century, but is not
democracy. Women won´t vote.

DUMA was a parliament elected by small proportion of the population: three groups:
constitutional democratic parties, kedets. Constitutional monarchy; social democratic party

33
and socialist revolutionaries; they were radical in their ideology. There was a revolution in
1905 in Russia as a reaction of the defeat of Russia by Japan (turning point). Japan has been
isolated by centuries and they were not Christians.

In 1905 we have a combination of middle class and working class dissatisfactory. The working
class expresses itself in the creation of soviets. The word soviet is basically a council. There are
two groups workers and soldiers.

The Battle Ship, rebellion on a ship, the Ptemkin: Soviets take the control of one the biggest
boat of the Russia navy. 22 nd January, 1905 there was a peaceful demonstration and
demonstrators wanted to give the Tsar a petition. The tsar set up the troops to repress the
demonstrations and people were killed. The tsar responded to this problem by expanding the
number of people who could vote in elections, the duma, but of course this was basically a
middle class thing. The vast majority of the population was still illiterate. This still an autocracy.

1905 is a turning point in the Russian regime, the first evidence of potential trouble from the
Russian regime. The years between 1904 and 1914 were years of economic change. First of all
industrialization accelerated and this led to an increase in the size and importance of the
industrial working class. More people were coming to the city from the countryside to work in
big factories in Saint Petersburg and Moscow areas. Secondly, more peasants lived in
communes, the Mir. Most peasants did not own property, they shared it. The commune was
an egalitarian society, the property was owned by the commune not individuals.

In this period because of price on land and agricultural products increased peasant began to be
more capitalist. They started buying their own property and they wanted to sell what they
produce on their lands. Kulaks, rich owner’s land peasants: peasant’s farmers. Became mini
capitalist farmers = kulaks. This lead to an economic growth; period of economic growth,
where people were less happy because they want more and more, which leads to strikes. The
faster the economic growth the more expectation it generates, so people were less happy
because they want more.

The economic growth means inflations, strikes in industrial areas for higher wages… 1913-1914
was a period of free strikes in fabrics. Prices were growing up because of more wealth, more
people from countryside to the city, which all lead to more instability and mores strikes and
unrest.

Another big factor WWI: WWI affected practically the whole society/economy. Before wars
were fought by professionals of conscripts who´s lives did not impact society as a whole. But
on WWI the whole of society was impacted. People easily mobilized and motivated to fight for
their king and country. Peasants felt devotion for the Tsar, they were obedient. The peasant
called the Tsar “little father”. Initially, although very few people understood why they were
fighting they thought they fight to protect themselves from Germany and to protect orthodox
Christian values in the Balkans.

2 million Russians died in the first years of the war. Military leaders did not value people’s lives
much. In the Russian fronts there were no trenches.

34
The war also radicalized the left leading parties in the DUMA. They were quiet small: one group
the Mensheviks –> these came from the old social democratic party, and become more radical
and interested in social reform. They were a worker’s party who accepted parliamentary
democracy. On the other hand, there was a more radical part called the Bolsheviks. They were
socialists above all, and believed in workers revolutions. They did not believe in the benefits of
a liberal representative democracy. They were lead by Lenin. Both of these groups were
against the war, which reflected a crisis of a capitalist system. And in 1916 Lenin wrote
pamphlet called imperialism, an analysis saying that WWI was a product of a capitalist system
which was going through its “imperialist phase”.

This imperialism was characterized by two things: 1 st was the idea of the war was basically
empire. The war was a European war wanting to protect its colonies and empire. The second
argument was that in these phase capitalist governments aimed to divide workers by giving
some of them certain privileges, labor aristocracy, and forgetting everyone else. And the
dangerous of this for the working class is that the social democratic supports will become
conformists and complacent.

Lenin´s plan was to refuse war in this capitalist war. DON’T FIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT YOUR
WAR. Basically, it was lenis frontal opposition to the war that tried to transform the country in
to a more attractive organization. The war was going well, it was quite popular but at the war
began to dragged on and people began to die, war effort deteriorated, the war became more
unpopular and the Bolsheviks became more popular.

Lenin and his Bolsheviks were very cleaver in interpreting the mood of the country.

The Tsar made 3 mistakes: The first was that he took charge of the war as commander in chief,
so if the war went bad it was his fault. Secondly, in 1915 he rejected concessions requests from
the Duma to introduce more reforms, basically a constitutional monarchy. If the Tsar had given
more responsibility to the parliament it would have been more shared, and all the blame
wouldn´t have to recall all on himself. Thirdly, the Tsar´s wife Rosalina was German. WHILE THE
tsar was fighting, the wife became more powerful in Russia, as he wasn’t there. Additionally,
she fell under the spell of a priest called Rasputin, who claimed to be a healer. The Russian
royal family had hemophilia, Rosalina believed that he could heal her children; Rasputin was
murdered by a group of aristocrats who resented his power and who were outraged by
Rosalina´s close relationship to him.

February 1917, there was an uprising in Saint Petersburg, workers and soldieries coming
together protesting for inflation, high mortality around 80,000 people protesting. In March the
Duma set up a provisional government which took over power, the consecutive power, at the
same time the Soviet was created, consisted of Russians peasants and workers from all over
the country. In March the Tsar abdicated in favor of his younger brother, but he refused to
accept unless he was gratified by an elected assembly, a power vacuum. Effective power
shifted to the provisional government lead by a Prince, a bourgeois liberal government which
reflected the majority of the Duma. Most of them were Kudets and moderate socialists, a
reformist government.

35
The key figure was the minister of Justice Kerensky, he was both a member of the provisional
government and also of the Saint Petersburg Soviet. He was a reformist. Because he was a
reformist and lawyer, he wanted to hold elections and hoped that they would form a new
democratic parliament and a new constitution.

Kerensky was the villain of the peace. He missed an opportunity. He believed that the first
thing was lections and that everything else could wait, not a good idea. The provisional
government and the Soviet, responsibility without power (prov. Gov) VS power without
responsibility (the Soviet). The problem was that these 2 constitutions had different aims. First
of all, the war, what to do with it. The prov. Gov controlled the army, they wanted it to fight,
not surrender, wanted the war to continue. While the soviets wanted it to stop. The 2rd issue
was national demands from non-Russian ethnic groups, which some did not want to live under
the land, nationalities question all boils down to: Do we continue to fight the war which was
started by the Tsar, or do we stop it and start to solve the country´s problems?

Lenin had been in exile since 1908, the Germans transported Lenin to the Baltic because they
knew he was a trouble maker, he arrived at Saint Petersburg on the 16 th of April, 1917. His
slogan was “peace land and bread”. The order mattered, first stop the war… Military found
him and asked him if he wanted to return back to Russia. They wanted to weaken the Russian
war effort, and divide the population in its willingness to continue fighting for the war. Another
slogan was: “all power to the soviets”.

The orthodox Marxist ideology says that first you need a bourgeois revolution and then only
when this working class had achieved this level of maturity and class conscious, (the workers
have to see themselves as a social class) you can move to the second stage, the socialist
revolution.

Lenin was not a traditional orthodox Marxist; he believed that Russia couldn´t wait. He
believed that middle class in Russia was small and weak, and if they waited for this historical
process to take place, it would take 50 years.

29/04/2021

Russia had a very small industrial working class and in addition was a rural population
dedicated to agriculture but also illiterate. The poverty of the transform communication also
matters, it doesn’t go particularly fast. No access to telephone, non-telegram, so the mains
source of information was word on mouth. News was able through newspapers (they couldn’t
read), it took weeks to reach all the empire.

Compared this with Britain, which is small, large populated or to Belgium, Poland, Germany
which were highly industrialized and dense regular networks, travels were easily and with a
large population.

Why did this revolution happen in this particular party/Russia?

March 1917 is the abdication of the Tsar. We have some middle class elites which lead the
revolutions and try to implement a traditional sequence. What is that sequence? We have an

36
old aissance regime; elections and new parliament produce a new constitution. This sequence
was very much in the minds of this middle class liberal’s revolutionists.

They were other demands going on from other social groups: The soviets (spontaneously
created councils) There were two sources of power: the … and the soviets (neither of them
were elected, self-appointed bodies). They group who take advantage of this provisional
government and exploited were the Bolsheviks. They were a very small radical group mainly
middle class intellectual’s lead by Lenin. Lenin exile to Switzerland but he again was sent to
Russia.

He arrive in Saint Petersburg in April and he initially slogans were very simple trying to connect
with the illiterate supports: “peace, land and bread” and “all power to the soviets”. He was a
Marxist, and according to orthodox, firstly you need a middle class revolution in which
industrial workers are able to organize their selves, in which propaganda flow freely and only
when this working class has achieve this level of maturity (well educated) you move to the next
step which is a soviets revolution.

However, he said that in Russia we cannot wait for theses sequence because it could take 50
years. How much it will take to the Russia middle class to be as powerful as the
Britain/Belgium middle class? Half a century and Lenin was impatient.

Marxism-Leninism: Russian couldn’t wait to the natural develop of the middle class. Russia
must jump over the bourgeois state and go directly to the Russian state.

The other original element was: Lenin did not think that the Russia revolution should survive
by his own. He believed that unless there are similar revolutions in other Europeans countries,
the Russia revolution won’t succeed. Russia could start a process that then it would have to be
exported to other countries, in particular Germany. Why? Because it is a neighbor, it was
similar things with Russia. In other words, Lenin was thinking the revolution as an exportable
commodity. Not because he wanted to be influential but to guarantee the survival of the
Russian revolution + take it possible to develop.

Idea 1: Russia should jump over the middle class state and move to the socialist state. Idea 2:
Russia cannot do it by its own; they need a friendly Europeans environment. Idea 3: Russia has
to include peasants. And what do peasants want? Owning land. Attracting the peasants by
offering them land (this is anti-revolutionist because they give everyone private property, this
is not very socialist). Historically peasants were conservative, owning land is regarded as the
most conservative form of conservatism. So giving peasants land was counter-revolutionary,
not very socialist…

Lenin offers something else which was not very revolutionary; There were people who did not
feel Russian or do not speak Russian. Lenin offered the middle class elite self-determination.
For this people the collapse of the empire offered the opportunity of self-determination:
freedom form the Russia government, freedom from fighting in the Russian army. Lenin was
again quite orthodox. Idea 4: Lenin instead offered to the minorities something else, self-
determination. This could lead to independence. For the people the collapse of the empire,
offered the opportunity of self-determination, freedom from the Russian government and rule.

37
Jews were better educated than the average, intellectual elite. It was because of this Jewish
presence that self-determination was attractive to them.

Leon Trotsky, who was a Jews revolutionary, was one of the ideologues of the Bolsheviks
movement. It was his idea that the Russia bourgeoisie were small thought that the Russian
revolution should be different. Lenin understood that if the provisional government succeeded
and could hold elections and this election led to a new constitution, this will be a bourgeoisie
revolution but not a good one, with other consequences that they really want, and therefore it
would lead to a socialist revolution after that. Lenin wanted to sue the Soviets as a way to
attack and undermine the provisional government.

June 1917, there was a meeting called “The first pan Russian congress of soviets”: working
class people. This congress in June 1917 was quite moderate The Bolsheviks only have a 10% of
the power in the congress. The majority was quite moderate; the soviets as a whole would
have been happy of social parliamentary democracy, however, Kerensky launched a military
campaign against the Germans and this failed. It will be rome to assume that the soviets were
always in favor of a revolutionist movement. However, also In June Kerensky ordered a military
campaign against the Germans and this fell. After this failure a lot of peasant’s soldiers began
to leave the army and go home. Why? They have heard rumors that the government intended
to give them land. That is why the slogan was so affective: “Peace, land bread”.

However in July the Bolsheviks tried to take over the port Krogstad. And this rebellion was
pulled down by the provisional government. And Lenin was forced to fly Russia and refused in
Finland. In Finland, he wrote another pamphlet: “State and Revolution”. He argued that in a
background country like Russia the State had to be taken over by a revolutionist minority and
govern in the name of the working class, but without allowing the working class to have a lot
to say in the matter. This pamphlet also contains: “dictatorship of the proprietariat”. He did
not believe in democracy, in one man one vote. Democracy can´t be count as revolution for
Lenin. Leninism was never about democracy and of course for Lenin people don’t know what is
good for them, you have to tell them what if good for them. Democracy is conservative, un-
revolutionary. If everyone has the vote, and you give them land, everyone would be happy
with the status quo and no revolution would take place. Democracy can be
counterrevolutionary.

The dictatorship of the proletariat: The proletariat, essentially the urban working class
(believed to be more sophisticated), in order to progress dictatorship is inevitable, you need a
strong authority and order. They were not anarchists, they believed in order and authority on
behalf of the proletariat. Democracy was also too slow, gradual, a process, debates… if you
want to change thing fast you can´t have democracy.

In order to process, dictatorship is essential. The Bolsheviks believe in anarchy and authority.
Democracy is small, is time consuming. If you want something fast you cannot have
democracy. In July Kerensky was name prime minister of this provisional government.
However, he made a mistake, he appointed a general called Kornilov, a conservative, and
decided to attack the Petrograd Soviet. A coup against the Soviet by a government minister.

38
Kerensky tried to defend the soviets. How? by allowing the military to give weapon to the
soviets, to the population. Kornilov was arrested in September but his revolt and the
government reaction to that revolt triggered a revolution from below. In other words, this
conservative coup prompted a radical counteractive coup lead by the Bolsheviks. The Soviets
were radicalized by this conservative coup.

There was a social revolution from below. Peasant started occupying land and workers began
occupying fabric. By September the Bolsheviks controlled the two major soviets: Petrograd
and Moscow. The soviets community becomes more radical when they were attacked by
Kornilov in Petrograd.

Lenin returns to Petrograd from Finland. Lenin accused Kerensky of wanting to allow the
Germans to defeat them. Two levels: the nation and political confrontation. Kerensky was a
patriot; he had no intention of handed over Petrograd.

By October, Lenin was saying his party that the time was right to take over power. Even the
Bolsheviks elite were a debate because they still quite small and weak. Kamenev and Zinoviev
advice Kerensky not to go fast to build up a party. On the 25 th October 1917, the Bolsheviks
tried to take up the power. Kerensky closed down a newspaper. This provokes an armed
reaction which has weapons and attacked the winter palace. The Soviet Petrograd taken the
winter palace and arresting everyone involve in the Provisional Governemet. Kerensky left.

How did this happen? A minority taken the state. The Bolshevik never had the support of the
majority they were in minority. Why did they succeed? 1. Shortcomings on the government:
lack of skills from the Provisional Government. 2. The Bolshevik had significant support in the
navy, even from some officers who were fed up of the war and angry of the way the war was
been forced: peace, land, bread”. Thus opposition to the war was crucial. 3, Trotsky was the
person in charge of the Petrograd´s militias. The leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, Trotsky was
in charge of the Petrograd Soviet militia, he was good.

February was the bourgeoisie revolution and October the Bolshevik revolution.

Ironically even in October most Russian would have supported Kerensky; instead the
Bolsheviks took advantage of the lack of authority and experience of the prov. Gov. The prov.
Gov. Collapses and replaced by a new organization controlled by the Bolsheviks. “The council
of the people’s commissars”, a revolutionary government, claimed to represent the people.

The council of people´s commissars: a revolutionary government. They claimed to represent

the people. The Bolsheviks were clever enough to include other revolutionists. The Mensheviks
refused to take part believe in democracy. Lenin was the president of this council, Trotsky was
the far minister of international affairs and Stalin was put in charge of the minister responsible
of nationalities (national minorities). Initially this council was popular because of 3 decisions
they took: seek peace with the enemy, stop the war, and redistribute land. Satisfy national
demands.

How did implement this program? November decrees/laws. First: all land belonging to the
Tsar, the Russian Orthodox Church and the aristocracy will be distributed among the peasants.

39
The idea that although Russia was backwards, there was a possibility of establishing a
democracy under the government. Initially the process was run under moderate people who
believe in a parliamentary democracy. There was a liberal tradition in Russia, THE Duma, the
rule of law; ptimistic thesis that Russia could have evolve towards democratic parliamentary
forming.

Second: Then there is the class interpretation, a Marxist interpretation. The war sharpened
class contradictions and divisions. Kerensky was only able to appeal to a middle class nothing
to delay the class revolution. This interpretation stated that the Bolsheviks, a revolutionary
vanguard, that interpreted the wished of the working class and the proletariat, a dictatorship
of the proletariat idea. An uprising from below but lead by a vanguard, a party of dedicates
professional revolutionaries that happened to be middle class intellectuals. Introduce an eight
hour working day, 48 hours week and worker insurance.

Thirdly: The third interpretation was more cultural, it argues that Russia was not European but
central Asian, not really western, therefore Kerensky was trying to impose a western model in
a non-western country. He thought it was classic western concept and it wasn´t. This
interpretation stated that the reason why Kerensky failed was because he didn´t know in
which country he was living in. The Bolsheviks were opportunists and ruthless, Kerensky in a
sense was an idealist who believed in a democratic republic in a country that didn’t have the
economic structure to support their political system. Nationalization of banks and factories
were handing over to workers. Political parties which opposed the revolution were banned:
kedets (largest party in the Duma) and non-Bolsheviks media (newspapers no control by the
Bolsheviks party were shut down) and an organized secret police were stablished.

They tried to increase the support base (land, factories…) and they are three interpretation of
this:

-there was a possibility to established a

-Russia could become a Weimar republic government.

-There was a social liberal tradition in Russia (Duma), the rule of law limited and

-class interpretation: the war sharpened class contradictions. Kerensky was basically
only able to appeal middle class constancy. He wanted a republic. And he could do
nothing … the Bolsheviks interpretate…

06/05/2021

The revolution was quite contradicting.

What were the Bolsheviks going into power for? They were developing state capitalism,
centralizing the control of the economy in the hands of the state/government. The model was
the German war economy.

40
In the November elections, the Bolsheviks only won 175/707 seats: first and the last free
elections that Russia had. They were a small minority. Bolsheviks did very well in the cities such
as Petrograd or Moscow, but they did not so well in rural areas. The peasantry voted for other
parties. How did they respond to this? They shut down the parliament with the use of force;
First step towards a Soviet dictatorship. Opposition repressed.

In July 1918 the Soviets adapted their own constitution with the excuse that the constituent
assembly couldn’t run with illiterate peasants being the majority of the population. The
Bolsheviks imposed their ideas on the majority even though they were minority. In March
1918 there was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with harsh demands which the Russians accepted
because the Bolsheviks had promised “peace and bread”. They fell into their own trap and had
to accept the German imposed peace. Russia lost Poland, Ukraine… 34% of its population, 32%
of its agricultural land, 26% of its railway system, and 90% of its coal.

In March 1918 onwards, a 1 party system, the Bolsheviks party.

Why the revolution failed in Europe?

-Once the war finished, Russia decreased, a post-war fatigue with mobilization etc, which had a
conservative effect. Standards of living improved.
-Secondly, there were divisions between the left, communists and socialists, this weakened the
left.
-Thirdly, representative democracy survived because they made concessions, they become
more democratic, they extended the vote, gave trade unions more power, gave women the
vote, improved working conditions (8 hours work days was also introduced in other countries).
Capitalist democracy improved to be more flexible than the revolutionaries had believed.
-In some countries the fear of revolution and Bolshevism lead to a backlash (mostly veterans)
against communist and left wing organizations.
-There was a civil war in Russia, 1918-1920. In conclusion Lenin was not wrong in thinking that
the revolution could be exported around Europe with success, but what he didn’t see was that
the success of the Russian revolution also became a negative symbol for other people.

The civil war

-Once the Bolsheviks took over some of the more traditional sectors of society organized
themselves: the whites (anti-revolutionaries)
-These Whites were lead by prominent leaders of the old regime, generals and admirals who
had served under the Tsar. The whites received financial and military assistance from the allies,
US, UK, France, they sent them money and weapons to fight in the civil war.
-One of the reasons why the allies did this, was to weaken Germany.
-By late 1920 the civil war was over and the Whites were defeated.
-Why did the whites loose in the 1920?
a. The revolutionary army was very well organized and had the advantage of
controlling Moscow and Petrograd, railway, telegrams… Trotsky was responsible of
organizing the red army, a brilliant tactician. Officers were force to fight in the red
army, if they did not accept, and then killed.

41
 b. By 1920 the red army had about 3 million men, they had the officers, the control of
the railway and telegraph system, they knew the territory.
c. Secondly, the `peasantry had been given land and feared that the Whites would take
away the land from the,. However, they were also angry with the Reds because they
repositioned their food. So the peasants were unhappy with everyone, but more the
Whites.
d. Thirdly, Russia was an enormous territory with a multinational, multilingual
population. The people in central and eastern Russia, regarded the Whites as
representative of an Old Russian dominated society, to which non-Russians were
discriminated against. The Whites did not operate in western Russia, but in the
periphery, and in those regions, ethnic Russians were in a majority… and these saw the
Whites as a return to the old empire.
e. Fourth problem was that the Whites were divided. There were the ones who wanted
the return of a monarchy and autocracy, and then the more moderate ones who
wanted a democracy, the kudets, who wanted a parliamentary monarchy.
The White spectrum was very broad, the only thing they had in common was their
hatred of the Bolsheviks, but that was not enough to keep them together.
f. Finally, the fact that foreign powers were supporting the Whited and that foreign
military advisors were fighting with them, meant that in the eyes of some people the
Whites were foreign dominating. They believed that they were not really serving for
the best interests of Russian people, they were just fighting to destroy Russia and
foreign dominate it.

The civil war had traumatic economic and social consequences. Between 1917-1920, the
period was called War Communism. Because of the war, a shift away from state capitalism, in
favor of the system of war communism, in which the market economy disappeared, the state
used the war as a pretext to control everything. All industries, every workshop was controlled
by the government, industrial productions was controlled. Trade unions were banned strikes
declared illegal, militarization of the work place…

Food repositioning was institutionalized, the government would send people to take away
peasant food, the Kulaks were the most prosperous peasants, and these were demonized,
accused of hoarding food so it wouldn’t be given to poorer people and refusing to sell it. The
government made the poor peasants against the richer peasants. Severe food shortages.

Use of terror against dissidents became totally institutionalized. A state of terror was created
to discourage people from opposing government. In 1918 the Bolsheviks party was formally
named the Communist Party, and they become the only legal party.

In 1922, the first purge of the communist military. In a system where you don’t have the
opposition, because it’s illegal, you blame your own people. You look for traitors, corrupt
people. The system has to purge itself occasionally. This destroys internal decent, guarantees
absolute obedience; in the long run it generated affection become more cynical and withdrew
emotionally. These purges became an institutionalized way of reviewing the elite.

42
War Communism was very unpopular; in 1922 there was an anti-communist uprising in 1921.
These sailors demanded Soviets without communists, a return to the origins of the revolution.
Revolutionaries themselves became disappointed with the communists. Lenin switched tactics
and introduced a new economic policy.

The Civil War over in 1920, Lenin said enough of the War Communism, in 1921 a new
economic policy (N.E.P). Small factories were allowed to return to private ownership, private
trading also allowed, peasants were also allowed to sell the extra food they produced on the
free market, the peasants had an incentive to produce more and therefore more food for the
whole of society. No democratic opposition, but Lenin was intelligent enough to understand
that War Communism might destroy the revolution.

The regime also recognized the federal system, and in 1921 Russia was renamed the USSR. The
states had autonomy, although fake autonomy, the idea was still there. Not a real
confederation, but they had to pretend to be listening to the nationalities, people in Ukraine or
Georgia… The states that made up the USSR, could in theory organize a referendum based on
self-determination and split up. But it did not happen.

N.E.P put an end to War Communism. Economic growth, higher wages, more supplies. In 1928,
Russia´s industrial and agricultural production returned to where it was in 1914. More
individual economic liberty lead to a higher economic growth, better wages living conditions…

Consequences? Emergence of a new social group, people who were involved in the liberalized
sectors of the economy, trade men, and people involved in exports and imports. 1923-1924
marks an end of a period, firstly because there was a new general in the Communist Party,
Stalin. He was denounced by Lenin in 1923 for accumulating too much power, but Lenin died in
January 1924 and was succeeded by a trio. Stalin then eliminated its rivals and became the
leader of the Communist party. Defeat of revolutionary movement in Germnay, this lead to
Stalin to come up with a new slogan: “socialism in one country”.
From 1924 onward the communist elites faced 3 questions:
1. Was socialism in one country possible?
2. What should the communist do with the peasantry? Under the new economic
policy there were given more autonomy, but what kind of alliance could exist
between the communists and the peasants? Was the new policy temporary? Could
they win the peasantry over, educated them to become revolutionary, or could
they weaken them somehow?
3. If Germany wasn’t going to lead a world revolution should Russia do it?

11/05/2021

1924 Lenin´s dead and lead to a power struggle within the communists elites. There were
three groups/ three different views about what should follow after Lenin: They were all in the
left of course but in three positions:
-Right wing: more conservative and moderate view. Lead by Bukharin.
Bukharin: editor of the official newspaper of the newspaper called “truth”; only official
newspaper. He wanted to maintain the new economy policy. NEP. His slogan was: “to

43
trot towards socialism on the back of the mule”. Go quite slowly on the back of the
mule, because was the animal the peasant would use. He was in favor of a slow
gradual movement towards socialism and away of any private property system, but
one that the peasant would be liberal. He faces socialism in one country. He had no
illusion about exporting revolution and trying to provoke revolutionary uprising in
France, Germany... It was up to then to succeed. He did support the colonial people in
struggle against empire, instead of trying to protect the proletariat, working class in
more advanced societies. MODERATE APPROACH, lead by Bukharin.
-On the left view, it was put forward by Trotsky. He was responsible of stabling the red
army and defeating the Whites in the Civil War. He wanted to pass forward, he wanted
to move fast toward socialism, he was impatient not like Bukharin. He needed to
transform the economy and then transform the society. He was in favor of putting and
end to NEP forcing peasants to live in collective farms 8not private property). They
were highly controlled by farming system. The point of this is efficiently, and increase
output. They were taught what to agriculture, how many hours they have to work…
this is was is called collectivization.
Introduce machinery, tractors in particular; machination of the country side was part
of this program. The idea was to cultivate very large areas of land with thousands of
people working on the land to increase productivity. Accelerate industrialization would
meant that people would move to the cities no work in factories. To have more people
working in factories you need to have a more productive country side. People were
replaced by machines. They need to have more productive country side such as
fertilizers. Trotsky said that peasantry is too big as a social class and they are not that
economically productive. People were left behind working on the large collective farms
and at the same time they were also machinated. You transformed the economy by
shifting it from agriculture to industry and at the same time you transform society by
shifting a significant proportion of the peasant population to the urban industrial areas
were they became the industrial proletariats.
Trotsky was also in favor of maintaining a war against revolutionary elements at home.
He believed that autocracy was to small and doesn’t help to facilitate change. He was
in favor of the communist party and controlling the autocracy and he believe that the
Russian revolution would felt and they need support. He also think of third world
countries and western developed Europe.
-Centrist position: associated with Stalin. He was a great opportunist and a clever
political operator. He took elements from both: From the left he took the idea of
accelerating mechanization/industrialization. And from the right he borrowed the idea
of socialism in one country, the idea that Russia could do it by itself. Stalin was not in
favor of wasting time/resources trying to export the revolution.
He was an opportunist because he used others people positions/arguments against his
enemies. Stalin allied with the right (by using moderate ideas) to expel Trotsky (1927)
of being to leftists and then later he imbressed Trotsky policies and used them to fight
Bukharim who was expelled from the communist party in 1929. Stalin tried to
consolidate his power and did not care about the arguments but of how to use their
arguments to undermine their enemies.

44
Trostky was expelled in 1927 of being too radical and flew to Mexico where he was
murdered by a Spanish Communist, Ramon Mercader, and Bukharim was expelled in
1929 form not being revolutionary enough.

Why did Stalin move to the left at one point?

Because between 1924-1926 agricultural prices rose. The government became

involved to bringing them down basically to putting limits to the prices. The peasant
started producing less as a response. Undermined distribution, with less food, prices
rose. Stalin response by using violence against the peasantry. Initially he was happy to
accommodate the peasantry but when the peasant responded like this to his effort of
bringing the prices down, he started using violence moving to the left wing . By 1927
achieved Trotsky position in favor of collectivization and rapid industrialization. Stalin
initially centrist moved to the left using Trotsky argument when he realized that the
peasantry was still powerful enough to stand up the government.

Communist party Congress in 1927: he announces the end of the new economy policy
(end to the free market economy) and also announced a socialist defensive for 1928.
Stalin then lounge the five years accelerating industrialization plan for the period from
1928-1932 that will determine how much coal or steal has to be produce, Centralised
Plan Economy.

Stalin faced the resources problem, which were concentrated in the heavy industry
sector (iron, electricity, coal) not to light industry. Light industry is what produces
manufactured good; rapid industrialization would not have positive consequences for
the lives of the people. Stalin still has to face the peasantry because industrial good
was not what the peasants needed (light industry will improved their lifestyle) Stalin
forgot the alliance between the peasants and workers and he declared war on the
peasantry, especially the kulaks: the goal was rapid industrialization: EFFENSIVE
AGAINST PEASANTS.

-The first goal was to eliminate the Kulaks. They were property owning and
they have their own farms, lands, few animals and they wanted to take away
from them and send them to work to collective farms. 5million kulaks were
deported. The first goal was to eliminate a social class and the free market
economy of the peasantry.

-Force collectivization through the creation of these very large collective

farms called kolkhoz. They wanted to bring millions of peasants (15 million)
and collectivized them in five years. They were a lot of resistance, about 4
million people died by the authorities, people who refused to move. They
some sacrificed their own animals before than hand them over. 2/3 of Russian
sheep and goats disappear, ½ of horse disappear and 45% of cows. This was a
brutal impact in the economy.

What was the result of removing 15 million people and letting disappear
Russian farms and lose more than a half of your livestock: the result was

45
 faming; massive food shortages. Great famine in 1932-1933 and this means
that other 6million people died of hunger; Especially in Ukraine.

However, by 1933 60% of farms were collectivized. By 1939 96% of Russian

farms were been collectivized. Production of wheat: in 1928 (42 million hl)
drop in 1932 (22 million hl of wheat) and in 1936 up to 30 million of hl of
wheat. Collectivization result in higher productivity. By 1940 the income of the
collectivized peasants has increased by three.

As Stalin and Lenin had hope there was a huge industrialization. From 1928 to 1940 the
production of steal multiple by 5, the generation of the electric power multiple by 8; cement
production multiple by 2; coal extraction multiple by 4 and oil extraction multiple by 3.

What the main European economy made in 75 years Russia did it in only 15. Mass
collectivization which produces much output, you have achieved the people form the country
side to the city and this generated a very rapid industrialization. In 1928 they were 11 million
and in 1933 they were 38 million of industrial workers. Thirdly the urban population between
1936-40, increased from 18% to 33%. Very few countries experienced such as rapid transition
from rural to urban population.

-This has social consequences: mass employment of women in factories-> a question

of economy necessity (not gender equality). It required more labor than the male
population could encourage. By 1937 women represented 40% of industrial workers.
21% of construction workers; 40% of industrial workers and 72% of health workers
were women. Improvement of gender priority.

-The state looked after the children of the workers by having kindergartens. Women
were released from home and they were able to work in industry and manufactory. To
accomplish this you need to have a better education (literate) because these industrial
jobs required more skills. The number of High School students rose from 1.8 in 1936 to
12million in 1938. However, there was a very social cost to all of this.

-Ethnics minorities were persecuted for their believes, lifestyles and customs specially
Muslims and Jews which were seen as incompatible to the modern industry. Marxism
and Leninism claimed to have answers to everything but also because in the case of
Islam the state said that Islam will slow down industrialization.

Stalin succeeded in the Communist Party conference; he was able to oppose his vision at the
1927 Party Conference. This lead to the war against the peasantry and to the rapid
industrialization that required mass collectivization.

1927 events can be believed as a third revolution of Stalin coming to power, and it had a
significant long term consequences. Another way of seeing this is the victory of the city over
the countryside; the victory of industry over the agriculture.

How did Stalin this? What tools he had to achieve this? Several reasons:

46
 - Because the State had been strengthened the administration starting in 1920-21 and
this meant that the other issues by the center government were actually now
implemented. Stalin rebuilt state authority in the early 1920s.

-Secondly, going for the kulaks were popular because it was basically a class struggle
case. Lot of people hated the kulaks, which they have animals and food on their table
and lived in comfortable homes. The NEP had increased social division and had
increased the gap between the poor and the rich. So turning against the kulaks and
accusing them from being responsible for everything was a popular policy.

-Thirdly, there was evidence of the enthusiastic support of a highly motive minority of
industrial worker in particular: Stakhanov. It was giving a price because it minded 14
times more than an average worker.

The idea was that the working class was responding to this challenge, but some industrial
workers were competing to meet these targets and becoming a popular heroes.

Single party state: Stalin had complete control of the single party and in 1933 about 20% of
the party members were expelled to purify.

1936-1938 we have the “Great Purges” (part of the system, the enemy within): the process
began with the assassination of Stalin’s potential rivals Kirov, who was murdered in 1934. He
was a possible successful for Stalin. Then in 1936 they were two famous Bolsheviks heroes and
were out on trial for anti-revolutionary activities and were executed. Bukharin was executed in
1938 and Trotsky in Mexico in 1940.

By 1938 almost 700 thousand party members have been executed. 18 million were sent to
labor camps, the famous gulag, in Siberia. Of those 18 million people about 10 million died of
cold, disease, hunger. Stalin killed more communists than anyone in the world (over Hitler) he
was responsible of more Russians and communist than Hitler.

How can we explain this?

-Stalin was paranoid, mentally unstable. JUST PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

-The more important reason is that there is not opposition, who you blame when
things go wrong? The enemy was always internal, within them.
-Thirdly, this was a mechanism for the elite’s renewal. If you don’t have elections the
danger is that people will stay on power until they are 70 or 80. So Stalin introduced
base on personal loyalty. So by 1939 about 70% of Russia leaders were people that
joined the party since 1929, since he had recently apart.

o In a single country state, you need to blame someone. And as you can’t blame other´s
political parties because they were illegal, you have to blame yourself. SCAPE-
GOATING. It was easy to find people to blame; people used to lie because of the
consequences of failure. BLAME GAME.
o The need to renew the political party. Elections forces political party to blame you and
to renew. This is a normal predictable process in a democracy contest. In a single party
contest they are no elections, they are not public opinion, so the popularity of the

47
 leader does not really matter because their no freedom. There is no way of knowing
how successful a leader or his policies are. The party himself has to renew their
leaderships by their own, and this in the 1930s was made by the purges. This
institutional life purges are made to guarantee the personal obedience and loyalty of
the people.
o Towards the end of the 1930s the system readjusted. A new soviet constitution was
adopted in 1936. This constitution increased the power of the supreme leader, Stalin.
But also weakened the power of the single party of the Soviet Union. Purges weakened
the party and noticed.. 1939-1952 they were no party conferences (not annual
meeting). This showed that Stalin was in complete controlled and that he didn’t really
need the party.
o The party defines the ideology of the regime. Marxism-Leninism ideology of
the communist party.
o Secondly, the party is an instrument of recruitment. The recruitment of the
elites. In order to be a general, a professor a journalist you must be a member
of the party. And the party only takes member who have an ideology consoled.
o Personality cult: that was very un-communist. You cannot criticize the leader.
o Fundamental continuity in history. Functionalist interpretation (for
historians). Unlimited autocracy and highly centralized.

Strength of other institution, like the policy: NKVD; specialized in repressing people who were
critical of Stalin (members of the communist party). In big totalitarian countries other
institutions are created.

Finally, Stalin was officially encouraged. Films about Russian history were produced in which
the heroes were the Tsar of the past. Stalin likes this people because all political parties need
roots that identified with. Stalin in the late 30s became more nationalist than communist.
History and national identity. Stalin wanted be an even bigger empire, the absent of … make
Stalin needed historical identity. National identity and religion are two important things. He
could be seen with the bishops but he was more tolerant with the Orthodox Church. “If you
attack church you are attacking Russian identity”. The opium of the masses.

However, Marxism-Lenin was very militant against religion. Stalin shifted toward Russian
nationalism and this meant that he was more lineal, tolerant toward the Orthodox Church.
Stalin became a Russian nationalist, even though he came from Georgian. And partly because
of that he needed to show that he was more Russian than the others one. He did this by being
more intolerant than other nationalities. He was impatient; there was just one Russian
language, Russian identity, Russian culture…

Russian language was quite vulnerable in the Soviet Union in the late 1930s. In the end of the
1930 Russia was becoming a nationalist-communist regime.

(Karl Marx was very dismiss of Russia, because it didn’t have a very large educated middle
class. He would very surprise to see communism succeeding in an agricultural country as
Russia).

48
Why does Russia revolution not really communist? …

Of course this regime is described as communist, but we have to take a step back and ask if
that was really communist. This was totalitarianism, being un-democracy, using forced to
survive and terror.

The concept of totalitarianism is relatively new. The idea is that totalitarianism is a new kind of
dictatorship. The argument in the 1940-50s is that totalitarianism has certain specific aspects
and characteristics that were new:

-Meaning of the word: behind this word is that this political systems have a goal which
other dictatorship did never had and were to control the totally of the human
experience. These political regimes have ideologies which basically demanded every
aspect of human life should be control by the state and place at the service of the
state. Totalitarianism regime on the other hand, aspired to controlled every aspect of
human experience, so this meant that this regimes aspired people what to think, a
book should read, and news should they have access to: this is more ambitious.
Dictatorship, just wanted to be in power but totalitarianism wanted to transform
society and the individuals. They wanted to transform art, gender relations, culture,
diet, family relations… this is much more ambitious.

Single party: is a new invention too. We have large mobilized elite who are politically
emitted to the goals of this regime.
-Second factor: prime leader: Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The leader is all powerful,
all knowing, only he can interpret what the society really wants and need.
-Third element: These terms are modern; totalitarianism is modern. Totalitarian
regimes used modern techniques and technology for example, communication. It was
the era of the radio, of movies, photograph; all this was used to mobilize population.
Era of modern propaganda. People in the 19th century were illiterate, so totalitarianism
is possible thanks to the way of the message was communicate: mass politics and mass
communication.

Three things of totalitarianism: the role of the leader, the role of the single party and the
role of propaganda.

Repression is also a key concept: the use of violence to obtain power. And they continue using
it even when they already obtained power. You are suing violence to eliminate or intimidate
your political rivals. What is new is the use of power to remain in power, not conquer power.
When totalitarianism parties achieved power they do not have enemies outside. Still using
violence to guarantee social obedience.

Internal purges are typical of all totalitarian system. Totalitarianism was modern because it has
this technology available and it was operating in an era of mass politics.

Totalitarianism was essentially coined of defined by western academics. Labels are never
neutral. Enemies of liberal democracy have been soviet communism and Nazi in Germany.
Totalitarianism was trying to describe these two different systems as if they were one. You

49
undermine soviet Russian by saying that they are similar to Nazis in Germany. What do they
have in common? Totalitarianism. In the 1940-1950s say that there was a phenomenon called
totalitarianism which basically had elements which are common two political systems that are
supposedly different ideologies, who attempt to control every aspect of human life.

-SINGLE LEADER, SINGLE PARTY, USE OF REPRESSION, MASS MOBILIZATION, CONTROL

EVERY ASPECT OF HUMAN LIFE….: the party is only made for a specific minority of
people, were not everyone could joined, it is exclusive to some extent to feel special
and more powerful.

Organization for the women, for the youth, for student: you mobilized different groups in a
certain direction in order to control them. When you teach them certain ideas, values, stories

Ambitious to control every aspect of the human experience: totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is modern but is also trying to overcome some past historical legacies.

Sending people to labor camps was economically motivated. Because you are taking out
people from the market and not consumes which is good if you are poor of consumer product
but these people are still producing. They are forcing them (force labor) to produce and
moving them around to have economically motivation. They reduce the number of consumers
for food, clothes and at the same time you swift this people and force them to produce. THEY
PRODUCE WITHOUT CONSUMING.

Finally this early stream form of f collation only really happened in the 1930s. It was unstable
over a long period of time and was a product of the 1930s. This dramatic push of
collectivization generated an atmosphere in which his purges were more or less acceptable as
a necessary price to pay buy the people who supported the system. This was not permanent, it
was limited to the 1930s, and of course they are impressive.

Lenin was the founder of the system and Stalin just his successor.

Fascism in ITALY

Fascism: Ultranationalism. Radical movement. Rational use of violence/force with a purpose.

They thought they were defending the people, the common and working man. They believe
that ideologies, parliament, were bad o negative because they undermined national unity.
They believe that democracy divide people and therefore, foreign enemies will take
advantage. This people did not believe in debate, but in the use of force. Debating is a sign of
weakness. They did not believe in pluralism.

One of the reason they insisted with the weakness of division, was because of experience.
Society has different experience in different parliamentary countries.

50
 1. Fascism is new: something that emerge between WI and WII. It did not really connect
with the political traditions. It also important because of its impact on the left. They
have some things in common, but its regarded the left as its enemy.
Nationalism is important in fascism: because is the glue that holds the society
together. Nationalism is the main source of social coalition. Fascist were the enemies
of socialist and communist because they say the see the world in.. of class.
Fascist were also critical of traditional conservative: because conservatives didn’t like
the idea of empower the masses, the people. Fascists want to mobilized society and
conservatives to immobilize. Fascist were anti-establishment, against old tradictional
ways of seen things. And of course they were unhappy with class division, which
conservative were quite happy to obtain.
Church was seen as a traditional institution who insisted to maintain the status quo.
Fascism is disrupted, is new and therefore were anti-left, they did not believe in the
traditional right.

An Italian nation was not created until… Nations are no things that are created for humans to
humans and not in a spontaneous way.

Fascist in Italia that emerged between… and they are three legacies:

1. Italian unification an artificial or natural process? Italy was a near geographical

expression it was simply a peninsula. All people thought that after unification Italy
was simply a political expression. The three color flag was invented and introduced
in order to express this national identity.
The masses, the peasants were quite passive in this process of unification. This was
the largest and most advanced kingdom in Italy Piermont-Sicilia.
Absent of participation and secondly the survival of previous loyalty and
identities. Italina remain an artificial legacy. Created by the top not below.
2. Constitutional monarchy. Not and absolute monarchy (like in Britain not like
Russia). Liberal State, you have a parliament, political parties, property suffered…
The suffered expanded and the number of people allow to vote expanded. In 1900
it was still an elites´sytem. Only 10% of the population could vote.
Catholic country, which the institution that represent this religious statement did
not recognized the liberty of this liberal country.
LIBERAL MONARCHIST CONTITUTIONAL STATE. PARTICIPATION LIMITED TO
PEOPLE WITH Property. Liberal constitution monarchy.
3. Certain inferiority complex among the elites. Italian nationalist born as a sense of
frustration. Italian elites set up to expand. Where? North and Africa. Sicily is not far
from the North Africa coast. Italians tried to create their own African empire:
Ethiopia. Italia were defeated by Africa Ethiopia in 1897. For Italians this defeated
undermined the weakness of the Italian state. The inability in this case to
organized their self in military terms.

51
 Two aspirations: bring all the Italian speaking people under the Italian state. Italian
nationalist wanted to conquer those territories and made all the Italian live under
the same umbrella. And the second aspirations were:
Failure of Italian nationalism to achieved their goals and the frustration that this
generated; regarded to Europe and Africa.

After the 1890s two process changed in north and central Italia: Social-economic and political
transformation.

-Social-economic: rapid industrialization. The norther Italian region milan, turin and …
The emerged of three social classes: powerful industrial and financial elite, the emerged of a
large professional middle class (doctors, lawyers, administration) and a large working class,
urban and industrial working class. Modernization in Eruoep.

River Po: torino, turin… prosperous farmland. The po valet became very vibrant as an
agricultural center. You have fertilizers, agricultural machinery which maje this a very
productive part of Italy. So modernization was not just on the cities but in the country side and
in the agricultural sector. Farm: Agherari -> Rich farmers who exported their products to the
whole of Italy or even other European countries. Many people emigrant from the south to the
north and many Italian emigrants to the United States.

The north south became a gap between the north and south. North was modernized and
becoming more prosperous.

-Political: electoral reform which expanded the suffered to the middle class. Italian
socialist party found in 1892 was created. This was initially very small and insignificant party. At
the same time you also have the CGL 1906. Catholic trade unions in an attempt to control that
the working classes were not into Marxist ideas. Middle class able to vote. The creation of the
first trade union and catholic emerges of catholic trade unions.

The biggest challenge form politicians were to… becoming stronger: socialists and Catholics.
The liberal leader who we associated with this system to bring in socialists and communists:
Giovanni Goniki.

At the same time in this period of political and economic change new anti-establishment group
emerged: they did ot believe in democracy: with people on the left and on the right.

-Right: two groups -> Italian nationalist alliance 1910: Ultra-nationalist. Enrico
Corradini. And the second group -> the futurists: they were obsessed with the future with
technological innovation (science). Filippo Marinetti. They did not believe in democracy, in the
parliament in constitution monarchy

-Left: radical revolutionaries who opposed the socialists of not being radical enough.
Against democracy and democracy socialism.

52
WWI (1914-1919): The only reason to wanting Italy to go to war is to fight AH and obtain the
territory. And bring all the Italians living in the AH under the control of the Italian state.

The war divided the Italian society. Catholics, socialists and liberals wanted to remain neutral.
Interestedly the people who wanted to join the war were the far left and right. The people of
the far left wanted to join the war to destroy the status quo. Bringing down the monarchy, the
democracy…

It was the king who decided and Italy joins the war in April 1915. 60 million men were enlisted.
4 million fought against the Austrians, half a million were killed, half a million were arrested
and 1 million ruined. Italy suffered a terrible defeated on the hands of the Austrians at the
Battle of Caporetto in November 1916.

The war accelerated the north-south division and also agricultural areas and urban areas. The
war was a disaster in Italy and did serve to raise new doubts about the ability of Italian state to
conduct war. Encourage people to question the Italian state. After the war Italy in 1918-20
experience a severe economic crisis. The state had massive dead’s, high-inflation, and high
unemployment… Incompetence of the army leaders. During This period “Bienio Rosso” two
years if left wing occupation of lands (south), factories (north), strikes, manifestations, deaths…

Sensation of revolution was possible raise. In 1919 after the war, a very important general
election was held. For the first time, the socialist party was the most voted party (Partido
Socialista Italiano) and Catholic Party called Populate Party which has been founded that year
lead by priest -> Luigi Sturzo.

This PP was a central-right party. In the 1919 election the two biggest parties were anti-
establishment party to some extent. Collapse of the liberal parties.

Two problems with this similar to Germany: first of all the socialists were divided between
moderates (saw democracy as an important thing in itself; believe in freedom of expression…)
and radicals. Radical socialists were impatient and take part in the strikes and factories
occupation that wanted socialism now, now in 30 years from now. This people were frustrated
because the revolutionary goals have not been met. Gralsi: world famous thinker.

The largest party did not form a coalition government and become very difficult to form stable
governments.

The liberal monarchy faced a double challenge: they wanted to have their own Bolsheviks
revolution in Italy. And the other come from the right:

1919 Italy did obtain 2 territories from the AH Empire. Two small territories Italian speaker in
the north eastern borders (Trieste and Istria) but they did not obtain (Fulmien). In sept 1919
after Versailles and in reaction to Versaille a group of nationalists occupied Fulmien for a whole
year against the wishes of the Italian State. Gabirelle Dámuzao: poet leader.

Secondly the choreography, the songs, the matches, and the uniforms that Damuzao made
popular used by the fascist. The extent of fascism was born in 1919 in Fulmine as a result of
Damuzao´s idea.

53
It is in this contest were the image of Mussolini came up. Italians fought in the war for
achieving their goals and aspirations. Italians thought they were being defeated by the
Austrians but being in the allies’ side they expected more form them, to back Italians. .

Who was Benito Mussolini? He was a working class man, and he studied to become a teacher.
Did his military service and then he became a socialist leader and a socialist journalist (official
newspaper of the socialist class). He .. the war in 1914 he gradually became a proponent of the
war and was expelled from the socialist party because they wanted to maintain neutral.

Mussolini shifted his position and he became a revolutionary. Mussolini hated social inequality
and the liberal establishment, the political elite and the people who runs Italy. In those days he
identified himself with more revolutionaries’ trade unions in the socialist party. But by 1914 he
came to the conclusion that the war would enable him to destroy the political system. He
wanted the war not to fight but to destroy the political system, elite the old establishment. He
almost said he was a revolutionary.

54