EUROPE IN UPHEAVAL,
1850-1914
Scott Masters
Crestwood College
after the rev. changes/idealism of the early
19th c., Europe began to follow a more
pragmatic course, determined by more
practical politicians and reformers
to varying degrees, they would play a
key role in one of the period’s more sig.
developments: the Rise of the NationState
the force behind this was nationalism, esp. as
it was harnessed by individual philosophers
and politicians
“new” nations would be created, and
eventually the forces that would lead to
WW I would be unleashed
– the nat’lism of this period would inc. not
only territory, pop., and mil. capacity; it
would also inc. an eco. dimension (brought
on by the IR) – this created a contest of
imperialism
FRANCE
no longer a monarchy, but a republic
– but Louis-Napoleon (Bonaparte)
was an autocratic figure whose use
of nat’lism threatened this balance
Louis-Napoleon had emerged as a
compromise figure in the ongoing
dispute b/n the monarchists and the
republicans
– he served as pres. (in the Second
Republic) and later took the title of
emperor, ruling as Napoleon III
over the Second Empire
As pres. of the 2nd Repub., L-N had to
contend w/ being limited to one 4 yr. term…he
and the monarchists wanted to extend his
rule, leading to a coup
–the Ass’y was dissolved, universal male
suffrage was intro’d (w/ a property
qualification), leading radicals were
arrested, and the army occupied Paris,
killing 200 rioters in the process…
–Louis then proclaimed himself emperor
and promised to restore dem. rights, inc. a
series of plebiscites where the people
supported him
– He was able to do this as
the eco. was prosperous,
w/ …
– railroad construction
– high employment
– available credit
– gov’t assistance/planning
(seen in the re-design of
Paris by Haussman)
– By the 1860s, discontent
was on the rise, b/c of
pol. scandals; Napoleon
III responded w/ dem.
reforms (resp. gov’t, free
speech, unions…) that
kept his popularity high
Nap. III did have mil.
ambitions: in 1854, he
sought to protect Christians
in the Ottoman Empire,
challenging Russia in the
process…
the main thing the Crimean
War did was to presage
what ind. war would become
it also showed the influence
of war correspondents and
the need for better medicine
(Florence Nightingale); and
since Russia fared poorly,
Fr. was able to re-est. itself
as the center of Euro. dip.
ITALY
one of the “new” nations
united in this period – it
combined idealistic
nat’lism, pop. uprising,
realpolitik and took
place in spite of
opposition from the
pope and Austria
this mvmt., known as
the Risorgimento, had
been around since the
early 19th c. and had
been kept alive by
secret societies known
as carbonari
– their early uprisings
failed, leading to the rise
of Giuseppe Mazzini – he
founded a Young Italy
society and dreamed of a
unified Italy based on
nat’lism and liberalism
after a series of uprisings,
Mazzini est. himself as
pres. of a republic in
Rome: when Austrian and
Fr. troops tried to intervene
to restore the pope,
Giuseppe Garibaldi and his
Red Shirts tried to defend
the city (they had to
surrender in 1849)
the more seasoned politician
Camillo Cavour stepped forward,
using realpolitik to secure It. unity –
he cheated in elecs., made and
unmade foreign alliances, and put
It. unification on the agenda of the
1856 Paris Peace Conf. (he was
partially successful)
at this pt., Garibaldi and his
remaining 1000 Red Shirts (i mille)
captured Sicily and s. Italy, meeting
w/ Cavour in 1861 to secure the
Kingdom of Italy under King VictorEmmanuel II (con. monarchy) in
1866 Venice was added (It.
supported Pr. in its war w/ Aus.)
and in 1870 Rome was added when
Nap. III removed Fr. troops to fight
Pr….Rome then became the capital
GERMANY
Romanticism + Realpolitik
Liberal nat’lists had worked for a unified Ger. since 1815
The n. states under Pr. created an eco. union in 1834 – the
Zollverein (customs union) – led to eco., ind., and railroad
expansion; the belief that a unified state was needed began to be
recognized
The debate was b/n
the “Greater
Germans” (who
wanted Austria inc.)
and the “Lesser
Germans” (who
were pro-Pr.) - ?
at this point, Count
Otto von Bismarck
est. himself as the
leading Pr.
politician – known
for his use of
realpolitik in
achieving his pol.
goals (“blood and
iron”)
– All Bismarck needed was
an excuse: Denmark gave
him one when it put a claim
on the regions of
Schleswig and Holstein –
both Aus. and Pr. quickly
defeated them (and the Pr.
army, armed by Krupp, est.
its reputation)
– He then proposed the reorg. of the German Confed.
based on universal
suffrage; he knew this
would be rejected in
Austria and that it would
probably lead to war b/n Pr.
and Aus.
The Pr. army, w/ its ind.
weaponry and led by Gen.
Helmuth von Moltke, won
the Aust-Pr. War in 7
wks….Bis. negotiated a
lenient peace and created a
n. Ger. Confed. under Pr.
leadership (Pr. Kaiser
Wilhelm I acted as king)
Other s. Ger. states, such as
Bavaria, signed a mil.
alliance w/ Prussia and went
on to develop closer eco.
and pol. relations (Aus. was
pushed out)
The main threat to emerging
Ger. unity was France,
where Nap. III had won a key
plebiscite in 1870
– this would lead to the FrancoPrussian War
it began as a diplomatic
dispute over succession to
the Sp. Throne (Pr. and Sp.
still had family
connections)…the Fr.
feared being surrounded
and newspapers in both Pr.
and Fr. inflamed nat’list
emotions
– Pr. did remove their
candidate to the Sp.
throne, but the Fr. made
add. demands (that Pr.
wouldn’t try this again),
which Bis. edited and
released to the
press…w/ Fr. “honour”
sullied, Nap. III declared
war in 1870
– Pr. won w/in
months…1/2 million
troops were moved to
the front by train and at
Sedan they captured
100 000 Fr. troops and
Nap. III…this, combined
w/ the brutal siege of
Paris, led to the
collapse of the 2nd
Empire
In the 1871 Treaty of
Frankfurt, Fr. ceded
Alsace-Lorraine,
paid reparations,
and dealt w/ Pr.
occupation for 3
yrs.
LATE VICTORIAN BRITAIN, 1867-1914:
DISRAELI AND GLADSTONE
dem. had been entrenched
by this time, and the
extension of the franchise
was an accepted part of the
process
– in 1867, the 2nd Reform
Bill was passed by the
gov’t of the Conservative
(Tory) Benjamin Disraeli
w/ this working class
male householders
were given suffrage
– in 1884, a 3rd Reform Bill
went through under the
Liberal William
Gladstone, extending the
franchise to male rural
householders
late 19th c. G.B. still saw the
same ongoing conflict though:
reform v. tradition
Disraeli tried to profit from this
by creating a new
conservatism that appealed to
est. landowners and the
working class
– emphasized tradition,
patriotism, and reform,
working w/ Queen Victoria,
who emerged as key
symbol of his vision
– Disraeli also emerged as a
leading imperialist: he
made Victoria the Empress
of India and bought shares
in the Suez Canal, and
fought colonial wars in
Asia and Africa
– At home, his social reforms
recognized unions, public
housing, consumer
protection, workplace
safety…
Gladstone and the Liberals followed “Peace,
Retrenchment, and Reform”, favouring free
trade and fewer colonial wars/adventures
– They also favoured a laissez faire approach
and the eradication of outdated laws
– In this respect, they reformed the army, civil
service, and educational institutions, doing
away w/ patronage
– after ongoing Balkan conflict saw the
slaughter of 1000s of Christians by the
Ottomans (and Disraeli backed the Ottomans
b/c of his concerns over Russia), Gladstone
was back in office
Gladstone was not successful in his own
foreign policy initiatives – conflict w/ the Boers
and the Irish showed that peace was elusive; w/
his intro of the Irish Home Rule Bill he split his
own party
w/ these devels. and those in other Euro.
nations, a new type of rivalry had emerged,
based on ind., imperialism and eco. competition
nat’lism in the Balkans was esp. complex b/c of
the number of ethno-cultural groups in close
proximity; they were stuck in the collapsing
Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, and
the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 only inflamed
emotions
the “spark” would thus occur in this
region, creating the total war that would
transform the 20th c.
Germany and G.B. emerged as the key
powers in this period often called “The
Road to War” – both identified their
dominance as a natural outcome of
earlier history: the difference was that
in Ger. the old aristocracy retained its
influence w/o much trouble, while in
G.B. the dispute b/n the landed interests
and the people led to constitutional
crises and reforms
SOCIALISM
soc. had appeal for the growing trade union
mvmt. as well as those who gravitated to
Marx
– several attempts at real soc. organization had
been made and had not succeeded
– subsequent attempts took a diff. approach:
gradualism replaced rev. for many socialists
this approach came to be known as revisionism, and it
divided the soc. World
even so, Social Democratic parties did begin to
appear and had success in Ger. and Fr.
– in GB the Labour Party arose during this period to rep.
the working class
– from its inception, the Labour Party was divided b/n the
trade unionists and intellectuals (assoc. w/ the Fabians)
the entrenchment of soc. ideals
had created a sense of crisis in
Europe – it was more
pronounced in the repressive
conditions of E. Europe
– Russia in 1905 saw the beginning
of profound change as revolution
began to grip the country (during
the time of Czar Nicholas II,
1894-1917)
– Russia was in the midst of an
identity crisis: czarist repression
+ industrialization (much of which
was financed by foreign capital; it
created the Russian working class
and the demand for rev. change)
The principal
Marxist Party, the
Social Democratic
Party, had been
exiled to Switz. –
they were caught in
the revisionist
debate along w/
other Euro.
Socialists
Vladimir Lenin
authored What Is to
Be Done?,
defending the
Marxist concept of
rev. and advancing
the ideal of a
vanguard
– the majority
agreed w/ him =
Bolsheviks (while
the minority were
called the
Mensheviks)
– as events in Russia
deteriorated (eco. slump,
defeat in the 1904-5
Russo-Japanese War), a
real rev. unfolded
the spark was Bloody
Sunday, when the
czar’s troops opened
fire on peaceful
demonstrators - this
led to crises across
Russia, leading
Nicholas II to create the
Duma in an effort to
reach a settlement
the Duma’s powers
were limited and the
radicals and
conservatives were at
odds over the pace and
direction of reform:
Nicholas continued as
an autocrat