INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE

(for the examinations 2003 onwards)HISTORY, Higher level.Nature of the Subject:The core of the Higher level course is the study of Europe (including Russia) since 1750. Emphasis is placed on the political, social, economic and intellectual forces which have shaped the continent we know today. However, we are concerned that students should not develop a Eurocentric view of the world, so considerable attention is paid to the world outside Europe.This course is designed to give students a thorough knowledge of the main themes in the development of Modern History in Europe and the World. In the 20th Century, we concentrate on three topics: "Causes, Practices and effects of War", "The Rise and Rule of Authoritarian states" and "The Cold War".Students are expected to use a wide variety of sources in their study of the History. A wide reading programme is essential and familiarity with primary sources is encouraged. The aim is to become familiar with the widest variety of interpretations possible and we encourage a critical attitude towards the works read and the interpretations advanced for particular issues.

AssessmentExternal Assessment 80%Written Papers (5 hours)Paper 1: 1 hr (20%). A document-based paper set on prescribed subjects drawn from the twentieth century world history topicsThree Topics on the 20th Century World History. For 2003 examination sessions, the topics are; "The USSR under Stalin, 1924 to 1941.", "China: domestic developments, 1946 to 1964.", "The Cold War 1960 to 1979."We are going to concentrate on the first topic mentioned above. The prescribed subject covers; Developments under Stalin's dictatorship up to the German invasion of the USSR during the second World war. It could take into account social, economic and political developments within the USSR as well as foreign relations.

1

Four questions based on given documents, one of the documents is a non-written document. Candidates are required to answer all four questions from one section.Five minutes readingtime included.

Paper 2: 1 ½ hrs (25%). An essay paper based on the twentieth century world history topics.Choice of TWO essays from 6 topics (5 questions on each topic) on 20th Century World History. The questions chosen has to be from different topics.Knowledge of the topics beyond 1995 in not required.

-Two open questions - candidates may use their own examples.-Two specific questions - naming either people or events.-One question - addressing social, cultural, economic or gender issues.One or two questions in each section will require examples of two different regions. When the word "region" is used in a question it refers to one of the five regional options (Africa, East and South East Asia and Oceania, Europe (including Russia/USSR), South Asia and the Middle East (including North Africa)).

Paper 3: 2½ hrs (35%). Choice of THREE essays from 25 titles on European History from 1750 to the late 20th Century. The syllabus is divided into 22 sections, and one question will be set on each of these 22 sections. The remaining three questions are "cross-overs".Only proper names or events which are included in the syllabus will be used in the questions.

Internal AssessmentHistorical investigation (20%): This is an integral part of the history course and it is compulsory for both higher level and standard level candidates. It enables the candidates to demonstrate the application of their skills and knowledge in history and to pursue their personal interests without the time constraints associated with written examinations.Students choose their subject in conjunktion with the tutor. One general topic is chosen and all candidates prepare a choicen question from the general topic.Internally assessed by the

2

teacher and externally moderated. The historical investigation is a problem-solving activity which enables candidates to demonstrate the application of their skills and knowledge to an area which interests them. The emphasis is on a specific historical enquiry tied to classroom activities that develop and apply the skills of a historian, that is, making sense of source material and managing conflicting interpretations. The activity calls for candidates to search for, select, evaluate and use evidence to make a decision or solve a problem. The investigation is not a major piece of research-candidates are only expected to evaluate two important sources which have arisen from a particular issue; nor should it be written up as an essay. It have to consist of the following four sections;

a. plan of the investigationb. findings of the investigationc. evaluation of two sourcesd. analysis and conclusionThe written account should be 1700-2000 words for HL and 1200-1500 for SL.

PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE FOR 2003-2005

AUTUMN -03Introduction of the course.Planning of the course.Discussions on the question, What is History?How to write an essay.

19:th Century World History;The dramatic and explosive changes of the World during this Century.NationalismThe end of the Napoleonic era and the Vienna CongressThe years of 1815, 1830 and 1848.The unification of Italy and Germany.

3

The First World War;

The development from 1870 onwards to the outbreak of "The Great

War". Examening the years 1870-1914 from different point of views

(from the policies of the statesmen to the thoughts of the people,

from the consequenses of the industrial development to the

ideological changes).

The First World War (from the "Great" war to the dramatic

catastrophy)

End of term exam

SPRING -04

Russia from the late 19:th century

The Russian revolution

The Russian Civil War and the struggle of power

Stalin

The Historical Investigation

The World re-made. The peacetreaties and especially Europe after

the war. The germ to the next Worldcatastophy?

4

The World between 1920-45:

Examening different nations with an emphasis on Germany.

The diplomatic scene and international policies.

Economic and social development of the World (different and

common features).

Mussolini's Italy

Hitler's Germany

The causes of the second World War to its outbreak in Europe.

The League of Nations and the struggle for Peace.

Japanese aggression and expansionism.

The second World War.

End of Year exam.

AUTUMN -04

East/West relations after 1945.

The Cold War, 1945-50. The Korean War. The Frigid Fifties. The

1960s - Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam (1945-73). Detente in the

1970s. The New Cold War and developments in the 1980s. China

5

1928-85. The breaking up of the Eastern Block.

End of term exam.

SPRING –05

The third World, decolonisation

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Satellite states

Reviewing the course.

Mockexam

Final exam.

During the course all students write shorter and longer essays. The

essays are presented by the student to the class.

As a general rule the sudents have to prepare themselves for every

lesson by reading on the topic which is dealt with. If suitable

litterature isn't available the teacher will provide the sudents with

material.

6

7

EVALUATION OF THE HISTORYPROGRAMME BY THE

LAST GROUP;

-Long-term planning from the beginning of the first year to give an

overview of the topics that will be covered during the two years - a

comprehensive course plan.

8

-distributing the time spent more rationally, e.g. less about Weimar,

more about the Cold War.

-Chronological order of events! (somewhat), especially HL.

-more regular assignments, e.g. week 2 oral presentation, week 4

essay. To give a routine (and make us work).

-tell us before what the lessons will be about to give us an

opportunity to prepare.

-don't expect us to know too much or work without being forced to.

-no discussions without preparation!

9

WHAT IS HISTORY?

1. The discipline which studies the past. -the analysis or description of the past. -the notion of human activity during history (causes -consequences)

2. Events in the past, object to historical research. -man is the object, therefore the historian is forced to extreme criticism.(You have to examine the motives and background of a certain text or source).

2.1. Every answer to the question "WHY" is in history an interpretation, generalization or a consolidation of different information. The historian's attempt to reconstruct and interpret the past, not the past itself. Predjudice!

3. History is the story of mankind. Even when historians write about a natural process (climate, diseases) they do so only to understand why and how men and women have lived.

10

What is unique about the human species is not its possession of certain faculties or physical characteristics, but what it has done with them - its achievments, or history in fact.

4. History is a serious discipline with a rigorous methodology but it involves a high degree of interpretive and creativ imagination.

5. E.H. Carr: "a dialogue between the present and the past". In reconstructing and interpreting the past the historian is always influenced by the attitudes and prejudices of the age and society in which he lives.

A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEW:Many different kinds of history exists; History isn't about learning a lot of what have happened in the past or to understand cause-consequence-chains as someone have interpreted them to us. History is also to penetrate a world of prospects where one can get associations and ideas and thoughts which one is able to use in one's life.

History is also something we can not avoid, it's something we continuosly experience and learn us. We collect a capital of history through our impressions. Fragments which imprint our view of the past, the present and the future but also our attitude towards blurred moralconcepts as wrong or right (evil-good).

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF HISTORY

What is the use of history?Try to imagine what it would be like living in a society where there was no knowledge at all of history (G. Orwell; 1984). History is to community, as memory is to the individual. It's a question of identity. It also help us to orientate ourselves. Thanks to our knowledge of

11

history we find that instead of being totally adrift on the endless and featureless (formlös, intresselös) sea of time, we do have some idea of where we are, and of who we are.The social importance of history is brought out by the way in which we are constantly coming up against history.

WHEN DOES HISTORY BEGIN?

It's the one subject where you can not begin at the beginning. We can trace the chain of human descent back to the appearence of vertrebates (ryggradsdjur), or even to the photosynthetic cells. We can go even further, even to the origins of the universe. Yet this is not history. The historian is interested (or history appears) when MAN comes on the scene (just when exactly that was, is a matter of dispute.ON HISTORYGeorge Orwell "Who controls the past controls the present" (1984)History, or the image of the past has very much to do with power. The ones who has the power in the society usually also are the ones who "produces" history. A question of manipulating people into a certain view.Certain values and views are emphazised. There is always somekind of objective behind this. Why do some events appear in the historybooks while others are valued as less important. In a totalitarian society this is quite obvious. A certain historical view has a clear purpose: to legalize and strengthen the rule of the totalitarian state. "Producing" history is a generally used method - falsification of facts. Could you mention any examples?Generally, at least in the so called "democratic" countries, one assumes that one is presented with more objective history. Of course one seldom runs into examples of clear falsification but especially when dealing with modern history the presentations (or the history presented) are more or less biased. In more traditional cases it's the interpretation of the victors which is presented as "history". Just to mention one example from Finland; The history of our civilwar (1918).This is of course traumatic and can result in a national historical trauma (something I will return to later) but usually it's dealt with when enough time has passed (In Finland this process began in the

12

1960's and during the 1990's the national historical trauma of the civil war is definetly accepted and dealt with).I have mentioned Orwell (and his warnings) a couple of times but alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD.In Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared thiose who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture.While people are very well aware of the Orwellian warnings they tend to forget Huxley's visions.Especially in the Western World (which in many cases is looked up to as some kind of model example) this is a definitive threat which also includes manipulating history to serve a certain purpose. The war in the Persian Gulf was one clear example of how people were served enrmous amounts of information without revealing what really happened. The war was presented as entertainment, a computergame-soapopera. Which were the objectives behind this?An other way to manipulate history is to emhazise a certain event and at the same time forget an otherone. Noam Chomsky, an american professor in linguistqs has turned his attention to this feature. I will show you a short example of the American presentation of the genocides in Cambodia and East-Timor which took place approximately the same time. But while the Worldopinion was focused on what happened in Cambodia there was an almost complete silence about the terrible development on East-Timor. The reason why I think this is an good example of how history is produced is the fact that when historians creat history they use all avaible sourcematerial and the more sources they can get (the more a certain episode has been covered) the bigger is the chance that this event is valued as

13

"important". How do you think the historian chooses what to include and what to exclude when he is writing for example a schoolbook in history? Chomsky, who isn't actually working with the past but with the present, is talking about THE MANUFACTURE OF CONSENT - A technic to control the people to serve the purposes of the ruling class. When you can't control people with force you have to control what they think.According to Chomsky it's, what he call the elitémedia which does this while they are the agendasetting media - the major televisionchannels and newspapers. They set the framework and local media adopt to their structure.They do this in many ways;-by selection of topics-by distribution of concerns-by emphasizm-by framing the issues-by filtering the informationThe elitémedia determent, select, shape, control and restrict in order to serve the interest of dominant elitégroups of the society.They produce a perception of the World.I could examplify Chomsky's point by one example from the mid-70's.If we study our historybooks of today (eventhough we are dealing with events which are not more than 20 years away) I'm quite convinced that we can find quite a lot on the atrocitys which the Khmer Rouge are responsible for while I think we would find it difficult to find anything on what happened on East-Timor the same time.

NATIONAL HISTORICAL TRAUMAWhen a nation, or parts of the population in it, is suffering from a trauma the reason can usually be found in the past and how the history have been presented.To understand this I think one could compare it with an individual trauma.A trauma appears when you have experienced something terrible but you can't deal with it. The only way to cure yourself is to try to find out what happened in the past and deal with it.

14

When talking about a nation we are dealing with a historical trauma when something terrible have occured (civil war, war) but the people isn't allowed to find out what exactly happened. The only cure is to try to find the truth and in this case historical research is of great importance.In this process one should aim at revealing the truth which requires sincerity and an openminded attitude.

Finally one can conclude that the written history, or the interpretations on what have happened is changed by time.The historical view, or presentation, is usually becoming more objective as time goes by. The victors story turns into history.

Assignment: Examine a historical event (any) from two different point of views and present; a. the differences and possible explanations to them. b. Your personal judgement of the sources used. Which of them is more accurate or reliable?

HISTORICAL RESEARCH

To discover what people thought and did and to organize this into a chronological record of the human past, historians must search for evidence - for the sources of history. Most sources are written materials, ranging from government records to gravestoneinscriptions, memoirs and poetry. Other sources include paintings, photoraphs, sculpture, buildings, maps, pottery and oral traditions. In searching for sources, historians usually have something in mind - some tentative (hypotetiska) goals or conclusions that guide their search. Thus in the process of working with sources, historians must decide which ones to emphasize. What historians ultimately write is a synthesis of the questions posed, the sources used, and their own ideas.THOUGH THE WORD "RESEARCH" is used frequently it has quite a strict meaning when talking about academic historical research. In history : diligent(omsorgsfull) and scholarly investigation in all

15

available primary and secondary sources in order to extend human knowledge in a particular area. Research, as generally understood by historians, implies work carried out in primary sources.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES:PRIMARY SOURCE: -A source which came into existing during the actual period of the past which the historian is studying - the basic contemporary (samtida) raw material of history.-Documents written or formed by individuals involved in the matter under investigation. Historians consider these documents their main building blocks for learning about and interpreting the past. They are pieces of evidence that show what people thought, how they acted, and what they accomplished. At the same time historians must critizise these sources both externally - to attempt to uncover forgeries and errors - and internally - to find the authors' motives, inconsistencies within the documents, and different meanings of words and phrases.SECONDARY SOURCE:-Is any interpretation, written (or made) later looking back upon a period in the past - often interpretations written later by historians.-Secondary sources are documents written by scholars about the time in question. Usually, they are interpretations of what occured based on examination of numerous primary documents and other sources. They reflect choices the authors have made and their own particular understandings of what has happened. Often there are important differences of opinion among scholars about how to understand significant historical developments. Secondary sources should therefore be read with these questions in mind: What sort of evidence does the author use? Does the author's argument make sence? What political or ideological preferences are revealed in the author's interpretation? How might one argue against the interpretation presented by the autor?

At times the distinction between Secondary and primary sources becomes blurred, as when the author is a contemporary (samtida) of the events she or he is interpreting. If a document by that author is

16

read as an interpreatation of what occured, it would be a secondary source. As evidence for the assumptions and attitudes of the author's times, however, the document would be a primary source.CRITICISM AND EVALUATION OF PRIMARY SOURCES

-AUTHENTICITY (If the source is a falsification it doesn't mean it's worthless on the contrary but it's essential to know).

You have to question any information, material or statement you come across to test and establish its meaning and truth.A series of basic questions which the historian must ask of every source he has to deal with:

1. What type of source it it? (official dokument or private message).

2. Who created the source in the first place (possible attitudes, prejudices, time, society).

3. How and for what purpose did the document come into existence? (Who was it written for - the differences in diarys).

4. How far is the author of the source really in a good position to provide first-hand information on the particular topic? (Title or position in the society, in some cases connections)

5. The historian has to be sure he has properly understood the document.a. possible problems with inscriptions or handwritings (Paasikivi)b. problems of foreign languages (Medieval Latin - Classical Latin, but also the differences in modern languages comparing to languages in the past).

PLANNING AN HISTORY ESSAY

"Essays are consumable - use them to feed the skill of writing history". The mistake many make is to consider the product more important in itself than the process which produced it.

17

Usually, any essay subject which you are set will take the form of asking you a direct question. A first obvious point then is: ALWAYS ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED, not some other question you would like to have been asked (for example the questions on Spain in IB final exams). To answer the question you will need to analyse your material, not just present straight narrative or description. When you are writing an essay you should show that you are thinking all the time, not simply setting down information. You must be selective in the material you include, making sure it is relevant to the questions you are asked (or have raised yourself - hypthesis). Every idea, comment or observation must be supported by facts or reasons. Finally, you must organize your material, both within individual paragraphs and in the essay as a whole, so that the answer you are giving communicates as effectively as possible with the reader. Use your own language, don't try to write in a fancy or "academic" way if it isn't yor way of presenting information.

THE APPEREANCE AND THE CONTENT OF THE ESSAY

1. Introductory part

1.1. Titlepage-Title, the most important in the essay is that the content reflects the Title (exactly). While the title is the most important in the essay it's advisable to construct it after finishing the essay. One of the fundamental skills of the historian is to ask questions and the title is your most important question to which the essay should provide an answer.-Name of the author-Subject (history)-Date

1.2. List of contentsI. IntroductionI.II. purpose or aim of the examinationI.III. survey of the litteratureI.IV. methods

18

The introduction has to answer;-aim of the essay, statement of intent-framing the problem-litteratursurvey-methods of research-messages to the reader-information about manners of presentationTHE FIRST THING THAT A READER MEETS IS THE INTRODUCTION - REALISE THE IMPORTANCE.

2. TEXTPART, the thesis. -Answers the purposes which are described in the introduction.-The presentation is divided in to entiretys (helheter) if possible. Every entirety is divided in to introduction, text and summary.-Numeration of chapters, 1., 2....-subtitles, 1.1., 1.2....When writing a history essay, most people have more facts of knowledge available than they conveniantly could use - SELECT the information to suit your question. Avoid information which isn't relevant, do not repeat facts. Understanding the relevance of a piece of information is really assessing the importance of it. The reader has to understand WHY you are including a piece of information. Arrange the information in a logical way.

3. SUMMARY-Conclusions - results of the essay (research)-Criticism - estimate the results.-No new information

4. LITTERATUR AND SOURCES - BIBLIOGRAPHY-SOURCES - Difference between printed and not printed sources. Not printed sources are taken up refering to the archives or places where the sources are. Ex.Finlands riksarkiv (FRA)Leo Mechelins brevsamling

Printed sources are refered to below suitable heading. Ex.Newspapers

19

Hufvudstadsbladet (Hbl) 1920-1929

MemoirsPaasikivi, J.K.: Toimintani Moskovassa ja Suomessa 1939-41 I-II. Porvoo 1958.Autobiographys can be used as sources if the information is suitable and relevant. Ex. Paasikivis diarys.

-LITTERATUR - The bibliographical list is done in alphabetical order (author). Litteratur without any certain author are dealt with according to the title of the piece.The name of the author is always written in the way it's done in the book used.The title is written as on the titlepage (usually the page after the cover).For each piece of work you have to mention the place of print and the year of print.A article is refered to in the same way except that the title is mentioned in quotationmarks.

REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

Everything which isn't common information or your own conclusions should be supported i.e. (dvs) should be able to control. Every reference should include;1. The name of the author2. Year of print3. PageThe references are given as footnotes in the end of a page. Ex.Carlsson 1949 p. 14Carlsson 1949 p. 130f.Carlsson 1949 p. 203ff.Carlsson 1949 p. 212-220.Carlsson 1949 p. 40, 49.

QUOTATIONS

If you quote a text it has to be done exactly as in the original text. If 20

you leave out words this is marked /.../, if you leave out sentences or longer paragrphs it's marked /___/.If you quote a quotation you shoul show this by using simple quotationmarks.

APPENDICES

After the bibliography. Only if they are relevant for the essay.

NOTICE THAT:The historian starts with some knowledge or facts, adds opinion, interpretations, judgements, and presents them in a logical and relevant essay. The last of these objectives is most important, since understanding it will make the difference between good and bad essays or grades.

19:TH CENTURY HISTORY

21

The dramatic changes for the people in Europe during the period 1815-1871.1. The economic transformation (förvandling, omdaning) of Europe; the industrial and demographic revolutions.

To understand the social and political history of Europe, or the World, in the 19:th century one has to examine the economic transformation; industrialisation, urbanisation and the birth of a totally new society. The speed of economic and social change begun by this economic revolution has never slackened. Rather it has accelerated, and the society of which we are part is the consequence and continuation of this unending process of accelerating change.

THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTIONBut to understand the industrial revolution one has to understand the revolutionary development in agriculture which preceded that in industry.An enormous increase in food production - a. Series of technical improvements in methods of farming.b. changes in the system of landholding.1.The first factor in this period of change was a remarkable growth in population. In 1800 the population of Europe as a Whole stood approximately at 188 million; by 1850 it had reached 267 million. Great Britain: The most important aim in Britain was to preserve worldpeace - splendid isolation. Between 1750-1850 the population growth was remarkable. Between 1800-1850 from 9-18 million and in the end of the century 33 million. Russia: during the 19:th century 39-110 million (Poland and Finland not included).

The pressure of a growing population in the countryside was causing the peasentry to move - crowds of people on the move - "push-pull" syndrome.The pressure of a growing population in the countryside was causing the peasentry to move into the towns. Old towns grew bigger and new towns appeared. Urbanisation.

22

2.The industrial process.By 1815 the new industrial process affecting the production of iron and textiles, the manufacture of machinery and the application of steam power had given Great Britain an enormous lead over all other European countries. In the 18:th century England, a number of factors combined to produce a favourable setting for industrial development.a) Supply of natural resources - rich deposits of coal and iron.b) Rivers furnished the waterpower to keep machines whirring, and c) harbours helped it shipping the products of British industry around the World. d)Wool and cotton from the colonies provided the raw materials for a flourishing textile industry.e) The country had a large labour force due to the increased population - improvements in sanitation, hospital care and advances in medicine the death rate was reduced (no wars).e)New methods of farming required fewer people to produce food.f)Resources and an ample (tillräklig) labor supply were organized by businessmen who supplied capital, bought the new machines, and built the new factories.g) For centuries, Englishmen had been accumulating capital from farming, handicrafts and overseas trade.h)There was also a new enormous demand for goods; in Britain it sprang from several sources; The rapid rise in population created a need for food, clothing, and housing (the threat of wars and the colonies iron and steal products).i) The government of 18th century England encouraged the growth of industrialism - markets expanded and foreign and domestic trade increased rapidly.

With the return of peace it was unlikely that her economic competitors would allow one country to remain the workshop of the world; an effective response to the British challenge, however, could only be made in the west, were capital was available and small forms of industry were already in existence. Even here the type of industrialism which developed in the years following the war and which began to accelerate after 1830 was distinctly dependent upon the technical experience of British engineers and workers who played a considerable part in this first phase of the industrial revolution on

23

the continent. The industrialisation spread from the area around the Britsh channel south- and eastwards.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIALISATION:1. Access to raw material. Something valuable.2. Access to manpower. Due to the rapid populationgrowth from the end of the 18:th century farming couldn't provide work for everyone which resulted in the access of manpower in industry.3. Access to energy. Coal, Water - steam and later electricity.4.Access to capital. In many countries the industrialisation couldn't get started before foreign capital was invested which required a quite liberal and secure political climate. The legislation had to encourage industrial enterprices.

The industrialization is a movement that had no precise beginning and has not yet ended. Many new inventions appeared in the 18:th and 19:th centuries, but not suddenly. They were preceded by centuries of trial and error experimentation in many countries.

3.Revolution of transport and communications.The industrial transformation demanded a development of the transportation. Even before the railway roads, canals and rivers were built and improved.But it was the railways that were to bring about the real revolution in European communications. Railways stimulated the rapid growth of industrialisation. An enormous industrial process itself and developing the trade and making industrialisation possible in many places.

4.The enormous demands made on capital to finance these developments helped to create a fourth characteristic of the economic revolution - the enhansed (ökande) position of banking on an international and national scale. The national banks appear.Joint-stock companies apeared. This way capital could be raised and the wealth spread among the stock-holders. Companies raised money for their enterprises by offering shares in their company in return for

24

loans from the general public. Since governments and local authorities showed themselves ready to follow the same financial procedures the so called 'capitalist' economy spread through Europe.The most striking feature was the growth of international financial operations. London developed into the financial centre of the world. The economy of one country became involved in the economy of the others.

DRAMATIZATION OF POSSIBLE INDIVIDUAL FATES DUE TO THE ECONOMIC TRANFORMATION IN EUROPE:Try to imagine and dramatize the changing conditions for ordinary people in Europe during the 19:th century.Start of from a typical little village and the inhabitants in this.WeaverChildFarmerMaid (piga)NoblewomanStudentOwner of a businessDoctorIn what way does the industrialization change the lives of these persons. What do they do and which are there reflections on different issues like; wealth, work, justice, education, society, politics, sucess-failure, future.Tell the lifestory of your rolefigure.

Assignment: Create a letter, page from a diary or something else which actually could be a historical document. Try to reflect over the

25

changing conditions in Europe.

NATIONALISM

National consciousness existed in most European nations already during the Middle Ages. In many cases it was attached to a person who symbolized the nation rather than to an abstract concept of nationalism. (Or to a religion or church). Throughout Europe the mercantilist system emphasized the primacy of national interest over those of other countries(the reformation fostered a type of nationalism as well).In the late 18:th century a strong Romantic movement spread in Europe and this romanticism influenced early nationalism. It was a new mood of emotionalism that took possession of every art. In romanticism the artists presented a nostalgic European past (historical novels, fairy tales, Nordic Sagas - treasury of national cultures and folklore. Romanticism gave great stimulus to the new emotions of nationalism. Especially in the regions where national unification had not yet been attained that Romanticism, with its interest in folklore and its sense of a historic past, suggested a new basis for establishing the collective identity of peoples.(Romantic artists; Litt. Goethe, Keats, Shelley, Byron and Heine; Painting: Delacroix, Géricault; Music: Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt and Chopin)

26

The French Revolution gave weight to trends alredy present.Modern European Nationalism goes back to the French revolution (1789).Before the revolution it had been the french king who personified and symbolized the monarchy but after the revolution it was the french state which was identified as the nation. It viewed the nation as the totality of its inhabitants who were not linked to any particular ruling power. The revolutionaries claimed to speak on behalf of the French nation, the people of France who were bound together by ties of common traditions, language, race and aspirations. The French people had the duty to obey the government and defend the country, but they also had the right to a state of their own to protect them and uphold their common inheritance. And to do this the new regime gave the country a united system of law and administration and waged war against its enemies. The symbolism of a national flag made this clear, for the tricolor was not a dynastic emblem as the fleur-de-lis had been. The national anthem "Marseillaise" was another imortant symbol. From the late 18:th century Europe lives through a boom of national symbols.

In the year 1792 the french government proclaimed a decree, "Edict of Fraternity"proclaiming its war to be a revolutionary struggle to liberate the peoples in every state from their tyrranical rulers.The result: in the beginning the French army was greeted as liberators but as soon as the Napoleonic rule was shown to be at least as tyrant the occupied people of different European states turned against the French supremacy. The wars and the French occupation gave a great stimulus to European national consciousness. (In England the effect was the same though the country wasn't ocupied)This resulted in a strong nationalistic wave. Nationalism =fighting off France.(guerilla-the small war, in Spain 1908).

In most of the European areas, which consisted of many smaller states (The italian and german speaking territories) or which for a long time had been governed by a foreign rule (Austria-Hungary, Poland) the people realised that the leading European states already were "nationalstates" (France, Spain, Great Britain).

27

The objective became to create similar nationalstates.

Though this European nationalism defeated Napoleon the European rulers, gathered in Vienna 1815, didn't like it and tried to fight it back. The statesmen suspected nationalism as a dangerous, unstable force.

After 1815 natonalism grew, especially in countries which still were divided or in countries which consisted of many different nationalities. The aim for the nationalists became to create unified nationalstates.Nationalism took many different expressions; 1) cultural-the search for the national past, the revivement (återupplivandet) of old popular legends and folktales, 2) linquistic-the common language (the history of the language), 3) revolutionary-in countries with a despotic and foreign rule (Italy, Poland).

This nationalism was not static and it took on many different forms as it fused with other systems of thought current at the beginning of the century.The nation was conceived (uppfattades) as a historic and emotional entity with which all men should integrate themselves.CONSERVATISM came to have a strongly-developed national feeling centered upon the historic tradition of the nation.LIBERALS believed that free individual and economic development would ultimately produce a strong nation.

Nationalism came close to liberalism in its objectives of liberty and trust in man. One wanted to sweep away despots and introduce parlamentarism.It was most popular among the middle class which usually favoured the ideas of liberalism and nationalism.

A VARIETY OF "NATIONALISMS" EXISTED

From 1848 nationalists lost their interest of other peoples nationalistic fights. The own people was focused and gloryfied, more anti-democratic and militant-more dangerous from a global perspective. After the nationalistic failures 1848 nationalism changed: 1. Now the idealists who had formerly been in the forefront were

28

superseded (ersatta) in the leadership of the national cause by statesmen aware of the realities of the European political situation (Bismarck, Cavour). National ambitions were directed toward practical achievements through diplomacy or military aggression.

2. In central Europe the bourgeoisie had been frightened by the Revolution (1848) and the specter of radicalism (the communistic manifest-the bloodshed in Paris in june 1848) which it had raised. They now bolstered (stöttade) nationalism as a bulwark against radicalism. It bacame bound up with a search for order. Liberty was rejected together with radicalism, and the state was conceived (uppfattades) to be an instrument of power both for national glory and for internal order. The liberal idea of nationalism was vanishing and conservative and romantic elements came consistently into the foreground. The idea of the nation came to be infused with romantic and racial ideas. This wasn't the case everywhere, but it was certanly a current of thought which gathered strength after 1848. It meant a view of the nation as the exclusive claimant (pretendent, fodringsägare) to citizen loyalties, as well as an assertion (hävdande, förfäktande) of its superiority over all other nations.Outside the nation no life or creativety was possible.

The development resulted in a militant and aggressive nationalism; in the name of one state over all others and this because its nationalism alone was genuine (Germany). German cultural nationalism did lead to such an end, and Frenchmen, too, began to talk about the mission of France, even if eventually they saw this exemplified by the French spirit rather than by French military and political domination.

In IMPERIALISM one could see the great expansion of the French and British empires. Here was an outlet for feelings of national superiority and aggressiveness. A paternally-oriented policy of national dominance which, because of their political or economic situation, these nations could not advocate (förfäkta) in Europe.In Europe the climax of this cultural nationalism came with the totalitarian movements of the 20:th century.

29

BUT ONE HAS TO REMEMBER THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONALISM WAS NOT IDENTICAL WITHIN EACH OF THE EUROPEAN STATES. Its nature was determined partly by the actual problems which the nation faced and partly by its past history.Usually a nations nationalism fed on a certain view of the nations past. The historical past was always either mythical or a warping (sörvrängd) of national history which had little connection with the actual historical process; but then, history used to bolster or to explain an ideology is seldom firmly rooted in the realities of the past. Ideologies fulfill a need, and nationalism certainly did this; therefore, the content of that ideology was related to the need it fulfilled rather than to the verification of actual historical development.

LIBERALISM - se kurs fyra + Years of nationalism.The background can be found in;-Adam Smith, the founder of economics. Smith emphasised that the fuel of everone's action is egoism - the wish to maximise the personal profit. Freedom of competition will result in freedom of the prices which is in the interest of both the producer and the consumer. The prices will be set by demand and supply. Freedom of trade will result in a growing welfare.-the philosophy of the enlightment-the foundation of USA-the French revolution-The Wienna congress and its reactionary policiesThe emphasis of liberalism is on the rights of the individual citizen to pursue and protect his own interests. There were different varietties and extremes.a) constitutionalism- A gurantee of individual liberties and rights as a basic restriction on the government and other individuals.- A CONSTITUTION. A series of rules and regulations distributing and controlling the use of political power.b) Democracybased on the principal of equal political rights for all citizens. However there is also an element of stateintervention to achieve

30

equality of opportunity and defend the interests of the poor against the rich.

Liberalism is based upon the conviction that people are essentially good and that to allow individual freedom will lead, not to anarchy, but to the ordered and rational progress of society.The first demand was for a constitution. Within such a constitution would be found requests for a consistent set of individual freedoms; freedom of speech, of worship, of assembly and of the press, freedom from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and taxation, equality of opportunity, freedom of trade and economic enterprise.Liberalism was divided in economic liberalism which emphasised economic freedom. Socialliberalism which stressed the responsibility of the state to fight poverty and unequality. The most extreme interpretation was to become SOCIALDARWINISM in which Darwins ideas and economic liberalism were combined into a philosophy which was to become important in USA - no stateintevention - everyone responsible of ones own success or failure.Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill critisised extreme liberalism and stressed the responsibility of the government. The government should have as an objective the best possible conditions to as many as possible.

SOCIALISM (see IB2)

31

CONSERVATISM

If some of the Napoleonic generation believed that the new century must bring a rebirth of liberty, others drew a different conclusion from the cataclysmic (katastrofartad, omstörtande) French Revolution and its aftermath. Not that such men wanted to perpetuate (bevara, vidmakthålla) a dictatorship of the Napoleonic kind; on the contrary, they too looked to a rebirth of liberty., but they defined this liberty quite differently from the Liberals.Conservativs believed that maintenance of freedom was only possible within the framework of historical tradition; ideas of natural law and of progress had led to the collapse of order into revolution. Only through an emphasis on history and the hierarchical system which tradition-that is, history-sanctified, could order and therefore liberty be preserved.To conservatives liberty was at one with a historically derived concept of order and this concept required the preservation of the social and political hierarchy. "Legitimacy", the slogan which dominated the Congress of Vienna, was to be the keystone of this order.

Different approaches:DE MAISTRE: opposed any change: if it is historic it must not be changed.

BURKE: Elements of change is part of history - "The past must create the present". Peaceful evolution.

32

Both philosophers thought that freedom wasn't an innovation-"liberty" couldn't be created by men.History displaced the natural laws of the eighteenth century as the all-embracing truth.

ENGLAND - BURKEBURKE rejected the concept of freedom and mass-democracy. Universal rights, the rights of man, seemed to have led not toward liberty but toward mobocracy (pöbelvälde).Burke's conservatism entailed two other beliefs as well. Everyone must have some basic individual rights, for history, by which he meant the evolution of feudalism, had guaranteed such rights.Thus Burke opposed slavery and supported the American colonists' struggle against what he thought the unhistorical "dictatorship" of Parliament. But no more than in the Middle Ages did such rights imply political or economic freedom, much less social equality.Egalitarianism meant mobocracy and the eventual destruction of individual rights. Only a hierarchial system could maintain these rights, for they had been maintained in this way throughout history. Therefore it was the aristocracy's task to assume the leadership it had provided in the past. Only such a herediatery leadership could stem the tide of egalitarian revolution. A historical elite would guarantee freedom; the mob would only crush it.Let the common man wait, secure in his individual rights, and gradually history would evolve (utvecklas) toward a broader freedom; it had done so before. Man stands still but history evolves and thus the past was tied to the present.Burke's conservatism did not deny freedom; it denied the liberal hypothesis of the equality of man. It denied the possibility that man could raise himself in the social and political scale through his own efforts.J.S.Mill rejected this and replayed "... Though custom be both good as custom and suitable to man, yet to conform (anpassad) to custom, merely as custom, does not educate or develop in man any of the qualities which are distinctive endowments (anlag) of a human being."

Liberals were a product of not only the French but also the Industrial Revolution; Conservatives tended to reject both.

33

BUT: This kind of conservatism showed more social awareness of for example Englands poor than the Liberals ever demonstrated (Like a father looking after his children - part of the responsibility of leadership)

FRANCE - DE MAISTRETo the conservatives the structure of society was cemented by the two pillars of TRADITION and RELIGION.Christianity became an integral part of the mainstream of conservative thought on the continent. Conservatism, in this guise(klädseln), furthered the religious, Catholic revival, which was an aspect of romanticism. It was a conscios attempt to put the state upon a Christian basis rather than upon a basis of rationalism and natural law, as was attempted in the Enlightment.Continental Conservative thinkers combined Burke's faith in history with the belief that history exemplified the hand of God. Monarchy was a Christian and Divine phenomenon.These ideas were exemplified for Europe by the HOLY ALLIANCE. This was a treaty eventually signed by Russia, Austria, Prussia and France (1815), which affirmed that christian principles should govern the relationship between nations.To Liberals, The Holy Alliance came to symbolize the forces of reaction, and the mixture of Christianity and monarchial divine right typified a conservatism dedicated to the chrushing of progress by force.In this way conservatism was an ethic decision directed against the new forces of society. The pope and the king were infallible (ofelbara), all other should be excluded from the decision making (De Maistre).

GERMANY - ADAM MÜLLERWhile De Maistre had seen in Catholic christianity the guarantor of the historic harmony of the World. Müller transferred this function to the German state.The individual could not be imagined outside the framework of the state; it was a necessary constituent (beståndsdel) of the human "heart, spirit and body". As little as man could leave himself he could leave

34

his state. For Müller, both the all-embracing state and the hierarchical relationship within the state were sanctified by God as well as history; both were not subject to change.The state was not only a political entity but also one which fulfilled human emotional needs. The state was struggling bitterly against the new political, social and economic forces (These forces were part of a new conspiracy against Christianity itself).

AUSTRIA - METTERNICHThese diverse variations were alien to Metternich. The Austrian statesman was not only reactionary as far as Liberals were concerned; even most Conservatives thought him so. Metternich had no use for either the religious revival (De Maistre) or the nationalism (Müller) of his time.His ideas were based upon the necessity of maintaining balance of forces within the state, just as such balance of power was important in the relations among states. The way to harness (spänna för, säla) these new forces for the benefit of the state was to erect (upprätta) a balance between the classes in a nation and to guarantee the maintanance of this balance through a absolute monarchy. Metternich too, considered history very important; it cemented such a social structure. No new, unhistorical creation of states or constitutions could be allowed. Nationalism had no historical foundation. It would upset the historic international balance of power, just as liberalism would upset the internal balance of power within the state.In Metternich's view it was the middle classes which disturbed this balance thorough their dynamic. M. was orientated toward a past in which the middle classes had no part and whose stability was dependent upon throne and aristocracy.The middle class was a challenge to all civic order. The bourgeoise's attacks on the monarchy, he believed would inevitably result, in the next stage, in the mob attacking the bourgeouise. (had he possibly been reading Marx? no)Metternich was anti-intellectual. He believed that while professors and students conspired against existing order - ineffectual (ineffektiva) conspirators. Explains why a strict watch was to be put on universities, and student organisations were ordered dissolved after the Carlsbad Decrees (1819).

35

M. believed that God was on the side of order, not revolution.

THE FALL OF NAPOLEONThe reasons to Napoleons failure are complex.1) British resistance-Naval supremacy; Britain never lost its control of the seas which meant that the Continental blockade never functioned and Britain controlled much of the Worldtrade.-The British economic power enabled the country to buy coalitions of allies.

2) The Spanish resistance-The neverending spanish guerilla warfare tied down French troops in Spain.-Britain could make use of the spanish resistance and establish anti-french bases in Portugal

3) The nationalistic resistance in Austria and Prussia. The French occupation awoke a patriotic resistance movement which feared its future in a French Europe - readiness to strike back at the french forces at earliest opportunity.

4) The Russian "Great Patriotic War"-Napoleons decision to launch an offensive on Russia in 1812 proved to be a terrible mistake. An enormous army (450 000) was moiblised to win a quick victory. This was not to be;

36

-space and time; the Russian forces simply withdrew and the french lines of communication became fragile.-scorched earth; the french army was used to live on the land but this wasn't possible as the russians destroyed everything as they retreated (even Moscow was set on fire).-general winter; the army wasn't prepared for a war in winterconditions. the french army was paralyzed and forced to retreat - a majority of the troops died duriong this retreat.

5) Former allies abandoned Napoleon-After the disastreous Russian campaign Napoleon's former allies took advantage of the new situation and turned against him.-reactions against the burdens of war; ordinary people were fed up with the economic burdens caused by war.-a majority of the German princes sensed the coming storm and changed sides.

6) Napoleonic megalomaniaNapoleon was convinced he was undefeatable and wasn't ready to compromise at any stage.

THE FINAL STAGEa) A coalition between Russia, Austria, Prussia and Britain was succesfully created eventhough Napoleon tried to play the partners against eachother.b) An internal coup, as the french officers realised the situation they turned against Napoleon and restored the Bourbon family on the French throne.As Napoleon had been defeated a first peacetreaty was agreed on. The first treaty of Paris was reasonable moderate. French territories were cut back only to those of 1792, leaving France with Savoy and the Saar. There was to be no indemnity or army of occupation. Talleyrand even obtained the right for France to be represented at the conference in ViennaTHE HUNDRED DAYS (1815)Napoleons' return was disastreous for the Bourbon monarchy. though Napoleon did not become popular it was obvious that the monarch had

37

little support either. When Louis XVIII returned after Napoleons defeat he had many things against him;-His throne was granted by foreigners-The second peacetreaty of Paris had taken away Saar (Prussia) and Savoy (Piedmont) (the french frontiers were set back to those of 1790) and people regretted the lost days of the Napoleon's glory days.-a liberal constitution could no longer be granted.-An occupation of 3-5 years and an indemnity of 700 million France was imposed.

THE VIENNA CONGRESSThe defeat of France didn’t remove the threat of international revolution and war. One major objective with the viennasettlement was to maintain peace and stability. The Austrian chancellor, Prince Metternich introduced the idea of some sort of league between European rulers which would maintain the settlement and police the continent (The Metternich system).

To the ruling classes in Europe the French revolution had been an traumatic experience and one concluded that once change started it would get out of control and produce chaos, terror, military dictatorship and international war. The rulers came up with two possible responses to this situation;

1) Riding the TigerTo those rulers who believed it would be impoissible to dam the forces of revolution completely the solution would be to attract support for the government and weaken the revolutionary forces by making moderate reforms. It was to be in Britain in the 1820s-40s where this policy was most succesfully applied. Aseries of economic, social and political reforms enabled the arstocracy to maintain the real power and attract the support of the middle-classes.

2) Stemming the TorrentThe more conservative rulers on the contrary feared that reforms would trigger off revolution. An obvious alternative was to stop the whole process of change before it had a chance to start. Metternich was the main architect of this view.

38

PAMELA KARLSSON:

EVALUATING THE POLICIES OF METTERNICH IN RELATION TO:a) The settlement of Europe after the Napoleonic wars andb) the decline of Austria

What is asked?a) Metternich's rôle in the Viennacongress (the following congresses) and his rôle in carrying through the settlements decided on in 1815.

39

What did Metternich try to achieve and how succesful was he in his objectives.

b) Which objectives did Metternich have for Austria and in which ways did he try to achieve these objectives. Can the decline of Austria be explained by a failure of Metternichs objectives or did his policy result in a weaker Austria.

What is not asked?a) The settlement of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars.

b) the decline of Austria.

METTERNICHConservative, monarchial and aristocratic.M was the leading counterrevolutionary of the period. As chancellor of the Austrian Empire his main concern was for its stability.He believed that absolute monarchy was the the natural form of government likely to preserve the social order, which like monarchy itself was divenely ordained, and that the aristocracy existed to advise the ruler and assist him in governing wisely.He believed that the highest duty of statesmanship must be to preserve firm and steady government and feared that the aims of the liberals and reformers threatened its destruction and might bring about a revival of the anarchy of the French Revolution.M. believed that he faced a huge revolutionary conspiracy, with close links between the leaders in different countries. Change shouldn't always be prevented - Reform, he thought, was possible and desirable, but it was essential that it came about in the right way.His policy was in practice a negative one of blind repression. These repressive measures increased the opposition to his rule.The Austrian Empire was a ramshackle collection of diverse peoples and territories. It was threatened with disintegration more than any other state in Europe if revolution and international war broke out again. Keeping the Empire intact was very much linked to keeping peace in Europe.Nationalist and liberal ideas were Austrias greatest internal threat.

40

To preserve the Austrian Empire the "Metternich system" was introduced. It was a paternal form of government - the king as ruling over his people as a father governed his family (Enlighted Despotism).The Imperial government remained to a large extent unco-ordinated, inefficient and unable to enforce its commands firmly or unfirmly. This was the Emperor Francis I's policy and Metternich could do nothing about this.This is the main reason why M. had to achieve his purposes of preserving the Empire as a safeguard against change by continuing the traditional policy of 'divide and rule'. (Tried to make any united action against the Imperial government impossible.)

The fault of the Vienna statesmen, and especially M. was that they hoped to keep the clock stopped at 1815 for the next half-century.M had a professional concern for the stability of the states of Europe.1) THE PRINCIPAL OF LEGITIMACY-believed that the best form of government was monarchy based upon a well-established claim to the throne. Hopefully the rulers would be wise rulers with good advisers, although M was well aware that many of them did not live up to this ideal.2) THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERVENTION-since revolution was a very contagious disease states should have the ruight to intervene if they felt threatened. Where necessary this should be arranged by the European states acting together.

METTERNICH AND THE CONGRESS-SYSTEMThe first great peace congress of modern history for a European new order was mainly a work of Prince Metternich. As a very conservative politician he rejected the liberal ond nationalistic ideas of the time as dangerous to the state and the balance between the states.

The statesmen of the Great Powers (France included) wanted a settlement which would provide stability in Europe and prevent the outbreak of another general war.This benefited Austria - The state would be in grave danger of collapse and disintegration without this - The allies were ready to preserve and strengthen the Austrian empire.

41

The German confederation - 39 states (38 + Austria). The purpose was to prevent the smaller states falling under French influence. Although Austria received quite a lot of influence (Metternich's objective) it was bound to be rivalled by Prussia.Metternich supported the setting up of the confederation in this form because he believed that it would enable Austria, despite the strengthened position of Prussia, to retain a measure of influence in Germany. Austrian precidnency of the Diet provided him with a way of strongly affecting German affairs. (He could chech and stop the advance of nationalism and liberalism).The German rulers accepted M. interpretation of the situation and put the Carlsbad Decrees (1819) into force in their states. The Carlsbad Decrees gave the German Confederation a greater central authority than had been envisaged at the Congress of Vienna. This wouldn't have been possible without agreement between Austria and Prussia, and it emphasized the fact that M. could only make use of the Confederation in this way as long as Prussia remained unopposed towards Austria and could be persuaded to accept his policy.

Austria didn't join the ZOLLVEREIN - Austria was increasingly excluded from the economic life of Germany. Though M. opposed the formation of the Zollverein he couldn't stop it.

THE CONGRESS SYSTEM

Metternich and Alexander I attempted to establish cooperation between the great european powers on the basis of congresses to safeguard the settlement of Vienna.1818-Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle-settled the issues of payment of the indemnity-France admitted in to the Holy Alliance.-Withdrawal of the occupation army from France.-France admitted in to the HOLY ALLIANCE AND THE (NOW) QUINTUPLE ALLIANCE)-The disagreements among the great powers were now becoming more serious. A division between Russia - the other powers. Metternich and Castlereagh feared the Russian military power which hadn't been reduced since the Vienna Congress. When Alexander I proposed that

42

the Alliance should be used to keep intact the power and territory of existing rulers Metternich feared thet this could mean the further spread of Russian influence.Alexander was persuaded to accept an agreement limiting the idea of international intervention to the suppression of any revolution in France (if it threated the European peace).When Alexander proposed the forming of an international fleet (to be sent of to crush revolutions in South America) Britain rejected and feared a growing Russian influence on the seas.The combination of Russian aggression and British isolationism revealed at Aix-la-Chapelle, which threatened to destroy the alliance, alarmed Metternich. He feared that Austria had to choose side.

1820-Congress of TroppauIn 1820 revolts broke out in Spain, Portugal and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.-Metternich secured the princple of intervention (though Great Britain objected-as a result Great Britain freed herself from the political ties to Europe,"splendid isolation". Britain feared that intervention could upset the balance of Power in Europe. Revolutions were internal matters, to be dealt with by the governments of the states concerned.-As a result the Powers split into a lib.western bloc (Britain, France) and a con. eastern bloc (Russia, Austria and Prussia).

1821-CONGRESS OF LAIBACHThe previous congress didn’t succeed in its objectives which meant it was adjourned to Laibach. By then Italian nationalists had started an rebellion and the King of the Two Sicilies had asked for help. It was agreed that Austria should suppress the revolution. The Holy Alliance Powers again claimed the power to support any established government against internal revolt, something the British representative objected.

1822-CONGRESS OF VERONA1) The Greek War of Independence had changed things

considerably. The war had started in 1819 and developed into a successful war which attracted the european population and its sympathies for the Greeks. The Russian Czar sympathized with

43

the rebellion while Russia tried to benefit from the weakness of its old enemy, The Ottoman Empire.

2) Britain objected foreign interventions but simultaneously a British popular demand insisted on British assistance to the Greek rebellion as well.

3) Britain also objected a proposed French intervention in Spain but this took place anyway the followin year

AUSTRIAWhile it was quite obvious that Austria couldn't gain any real predominance in Germany Metternich looked instead for the creation of Austrian power over the several states in Italy - tried to persuade the other powers that peace and good government in the peninsula needed this.Fear of a renewal of French influence in Italy lad the allies to support Metternich's wish to gain compensation for Austria's inferiority (lägre ställning) in Germany and loss of the Netherlands by restoring and strengthening her position in the peninsula. Northern Italy was placed under her direct rule (Lombardia, Venetia). Austria also asserted indirect control of central Italy.

Although Italy - compensation for Austrias loss of territory and influence elsewhere, M. was never able to exercise as complete a control over the peninsula as he could over Germany. No federal organisation - Piedmont and the Papal State succesfully resisted this. M. rule over Italy was most assisted by the fact that all the rulers in the divided country were despots, determined to maintain their power and independence - relying on Austrian assistance to suppress opposition. National resentment against Austria was probably greater in Italy than in Germany.

Fear of revolution provided the common bond between Russia-Prussia-Austria. To prevent war, M. took his two potential enemies into the protective custody of the anti-revolutionary Holy Alliance.

THE GREEK INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE AND THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER I produced a split between Austria - Russia. To

44

prevent further division M. succeeded in producing the MÜNCHENGRÄTZ AGREEMENT (1834) - an agreement to maintain status quo in Turkey. A triumph of M. - Nicholas I was brought into step with M. again, in the matter of Eastern Question as well as in the matter of revolution in the West.

In 1839 M. had lost much of both his energy and influence. From here on his policy seems to have been based on a paralysed fear of war devoid of any constructive notion as to how the crises could be settled.

MONIKA KAHILUOTO:ASSESSING WHETHER THE PEACEMAKERS IN 1815 WERE GUIDED BY NATIONAL INTERESTS OR BY IDEALS AND PRINCIPLES.(The author has changed the original question which was 'WERE THE PEACEMAKERS IN VIENNA 1815 GUIDED MORE BY NATIONAL INTERESTS OR BY IDEALS AND PRINCIPLES' - never change the question asked (in the exams).

A.THE POLITICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CONGRESS:Though the Vienna settlement was a compromise between the rival aims and ambitions of the great powers, there was also a considerable degree of general agreement at the congress about its purpose and the principles by which this should be achieved.The statesmen of the Great Powers (France included) wanted a settlement which would provide stability in Europe and prevent the outbreak of another general war.This benefited Austria - The state would be in grave danger of collapse and disintegration without this - The allies were ready to

45

preserve and strengthen the Austrian empire.

1)Restauration, of the political situation of 1792.Both Russia and Britain shared the common wish to settle the problems of Europe as a whole - other states (especially France and Austria) could and did benefit from this. Metternichs idea to reach a balance of powers was in danger to collapse already before the congress while Russia wanted to annex Poland and Prussia Saxony. As a result of Metternich's mediation (1813), and esp. under the impact of Napoleons return from Elba, the powers reached a compromise. The balance of power between the 5 great powers was restored in june 1815.

The German confederation - 39 states (38 + Austria). The purpose was to prevent the smaller states falling under French influence. Although Austria received quite a lot of influence (Metternich's objective) it was bound to be rivalled by Prussia.

INTERNATIONAL PEACE - would best be maintained if no state was in a position to threaten the independence of the rest - A rule to guide the decisions made in Vienna. (Important when decisions upon territorial settlements were made, for example both Austria and France accepted the settlements in Germany and Italy, though they both had interests there)

The statesmen of Vienna thought that revolutions comes from wars not viceversa.

2) Legitimacy - justification of the dynastic claims of the old rulers - actually Talleyrands idea to justify the claims of the Ancien Régime. FRANCEWhen Napoleons defeat was obvious Foreign minister Talleyrand managed to restore the old monarchial rule in France and got the acceptance by the allied leaders - the restauration of the Bourbons. The First

46

Treaty of Paris (may 1814) was lenient because the alliance didn't want to make it difficult for the new monarchy.

The principle of Legitimacy was never of supreme importance in making of the settlement. Frontiers were redrawn and previously independent states extinguished in defiance of it - The principle of Legitimacy was definetely subordinate to the more important principle of the balance of power.

3) Solidarity, common policies of the legitimate princes against the revolutionary ideas and movements.The HOLY ALLIANCE was used by Metternich as an effective weapon to enforce his conservative policies.Both Britain and Austria feared an extension of Russian influence (Austria - in Balkan and the german states, Britain - maritime and colonial powers, a Russian challenge to the Brittish commands of the seas).THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE - Uphold the settlement with France, prevent the return of Napoleon and maintain the army of occupation.This included the idea of possible meetings to settle international questions quickly and peacefully.

BRITAINThe principle was to establish peace in Europe - a peaceful, settled Europe from whom Britain didn't have to fear no threat. Britain wanted to maintain her naval supremacy and had no wish to extend her land frontiersin Europe.Britain introduced the idea to abolish slave trade at the Congress (The government had to take account of opinion at home) - no final settlement on this issue.

RUSSIA

B.NATIONAL INTERESTS

47

B.1. Before the Congress in ViennaAUSTRIAIn 1813 Metternich preposed a deal to Napoleon; Austria could join France in a military alliance if Austria would get full supremacy in Germany and Italy - no deal but definetely shows that Austria had great national interests.When Metternich realized that there was nothing to gain from an alliance with France, Austria joined the European coalition against France.

PRUSSIAThe first treaty of Paris (1814) was replaced by the Second Treaty of Paris in november 1815 (after the come-back of Napoleon) and eventhough this was harsher it still was a very lenient peace for France (France lost some territory along the border (Savoy, Nice to Piedmont and Saar to Prussia) but not for example Alsac-Lorraine to Prussia - Russia and Britain resisted this (balance of power).

B.2. The Congress of ViennaThough we discuss in terms of THE FOUR GREAT victorious Powers RUSSIA and BRITAIN were foremost among these powers. They had played the most important part in defeating Napoleon and were now each in their own way, in an outstanding position at the Congress.RUSSIA was the decisive military power on the continent with an army of almost one million men in 1815.BRITAIN hadn't been defeated and now emerged with her superiority in industrial development, worldwide trade and naval strength increased.Both Russia and Britain shared the common wish to settle the problems of Europe as a whole - other states (especially France and Austria) could and did benefit from this.Through the Treaty of Vienna (1815) Britain and Russia achieved the aims they desired, while Prussia and Austria were dependent upon the wishes of the other two powers, who were not always in agreement.

RUSSIATsar Alexander I had quite traditional and farstretching national

48

objectives; -expansion towards the Balkan (competition with Austria)-expansion towards the Baltic (competition with Prussia)-Poland (Austria, Prussia and Britain) - Claimed the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, proposed that Prussia would be compensated for the loss of her polish territory by annexing the whole of Saxony. Russian troops occupied both Poland and Saxony. Castlereagh and Metternich feared that this would undermine the balance of Power in Europe.Talleyrand saw his opportunity to benefit from the conflict, France was still the strongest country (next to Russia) on the continent. France - Britain - Austria joined in a defensive Triple Alliance to oppose Russia. The threat forced Alexander I to compromise = Prussia and Austria received some Polish territory. Prussia = 3/5 of Saxony and Russia - 'Congress Poland'.

Russia kept the gains it had made during the wars - Finland (Sweden) and Bessarabia (Turkey)

BRITAINDuring the wars, Britain had made considerable overseas gains - colonies belonging to France, Spain and Holland. Castlereagh insisted that the Congress should not concern itself with the question of overseas possessions and that it should be settled by a series of separate treaties with the countries concerned.Britain kept some profitable colonies and especially the colonies with strategic value.

Two of the territorial changes made on the continent were also desired by Britain for strategic reasons. 1) The transfer of Norway (Denmark-Sweden)- The entry to the Baltic was no longer controlled by a single state.

2) The union of Holland and Belgium into a united kingdom - The mouths of the rivers Rhine and Scheldt in the possession of a neutral state.(Britain also assissted the Dutch government in fortifying the frontier with France.)

49

PRUSSIAMinister, Prince Hardenberg wanted Prussia to regain the power and prestige she had lost through her defeat by Napoleon. Weak position and could only hope to benefit from the possible disagrements between the other powers.Though Prussia didn't receive the whole of Saxony (3/5) it was Prussia that made the relatively the greatest territorial and economic gains. The territory in Saxony was rich and industrial. Prussia also recovered her territory in the Rhineland, to prevent France extending her influence into western Germany. When Prussia also received Swedish Pomerania the Prussian state emerged a much greater European power than ever before.

AUSTRIAWhile it was quite obvious that Austria couldn't gain any real predominance in Germany Metternich looked instead for the creation of Austrian power over the several states in Italy - tried to persuade the other powers that peace and good government in the peninsula needed this.Fear of a renewal of French influence in Italy lad the allies to support Metternich's wish to gain compensation for Austria's inferiority (lägre ställning) in Germany and loss of the Netherlands by restoring and strengthening her position in the peninsula. Northern Italy was placed under her direct rule (Lombardia, Venetia). Austria also asserted indirect control of central Italy.

FRANCEEspecially opposed the strengthening of Prussia on her eastern frontier and cooperated with Metternich to achieve this objective.-To Britain - small colonial gains from France to prevent any further attempts at overseas expansion.-Territorial arrangements upon her frontiers to prevent any aggression in Europe.

50

The Pol.-Saxon question led to the brink of war in the beginning of the congress. As a result of Metternich's mediation (and the threat from Napoleon) the balance of power between the 5 great powers was restored.

THE CONGRESS SYSTEM

Metternich and Alexander I attempted to establish cooperation between the great european powers on the basis of congresses to safeguard the settlement of Vienna.1818-Congress of Aix-la-ChapelleThe first congress settled the issues of payment of the indemnity and withdrawal of the army of occupation from France. France was admitted to the conferences on an equal basis as the country had become tranquil and stable under the Bourbon monarchy.-France admitted in to the Holy Alliance.-Withdrawal of the occupation army from France.-France admitted in to the HOLY ALLIANCE AND THE (NOW) QUINTUPLE ALLIANCE)-The disagreements among the great powers were now becoming more serious. A division between Russia - the other powers. Metternich and Castlereagh feared the Russian military power which hadn't been reduced since the Vienna Congress. When Alexander I proposed that the Alliance should be used to keep intact the power and territory of existing rulers Metternich feared thet this could mean the further spread of Russian influence.Alexander was persuaded to accept an agreement limiting the idea of international intervention to the suppression of any revolution in France (if it threated the European peace).When Alexander proposed the forming of an international fleet Britain rejected and feared a growing Russian influence on the seas.The combination of Russian aggression and British isolationism revealed at Aix-la-Chapelle, which threatened to destroy the alliance, alarmed Metternich. He feared that Austria had to choose side or become isolated. By avoiding any major decisionmaking the congess was kept together but disagreement was obvious.

51

1820-Congress of TroppauThe years following Aix-la Chapelle were marked by revolts and uprisings in many places eg. Spain, Brazil, Portugal. the German and the Italian states. None of them were seen as important (except by Alexander) until the uprising of Naples caused Metternich to call together a congress.Spanish and Neapolitan revolutions - Were the great powers to act?-Metternich secured the princple of intervention ( The Troppau Protocol) though Great Britain objected-as a result Great Britain freed herself from the political ties to Europe,"splendid isolation". Russia, Prussia and Austria signed an agreement which allowed these states to intervene in the affairs of any state in Europe where events seemed to threaten the interests of any other state.-As a result the Powers split into a lib.western bloc (Britain, France) and a con. eastern bloc (Russia, Austria and Prussia).Even before the meeting Castlereagh made his position clear. He saw the congresses as designed to prevent the restauration of the Bonaparter dynasty in France and to protect the Vienna settlement. He feared that intervention could upset the balance of power in Europe. Revolutions were internal matters, to be dealt with by the governments of the states concerned.The great division had begun.THE CONGRESS OF LAIBACH (1821)The king of the two Sicilies had asked for help to suppress a revolution and Austria was authorized to do this (though Britain objected).The alliance was clearly divided into two parts; Britain, France against Austria, Russia and Prussia.THE CONGRESS OF VERONA (1822)Things had changed considerably. The Greek War of Independence diveded the Great Powers. Britain had a new foreign secretary in George Canning who was more liberal and understood the meaning of the public opinion in his country. Britain objected to a proposed French intervention in Spain to crush a rebellion but the intervention took place (1823) anyway, in 1823 with the approval of the congress.The break between the rest of the allied and Britain was evident.

52

THE REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF THE CONGRESS SYSTEM-It never captured the sympathy of the European public opinion.-It didn't represent the small powers-Britain began objecting to the policy of Continental obligations-Alexander and Metternich used it to suppress liberty.-The Spanish and Portugese colonies in South America-The Greek revolt

LATIN AMERICALatin America at the beginning of the 19:th century was a large continent controlled largely by Spain and Portugal. Independence struggles began during the Napoleonic Wars. The Vienna settlement, that ignored nationalistic movements, was to face its first defeats in Latin America.A wave of revolutions resulted in a first triumph in Chile 1818 were the Spanish forces were defeated by revolutionary forces under the command of Jose de SAN MARTIN.1819-Argentina, Columbia.1821-Venezuela1822-Equador1824-Peru1825-BoliviaBy 1828 all Latin american countries were freed!The main leaders were San Martin who was the liberator of Chile and Argentina and Sinmon BOLIVAR who had a dream of a United South America.If San Martin and Bolivar had succeeded in realizing their visions the Latin America of today would probably look very different.REACTIONS:Europe; Alexander I wanted to crush the revolutionary movements. France was willing to support Spain but Britain opposed this strongly. Britain would benefit from independant South American colonies. As Britain was the leading naval power France had to let go.USA; The American president issued the "MONROE DOCTRINE" in 1823, Any European intervenance would be regarded as a threat. This doctrine has been of great importance in explaining US actions later

53

on and it started the era of American isolationism which would continue until 1918. THE GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCERussia wanted to expand its influence in Balkan and one way in doing this was to try to weaken Turkey. In 1821 a rebellion directed against Turkish rule was started among the Christians with Russian backing. The idea had been to unite all christian groups against the Turks but as this didn't take place Russia got anxious and withdrew its forces. The rebellion was then brutally crushed by the turks.But the independence struggle of the greeeks continued which resulted in a greek deklaration of independence in 1822. Turkey decided to deal with the matter and to state an example to other oppositional groups (The massacre at Chios in april 1822, Delacroix).According to the viennasettlement the Great Powers didn't intervene but the public opinion in favour of the Greeks grew rapidly in Europe. Money was collected and volunteers joined the freedomfighters. Due to growing pressure from the public opinion a compromise was suggested by the governments in Russia, France and Britain. When this was turned down Turkey was defeated by a allied fleet. The grat powers were concerned that the situation otherwise could have been used as an excuse by some of the Great Powers to intervene and disturb the balance of power.The result was finally a peacetreaty in 1829 and Greece gained its independance (1830).

By 1846-48 France was isolated, humiliated and in a state of economic depression.

54

The political issue which caused most anger among the oppositional groups was the government's refusal to extend the franchise. Guizot bitterly opposed universal suffrage, the franchise was restricted to 240 000 men and excluded the majority of educated and professional people. The 'Bourgeois Monarchy' didn't have enough bourgeois support.Then on 22 February 1848 the governments banning of one of a series of baquets sponsored by the opposition in support of parliamentary reform triggered of a chain of events which led to the so called Februaryrevolution.

THE RESTORED MONARCHY IN FRANCE

The restored France after the Viennasettlement would face a major confrontation of returning émigrés who had “learnt nothing and forgotten nothing” and the new classes of bourgeois, propertied men and professional officials – this weakened the monarchy and hindered the establishment of a stable regime.

The French political system

The rule wasn't constitutional or parliamentary eventhough the King had granted a constitution but it didn’t come from the elected assembly.The situation didn’t become easier by the decision to repöace the tricolor with the Bourbon flag.Louis XVIII guaranteed the individual rights (equality/freedom) and a parliamentary system was introduced in which a chamber of

55

Deputies (elected by voters restricted by age and property, 1/100) and a Chamber of Peers (hereditary) existed. But the monarch was given considerable powers;The King had great powers;-appointed the ministers in the government-could declare "state of emergency"-could start a war-could veto legislation-could dissolve the Chamber-controlled foreign policy and the armyThe government-carried out the rule-independant of the assemblyThe Assembly-taxes and legislation-divided in a) chamber of deputies (elected) and b) chamber of peers (partly elected/partly appointed by the King, the King could increase his influence by making someone a peer)

LOUIS XVIII (1814-24) and the CharterThe Bourbon monarchy was restored through Talleyrand's iniative and the allied rulers acceptance (didn't want a republic) in 1814.Louis XVIII (brother of executed Louis XVI) represented the "ancien régime". Believed in the divine hereditary right (absolute power of the Bourbouns) but also that the situation requred him to rule as a moderate constitutional monarch.Charter of 1814 (with small alterations until 1848)A compromise to satisfy all political parties but the most liberal on the continent.1) King was to govern through his ministers but could dissolve the chamber of Peers and create Peers.2) could alter the electorate and rule directly by ordinancees in times of emergency.3) an assembly was to be formed (chamber of deputies and chamber of Peers). Elected by voters restricted by age and property to about 1% of the male population.4) A fifth of the deputies had to be elected each yearto be elected one had to be over 30 y. and pay more than 300 fr. in

56

taxes/year.5) Only the King could propose laws but the Assembly could refuse to pass them or to levy taxes.6) All Frenchmen to be equal before the law/secure from arbitrary (godtycklig) imprisonment and to be eligible for civil and military appointments.7)Trial by jury, freedom of press and religious tolerationThe charter gave the wealthiest middleclass political power.THE HUNDRED DAYS (1815)Napoleons' return was disastreous for the Bourbon monarchy. though Napoleon did not become popular it was obvious that the monarch had little support either. When Louis XVIII returned after Napoleons defeat he had many things against him;-His throne was granted by foreigners-The second peacetreaty of Paris had taken away Saar (Prussia) and Savoy (Piedmont) and people regretted the lost days of the Napoleon's glory days.-a liberal constitution could no longer be granted.

THE ULTRAS AND THE WHITE TERRORThe first election of deputies in 1815 resulted in a large majority of extreme royalists - Ultras who wished to restore as much as possible of the ancien regime (the French nobility and Church to regain its priviligies). Wanted censorship of the press and education to be controlled by the Church. What followed was a temporary suspension of some of the liberties of the Charter and a wave of terror in which at least 300 protestants, republicans and Bonapartists died. 18 of the most prominent rebels were executed. The Ultras were led by the brother of the King, Comte d'Artois (who was also the commander of the National guard).The Charter was defended by two political groups;a) The INDEPENDENTS, drawn from the urban middle class, purchasers of émigré property and ex-imperial soldiers (also included liberals, Bonapartisis and republicans).b) The Doctrinaires, a moderate conservative group which saw the Charter as the basis for stability. The King depended heavily upon this group.

57

THE FIRST RICHELIEU MINISTRY (1815-16)The government was in a deadlock situation when faced with an avalanche of demands by Ultra deputies for the repudiation (förkastande) of all government debts incurred (tagna) before the restauration (1814), the return of confiscated lands, further limitations on the electoral system and abolition of Napoleon's University of France which supervised educational provision (stadganden).In April 1816, under pressure from his ministers and the Allies, the King dissolved the Chamber.

THE SECOND RICHELIEU MINISTRY (1816-1818)With a majority of Doctrinaires and a new harmony, there was a chance for some valuable legislation.1) The restoration of the National finances; the war indemnity was paid off and the army of occupation evacuated, 1818.2) The rebuilding of the army. Conscription restored.3) The electoral laws of 1818. Introduced a new voting system which weakened the influence of the rural interests.4) Relatively liberal Press control; Censorship abolished but the circulation of newspapers controlled by a stamp duty introduced.In 1818-1820 the atmosphere changed in Europe and France which forced Richelieu to establish an alliance with the Ultras. The main reasons for this was the mounting threat from the Bonapartist-liberal group, an outbreak of liberal revolts in Europe 1820 and the assasination of the son of Comte d'Artois by a Bonapartist.THE ULTRAS (1820-24)Richelieu soon had to give way to a more reactionary policy demanded by the Ultras;-The re-establishment of censorship.-A new electoral law expanded the influence of the Ultras (some 16 000 of the wealthiest were given a double vote, rural interests were restored)

58

-The French intervention in Spain 1822 against the spanish contitutionalists.In 1824 Louis XVIII died and was succeeded by his brother, Comte d'Artois, now Charles X.THE REIGN OF CHARLES XTo gain popular support the new King began by abolishing censorship and released some political prisoners but it was obvious that his government, under Comte de Villèlle, would try to carry out a very reactionary policy;-The emigrés were compensated with a new law which angered the middle classes.-A clerical revival; persecution (förföljelsemani) of anti-clerical critics and re-establishment of clerical control over education. The death penalty for sacrilege (vanhelgande) introduced 1826. The opposition grew steadily and the press constantly challenged the domestic policies of the government. The oppositional newspapers were 3 times as popular as the government press.The government could have gain more popularity through a more daring foreign policy eg. Greece but was over-cautious.In 1827 the opposition gained the majority in the Assembly and the prime minister resigned.The King wasn't obliged to choose ministers with a majority support but when he appointed de Polignac, who was known to be very reactionary and his extremist cabinet the oppositional pressure started growing steadily.This should be seen in the connection with bad harvests, economic recession and a bad winter (1829).When the oppositional forces increased its influence in the elections of 1830 Charles X launched a coup d'etat. The king tried to rule by ordinances but the leading journalists (Thiers) responeded by inviting the country to decide "how far she ought to carry resistance against tyranny".France's resent invasion of Algeria had removed the 40 000 best troops and in the end of July workers and student demonstrations escalated in to a revolution. The soldiers began fraterising with the revolutionaries and on 30 july a group of opposition deputies nominated Louis Philppe, Duke of Orleans, to become the new King. On 2 August Charles X abdicated in favour of his grandson but it

59

was to late and on 9 august Louis Philippe was proclaimed King of France by the Chambers.

FRANCE UNDER LOUIS PHILIPPE 1830-48Louis Philippe was made look like a king of the revolution to make him popular. The costitution was changed but only superfically; 1) The King was nolonger to have the power to issue ordonances. 2) The assembly was able to propose legislation and the king lost the power to veto legislation.3) The chamber of peers became an upper house of life members, mostly army officers and civil servants (the king couldn´t appoint his own staff). 4) The number of electors was increased ( 170 000, a minor change). 5) The national guard was reformed (to ensure that it would be another bulwark of the régime) 6) The abolition of censorship (for ever). 7) Roman Catholicism was nolonger the statereligion only recognized as the religion of the majority.The objectives were to prevent the absolutism and clericalism of the Bourbons but to preserve public order and private property.

Eventhogh Louis Philippe tried to look like a liberal, modern, middle-class monarch he was as interested in power as his predecessors. He wanted to have an active part in politics and he was identified with his government by the people, which resulted in his downfall. In the beginning the new regime was backed by wealthy business and commercial interests, and above all the landed (jordägande) bougeoisie.

The Orleans monarchy faced many problems immediately from the beginning. It was supported only by the wealthier middle-class. Many parties in opposition to the monarchy grew stronger;SOCIALISM; became popular among the working-class while industrialisation caused serious problems. Bad conditions and low salaries.LEGITIMISTS: The clergy and the nobility supported this fraction which fought for the return of the Bourbonmonarchy.

60

THE BONAPARTISTS fought for the return of the Napoleonic rule. Napoleons nephew, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was the only heir and he enjoyed som support among the military who wished for the old glory days.THE REPUBLICANS fought for the idea of a republic. Very active (radical) and supported by the poorer classes.

Also the supporters of the régime were divided in a) those who saw the revolution as complete and b) those who saw this as just the start of further reforms.

DOMESTIC POLICYA compromise solution always faces threats from two sides. There was a series of both Ultra-royalist and republican plots and attempts on the life of the King.The growing working class was an constant element of social unrest in France. Industrial workers (by 1846 more than 1 mill.) lived on the edge of crisis which would be triggered by recession, price rices or unempoyment. The July revolution didn't produce higher wages or reduced hours.Risings in 1834 were crushed savagely and restrictions of liberty were carried out

After a couple of years the king took over the power of the government. Louis Philippe gained total control of the government by dismissing everyone who opposed him. The press was checked and oppositional parties suppressed.

FOREIGN POLICY: The King wanted France to play a dominant role in European affairs. At the same time he had to satisfy the french public who wanted France to become prosperious (growing trade).BELGIUM: The revolt in Belgium was the first problem Louis Philippe was faced with. He didn´t want France to intervene eventhough he was accused of beeing pro-British (as a matter of fact one of his foreign policy objectives was to achieve good relations with Britain).

61

ITALY: The Italian revolts produced another problem. The king stated that he opposed any foreign intervention but he didn´t react when Metternich sent in Austrian troops to crush the rebellions. When Austrian troops where sent in to the Italian peninsula the second time France reacted and sent troops to the Adriatic port Ancona (the troops remained until 1838 when the Austrians withdrew their troops). More a geisture against Austrian interference than support for unification or revolution.

Louis Philippe was critizised of beeing to lenient and decided to play a more aggressive role in the future. The opportunity for this rose in the Near East when France increased her interest in Egypt and was considering military intervention. This worried Britain who got the rest of the Quadruple Alliance on her side which left France isolated. This crises resulted in that Louis Philippe dismissed the p.m. and replaced him with GUIZOT who shared Louis Philippes opinions of the need of the support of the Great Powers.Guizot with his neutral policy managed to keep the situation calm until a marriageaffair resulted in problems. Both France and Britain wanted to secure their interests in the Mediterrenean by marrying the young Queen Isabella of Spain to their candidates - The result was that France got isolated from Britain.The French conquest of Algeria was continuing but didn´t seem to bring any prestige to the King´s foregn policy. One couldn´t say that the foreign policy of Louis Philippe was very succesful while the other Great Powers were not convinced that France was content with the 1815 settlement and the French thought their power and prestige to be declining inspite of colonial gains.

Over the period (1830-48) industry and commerce actually developed and agricultural production grew but from 1845 onwards the opposition mounted:-Socialism was growing stronger and accused the régime of not beeing able to deal with the social questions.-Napoleonic nostalgia flourished.-A primary education law (1833) and development of a cheaper press

62

extended the reading public.-Economic crisis from 1846 caused by speculation and bad harvetsts. By 1846 a third of Paris workers were starving.

THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1830The outbreaks in the streets of Paris which at the end of July 1830 forced Charles X to give up his throne set off a series of risings throughout Europe in a chain reaction. Although the revolts failed in Poland and the German and the Italian states, they were succesful in France, Belgium and Switzerland. These liberal victories in the west meant an important modification of the Vienna settlement, but although the republican democrats supplied much of the initial impetus, it was the richer bourgeois groups who made the principal gains.The key to the liberal victories was the swift outcome of the revolution in France. The risings in the small states on her borders would have had little prospect of success if the monarchy of Charles X had not collapsed, and their ultimate survival was due to the fact that gegraphically they lay in areas where Great Britain and France could allow no interference by the Central European Powers.On the other hand, the British and French governments had less immediate concern with revolutions in Poland and the German and Italian states: Here the revolutionaries had to act alone, and since neither prussia in Germany nor Piedmont in Italy was prepared to perform the same protective function as Great Britain or France in the west, the revolts came to nothing.On the whole, except in Poland and Belgium, nationalism played only a small part in the revolutions of 1830. Even in Germany and Italy the

63

principal feature was a violent protest by liberal groups against authoritarian rule.BELGIUMAt the end of August the Belgians rose in revolt against their government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in which they had been incorporated by the diplomats at the congress of Vienna.Eventhough The Netherlands had been united in the past it was a long time ago and when the decision was made in 1815 the only unity the poupaltion knew of was geographical. They didn't share the same mother tongue, while in religion the Dutch were predominantly Calvinist, the south Roman Catholic.The sence of difference was aggrivated by the fact that the government of the Kingdom was carried on largely in the interest of the Dutch. Dutch was the official language and Dutch officials held about 4/5 of the executive posts. The belgians also complained about the unsuccessful economic policy and while the Belgian industry was growing rapidly the Belgians felt they needed protection against British competition.On 25 August, while the Paris rising was still of recent memory, rioting in the Brussels Opera House gave the local bourgeois their opportunity. Their aims didn't run as far as independence and would have been well content with an administrative separation, while retaining a personal uion under William I. Unlike the revolution in France, however, reseistance spread rapidly through the provinces and William resolved upon taking Brussels by force. Four days of fighting left the Belgians still in a possession of their capital, but after such a bloodshed there could be no further question of treating with William, and the liberals found themselves commited tothe side of the extremists. On 5 October a provisional government (an alliance between Catholics and liberals) proclaimed Belgium independent of the Kingdom of Netherlands.By the end of October an armistice had been signed and shotly after a newly elected Assembly (chosen by some 30 000 electors) met to draw up a constitution.Monarchy was to be retained but the House of Orange was to be excluded for ever. The executive was placed under the control of a bi-cameral legislature; all forms of political and social liberty were guaranteed and considerable rights of local government were left to the provinces. The franchise was extended to some 46 000 (out of 4 mill.) based on the amount of taxes paid.

64

The question of Belgiums ultimate survival lay not in the hands of the Belgiums, but in the attitude of the Great Powers.At the end of september 1830 William had appealed to the other governments to assist him in putting down the revolution.-METTERNICH was too concerned about possible dangers in Italy to act.-NIKOLAJ I and FREDRICK WILLIAM III would have been glad to intervene but yet dared not, since they knew that if they sent an army Louis Philippe, who was under great pressure, would have no option but to bring assistance to Belgian liberals.Louis Philippe's government didn't have any wish to embark upon a new adventure in Europe and Talleyrand (making his final return to public life) was sent to Britain to convince the British government of the need for a general agreement of non-intervention.A intervention by the Great Powers was still further diminished when the outbreak of revolt in Warsaw turned their attention eastwards.A conference was called together in London and due to many diplomatic obstacles it wasn't until 1839 that a final agreement was signed. By this treaty the five Great Powers recognized the neutrality of the new Belgian state (a very important document in the future).

Meanwhile the events in France had also stimulated a movement among the Swiss cantons. The growth of the Swiss industry had already strengthened the opposition against the ruling nobility families.In the summer of 1830 the example of France, the return of six Swiss regiments from the French army, and the initiative of local leaders and the intelligentia resulted in a series of demonstrations which ultimately caused the ruling families to make great constitutional concessions.As elsewhere the changes were liberal rather than democratic;-Equality before the law-Liberty of the Press-Local franchise was extended (but still dependent upon property qualifications)The course of the revolutions varied from canton to canton.

65

THE FRENCH SECOND EMPIRE(1852-70) AND THE CRIMEAN WAR.

After the Februaryrevolution in France Louis Napoleon (nephew of the famous one) had been elected president by male suffrage. In november a new constitution was produced. According to this the new president would hold office for four years and couldn't be re-elected. The president had limited powers and couldn't dissolve the single-chamber National Assembly.During Napoleons presidency conservative strength grew. In 1851 3 million of the poorest voters lost their right to vote but the same year he failed to prolong his time at office. This resulted in a coup d'etat. On 1 december troops arrested all opposition leaders and the next day he seized power, using the pretext of conspiracy. Three weeks later the coup was approved by 7,5 million voters in a plebiscite. Napoleon rode to power on a national mood rather than party support, and throughout his reign he had to rely on this general appeal.The new constitution was completed in January 1852; It named Louis Napoleon as president for 10 years. This office was entrusted with the fullest executive powers, including command of the armed forces, the initiation of all legislation and the appointment of ministers and officials. There were to be two Chambers:1) a senate of 150 selected by the President and with its functions limited to a right of veto on all laws that might violate the constitution2) a Corps Legislatif - elected by universal male suffrage every 6 years and only able to vote on new laws without discussion. The representative chamber was not to contain any ministers and the chairmen of both were to be appointed by the President.In late 1852 the voters agreed to the restoration of hereditary rule and Napoleon became the Emperor Napoleon III.Napoleons reign marks a time of immense energy and activity for the domestic economy. Industrialism was encouraged and the state financed much of the urban development. The government was particulary concerned to extend the railway system. The value of French imports and exports boosted and the Paris Exhibition of 1867 proclaimed French

66

industrial advance to the World. A lot of efforts and money was invested in creating the modern Paris (the greatest advirtesment of Napoleon's rule).Authoritarian rule proved not only efficient; it was also mild The press was controlled but punishments seldom were carried out. Most opponents who had been arrested during the coup were pardoned and in 1856 all who were prepared to accept the existing government were allowed to return to a civil life.Napoleon had a genuine feeling for the welfare of working people and the government had an obligation to increase general prosperity.By 1860 there were signs that the general popularity was seriously weakened and it was Napoleons foreign policy that produced the problems.The Crimean War was still a foreign policy success but when Napoleon embarked upon an Italian adventure in 1859 (supporting Cavour) he lost the valuable support of the clericals who calculated that the Papacy was threatened.He lost the support of many business interests (who felt threatened) when he didn't want France to carry out a protectionistic policy and signed tradeagreements with neighbouring states.Lastly the expansion of industry had led to the considerable growth of a proletariat concentrated in large towns (republicanism and radicalism grew).Napoleon's response to these danger was to veer towards the left; liberal changes were introduced into the constitution, right to strike was granted, relaxation of the presslaws (more oppositional newspapers appeared).At the same time Napoleon's health was failing fast and his own control over events (both at home and abroad was gravely weakened). Most disastreous was that Napoleons foreign policy was unsuccesful which resulted a serious loss of prestige.In 1869 Napoleon came to the conclusion that further steps towards constitutional rule had to be taken. The outcome was a short-lived period known as the liberal Empire but it was disrupted by the Franco-Prussian War and the downfall of the Emperor in 1870.

THE CRIMEAN WAR

67