History World

7/7/2014 Evernote Export

file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/world%20history.html 1/26

The World After WW2

Created: 5/22/2012 2:19 PM

Emergence of 2 Power BlocsEmergence of 3rd WorldNAMMembership Conditions

1. They must formulate an independent foreign policy aimed at establishing mutual cooperation among states.2. They should support independence and right to self determination.3. They should not be a member of any military alliance created by big powers out of their conflict.4. They should not have any bilateral or regional alliance created out of the conflict of big powers.5. They should not host foreign bases created out of the conflict of big powers.

UNO & Global DisputesSuccessesWest New Guinea, 1946

1. UN brokered an independence deal for Indonesia from Dutch in 1946. However, the fate of this land was left undecided as Dutch refused to vacate it.2. In 1961, fighting broke out and in 1962, UN played a vital role in concluding a peace that it should become a part of Indonesia slowly.

The Korean War, 1950-53

1. When N Korea invaded S Korea, UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning it and calling on its members to help S Korea.2. However, such a resolution was only possible due to absence of USSR which had been boycotting security council meetings over the non recognition of China.

The Suez Crisis, 1956

1. When Nasser nationalized Suez, England, France and Israel invaded her.2. Though a resolution in security council was vetoed by England and France, the general assembly passed a resolution condemning the invasion by an

overwhelming majority. In view of Soviet pressure and international opinion, England, France and Israel agreed to back down.3. A UN force was sent in to maintain peace on the Egyptian Israeli border.

The Gulf War, 1991

1. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, UN Security Council warned him to withdraw his troops or face the consequences. When it refused to hear, a UN force was sent in and Kuwait was liberated.

Cambodia

1. In 1975, the Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge regime exterminated one-third of the country's population within 3 years. In 1979, Vietnamese troops moved in and installed a new government.

2. US pressure led to UN condemning the Vietnamese action. But it was Cold War.3. When the Cold War ended, UN intervened successfully to secure withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and holding of a general election in the country in 1993.

The Mozambique Crisis, 1990-94

1. After winning independence in 1975, Mozambique was torn in a civil war. By 1990s, both sides were exhausted and attempted to sign a peace. But violations of the peace continued.

2. In such a situation, UN forces moved in, disarmed both rivals and held free elections in 1994.

FailuresThe Palestine Issue, 1947

1. The dispute between Jews and Arabs was brought to UNO in 1947. The UN after conducting investigations decided to divide Palestine and setup a Jewish state of Israel. But this decision was not accepted by the Arab World and the crisis continues till date.

The Hungarian Crisis, 1956

1. When the Hungarian tried to assert their independence, Soviet troops moved in. The security council resolution was vetoed by USSR but general assembly passed a resolution condemning the attack with an overwhelming majority. But Soviet Union refused to listen and UN couldn't do anything.

The Cyprus Crisis, 1963-74

1. A civil war broke out between Greeks (~80% of the population) and the Turks. A UN force was sent and it remained stationed there till 1974.2. In 1974, the Greeks tried to unite with Greece. An invading Turkish force came to help the Turks and expelled all the Greeks. UN failed to do anything.

The Chezchoslovakia Crisis, 1968

1. The Warsaw Pact troops moved in when Chezchoslovakia tried to assert independence. The security council motion was vetoed by USSR and it simply ignored the international will.

Somalia, 1991-1995

1. A civil war broke out in 1991. In 1992, UN troops dominated by US moved in and tried to disarm the fighting groups. But the fighting groups refused to disarm and began to attack UN forces. Casualties began to grow and US withdrew its troops in 1994. Remaining UN troops were withdrawn in 1995 and the Somalian warlords were left on their own to fight it out.



Enlightenment and Modern Ideas

Created: 5/22/2012 1:52 PM

EnlightenmentFactors ResponsibleSocial

1. Discrimination: There was widespread discrimination between the privileged and the unprivileged based on birth. Exploitation.2. Scientific inventions: Spreading inventions and education questioned existing beliefs and inspired new thinking.

Political

1. Absolutism: There was no democracy, no checks and balances, no separation of powers. There were despotic monarchies. There was no liberty for the masses.

2. Feudalism: All the high offices were monopolized by feudal lords. State authority was being misused for personal benefits.3. Arbitrariness: There was no rule of law. There were cahiers.

Cultural

1. Church: It dominated religious-cultural lives of people. It was an absolute tyrant and no one could speak against it. Its voice was the voice of God. Dissenters were suppressed brutally. There was no tolerance for different ideas and religions and only catholicism was allowed. Church indulged in massive corruption.

Economic

1. Exploitation: A small fraction of the population cornered most of the resources and lives of majority were miserable.2. Industrial revolution: Old landed groups lost their hold on economy and new groups emerged which were guided by different set of interests and ideas.

Nature and Character

1. Rationalist: Laid emphasis on logic and reason. It had a scientific outlook. Anti superstitions and anti bigotry. Critical analysis of prevailing conditions and logical alternatives. Discarded practices not conforming to reason. They emphasized on empiricism i.e. accept only those ideas which can be perceived through human senses.

2. Humanist: Believed in welfare of human beings. It believed in progress of mankind and its innate ability to cause it. They believed in social, political and religious liberty of every man. State, society and religion exist to serve the humans and not the other way round.

3. Composite movement, secular and tolerant. They were reformative in outlook. It put forward new concepts and ideas instead of harping upon past glories for inspiration.

4. Liberal and democratic: It advocate constitutionalism. It was non violent. It believed in promoting liberty. Concept of popular sovereignty was popularized. It was against absolutism and gave a call for © monarchies.

5. Egalitarian: It was also anti slavery and anti serfdom apart from being anti feudal privileges. It believed every man is equal.6. Natural laws: They believed that society, political system, religion etc. everything is governed by natural laws and nature is supreme. So an understanding of

these laws is necessary. 7. Urban.

Spread

1. Enlightenment didn't remain confined to € but spread later to Americas, Asia and Africa in that order. Various leaders and institutions were instrumental in its spread.

SocialismRise of Socialist IdeasRobert Owen in £

1. The early socialist ideas stemmed from the writings of Rousseau, philosophies of extreme Jacobians and from the general ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. But in £, socialism gained importance for the first time under Robert Owen. In 1800 he began his experiment with creating a model factory where he tried to prove that π could be increased by treating workers well.

2. He had great influence on two of the most successful working class movements of his day - the trade unionism and cooperative movement. After the unions were legalized in 1825, Owen setup a national trade union whose aim was to raise the level of unionism to a national movement. Simultaneously he reorganized production along cooperative lines. In 1844, inspired by his ideals, 28 workers opened a little cooperative store and by 1851 more than 130K such stores had been opened. Yet the movement failed to make any real note.

St. Simon in France

1. He preached that the property rights must depend on their social utility and not on individual rights. He coined the slogan - from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.

Charles Fourier in France

1. He regarded modern commerce as a great evil as it made vice more profitable than virtues. He believed that competition leads to deceit, greed and inhumanity and thus the aim should be to restore harmony. To make a work attractive each worker must share in its produce and be guaranteed a sufficient minimum to free him from anxiety.

Louis Blanc in France

1. He argued that political reform is the only means to achieve social reform and that socialism must be a state socialism. If the state is not used as an instrument it becomes an obstacle. Thus the state must recognize and implement a right to work and should protect the weak.

Spread of Marxian Socialism

1. The socialists had vowed to use the state to further their aims. But the socialists in Europe were divided into 2 lines on the question of whether they should work within the parameters of the parliamentary constitutional framework or should they overthrow it via a revolution? Generally it can be said that wherever



the civil liberties were higher and the parliamentary system was stronger, the socialists tended to organize themselves in the form of social democratic parties which used parliamentary means to secure power and reforms. Wherever the scope offered by the parliamentary system was non existent or weak the communists or believers in revolution were stronger.

2. Moreover the parliamentary socialists were better representatives of the organized labor unions and they tended to be more popular when business was brisk. This was because the employers were more willing to grant concessions during such times. But in downturns the communists and class struggle theories tended to become more popular.

3. Another common phenomenon among the socialists was a split in their ranks on multiple questions. Thus we have seen above there were those who advocated parliamentary means, and there were those who advocated revolution. There were anarchists who were against any form of state as well and believed in setting up small local bodies.

4. But the question which really led to their downfall was the attitude towards nationalism. They were often caught on wrong footing there when they raised a rhetoric against nationalism. Sometimes they would preach against nationalism but their actions would be pro nationalism. Thus they lost their credibility.

Paris Commune, 1871

1. After the defeat at the hands of Germany the workers in Paris rose in revolt against the liberal government which had surrendered to Germany in order to preserve its existence. It was seen as a betrayal and compromise and the government lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The various socialists and communists and workers parties united and overthrew the government. But this revolt can't be seen as a class revolt as put forward by Marx because the workers had not risen against the exploitation. On the other hand they had revolted guided by patriotism and anti-German sentiments. Paris had seen a large influx of workers from the German occupied northern areas and the bourgeoise class had fled Paris in the wake of its siege.

2. The confusion (that it was a great example of a revolution symbolizing the class struggle) also seems to come from the choice of words used by Marx in describing it. He called it a moment of great triumph for his followers and the International. He called the workers communards (supporters of the Commune) and the politicians "capitulards" which meant the government which had capitulated. But people mistook it as communists vs capitalists.

Growth of Social Democratic Parties

1. In Germany the lower house Reichstag was elected by universal male suffrage and the socialists there organized themselves on the parliamentary lines to form social democratic parties. In 1875 the main socialist parties in Germany united where they accepted the Marxian doctrines of class struggle and his interpretation of history, but they decided to press for it within the parliamentary framework. The party grew rapidly and soon became the largest party in Germany. Similar parliamentary socialist parties came up in £ and France as well.

2. In places like Italy where universal suffrage was late in coming, the socialist parliamentarian parties couldn't claim to be effective. Thus revolutionary socialism grew in such places. Similarly in Russia there was no parliamentary system and thus the socialism there was revolutionary.

World Wars

Created: 5/22/2012 2:18 PM

Total WarsSocietal ImplicationsWW1CausesMilitary Factors

1. Germany was trying to expand its navy to match £ naval supremacy. This was less out of the concerns to protect its colonial empire and more for its ambitions to become the strongest power by combining her traditional land supremacy with naval supremacy. That £ opposed it not because of the threat it posed to her colonial empire but because her naval supremacy was the only guarantee for her own independence.

2. The shocking defeat of Russia in the war with Japan dangerously exposed the changed balance of power in Europe. It allayed the traditional German nightmare of a 2 front war and thus made it more aggressive. It made France more insecure and thus made it go deeper into £ laps and strengthen their alliance.

The Contradictions of VersaillesContradictions with Fourteen Points

1. The first of the Fourteen Points was that no secret negotiations and alliances will take place and all conferences will be held in open. When this was applied to the Paris peace conference, it led to a hopelessly slow conference and had to be abandoned there itself. The small and the defeated powers were kept out.

2. Freedom of seas was something which £ refused to guarantee.3. The Fourteen Points nowhere stipulated the harsh treatment which was met out to Germany in the treaties.

Imposition of Democracies

1. The wartime slogan of the allies was 'war for democracy'. Naturally after the war, democracies were setup in the defeated countries. For some time it seemed that the experiment had succeeded and the world had become safer for democracy, but it wasn't to be for long. No attention was paid to the socio-economic fabric of these countries. They wanted to setup democracies in these countries and yet force them to accept severely penalizing peace conditions. How is it possible for any democratic government to do that and yet retain legitimacy in the country. Then they kept these democratic government weak in the fear that if they become too strong they might rise again. Obviously democracy can't work in such situation and specially when these countries had been ruled by monarchies and aristocracies for centuries and were not ready for democracy immediately. Thus within a few years democracies were overthrown and replaced by military dictatorship.

2. The assumption of the treaty was that a democratic government will be a peace loving government and would keep radical nationalism and militarism under check. Obviously this was to backfire.

3. In Germany, a republican, democratic form of government with came up where the president was elected by a popular vote for 7 years and the government was run by the chancellor who was responsible to the Reichstag and was nominated by the president. But under extreme nationalism and economic duress, the government didn't have any legitimacy, there were coups and counter-coups and soon Hitler came up.

4. In Italy the government was weak anyways and lost all its credibility when she failed to gain anything out of Versailles. The economic hardships meant there were large strikes and deterioration of law and order. Communists and anarchists tend to gain in such an environment and fearing them, the bourgeoisie handed over the power to the thugs of Mussolini in 1924.

5. In Hungary, democracy lasted for only 5 months. A liberal government was setup initially which pleaded Hungary to be treated as a successor state and not enemy state. But the demand was rejected. Subsequently, Hungary negotiated a separate treaty with France in the hope of getting better terms. But Rumanians continued to invade in its eastern territories (in defiance of all treaties) and she was forced to retreat even from the agreed frontiers. This led to its collapse and power went into the hands of a communist. This alarmed the western powers who blockaded Hungary and threatened military action. This led to power going into the hands of a military general.



6. Austria wanted to unite with Germany but when allies forbade it, she had to setup her own democratic institutions. She knew no nationalism before that and was held together by loyalty to Habsburgs. So she chose a federal structure but it was kept very week by vested interests. This led to the establishment of a far right army soon which proved disastrous for it in 1934.

Issue of Communism

1. This formed an overriding factor for which all other principles could be sacrificed. We have seen how a communist government in Hungary was overthrown with a show of force by the allies. It also served to make states like Finland, Poland, Rumania as large and strong as possible so as to counter communist Russia @ her borders.

Constituting Nations

1. The newly created nations were a mere collection of diverse territories not bound by any common feelings of nationalism. Though the right to self determination and nationalism were the mainstay of the fourteen points, the treaties were signed keeping in mind the considerations of economic viability and keeping the balance of power against Germany so as to prevent her resurgence as an aggressive state again (by surrounding her with large, military defensible neighbors). This led to multiple violations of nationalistic principles and sowed seeds for further discontent. Also it seemed wise to follow the existing lines of communication and roads and to combine industrial and agricultural areas into one nation so as to make the nation viable.

2. Thus Yugoslavia comprised not only Serbia but westernized areas of Croatia and easternized areas of Macedonia. She was given Albania in order to give her access to the sea, but this clashed directly with Italian interests. Also that such a large nation come up in Balkans which could rival Italy again stoked discontent in Italy. Yugoslavia comprised of multiple races and minority ethnic groups which just before the war had been fighting each other and after the war were put in one nation!

3. Czechoslovakia comprised of industrialized areas of Bohemia along with the backward peasant areas of Slovakia and Ruthenia. In order to make here industrially viable and militarily defensible, she was also given Sudenteland where more than 3 million Germans lived but it was believed that the Bohemian mountains were the only militarily defensible frontier for her.

4. Access to sea to Poland could only be given at the cost of Germany by giving her territories of W Prussia and the Polish corridor. This would leave Germany with a permanent grudge.

5. Rumania got Transylvania from Hungary and Bessarabia from Russia and thus nearly doubled in size. But this meant that Hungary was ceding to Rumania more territory then she herself kept which definitely created a permanent grudge. Similarly Austria was made to cede many territories as well.

Issue of Minorities

1. Since the principles of nationalism had to be sacrificed for the principles of economic viability and military defensibility, many nationalities were left in other states as minorities. The treaty makers for some reason had hoped that the new states would be peace loving and these minorities would be treated well. But the treaty was wrong again. These states had been fighting each other before and during the war and as such the minorities were often seen as the 'enemy' in these nations. How could then it be expected that Hungarians would be treated well in Romania and Yugoslavia, Germans in Poland, Poles in Germany, Bulgarians in Yugoslavia and so on.

2. To handle this issue, the allied tried to induce the successor states and the defeated states to guarantee the protection of minority rights. But the treaty didn't create any mechanism to ensure the implementation of these provisions and the protection of minority rights except by creating a feeble minorities commission in LoN which had no powers. It was hoped that the danger of international publicity would deter the new nations from harshly treating their minorities but it had no such effect. On the other hand, such allegations fanned more radical nationalism.

Issue of International Trade

1. The treaty created multiple mid size states and enhanced the length of borders in Europe by 4000 miles. This had an important effect in the post war world of prohibitive tariffs.

War Guilt Clause

1. This met with universal resistance in Germany for it essentially meant that all the Germans who had died in the war had died for an unjust cause. This complicated situation in Germany on many fronts (anti-semitism, extreme nationalism, loss of credibility of the government etc.).

Reparations Clause

1. At the time of signing the treaty the allies were not able to come up with any figure on reparations. Thus they created a Reparation Commission and asked Germany to sign that she will pay whatever be the amount fixed by the Commission. This was like signing a blank check and leaving the question of reparations to post war politics. £ had suffered little destruction on land herself and saw Germany as a potential valuable market. So she was not interested in fixing very high reparations. France on the other hands saw these reparations not only as a means to compensate her for the losses of the war but also as a potential tool to keep Germany weak in future and ensure her security. So she wanted highest possible reparations. After prolonged haggling an amount of £6.6 bio was fixed which was so high that it actually aroused £ sympathies for Germans. This meant that when Germans violated it, £ public opinion would not automatically mobilize against it.

2. The first payment of the reparations was received only after a French threat of occupying Ruhr. During next 3 years Germany made payments in kind but in 1923 she announced she couldn't make any further payments. Thereupon the Belgian and French troops occupied Ruhr arousing much sympathy for Germany in £ and other countries. The government and the workers resisted passively and the production came to a standstill. Paper currency was printed on a large scale and by November, 1923 Germany suffered from one of the worst hyperinflation in the history. It was thus clear enough that she won't be able to make any more payments.

3. An allied committee of financial experts was setup and it came up with the Dawes Plan in 1924 which proposed a 2 year moratorium on reparations, return of Ruhr and a £40 mm loan to Germany. After 2 years Germany was to repay in increasing annual annuities only. In 1929, another commission was setup and it came up with the Young Plan which envisaged a new international loan of £60 mm and a payment of reparations over a period of 59 years in cash. As a result of these foreign loans and new FDI Germany was able to buildup her infrastructure and industries back. Finally in 1932 in the Lausanne Conference, the reparations ceased and in any case in 1933 after the Nazis captured power even the repayment of the foreign loans made earlier (under the Dawes and the Young plans) also ceased. Thus it can be questioned how much in reparations she actually paid except for the first 3 years when she paid in kind. These reparations (in kind) were also not free from trouble in the allied countries for it was like dumping which would ruin the domestic production.

Addressing French Security Concerns

1. France was the most anxious state and she wanted to prevent a resurgence of Germany in future at any cost. Thus many German territories were given to her neighbors in order to make them strong and defensible. Other restrictions were also imposed. Clemenceau even wanted the bridges of Rhineland for France to guarantee her future security but the allies refused since they feared it would create an Alsace-Lorraine in reverse. Instead they offered him a joint £-US guarantee for automatic and immediate military support in case French security was threatened by Germany. France agreed reluctantly but this guarantee was soon rendered void when the US senate refused to ratify the treaty and £ too backed off saying such an action by US invalidated her obligations also.

2. As a result France was forced to create a 'Little Entente' by making a network of alliances with the succession states like Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Rumania whose very survival depended upon the maintenance of the Versailles order. But this meant that she now was guaranteeing their security against



Russia, Lithuania, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria as well. She had now assumed the role of preserving the Versailles order just as Austria had taken the role of preserving the Vienna order. This led to diplomatic and military overburdening of France.

3. France was also increasingly worried that an alliance might come out of Germany and Russia and this nightmare seemed to be coming true for some years as Germany and Russia increased bilateral relations. This was made worse by the apparent shifting of interest of £ to outside europe into her colonial empire and US in pacific. The unbalance of power on which the treaty depended so much for its fulfillment was now rapidly being redressed in Germany's favor.

4. To allay her security concerns, France first proposed in LoN in 1923 a Treaty of Mutual Assistance which stipulated that in the event of an aggression, within 4 days of the outbreak of hostilities, the LoN should decide which party is the aggressor and automatically be obliged to give military aid against it. Earlier the military obligations of LoN were optional. £ rejected it since she was against automatic obligations. As a compromise in 1924, the Geneva protocol was proposed by France where it sought to plug the loopholes (condition of unanimity and optional nature of sanctions) in LoN by proposing that if there was no unanimity then the matter may be referred to arbitrators and the member nations will abide by the decision of such arbitrators. But again £ and her dominions refused it.

5. Locarno: Due to above rejections, France began to seek £ guarantee for her border with Germany. By 1925, £ was in a more conciliatory mood and was prepared to give a guarantee for the Franco-German border against an aggression by any party. This guarantee was extended to include Belgium-German border as well as the demilitarized areas of Rhineland. Italy too joined in and it was decided that Germany should join LoN. In October 1925, 3 set of treaties were signed - (a) Treaty guaranteeing Franco-German and Belgium-German border, (b) Treaty of mutual guarantee between France on one side and Czechoslovakia and Poland on the other, and (c) Treaty of arbitration between Germany on hand and France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Belgium on the other. The effect of the last 2 treaties was that since £ would not guarantee the eastern borders, France should and that Germany would submit any border dispute to arbitration. It was the first treaty which recognized the needs of both Germany and France. This was the best security arrangement which France could get while Germany came back in the international circle of powers (and also reduced its chances of affiliating with Soviet Union). But it had grave implications as well for now it graded the borders with the western borders being ranked more sacrosanct than the eastern. £ distinction between the frontiers which she would guarantee and which she would not guarantee undermined the general obligations of the whole Covenant. It divided the indivisible peace of Versailles and made it clear that now the Versailles order depended upon the willingness of Germany and didn't have any international backing. She could now easily disregard her eastern borders without any threat of £ action (in fact without threat of French action as well since if French attacked Germany, £ wouldn't come to French aid and France alone couldn't harm Germany). France clearly overburdened herself without the partnership of £. It also undermined the authority of LoN since now it distinguished between its members and the idea of collective security went into drain. There were technical absurdities too for how could £ armed forces prepare a joint defence plan with French if they could be made to fight against France also. This also had the effect of weakening LoN further since while Germany was being inducted as a permanent member, Poland, Span and Brazil too raised the same demand. Inducting Poland as a permanent member would have canceled out Germany's vote, so a new level of semi-permanent members was created and Poland was admitted to it. But Spain and Portugal declined and resigned from LoN. LoN now had no representative from Americas. As a result of increasing pacifism (borne out of Locarno and otherwise), all the concessions which allies had made to Germany became a source of tension. Allied military control of Germany had ended in 1927. The Young Plan of 1929 gave her loans and removed the financial controls imposed on her. £ pressed for ending the allied occupation of rhineland and by 1930, all Allied troops were withdrawn from Rhineland. Now it was only Germany's willingness which lay between peace and the war.

Treatment of Colonies

1. The allied powers had gotten their support from the colonies in the name of providing right to self determination after the war. But once they won the war, they made it clear that such a rule was not to be applied to the colonies (a direct violation of Fourteen points as well). Obviously this created resentment everywhere.

2. Moreover as a settlement of Turkey under the treaty of Severes, £ got Palestine, Iraq and Jordan while French got Syria and Lebanon as 'mandates'. Plans were made even to partition Anatolia itself among the allies. While Mustafa Kemal accepted the loss of Arab territories he could in no way accept the partition of Turkey itself. £ and France sent their troops. This led to a nationalistic revolution in 1924 and treaty of Severes had to be abolished.

Failure of League of Nations

1. It was the last of the Fourteen Points but the form in which it was actually implemented reflected the modifications to suit £ and French interests. One way of looking at it is a wider extension of Concert of Europe where all the member states may meet regularly to discuss common problems and issues threatening world peace. The League merely provided a standing machinery for doing this. Another way of looking at it was like a multilateral treaty where each member state committed itself to not only seek peaceful means to settle any dispute it may get involved in but also to share some responsibility for defending every other signatory against aggression. This notion of collective security was supposed to keep world peace by deterring the aggressor and in this the LoN failed miserably.

2. A system like LoN was not any supra governmental agency but merely a body used by various governments. It could thus function only when most of the governments wanted peace and would be willing to use the LoN to maintain peace. But this in turn could only work when there was balance of power among nations with rival interests. It was also hoped that democracy and good treatment of minorities would enable such governments. It was believed that it was unfulfilled nationalism which had caused the war and the 'perfect' settlement after the war would remove the militancy from nationalism. But once such assumptions were nullified, there was no mechanism to restore the efficacy of LoN. It also had no method to ensure that only democratic governments become and remain a member.

3. The LoN was borne out of and was an integral part of the Versailles settlement and it endorsed all the settlements reached in Versailles including all their weaknesses. Thus it too endorsed the 'war guilt' clause. Thus from the start itself this (the integration with the treaty) made LoN a suspect to Germany and Russia and all the neutral states who didn't wish to be associated with the allied war plans.

4. Article 10 of the Covenant was its strength as well as weakness. Article 10 was the collective security clause which obligated each member state to respect and preserve the territorial integrity of all other member states against any external aggression. In the event of any such aggression, the LoN was obliged to take an action after discussion which could include military and economic actions. But it was this clause which was used by US senate to reject the treaty and hence the LoN.

5. Thus US, Germany and Russia kept out of it. Italy and Japan were very dissatisfied from the Versailles settlement and by extension had no interest in LoN and chose to openly violate it. Everything was left on £ and France and when France in defiance of £ opinion occupied Ruhr in 1923, it further reduced any enthusiasm in LoN. A system like LoN can work when there is balance of power among multiple nations which have rival interests but clearly the power realities of the world were not reflected in the LoN. Otherwise there is no one left to check the aggressions of the powerful nation in the system and hence the credibility of the system gets eroded. Thus no action was taken against French aggression and this emboldened Italy to violate it later in Ethiopia and Albania and then Japan in Manchuria. Even France was apprehensive about its efficacy and thus sought to secure its security outside LoN by signing pacts with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania.

6. The procedure of decision making in LoN was ill suited to taking any international action. Any international action could be taken only by its assembly in which every state had one vote and a complete unanimity was required. This amounted to giving a veto even to the smallest of the power. On the other hand the council which had major powers had mere recommendatory role and it could recommend only on subjects which were referred to it by the assembly.

WW2CausesConsequences

Industrialization



Created: 12/7/2011 7:54 PM

BritainCausesImpactUSAFactors & Forces

1. The Embargo Act, 1807 led to a ban on all imports into US. So US industries had huge demand in front of them now.2. The 1812 Anglo US war led to the realization of a stronger industrial base and development of means of transport and communications.3. The government subsequently gave the domestic industries the protection they needed.

Nature & Character

1. Scientific developments were made in methods of production in industry as well as agriculture.2. Great stress was laid on development of railways to connect raw materials, factories and markets.3. Electricity was effectively harnessed.

GermanyNature & Character

1. W and SW Germany was more urbanized and had close contacts with the developments in France, England and Holland.2. The establishment of railway lines between 1830s and 1850s gave a great boost to the iron and coal industry. By 1850 the length of railway lines in Germany

was 3K miles. The coal producing sites like Saar, Ruhr were all located in Prussia and traditionally agriculture based were quickly transformed into great industrial centers. Lorraine was one big iron ore producing site. After 1871 there was a surge in communications network. Length of railways became 60K km in Germany against 40K in £. Roads and canal waterways were extensively developed and given its location in the center of europe, it became a important hub and benefitted immensely from the overall completion of railway network in europe.

3. The urban towns transformed themselves into machinery production hubs. The pace of urbanization in Germany grew remarkably after the unification. While in 1871 only one-third of its population was urban, by 1914 over two-third lived in cities. In the old urban centers, the city walls were destroyed and roads, buildings etc. were made so as to give better and increased living space.

4. After the unification Germany grew at a breathtaking pace to overshadow even £. By 1914 the ratio of industrial output of Germany, £ and France was 3:2:1. Moreover its industries produced mainly for exports and thus Germany became the new workshop of the world. Her exports began to rival that of £ and the lion's share of growth in european trade went to Germany. By 1914 its total exports nearly matched those of £. From a food exporting country in first half of 1800s, it became a food importing country by 1900.

5. It reorganized most of its banks, strengthened them and used them to provide funding to the new industries. The state also enacted protective walls for her industries.

Russia Nature & Character

1. Russia began late so it could take advantage of latest technologies.2. Russian industries were big to begin with and thus could exploit economies of scale.3. Russian industries were also concentrated in a few centers to take advantage of economies of scope.4. The quality of Russian products was low, hence they could not penetrate into European markets but could be exported into Asia.5. Russian commoners were very poor, hence could not give sufficient market for the output.6. Russian industrial development took place on foreign capital hence mostly the entrepreneurial class was foreign. This further added to the discontent.

JapanIndustrialization and Globalization

Disintegration of USSR

Created: 5/22/2012 2:23 PM

Soviet Communism Collapse (1985-91)FactorsEastern Europe (1989-2001)US Ascendancy

Unification of Europe

Created: 12/7/2011 7:03 PM

Unity in Eastern EuropeNature & Character

1. It was a coerced unity unlike the W European unity which was voluntary.2. This unity was like making carbon copies of USSR in E Europe. They were all to have same economic and political system, same education, same five year

plans. 3. The bulk of their trade was to be with USSR & their foreign policy and military were to be controlled from Kremlin.

Evolution The Molotov Plan of 1947

1. This was in response to the Marshall aid. Since USSR had forbidden the E European countries from accessing the Marshall aid, it felt it imperative to offer an alternative.

2. This was basically a set of trade agreements which boosted the trade within the communist bloc.



The Communist Information Bureau (COMINFORM)

1. Setup in 1947 only, it aimed at replicating the Soviet style communist politico-economic and educational system in E Europe.

The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON)

1. Setup in 1949, it aimed at helping the economies of E European states initially.2. However Khrushchev tried to use it to integrate the economies of entire communist bloc. He wanted E Germany and Chezchoslovakia to be the industrial hubs

and Romania and Hungary to be agriculture hubs.3. But protests broke out and he had to abandon this plan.

The Warsaw Pact of 1955

1. This was a military pact and the armies of all the member states came under Soviet control.2. The only time it was used was ironically against Czechoslovakia in 1968.

NATOEuropean CommunityFoundationExpansionEU

Liberation from Colonial Rule

Created: 12/7/2011 10:13 PM

Modern DecolonialisationNature and Character

1. Empires have fallen in the past. But the modern decolonialisation process was different in 2 senses - (a) The colonial powers didn't end in fact continued as major powers. (b) They continued their economic interaction, in fact domination, of the former colonies and with no responsibility.

2. The legacy of colonial institutions like strong parliament, autonomous military, large bureaucracy continued.3. The cultural habits of the natives could not be restored.4. The tyranny of the colonial rulers was replaced in many countries by the tyranny of the local elites.

Latin AmericaEgyptSAFVietnamFactors Constraining DevelopmentLatamAfrica

Nation-State Systems

Created: 12/17/2011 1:33 AM

Rise of Nationalism in 19th CenturyNature and Character

1. In W Europe, while national unity already existed, situation was complex in the East. Here, multiple nationalities were divided into multiple empires.2. This nationalism essentially was based on cultural nationalism. The nationalists laid emphasis on shared history, traditions, folk songs, language

etc. and asserted that it must be preserved. The nationalists were often inspired by romantic literature and art.3. Since the empires were against nationalism, the nationalist movements were underground movements.4. Leading philosophers of the age like Mazzini, Hagel pitched for national unity.

Impact of French RevolutionTheory

1. The Revolution in its Declaration of Rights of Man had declared the rights of every man who wants to be free, not just French. These rights directly challenged the established systems in rest of Europe. So wars followed the Revolution, which was followed by dictatorship, then a French Empire.

2. Subsequently the struggle of the people to get rid of the tyranny of Napoleon led to birth of modern nationalism.

Critique

1. While no doubt French Revolution and its ideas played an important role, they were not the only factors at play. 2. The meaning of the state was changing in Europe where the state and its citizens were to have closer interaction. People were no longer passive players and

the state affairs were no longer to remain confined to the aristocracy.3. The forces which were bringing these changes were growing population and the industrialization.

The Contradictions of Vienna

1. It completely ignored the regional and national aspirations of various localities. Thus theIt was learnt Rhineland provinces (lesser Germanic states) which were catholic and traditionally enjoyed closer links with France and benefitted from her legal system (from Napoleon's time) were now brought closer to Prussia which represented the conservative elements. Italian states didn't even get the loose federal structure of the German Bund. Instead it was to be directly controlled by Habsburg princes and old ruling families in an autocratic way.

2. It also sought to reverse the changes introduced by Napoleon and restore the old feudal values and system. Thus in Italy it gave all the important posts and power to the aristocratic nobles and that too from non Italians. The people were naturally offended as they had tasted the Napoleonic virtues of career based



on merit.3. Matternich system was based on the notion that the internal and international affairs were inseparable. This was because it represented an attempt to turn

black the clock of history and its entire structure was dependent upon feudal relations. Large number of people had tasted the sweetness of liberty (in territories conquered by Napoleon) and in other areas had watched their fellow brethren tasting it. In such an environment any success of the new liberal and national movements anywhere would have had a domino effect throughout. It was quickly realized that the congress system meant magnification of any issue anywhere. Peace was established but it was fragile as each power became interested in preserving its own interests which conflicted with each other most of the time.

4. Europe was divided into 2 types of powers. The center and the east were dominated by feudal systems while France and £ had modern systems and economy. Thus while Russia wanted a system of automatic intervention in the internal affairs, £ and France were opposed to any such automatic interference and instead wanted to decide on a case by case basis (with £ in general reluctant to interfere). While religion formed an important factor for the tsar, Matternich, £ and France had no such considerations while formulating their foreign policy. In the end each power ended up interfering to secure its own interest void of any accepted system. Thus while intervention favored monarchs in Naples and Spain, liberals gained in Portugal and Greece.

Emergence of Nationalism in 19th Century Europe

1. Nationalism in its primitive form was a sense of belonging of a community of people to a particular land, customs, language etc. In its modern form, when such communities began to assert their independence and sovereignty, nationalism emerged only in 19th century.

2. The Jacobian doctrine of "sovereignty of people" contributed to it. It not only gave the people right to chose and control their government, but also made the government a voice of the people.

3. Countries which witnessed strongest nationalistic feelings were the ones which were occupied by Napoleon for he unwittingly through his measures promoted nationalism in these lands.

4. The Prussian victory in Leipzig became a popular symbol of triumph of German nationalism. Germany had a strong middle class as well which was to champion the cause of nationalism.

5. Similarly nationalist feelings were strong in Italy as well though they were not so much anti-French in character.6. In Russia, the scorched earth techniques could have become the ultimate example of

nationalism but so backward was the national feeling in Russia, so divorced from the popular life was the regime, that these events had little effect on nationalism.

Contribution of Romantic Movement

1. Despite the fact that most of the romantic writers after 1815 were conservatives, their work helped in eroding the cosmopolitan and non-nationalistic outlook on which absolutism had prospered. Thus even though they opposed liberalism, their works encouraged nationalistic sentiments. This can be seen in the cultural movement in Germany as they began to take pride in German culture and history. Gradually the younger writers themselves began to be influenced by liberal ideas and began to preach liberalism as well.

2. The greek war of independence aroused many passions and flared up the romantic literature in praise of nationalistic ideals. The most famous hero became Lord Byron who died in the greek war.

Emergence of Nationalism in Poland

1. Napoleon's act of creating a Duchy of Warsaw was welcomed by Poles.2. The system of Matternich failed to check the growth of nationalism in Poland. The reason was that the Polish landed aristocracy didn't owe their position to

Habsburgs (like in Italy) and never forgot they were Poles. Their imaginations were fired when the Russian tzar Alexander I created a small kingdom of Poland which even though severely truncated in size as well as real authority served as a source of inspiration.

The Revolt of 1830

1. Like Italy the revolt was led by secret societies and students (wherever forces of nationalization were stronger revolts were led by secret societies and students and wherever forces of liberalism were stronger the revolts were led by liberal parliamentarians). The leader of army stationed in Poland fled and the rebels setup a provisional government and began to negotiate with the tsar for reforms. The tsar refused to grant reforms and in 1831 Russian army invaded Poland. Again the hope of rebels was western support which was never coming.

The Revolt of 1846

1. Poland broke out in revolt in 1830. But the most serious revolt was in 1846 which was led by the nobles and intellectuals. It was checked in the characteristic Matternich patter of suppression and 'divide and rule' - the peasants were pitched against the nobles. But to win over the peasants, Matternich had to abolish the hated Robot or the forced labor feudal levy. This tax had held the peasants to the land and its abolition freed them to move and thus paved the way for a socio-economic transformation.

2. The reasons why Poland didn't break out in revolt in 1848 were - (a) The abolition of Robot in 1846 had taken the basic impulse out of any potential peasant revolt in Galicia (the Austrian held territory and most prone to revolt). (b) The Russian held part was held too tightly by the tsar and had been crushed badly in 1831.

Emergence of Nationalism in SpainDuring Napoleonic Rule

1. In Spain, the guerilla war against Napoleon became a symbol of nationalist triumph as well, tough there was no middle class to take its advantage and after the fall of Napoleon the country fell back in autocratic rule.

2. But the liberal elements were able to draft the 1812 © in the aftermath of the defeat of Napoleon in Spain. It was a classic example of how people hated French occupation while still loved the ideals of French Revolution. The © was drafted based on the 1791 French Constitution. A single legislative assembly based on universal suffrage, sovereignty of people, freedom of press and individual liberty were its pillars.

Spanish Revolution of 1820

1. Against the autocratic rule of the king, a successful military revolution occurred and it forced the king to revive the liberal 1812 ©. This alarmed the tsar Alexander of Russia who called for an international congress and if need be an armed international interference. But this was resisted by £ which insisted that the Spanish revolution was entirely an internal affair and to setup a system for automatic international action against such internal events was not acceptable to £.

2. Matternich too was first opposed to summoning of such a congress but accepted it when revolutions spread out to Italy and Portugal as well. In the congress @ Troppau in 1820, £ and France only sent observers (they couldn't support the aristocratic powers and didn't want to oppose them over such small an issue either) and the congress (Prussia, Austria and Russia) announced that it could never accept the right of people to restrict the power of their king. Austria subsequently sent armies to crush the Italian revolts.

3. With no international interference, things became more worrisome by 1822 to the extent that in 1823 France sent her own troops to restore the king. The king, after regaining the power, crushed all liberals with unprecedented fury. But Spain couldn't re-establish her control over her latam assets as £ was interested in



preventing her monopoly. So she was able to convince US to warn Spain and in 1823 president Monroe warned european powers to keep their hands off latam.

Disintegration of EmpiresTurkey / The Eastern Question

1821 Revolt of Greeks - 1830 Independence

1. It broke out as a revolt inspired by nationalism (not by any economic factors). It was seen as a revolt of christians Greeks against the tyranny of muslim Turks by the tsar. He was also naturally interested in extending his own power in the region at the obvious expense of the disintegrating Turkish empire. But this possibility (of his interfering in the revolt on Greek side) alarmed other powers (as they didn't want an increased Russian influence in the region). Matternich was most interested in maintaining the interests of monarchies and balance of power. So he called for a congress @ Verona in 1822.

2. By the time the congress began the affairs in Spain had become more worrisome and France showed willingness of interfering there. £ had decided to embark upon a policy of golden isolation in european affairs (so long as there wasn't a big change in balance of power or a threat of war in europe). As a result of the congress, the danger of Russian interference in Turkey was avoided as £ was able to extract a promise from the Turkish government that it would institute more reforms. The question of Spain was resolved against a joint intervention but letting France to intervene solely.

3. When the sultan refused to implement any such reforms and instead got the help of Egypt in crushing the Greeks, Russia couldn't hold back any longer. £ and France had to resort to additional pressure including a threat of use of force. In 1827, the Turkish and Egyptian naval fleets were destroyed by £, France and Russia, in 1828 Russia declared war on Turkey and France too sent her troops. By 1830 Greek independence was secured.

1850 - 1875: The Aftermath of the Crimean War & Reforms

1. Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia had been made autonomous provinces within the Turkish empire. It now faced a series of separatist national movements and had become the playground for european powers. It was composed of a vast mixture of races, linguistic groups etc. which were held together only by a harsh central authority. It had become clear that Turkish empire would crumble soon against the pressure of Austria and Russia and when it did, it would alter the balance of power in the region. £ and France were hesitant in supporting so cruel and so failing regime against Russia and Austria. Yet the regime was failing and this became the eastern question.

2. In 1856 the sultan tried to implement reforms which included a universal Turkish national citizenship, equality in administration and before law and for taxation irrespective of religion and race etc. But these reforms failed as the local ruling class and the clergy opposed the end of their domination. Moreover the nationalism in non Turkish communities had grown to such an extent that they resisted any attempts to impose a common law etc. on them.

3. In these years between 1850 and 1870, Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia along with Rumanians pressed for and secured more autonomy for themselves.

1875 - 1878: The Turkish Crisis

1. As the reforms failed the restlessness of the different nationalities in the Turkish empire began to grow. This was stroked by Austria and Russia. Austria was now more interested in order to recover the prestige it had lost in Italy and Germany. By 1876 full scale revolts were raging in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Macedonia and Bulgaria which were fueled by Austria and Hungary. Soon Montenegro and Serbia too went to war against the Turks and the sultan of Turkey was overthrown by a local coup.

2. The attitude of foreign powers reflected their self interests. Russia wanted to press on for a dissolution of Turkish empire so that she may herself gain the erstwhile Turkish territories and open her way to the Black sea. Austria was alarmed of this possibility and was oscillating between supporting Turks against Russia or pressing for a negotiated breakup of the Turkish empire so that she may herself gain some territories and thus be able to check the Russian influence. Bismarck's sole concern was the preservation of the international order he had so created and he was thus willing to be an honest broker. He believed that if Turkish empire had to come down it should come down in an agreed and negotiated way so that peace is maintained. France was still reeling under the defeat of 1871 and was recovering. She was not strong enough to gain substantially from any settlement in the east and thus favored that no power should intervene in the east. £'s first priority was to check any increased Russian influence in near east but it was in a dilemma whether this was best achieved by a Turkish state or by strong independent smaller states.

3. In late 1876 the Turkish armies inflicted such heavy a defeat on the Serbian forces that Serbia sought the intervention of the great powers. Under the pressure from Russia the new sultan agreed to submit the matter to the international conference which was held in December in Constantinople. As an outcome, Russia struck a pact with Austria where she undertook to respect the independence of Serbia and Montenegro and offered Austria a free hand in Bosnia and Herzegovina in return for a free hand in Bulgaria and Rumania.

4. In April 1877, Russia declared war again on the Turks (on the pretext that the sultan was not honoring the terms of the agreement) and got the support of Rumania, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria. In the treaty which followed, the sultan recognized the independence of Serbia and Montenegro and greatly enlarged Rumania and Bulgaria. She was also to cede some territories to Russia and pay her war indemnity and carry out reforms in Bosnia. This treaty aroused the traditional jealousies and fears of various parties (Austria and £ feared the increased Russian influence while Greece, Rumania and Serbia resented the increased Bulgaria) and the matter had to be submitted to the international conference again.

5. The 1878 conference @ Berlin (where Bismarck again acted as an 'honest broker') decided that the state of Bulgaria be cut down (as Austria and £ feared an increased Russian influence over Bulgaria so by cutting down Bulgaria they hoped to limit her influence). Areas of Macedonia and Rumelia were taken away from her. She was not to be an independent state but merely an autonomous province under the Sultan. Similar was the status assigned to Macedonia and Rumelia. The independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Rumania was acknowledged. Austria was allowed to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, £ got the island of Cyprus and France got the Ottoman territory of Tunisia in N Africa. Greece was left dissatisfied as she didn't get some territories and the island of Crete she wanted (which were left under Turks).

6. Thus the concert of Europe had sacrificed the nationalist aspirations of all Balkan people and instead chosen to satisfy the wishes of the great powers. The handling of the situation made sure that the Balkans would erupt again in near future. Also by the handling of the territories of the Turkish empire, it was made aptly clear to the sultan that unless Turkey became strong on its own it couldn't hope to prevent its abuse by the big European powers. So the sultan set upon the task of strengthening his empire with the help of Germans and Germany got a valuable ally in Turkey. Apart from this advantage of befriending Turkey, Germany also lost from the conference. Russia now held a grudge against Germany itself (for it had cut down Bulgaria) and the fate of the League of the Three Emperors was doomed. For France the possibilities of an end of diplomatic isolation and an alliance with Russia had opened up. Austria-Hungary became the key piece in Bismarck's diplomacy and because of this importance of Austria-Hungary, the eastern question became the dominant determinant of his foreign policy now (because the fate of Austria-Hungary was intricately tied to the eastern question whether it wanted to or not). Russia was obviously dissatisfied and so were Austria-Hungary (despite her addition of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and £ (despite her acquisition of Cyprus) for their main interest lay with a strong Ottoman empire (while the conference had weakened it further).

Bulgarian Crisis - 1880s

1. Bulgaria had looked upon favorably @ Russia but soon realized that Russian interests lay in just exploiting her and filling her top posts with Russians. So she began to turn anti-Russian. The Bulgarian parliament was soon full of anti-Russian majority and in its display of independence, Bulgaria began to receive £ support (for she hoped to check Russian influence now through a strong Bulgaria instead of a weak Turkey).

2. In 1885, Rumelia and some other parts of Bulgaria which had been taken away in the 1878 concert revolted and demanded union with Bulgaria. Bulgaria accepted it. This naturally angered both Turkey and Russia and a war would have broken out had £ not come on the side of Bulgarians. But Serbia was very much jealous of Bulgarian rise and she declared a war on Bulgaria. Bulgarian forces defeated Serbia but Austria (as a protector of Serbia) intervened and



peace was restored in 1886. 3. Soon Bulgarian king was made to abdicate in favor of a German prince who was also related to Louis Philippe of France and Victoria of £. He was seen as

virtually a candidate of western powers and this infuriated Russia but she was again made to hold back on account of western pressure. The new king gradually cooled down things and restored friendly relations with Russia in 1894.

4. But internationally, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy signed a pact in 1887 which was designed solely to check Russian influence in Balkans. The pact decided to keep peace and status quo, thus ensuring Turkish authority over Asia Minor and nominal suzerainty over Bulgaria (thus checking Russia). In another pact in 1887 called the 'Reinsurance Treaty', Germany and Russia promised to remain neutral in a war involving the other party except when Russia attacked Austria-Hungary and when Germany attacked France. Thus the alliance lines were clearly drawn. Soon Russia too was engaged in her easter movement and building of trans-Siberian railways.

The Armenian and the Greek Revolts - 1890s

1. In 1890s, the Armenians broke out in revolt for independence. But the sultan after obtaining the assurance of non intervention from Germany went ahead and crushed them. This non intervention from Germany was a part of her new found friendship with the sultan which became evident few years later in the form of the Berlin - Baghdad railway project when the German emperor visited Constantinople.

2. In 1896 the island of Crete broke out in revolt for union with Greece. Yielding to nationalist pressures, Greece sent a force to Crete and thus a war broke out with Turkey. Greece lost the war and appealed for international settlement. The international conference made Greece pay a heavy war indemnity and few strategic villages and didn't give her Crete. But Turkey too virtually lost Crete as she was made to grant autonomy to the island and withdraw her troops form there. A Greek prince was appointed as the governor of Crete by the big powers even though it remained nominally under the suzerainty of Turkey.

The Young Turks Revolution and its Consequences - 1908

1. There was a revolution in Turkey called the Young Turks revolution which only served to make it weaker. It had far reaching consequences which tore apart the 1878 Treaty of Berlin.

2. In 1908, Austria-Hungary decided to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina which it had administered hitherto as a protectorate under the Treaty of Berlin. This enraged Serbs because more than a million Serbs lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus Serbia - which was so far another client state of Austria-Hungary - became an arch enemy. In another development Bulgaria threw off the yoke of the nominal Turkish suzerainty and declared herself to be an independent state. None of the big powers were interested in calling an international concert because Austria-Hungary was backed by Germany and Bulgaria was backed by Russia. The net effect was that Austria-Hungary created an enemy for little effective gain (acquisition of a Balkan territory would prove troublesome anyways) and Bulgaria moved closer to Russia. Germany too created an enemy for little gain here because of the pressure she had to put on Russia to accept Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Balkan War - 1912

1. The Young Turks in the reformist zeal tried to impose upon the national language and compulsory military service on Macedonia as well. But the Greek, Slav and other communities living there cherished their unique culture and resisted it. Thus Turkey couldn't have united as a nation without letting its hold over other nationalities go, but this is precisely what they refused to do. The Young Turks resorted to usual suppression and this led Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria to declare war on Turkey in 1812. It was nothing short of a miracle which could have united these Balkan nations and Young Turks managed to do just that. In the war that followed, Turkish armies suffered a rout and the state collapsed.

2. Such a rapid collapse of Turkey was a clear victory of Balkan nationalism and a grave blow to Austria-Hungary. It was completely taken by surprise and now scrambled to save itself from disintegration. Thus to counter the rising power of Serbia, Austria-Hungary chose to back the demand of Albania for independence. Russia took a firm stand against her satellite Bulgaria to prevent her from taking over Constantinople. The old enemies vis Austria-Hungary and Russia were thus united behind one cause this time i.e. to prevent the rising power of Balkan states. It also worked to bring Germany, France and £ together to keep Russia out of Constantinople but France was by now too much anti-German to risk her alliance with Russia and £ was prepared to resist only in a general concert. The conference met in London and it couldn't undo the results of the war but accepted the Austrian demand of an independent Albanian state (to which Russia agreed). Thus a reversal from the 1878 conference, this conference carried further the triumph of Balkan nationalism.

The Balkan War - 1913

1. The Balkan unity soon broke up as old suspicions resurfaced. Each country wanted to retain maximum possible territory and a second war broke out. Bulgaria had to fight Greece, Serbia, Rumania and Turkey and lost and had to pay a price to each one of them.

2. But the effect of this was that Bulgaria now drifted close to Germany and Austria-Hungary, Serbia and Montenegro now regarded a war against Austria-Hungary as inevitable (to free all slavs of Bosnia) and in this had Russian support. The terms of the Treaty of London were violated but the big powers couldn't interfere because they knew that a wider war would mean Germany and Austria-Hungary on one side and at least France and Russia on the other.

Austria-Hungary



Condition in 1815

1. The Austrian provinces themselves as well as the periphery nationalities like Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croats, Rumanians and Poles had the medieval provincial diets or 'estates'. But these estates met rarely and the power was in the hand of local nobles who had links with Vienna and depended on its support. Thus the system was highly conservative and disregarded any national aspirations.

2. This system was that of a lose confederacy where the power lay in the hands of the highly conservative aristocratic elements. The center depended upon them for its continuation and they in turn depended upon the center to crush any rebellions which may threaten them. Such a system necessitated it for Matternich to be opposed to any strands of liberalism.

3. The center had realized that it was impossible to bring the various parts under more centralized control. Instead it depended upon the divide and rule policy to keep all the areas within the empire. Thus it posted German regiments in non- German areas, Hungarian regiments in Italy and so on. It even devised a German confederation to keep its influence over the different Germanic states.

Liberal and National Movements

1. In 1815 the student bodies in Germany called burschenshaften revolted and were banned by the Carlsbad Decree by Matternich.2. In 1848 the much hated feudal levy Robot had to be abolished (following the revolt). This was the last tie which held the peasant with the land and thus paved

way for a more general socio-economic transformation which changed the political landscape as well. This was because the foundation of the Habsburg empire was on the traditional system based on feudal land relations and now that itself was shaken.

Austrian Revolt of 1848

1. Here the intensity of revolt was very serious (since it also received support of the nobles and court factions who were against Matternich) and he had to flee in March. A moderate government was setup but the ruling elements just played a waiting game as in Prussia to let the revolutionary movement pass and yet retain enough power in their hands to lead a counter revolution later. The king was forced to create a Reichstag which would be based on restricted adult suffrage. The nobility would lose their exemption from taxation and the towns would get a representation in the parliament. The parliament represented mainly the gentry and the middle class.

2. In Prussia, Austria and Hungary the initial successes of the revolutionaries were followed by subsequent failures. They had no common agenda and couldn't agree upon what to do next. Moreover they had settled for too little or weak reforms while they had the chance and allowed the counter revolutionary elements to retain sufficient powers. By May the revolution had spent its force.

3. There was another revolt in September but by then the aristocratic powers were securely in place and crushed it as now they had the support of the Slavs and the Czechs.

Hungarian Revolt of 1848

1. The king of Austria ruled Hungary but it had an aristocratic diet of its own. But in 1848 a nationalist leader Louis Kossuth emerged. He led the anti-feudal movement in Hungary and kindled the nationalist sentiments. Following the revolution in Vienna, he raised the demand for home rule in Hungary which were granted in the form of March Laws (where the king still remained the Austrian emperor but Hungary was to have its own parliament elected on a restricted suffrage. The nobility would lose their exemption from taxation and the towns would get a representation in the parliament). The parliament represented mainly the gentry and the middle class.

2. But in the new assembly there were large majorities which wanted to avoid a complete break from Austria. The Croats and Slovaks were opposed to being left



under the Magyar rule and so opposed independence from Austria. The Austrian government utilized their fear and relied on its old policy of divide and rule.

Kossuth on the other hand wanted an independent Magyar led nation (and found favor with the Great German programme since it left Hungary out). 3. Soon the slavs in Croatia and Serbia broke out in revolt (with encouragement of Austria). Such a revolt increased the possibility of a Russian interference in

Balkans and under such a scenario Hungary preferred to side with Austria than Russia. Soon Austrian army invaded Hungary from Croatia, Kossuth appealed to the Austrian parliament to mediate between Hungary and the Habsburgs, but the German and Slav elements together refused to help Hungary. By the end of the year the Austrian army even occupied Budapest but Kossuth had raised the Magyar nationalistic fervor to a state of frenzy and the Austrians were forced to withdraw from Budapest in April 1849. Kossuth was made the governor and he proclaimed independence of Hungary.

4. But his rule lasted only for a few weeks. The popular feeling began to turn against republicanism and the excesses of the revolution. Moreover there was split in the ranks of the nationalists as well. Under such circumstances, tsar Nicholas sent his armies for he believed that people shouldn't depose their kings and also was scared of the impact of Hungarian revolution on Poland. Kossuth fled.

19th Century European RevolutionsFactors Behind 1830 RevoltsEconomic Factors

1. The period between 1790 and 1830 saw progressive freer trade within the national borders (as internal tariffs and other NTTBs were eliminated) and rising protection against international products (specially £ manufacturers). Thus large free trade areas like zollverein and UK (£ + Ireland) were created. This led to great strengthening of the middle class in europe (particularly west). This new middle class sought policies more favorable to them and hence more political representation. An example is the agitation in £ to repeal Corn Laws and to allow freer trade.

Factors Behind 1848 RevoltsEconomic Factors

1. These years witnessed a tremendous progress in industrialization and modern means of communications. Railways came up in big way across wester europe, coal and iron industries developed which led to further development via backward and forward linkages. From virtually nought, £ railways had grown to 6K miles, Germany to 3K miles and French to 2 K miles. Better integration also led to higher trade, closer contacts and stroked national sentiments.

2. The economic progress meant growth of labor class as well. But the years preceding 1848 were marked by international trade and financial crisis. Fluctuation in cotton prices and winding up of Bank of the US led to tremendous losses for european capital. Bank of England had to be bailed out by Bank of France. Speculation in commodities led to aggravation of business cycles. The resulting economic crisis led to growing resentment among workers.

Political Factors

1. The reforms after 1830 revolution had failed to produce a just society. Even though liberal steps were taken but they were so marred with preserving the self interests of the middle class that they actually committed more injustice than what they were seeking to undo. The limitation of suffrage to men of property only led bred manipulation and led to exclusion. Corruption marred the electoral process and there were no effective checks on the misuse of power. So demand for inclusion began to grow.

2. Moreover the workers had seen how the middle class had used the political power to its own material advancement and thus they too wanted a share in the same.

3. The revolts were stroked by growing sentiments of nationalism and they in turned stroked nationalism further and even took it to chauvinistic levels. As can be seen the German interests collided with Magyars, Magyars with Slavs, Czechs with Germans and so on.

Social Factors

1. Demographic growth had created new pressures. For instance the population in Austria increased at the same rate as that in France (but Austria was a backward country) and that in Hungary grew even faster. But the existing feudal relations created lot of tensions in such a case and hence revolts broke out. It may be recalled here that the Emancipation Act of 1848 passed by Austria was one of the most significant achievements of the revolt as it abolished (without any compensation) the hereditary rights of feudal lords in jurisdiction and administration. It was this ending of feudalism which brought about real industrial revolution in central and eastern europe.

2. Due to the abolition of feudal levies the landlords had no incentive to keep a large number of peasants. So the smaller peasants sold their lands to the the bigger landlords and moved to the cities. This created additional pressures. It can be easily seen that the 1848 revolutions were primarily urban in character.

FranceThe Revolution of 1830

1. The restored monarchy under Louis XVIII had liberal features as it adopted to be guided by a liberal © which had elements like equality before law, right to property, protection of life and liberty, equality of opportunity etc. But at the same time it retained the absolutist character in insisting that he had been king from the time of execution of his brother Louis XVI and called 1814 as the 19th year of his reign. Further he insisted that he liberal © was an act of grace by the king (i.e. voluntarily given by the king to his subjects and hence could be taken back by him also). To this weakness of the © systems in France was added its relative inexperience with such methods and absence of conventions. Thus the liberal system which emerged in France remained vulnerable to the attitude of the king.

2. Thus when he was succeeded by the new king (Charles) and the new king began to assert his absolutist powers, tensions broke out between the liberals and the royalists. The new king dismissed the parliament and called for fresh elections and when the liberals returned with a stronger majority in the elections the king tried to stage a coup de teat. The king issued a set of 5 ordinances where he dismissed the new parliament before it could meet, reduced the number of voters from 100K to 25K only, called for new elections on this basis and imposed censorship. Thus he destroyed the charter issued by Louis XVIII for all practical purposes. This led to the revolution of 1830.

3. After the revolution, the Charter was liberalized (lowering of voter qualifications, weakening of upper house which was nominated by the king etc.) further and imposed upon the new king. But it must be kept in mind that this was a liberal revolution and not a democratic or socialist revolution.

The Revolution of 1848

1. The king was forced to abdicate in February by the rising mob. A group of liberal parliamentarians sought to establish a provisional government but it could command no authority. Under the pressure of the mob, the resulting government had to adopt certain socialistic resolutions like the right to work, reduced working hours, national workshops and universal male suffrage.

2. But there were attempts of coups and counter coups as there was no unity among the rebels and by summer the counter revolution commenced and in the end most of the socialist gains were lost. The national workshops were closed, the rebels were executed, in the new © in November 1848, there was no mention of the right to work. Napoleon's nephew was elected the president who soon tore down the other democratic elements of the © as well.

Belgian Independence of 1830

1. The Belgians comprised of the Catholic, French and Flemish sections of south Holland and they had been forced to accept the union with Holland in 1815. Naturally they resented this and nationalist sentiments grew. Within the union the Belgians outnumbered the Dutch 2:1 yet had equal share only in the parliament. The fall of 1815 monarchy in France inspired them and they too rose in revolt against the Matternich system.



2. The Prince of Orange tried to reconcile the rebels by agreeing to Belgian separation and guaranteeing complete separation leaving no point of contact except the ruling dynasty. But it failed and in 1831 a new © was promulgated which declared independence and that all powers have their source in the nation. The powers of the king were severely curtailed and he was to be elected by the parliament.

3. Matternich, Prussia and Russia wanted to check this development but £ and France stood by Belgium. A congress was called and it accepted Belgian independence and guaranteed its perpetual neutrality. In 1831 Dutch invaded Belgium but France sent her troops and forced the Dutch to withdraw.

Italy


1. By the end of 1830 the rulers of Parma and Modena had been driven out. It was certain that Austria would send its troops to crush the rebels but they hoped France would support them (as it had supported Belgium). But France didn't (since doing so would have seriously offended Austria and Italy was not worth a cause over which France should fight Austria).

2. Austria crushed the revolts but Mazzini founded the Young Italy movement which gained popularity and its numbers reached 60K ny 1833.


1. Rebellious elements were more active here than ever before because the new kings which had succeeded the earlier ones were more sympathetic to the national cause and allowed more liberties. This encouraged the work of the secret societies. After the revolts broke out, they were suppressed by Austria again. King Charles of Piedmont fought for the cause of rebels but no help came from France and by May the war was turning against him and he was eventually forced to abdicate in favor of his son.



GermanyThe Revolution of 1848

1. Germany had neither a liberal parliamentarian tradition like £ nor a violent social democratic tradition like France. German liberalism as represented by zollverein had no appetite for democracy and the social revolutionaries too were small and insignificant and mainly confined to industrialized Rhineland. The central sentiment was that of nationalism.

2. Riots broke out in Berlin in March and the king decided to make some concessions. He declared himself to be in favor of a federal German Reich in place of the Germanic Confederation (presided over by Austria). But the resulting reich had no powers and it was limited to debates only. He also proposed other measures like one national citizenship, one national army, freedom of press but all these remained proposals only.

3. After the initial success, the liberals were divided on the next course of action. They couldn't even agree on the territorial extent of Germany. There was a group which called for Greater Germany which was to include Germany, Poland and Austria (except Hungary but including the lands inhabited by Slavs). But this would necessitate offering the crown to Austrian Habsburg. On the other hand the little Germans were willing to leave out the Austrian lands to unify rest of Germany free of Austrian influence and in such a case the crown was to be offered to the Prussian king. Catholics supported Austria, protestants supported Prussia as the leader. By May, a state of inaction had taken over.

4. The Greater German programme was opposed by Czechs (who preferred the lose Austrian confederacy) as well as the Slovaks (who didn't want to be left alone with the Magyars of Hungary). The Slavs demanded creation of 3 separate states of Czechs and Slovaks, Serbs and Croats (later to form Yugoslavia) and Poles. The slavs were afraid of being partitioned between the Greater Germany and Hungary and thus opposed them. Poles wanted a separate state as well.

Revolution and Counter Revolution

Created: 5/22/2012 2:16 PM

The Russian Revolution (1917-21)Growth of Bolshevism

1. In its beginning itself the Russian socialist party faced the choice whether it should work to exert pressure on the government using peaceful means and try to get concessions from it or should it try to overthrow the government and setup an alternate structure. If it chose the latter it was facing a life or death situation since no civil liberties existed in Russia. If it chose the latter it might have gained some semi legal existence under the tzars but would have lost its revolutionary impulse.

2. Further in 1903 it faced another question. A section (led by Plekhanov and Ulyanov) favored the party membership to be restricted to a small close band of workers who would personally work for the party organization and to restrict the decision making to a narrow group of militant and active workers. Another (led by Trotsky and Martov) supported an open membership which would also include those who supported the party in general and thus an open party guided by the collective voting power of all its enrolled supporters. The first one would keep intact the party's revolutionary impetus while the second one would have produced a socialist democratic party on the lines of Germany. But in a Russia where no civil liberties existed how could the second version ever gain popularity.

3. So in the vote which was held, the minority advocating first version won by 2 votes and were thus called Bolsheviks. The others were called Mensheviks. Now the minimum aim of the party was to overthrow the tsar regime and no half measures were possible.

The 1905 Revolution

1. The loss of war against Japan and subsequent massacre of a band of peaceful petitioners (led by an orthodox priest who had gone to the tsar to petition for controlled working hours, universal suffrage and transfer of land to the people) created a revolutionary situation in Russia.

2. Following the mutiny @ battleship Potemkin, committees of workers (soviets) were setup in Petrograd by the Mensheviks and general strikes followed. But eventually the soviet was broken up (Lenin came too late and Bolsheviks took no action until then) and the leaders had to flee.

German FascismState under Nazis

1. The 'nationalism' in Nazi meant the union of all Germans within a greater Germany and expulsion of all alien elements like jews, gypsies, communists etc. The 'socialism' in Nazi meant a corporative state i.e. state to have total control over all economic and social activities of people and firms. Thus in his rise to power, Hitler got the support of the nationalists, landlords, militarists etc. as well as the unemployed, peasants etc.

2. Hitler believed that nazism is what Marxism could have been if it broke ties with a democratic order i.e. what was the need to socialize banks and firms when you can socialize people. Nazi Germany was the extreme form of state socialism and state capitalism combined. The owners of property as well as labor were subject to the dictates of the state alike. Thus the big German companies remained but were obliged to serve the needs of the state as determined by the party. The unions of old type were replaced with new 'corporate' unions and their purpose too was to mobilize labor to serve the needs of the state. There was strict state control of foreign exchange, allocation of raw materials, controls on investment and disciplined regulation of labor, wages, prices and profit. Party leaders also took part in business and Goering works became the largest enterprise in whole Europe.

3. Unemployment was rooted out via public works, factories, conscription, production of armaments, displacement of jews etc. Hitler launched a 4 year plan in 1936 with the aim of preparing the economy for full scale war. The entire economy was geared up for war production.

4. The unique feature of this dictatorship was the degree of power it held over the lives of its subjects. All the means of propaganda, education, cinema, radio etc. were used to indoctrinate people. The party had extensive organization. It had an efficient secret police to eliminate its opponents. All this was based on the modern concept of participation of people in state life and the dislocations caused by the war. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin wouldn't have been possible a century earlier.

Acts of AppeasementLocarno

1. By 1925, £ was in a more conciliatory mood and was prepared to give a guarantee for the Franco-German border against an aggression by any party. This guarantee was extended to include Belgium-German border as well as the demilitarized areas of Rhineland. Italy too joined in and it was decided that Germany should join LoN. In October 1925, 3 set of treaties were signed - (a) Treaty guaranteeing Franco-German and Belgium-German border, (b) Treaty of mutual guarantee between France on one side and Czechoslovakia and Poland on the other, and (c) Treaty of arbitration between Germany on hand and France, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Belgium on the other. The effect of the last 2 treaties was that since £ would not guarantee the eastern borders, France should and that Germany would submit any border dispute to arbitration. It was the first treaty which recognized the needs of both Germany and France. This was the best security arrangement which France could get while Germany came back in the international circle of powers (and also reduced its chances of affiliating with Soviet Union).

2. But it had grave implications as well for now it graded the borders with the western borders being ranked more sacrosanct than the eastern. £ distinction between the frontiers which she would guarantee and which she would not guarantee undermined the general obligations of the whole Covenant. It divided the



indivisible peace of Versailles and made it clear that now the Versailles order depended upon the willingness of Germany and didn't have any international backing. She could now easily disregard her eastern borders without any threat of £ action (in fact without threat of French action as well since if French attacked Germany, £ wouldn't come to French aid and France alone couldn't harm Germany). France clearly overburdened herself without the partnership of £.

3. It also undermined the authority of LoN since now it distinguished between its members and the idea of collective security went into drain. There were technical absurdities too for how could £ armed forces prepare a joint defence plan with French if they could be made to fight against France also. This also had the effect of weakening LoN further since while Germany was being inducted as a permanent member, Poland, Span and Brazil too raised the same demand. Inducting Poland as a permanent member would have canceled out Germany's vote, so a new level of semi-permanent members was created and Poland was admitted to it. But Spain and Portugal declined and resigned from LoN. LoN now had no representative from Americas.

4. As a result of increasing pacifism (borne out of Locarno and otherwise), all the concessions which allies had made to Germany became a source of tension. Allied military control of Germany had ended in 1927. The Young Plan of 1929 gave her loans and removed the financial controls imposed on her. £ pressed for ending the allied occupation of rhineland and by 1930, all Allied troops were withdrawn from Rhineland. Now it was only Germany's willingness which lay between peace and the war.

Reoccupation of Rhineland

1. In March 1936, Germany reoccupied Rhineland. This was his most open challenge to the Versailles order and the most crucial of all. This was also in direct violation of Locarno which Germany had signed voluntarily and not under any duress. Had £ or France shown any resistance even now, he was in no position to counter. His political career could have ended. This was the last chance WW2 could have been avoided. Belgium asked to be relieved from her Locarno commitments and huddled back in her neutrality. France lodged a protest in LoN but did nothing else. £ extracted a promise from Germany that the 'period of surprises' is over.

2. The strategic significance of the move was that now Hitler could build fortifications @ Siegfried line which would render any attack by France impossible and thus he isolated the eastern members of the 'Little Entente' from the protection of France and put them @ German mercy.

Anschluss

1. £ was trying to use Italy against any German occupation of Austria and was engaging it in negotiations. But taking even Mussolini by surprise, Hitler occupied Austria in March 1938. Even though Italy had commercial and strategic interests in Austria and such an action even aroused popular concerns in Italy, Mussolini was helpless.

2. Anschluss was an important step in fulfilling Hitler's concept of 'lebensraum' or the living space for Germans. It used all the characteristic Nazi propaganda like beating up some racial ideology (lebensraum), instigating an Austrian Nazi revolts in the territory and then intervening to support them. In this case, the government of Austria aborted a Nazi putsch but Hitler first forced her to include the putsch leader in the government. Then the Nazi party in Austria instigated violence in the streets of Vienna and then invited Hitler to invade and restore order.

3. Possession of Austria brought him in touch with Hungary, Yugoslavia and enabled him to surround Czechoslovakia from 3 sides. It also gave him strategic control over road, rail and river communication in central Europe.

Czechoslovakia

1. Czechoslovakia had treaties both with France and Soviet Union for protection from Germany but for the treaty with Soviet Union to come into force, France should have implemented her guarantee first. So it was sufficient to ensure that France didn't declare a war on Germany over Czechoslovakia. In March 1938, both Soviet Union and France reaffirmed their intention of honoring the treaty. But Chamberlin refused to guarantee £ help to France in the event of a war with Germany over Czechoslovakia. This cleared the way for Hitler and was another high watermark of the PoA. Now all Hitler needed to do was to engage £ over Czechoslovakia.

2. Hitler tried to rely on his usual method of instigating violence via the Nazi party in the German dominated area in Czechoslovakia. The local Nazi party demanded more autonomy which was rejected by the government and instead it gave more minority rights. Hitler tried to build up pressure but a £ warning failed his ploy. However negotiations began between Germany and £ over the issue.

3. Seeing international pressure building up, Czechoslovakia government became ready to grant autonomy to the German dominated region but not the local Nazi leader rejected all offers and broke off from the negotiations. Subsequently in his negotiations with Chamberlain, Hitler demanded the application of the principle of self determination to the Germans in Sudenteland i.e. entire Sudenteland. Carrying the PoA to its climax, Chamberlain agreed to put pressure on Czechoslovakia.

4. Doing so would have meant creating a Sudenteland in reverse i.e. putting ~1 mm Czechs in Germany and also to violate the principle of military defensibility of Versailles since Sudenteland formed the only defensible frontier of Czechoslovakia. Czech government refused initially but then £ announced that she won't be able to guarantee her independence at all. A meeting happened @ Munich, £ agreed to give Sudenteland to Germany (although it wanted a slow internationally monitored occupation) and Chamberlain flew back holding a paper saying, "I have bought peace for our generation."

5. In March 1939, against all obligations, Hitler occupied whole of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlin scrambled to explain his guarantee could not apply to a state which had ceased to exist!

Poland

1. Munich had taught the bitter lesson to £. All hopes of avoiding war had been lost and rearmament in £ had begun in full earnest and she even introduced conscription for the first time in her history. £ now extended guarantees to Poland, Greece, Romania and Turkey and France followed. Soviet Union proposed a 6 party talks over Poland but it was rejected. £ reaffirmed its stance to stand by Poland.

2. Hitler now knew that invading Poland will invoke a war on the western front. So he sought to calm down the eastern front by making a pact with Soviet Union. Stalin knew this too for geography necessitated that to attack Soviet Union, Hitler must attack Poland first which would invoke a war with £ and France. So he too sought to buy some time. Soviet Union and the western powers didn't trust each other anyways so Stalin thought he can get a better deal with Germany which would give him a larger share of Poland which can act as a buffer also. Thus he got both space and time. It was £-French guarantee of Poland which gave birth to the Nazi-Soviet pact.

3. Hitler resorted to his usual propaganda demanding the free city of Danzig and routes to east Prussia. Just a week before the attack, £ signed a mutual assistance pact with Poland and this too didn't deter Hitler. It is thus clear, Hitler knew he may trigger a world war.

Spanish Civil War

1. When they should be helping out the democratic forces in Spain, £ and France chose to stay out. Additionally they sought to contain the involvement of 'additional' international parties in the war without making any attempts to check the participation of 'existing' parties. It was clear that without additional support, the republican forces in Spain would lose out in front of the unchecked Italian and German support to the military.

2. Furthermore £ and France got a resolution passed in LoN to ban international transfer of weapons to Spain. While Germany and Italy (who were not member states) continued to transfer weapons no attempts were made to check these. On the other hand, the republican government which relied on the member nations for support was deprived of weapons.

Italian FascismChinese Revolution (1949)



Imperialism & Colonialism

Created: 12/16/2011 10:59 PM

South Asia & SE AsiaPortugueseRise

1. Unlike Latam, in Asia, they didn’t try to establish settlements. Rather they just established forts at strategic locations and carried on trade from there.2. In the same vein, they captured Goa to control trade with India, then Malacca to control Far-East trade. Then they captured Macau and also began a trade

route with Japan.3. But Spanish did capture Philippines and goods from China were taken to Americas viaPhilippines. They also converted the island to Christianity and perhaps this

is the reason why the island is most westernized in the region.

Decline

1. They were not able to progress rapidly, and new powers emerged on the scene.2. As a result, their vast empire became a liability for them and they overstretched themselves.

French

1. Its imperialism in SE Asia was a result of the nationalistic need to rival British. Other usual reason was the need for markets of French products and capital. It was also supported intellectually by the feeling of superiority of French culture and the need to civilize natives.

2. France took over Algeria completely by 1857 to secure a good market for French cotton goods. Tahiti and Ivory Coast were added to the empire as well and expeditions were sent to Beijing and Syria. In 1859, the conquest of Indo-China was completed by French.

Latin AmericaSouth Africa

1. In 1652, the Dutch founded a settlement in Cape Town where they got engaged in supplying the ships headed for India. Gradually the Dutch settlements grew in size. As they moved interior and west, they met with resistance from the natives which led to a series of skirmishes and in 1779 the 100 year Xhosa wars broke out. The Dutch government tried to restore peace by making formal border agreements with the natives but the Boers (the Dutch settlers) knew no limitations to their greed and frequently violated the terms of the settlement. However, after the Anglo Dutch Treaty of 1814, South Africa was given to British.

2. The Dutch colonialists didn't like the idea of being under British command. There didn't agree with the £ on many things and the biggest one being over the treatment towards the natives (they were even more barbaric in their treatment of natives). The £ soon outlawed importation of slaves and prescribed a minimum treatment to be met out to slaves and servants and in 1834 slavery was abolished.

3. The Boers were in no position to fight £ and they didn't like it either, so they moved further north into the Natal region and setup their independent settlements. This was followed by a conflict with local Zulu tribes where the Dutch resorted to their usual methods of treachery, massacre and racial hatred. However, in 1860s and 70s, gold and diamond were discovered in these states. This led to a rush for riches and £ too soon turned up to occupy these states. Thus in 1880, Boer wars broke out between £ and Boers and after a long series of wars, £ control was extended over whole SAF.

4. In 1910, all of the former territories of SAF were united into the Union of SAF and a federal government setup. However, the supposedly 'freer' government too began to pursue highly racial policies right from the beginning. It excluded the colored people form electorate and came up with a Native Land Act of 1913 which gave the natives rights over only 13% of the land while they constituted over 75% of the population. Clearly with such a high pressure on the land, agriculture was not a viable occupation for the natives and they were forced to work in the industries and mines owned by the £ as cheap labor. As if this was not enough the Mines and Works Act of 1911 had already limited many work opportunities for the colored and only feasible way left for them was to work in an 'almost slave like' position in the mines and factories owned by the £.

5. During the WWs the economy got a boost and demand for colored labor increased even further. Increasingly laws were being framed to limit the mobility of colored, to restrict them into living in ghettos and there was a clear move towards apartheid. In fact in 1948 the National Party which won the election had fought it on the promise of imposing apartheid only! Naturally this produced a reaction and ANC pitched up the anti-apartheid campaign.

AustraliaContact with the Aborigines

1. Initial contacts with Aborigines were those of curiosity but it soon turned to hostility due to greed and racial prejudice of the settlers. It had a devastating impact on the Aborigines. Not only did their population dwindle as a result of loss of habitation and resources, direct killings but they also gad to face diseases like small pox (which wiped out large proportion of their population) which were hitherto unknown to them.

2. The policy which was followed by the £ settlers was that of open hostility and racism towards the indigenous people. Their rights over their ancestral land were not recognized and all land of Australia was free for the settlers to occupy. Conflicts and atrocities on the Aborigines often went unreported in the mainstream literature. Soon the population of the indigenous groups ran down from thousands into hundreds.

3. Later on some efforts were made to reconcile with the locals. But these to were half hearted and marred with racial superiority. Thus in the name of extending modern 'civilization' to them, they were converted into Christianity, their children forcibly taken away etc.

Factors Responsible Behind Colonization of Australia

1. £ had lost American colonies in the war in 1783. That was a big blow to her prestige. So even though Australia had been 'discovered' earlier, plans to colonize it were developed now. The reports from the sailors regarding colonization possibilities in Australia had been favorable and it was decided that convicts would be deported there. The campaign about appalling conditions in the prisons in £ was gaining momentum. Deportation was an acceptable punishment in £ law and America had been use to this purpose until then. Loss of America necessitated the use of Australia now as a convict dumping ground.

2. Apart from the above reason, the decision was also made out of strategic concerns. It seemed at that time that the outbreak of a civil war in Holland might precipitate a war between £ and France, Spain and Holland. So a settlement in Australia could facilitate an attack on Spanish colonies in Philippines and Dutch colonies in Indonesia and would enhance £ defence of Malacca and India.

3. Finally America had been a source of flax and timber and now Australia held the promise to make up for the loss. The potential of new finds in Australia was also a luring prospect.

Emergence of Democratic Self Government in Australia

1. The discovery of gold had fueled a gold rush and many diggers had been attracted to migrate to Australia. Unlike the convicts (who had settled in Australia previously) these diggers were free men used to liberties and democracy. The government of Australia was used to handling convicts only and thus over a dispute in Eureka, it opened fire on the diggers and killed many of them. There was a royal commission setup and it made sweeping changes in the administration of Australia and increased democratization.



2. As the free settlers were trickling in (and they were used to a democratic government unlike the convicts), they began to press for democracy. Thus even before the Eureka incident in 1854, movement for democratization had begun and political parties had come up to demand for a democratic government. Slowly voting rights were extended and by the end of century even women became eligible to vote and contest parliamentary elections.

3. Improvement in transport and communication channels meant increasing trade and economic interdependence between the various colonies that had come up in different parts of the continent. Gradually demands began to be raised to unite these colonies. The population had reached 3.5 mm by the end of 19th century and in 1900 the colonies decided to come together and form a federation.

4. However the political system which was established was highly racist and discriminatory. One of the first acts of the federal government was to pass the Immigration Restriction Act, 1901 which restricted the entry of colored immigrants. And the act was justified on racist grounds!

Neo ImperialismColonialism was at its lowest ebb in 1815

1. Except for Tangier held by Spain, no colonies existed in N Africa and the Mediterranean Sea was the line of divide between Islam and Christian world.2. The slave trade had been abolished. This greatly reduced the importance of west African colonies.3. Cape Colony was a stoppage en route to India and Australia was a dumping ground for convicts.4. Much of America had won her independence or strong freedom struggle was going on.5. The Dutch had only island of Java under her control.

The greatest colonial power was paradoxically anti-colonial in spirit in 1815

1. Only the Christian Missionaries and the traders and manufacturers supported colonialism. The radicals opposed it as they saw colonialism as merely a means of strengthening the aristocratic influence (why?). Free Traders were not only opposed to any regulation of overseas trade but also looked upon independence of colonies as a natural progression. Thus the greatest colonial power was paradoxically anti-colonial in spirit.

Factors Responsible for Intensification of Imperialism in 1870s Economic Factors

1. After 1870 there was a surge in industrial growth in the major European countries like Germany, Italy, France etc. These governments abandoned free trade and imposed high tariffs to promote home industries. The protectionist tendencies among various european nations were getting very strong and by 1870 virtually all european nations had imposed strict tariffs against each other's goods and capital. Also the enhanced industrial production was not able to satisfy the home needs.

2. In this context, colonies were seen as safe markets (the major reason) for both manufactured products as well as capital and sources of raw materials. They were now seen less in terms of their commercial value but more in terms of guarantee for free market. Thus in this period we saw a consolidation of £ rule in India, coastal colonies in Africa getting inward, expansion of hold in the Cape and Australia and New Zealand emerging as a full colonized continent. France took over Algeria completely by 1857 to secure a good market for French cotton goods. Tahiti and Ivory Coast were added to the empire as well and expeditions were sent to Beijing and Syria. In 1859, the conquest of Indo-China was completed by French.

3. The expansion of imperialism was also aided in this period by a great improvement in means of transportation and communications.

Socio-Cultural Factors

1. There was a strong public opinion (often moulded by influential intellectuals and used by politicians to their advantage) in these countries which favored imperialism mainly in the name of racial superiority and prestige of the nation. This is also evident from the fact that while in this period, £ conceded to the demand of dominion status of the white colonies, no such policy was followed for the colored colonies.

2. The revival of socialist tendencies among workers led the capitalist governments to focus on imperialism to save their rule back home.3. Christian missionaries too played their part in spreading imperialism in their zeal as they often went under the protection of their home governments and were

quickly followed by soldiers. Another factor was the exploratory spirit of the adventurers who were often treated as national heroes for 'discovering' new lands.

Politico-Strategic Factors

1. Given the change in balance of power (post German rise) and the subsequent mistrust and ever present danger of war, no opportunity of gaining any strategic advantage could now be left. Thus if one power increased its influence in one part of the world, the other powers had to intervene and gain themselves in order to restore the balance of power. This led to great intensification of rivalries.

2. Sometimes the expansion of colonies was used as a sop offered to a power by another power as a compensation for forgoing something else. Thus Bismarck encouraged France to expand in Tunisia so as to divert her from concerning herself more with european affairs. Often a consent was reached between various powers on the colonial spoils and they expanded with the understanding of other powers.

3. In some countries like Italy and Russia, political and not economic factors were dominant. In the case of nations, like men, its what they aspire to be which guides their policies and not who they are. Each country had a strong political class which favored acquisitions of more colonies and they often found favor in the nationalistic theme which was the dominant undercurrent in europe at that time.

The Scramble for ColoniesAfrica



(a) The Berlin Conference, 1884-85

1. In 1876, the Belgian king formed International African Association led by Stanley which between 1879 to 1884 made treaties with the native chiefs and established Belgian influence over a vast area in interior Congo. Naturally all the major european powers got alarmed and called for a concert in Europe. Thus a conference was held @ Berlin in 1884-85 to settle the issue of Congo and remaining Africa. In this conference, Leopold's rights over Congo were recognized and it was decided that in the future any power that effectively occupied any African territory and duly notified the other powers could thereby establish possession and full rights over it. Thus began the mad scramble for Africa.

2. Following the example of Belgium, many companies with government monopoly were setup to establish control over African territories and exploit them.

(b) West and Central Africa

1. As we saw above, Congo had been carved out by Belgium by 1885. Initially her rubber and ivory were important but with time her gold, diamonds, copper, timber, uranium became more important and other european powers joined the Belgians in exploiting it. At one time the company having control over Katanga's copper reserves was the world's largest copper company. It was jointly owned by Belgian and £ interests and played a meddlesome role in the political affairs.

2. £ occupied the area of Nigeria. Initially there was a sharp rivalry between £ and France but compulsions back home enabled £ retain this. It also occupied Gold Coast and Sierra Leone.

3. Towards the north of Congo, de Brazza carved out the French Congo using the same methods of treachery and naked power. On the west coast, French had already occupied coastal areas and by 1900 she had extended her empire interior and with the conquests in central Africa, she was able to link her north and western African conquests with French Congo.

4. Germany occupied Cameroon and Togo on the west coast. To the south of Angola, she conquered present Namibia. But this didn't satisfy her greed and she wanted the Portuguese colony of Angola and and Mozambique as well. £ and Germany had secretly partitioned Angola and Mozambique between themselves but the WW1 spoilt this party. After the war, German colonies were distributed as a prize among the victors. Cameroon was divided between France and £ and Namibia was given to SAF.

5. Liberia was settled with slaves who had been liberated from US. Though she remained nominally independent, US interference in her affairs was heavy particularly to protect interest of US capital there. Portugal had Angola while Spain had Rio de Oro.

(c) South Africa

1. Outside SAF, the £ explorer Cecil Rhodes carved out vast £ empire and called it Rhodesia (N Rhodesia is now Zambia and S Rhodesia is now Zimbabwe).

(d) East Africa

1. Except for the Portuguese possession of Mozambique, east Africa had not been occupied before the Berlin conference. An agreement was reached between £, Germany and France where France occupied Madagascar, and east Africa was distributed between Germany and £. Even the ruler of Zanzibar who had been promised a small territory was not spared and eventually Germany and £ occupied his area as well. In 1890, there was another agreement between £ and Germany where Uganda was 'reserved' for £ and in exchange Germany got Heligoland. After the WW1, German East Africa was given to £.

2. Italy was given Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia. But in 1896 she was defeated by Ethiopia.

(e) North Africa

1. Algeria had been conquered by France in 1830 itself but it took her ~40 years to suppress the Algerian resistance. Then encouraged by Bismarck, she also captured Tunisia from the Turkish empire. French made further conquests interior and were able to link their African possessions.

2. Italy and France agreed in 1900 where France increased her influence on Morocco and Italy occupied LIbya. In 1904, France and £ signed an agreement which gave Morocco to France and Egypt to £. Sudan was jointly occupied by Egypt and £. A Sudanese leader who had proclaimed himself the Mahdi had in 1880s succeeded in overthrowing the £ and Egyptian control over Sudan. But in 1898 £ and Egyptians came back again and after a bloody battle, occupied Sudan. The French tried to occupy southern parts of Sudan but were forced to withdraw by £. But she was allowed to capture western Sudan which she did and thus connected her equatorial territories with the western and northern ones.

SE Asia- Indonesia

1. Following the doctrines of mercantilism, the Dutch companies formed a cartel and this was an important reason for their strength. They followed the Portuguese approach of carrying out trade through forts established in strategic locations. Initially the colonial act was done only to promote the trading interests of the company i.e. to earn profits via trade. Only after Holland began to industrialize that we see the motivation and colonial pattern changing.

2. In 1798, the Dutch conquered Indonesia. But in 1804, after Napoleon conquered Netherlands, the Dutch government went into exile in England and formally ceded its colonial empire to her. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Anglo-Dutch Treaty was signed where English gave back Indonesia to Dutch and the Dutch relinquished all their claims over India. But the Dutch had to cede South Africa to British. As a result of the loss and because Indonesia was the only major colony left, Dutch began to consolidate their rule vigorously there through military campaigns and diplomatic alliances with the local rulers. Thus they fought many wars like the Padri war (1821-37), the Java war (1825-30), the Aceh war (1873-04).



3. In WW2, Japanese occupied Indonesia. After the war, Dutch tried to fight back but Indonesia won freedom in 1949 and in 1963 Indonesian armies freed the last remaining colony of Dutch New Guinea as well.

SE Asia - Indo China

1. While £ was busy consolidating its empire in India and extending it in Malacca, France was carving out its empire in Indo-China. But these efforts were not free of the mutual jealousies which had come to be associated with imperialism everywhere. Thus when France secured from the Burmese king to construct a railway from Tonkin to Mandalay in 1880s, £ (fearing a French expansion) waged a war on Burma and annexed it.

2. France came to control Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and Thailand remained between £ possessions and the French possessions as a buffer state. Yet both countries meddled freely in its internal affairs.

3. French had commercial interests in Indo - China (also called Annam) from 17th century but no concerted effort was made to colonize it since £ held the supremacy in Indian Ocean (and any large scale French colonization would have invited their wrath). After the 1850s, French imperialism was driven by the needs of balancing £ acts (of imperialism) in the wake of the scramble for colonies and was supported by the doctrines of racial and cultural superiority and the 'white man's burden'. Initially Christian missionaries were sent in Indo-China and soldiers followed and the areas were occupied on the false pretext of protecting the missionaries. Thus protection of religious men became the pretext of occupying Saigon, Da Nang and other areas in 1850s.

4. By the Treaty of Saigon in 1862, the Vietnamese emperor ceded the territories of S Vietnam to French (which French merged with their other areas to form the colony of Cochinchina) and also the French secured trade and religious privileges over entire Vietnam and a control over her foreign policy. Gradually they spread their influence and in 1882 occupied Hanoi. This led to a war with China and a French victory confirmed their supremacy in the region. Thus entire Vietnam and Laos came under French control as 'protectorates'.

5. In these places even though they nominally retained the old administrative structures but all the effective power lay with them. They resorted to making the elite native class dependent on them for survival and also heavy cultural propaganda.

SE Asia - Philippines

1. The Filipinos revolted against Spain in 1896 and proclaimed the First Philippines Republic in 1898. However, the 1898 Treaty of Paris transferred the control from Spanish to US. The Philippines government didn't recognize this Treaty and declared war against US in 1899. The US unilaterally declared peace in 1902 and this was followed by Philippine Organic Act, 1902. This Act provided for the establishment of a bicameral legislature where the lower house was to be popularly elected. Thus Philippines became a US colony and like Canada, Australia etc. it had modern colonial practices. English was also made the official language along with Spanish.

2. The Philippine Autonomy Act, 1916 officially declared US commitment to grant independence to her as soon as possible. Partial autonomy was granted in 1936 and plans were made to grant independence in 1946. But in the WW2, Japanese conquered her. Philippines welcomed US forces reconquering her and in 1946, independence was granted.

3. During WW2, the People's Army which was affiliated to the Communist Party of Philippines (PKP) fought against the Japanese and gained popularity. In the 1946 elections, PKP participated. However, with the onset of cold war, its growing strength drew ire from US and the ruling government. They resorted to repression of PKP and in 1948, an armed struggle began between PKP and the government + US military forces present in Philippines. The insurgency lasted till 1956 when PKP gave up arms.

Theories of Neo-ImperialismHobson's and Lenin's Accumulation Theory(a) Features

1. The European capitalist markets suffered from under consumption due to concentration of wealth in few hands. The workers were merely paid sustenance wages and hence were not able to absorb the vast amount of goods being produced. This led to migration of capital which was the essential feature of Neo-Imperialism. This could have been avoided by a more equal distribution of wealth in these countries so as to raise the domestic consumption itself.

2. Lenin argued that in the colonies the imperialists found a new proletariat to exploit and the benefits were reaped by even the workers of the industrial countries which led them to forget their revolutionary fervor and support their bourgeoise. Thus the war which happened in 1914 was one where both sides were imperialists.

3. After 1870s, this capital migration was more towards Latam and rest of Commonwealth and less towards Europe, US and India. However, this capital was accompanied with policies and attitudes which served to dominate the native systems instead of industrializing them. This is called the Dependency Theory. It must also be noted that the need to find secure markets for capital and manufactured goods was higher than the need for raw materials since the raw materials could have been secured even without political control.

(b) Criticism

1. Doesn't explain why countries with very little surplus capital like Italy wanted colonies. It also doesn't explain why US & Russia, both of who were net importers of capital, engaged in imperialism. Some of the native rulers like Ismail Pasha themselves requested foreign capital.

2. Moreover Scandinavian countries which had the highest labor standards engaged in little imperialism.3. In the scramble for Africa, sometimes the military and bureaucratic costs of maintaining the rule overshadowed the economic benefits.

Wallerstein's World Systems Theory

1. It contends that with the spread of industrialization, other powers developed. The core imperialist power was Britain and the new peripheral powers were Germany, France etc. The peripheral powers wanted to displace the core powers and become core themselves. This contributed to the emergence of an era of aggressive national rivalry.

Implications of Neo ImperialismPolitical

1. It proved to be a blessing in disguise for some countries as it introduced them to the ideas of modern administration, press, modern means of communication and transport, English language, modern ideas like nationalism, democracy, constitutionalism etc.

2. Though many of these systems were implemented to facilitated the exploitation of the colonies, but nonetheless it served them after their liberation. Also the common cause of overthrowing the foreign rule united the people in many of the colonies - something which they hadn't seen in their histories before.

3. The imperialist rule also facilitated slavery and migration of labor. 4. The conquest of Asia and Africa further added to the rivalries in Europe. Example, French conquest of Tunisia frustrated Italy who joined an alliance against

her and started a tariff war.

Economic

1. The imperialist powers setup industries and modern means of transport and communications in the colonies. 2. There was exploitation of colonies, massive drain of wealth as colonies were made to export raw materials at very cheap prices and import finished goods at

high prices. This unfair trade was secured using unfair laws and taxation.



Socio-Cultural

1. It led to a change in religious lives of the natives as Christianity spread.2. It led to spread of enlightenment and awakening.3. It led to racial segregation as the imperialists followed a racial outlook.4. It let to a split among the commoners in Europe as some of them backed the imperialist ambitions and some opposed it.

Colonial Collisions

1. The colonial considerations in distant always remained secondary to the considerations related to national security and interests in europe. Had they been supreme in guiding the foreign policies of these countries, one would have expected £ to ally with Germany and not France or Russia. Whenever colonial disputes arose, as far as possible, an attempt was made to resolve them by negotiating an outcome beneficial to all. Thus Africa was partitioned in Berlin in 1884-85. In the case of the Boxer rebellion in China in 1900 and in case of Japan in 1905 the colonial powers united and worked together to secure an outcome which was beneficial for them all. They were also united in preventing the rise of a strong imperial Japan.

2. In fact a satisfactory settlement of colonial disputes became a prerequisite for alliances back home. Thus the Anglo - French alliance was made after settling the colonial disputes in Egypt and Morocco, Anglo - Russian alliance was made after settling the dispute over Iran (by carving it out in separate spheres of influence and keeping a buffer zone). The only country which let its foreign policy be dictated by colonial considerations was Italy and it proved to be an unreliable ally and eventually gained nothing.

Moroccan Crisis

1. France had influence over Morocco yet it was politically independent. There were some disputed areas between the two and France wanted to expand her territories. £ had trading concerns in Morocco as well as wanted to possess Gibraltar on the other side of the straits. Naturally a French expansion into Morocco would have raised concern for them. So Germany decided to exploit the issue to break the £-French alliance and the Kaiser visited Morocco in 1905 and indicated support for recognition of Moroccan independence. Since Germany had no direct interest in Morocco, such an action was perceived as directly hostile and aggressive by both £ and France.

2. But £ and France refused to let their foreign policy be guided by colonial interests (overriding the interests in europe) and reached an agreement over Morocco. Germany (unaware of the agreement) called for an international conference to discuss Morocco. The situation was worsened when German pressure forced French foreign minister (who had worked to strengthen the alliance with £) to resign. This further strengthened opinion against Germany. In the conference which was held, except for Austria-Hungary, no one supported Germany and it came as a big defeat to German diplomacy. France was given effective control of Morocco.

3. In 1910, French troops occupied Fez, the most important city of Morocco. Germany was infuriated and without much consideration sent a gunboat to the Moroccan port. This was the gunboat diplomacy.

Origin of Modern Politics

Created: 12/13/2011 1:44 PM

European States SystemNature & Character The European States System in 18th century was based on 3 pillars: Monarchy, Church and Landed Aristocracy.Monarchy

1. Monarchy was an essential feature because it avoided the struggle for power and each monarch had in his interests to pass on a stronger kingdom to his son. It was also accepted because in those days, the role of state was seen to be very limited to protect the state from internal and external threats only. This specialized job had to be left to specialists. The concepts of popular participation had not yet emerged. The king who succeeded in doing this won the loyalty of his subjects. In the absence of nations, it was beneficial to show allegiance to the king only and this allegiance to the king provided a general bonding to the society.

2. The monarchs added the concept of absolutism in 17th century. This absolutism led to growth of internal and external conflicts. So a better administration and efficient taxation system was needed to preserve the monarchy.

3. So the absolute monarchs started to become more benevolent and reform oriented. This also won them popular support which they needed against the feudal lords. In fact until 1792, most of what French Revolution did was simply an accelerated implementation of reforms the monarchs themselves were looking to do.

4. However, as a result of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, the institution of monarchy lost its status as monarchs were tossed around like footballs by him.

Church

1. The church used to dominate the religious, philosophical an educational lives if European people.2. In countries which came under the impact of revolution, church suffered irreversible losses. Still after 1815, she got back control over education and land

grants. In other countries, she retained her land and privileges.

Landed Aristocracy

1. In the age where industrialization was still in the bud, land formed the most important form of property and hence socio-political power. The revolution tried to change it, but the land which was taken away from the church and nobles was mostly usurped by bourgeoisie and some by peasants. After the distributions and redistributions, the land ownership was still very confined to aristocrats and wealthy middle class.

2. The limited diffusion of land led to limited diffusion of political rights since everywhere the voting rights were property-wise. Parliaments represented property and not people. No party system was possible in such situations. On top of this the upper houses of parliaments in France and England were drawn almost exclusively from aristocracy and clergy and most of the ministers were selected from the same class. Thus all revolution succeeded in doing was to force the nobles and clergy to share some of their power with the bourgeoisie.

3. In eastern europe, in the absence of strong middle class, the regimes remained a mere perpetuation of ancien regime. Even where serfs were freed like Germany, they had to cede their land to the landlords as a compensation. So the grip of landed class over the administration remained.

Challenges Population Growth

1. European population grew rapidly from 1750. For such a massive demographic transition, new social and political systems were needed.



Urbanization and Industrialization

1. Prior to the Industrial revolution, the domestic system was dominant form of secondary production. But the invention of new expensive machines necessitated the movement to cities and produced disruptive changes in the social order. New kind of organizations like trade unions, companies etc. began to grow and the old systems found themselves incapable of handling these. They tried to resist, but eventually had to give way.

2. The contribution of industrialization in changing the state system was the growth of powerful capitalist class and the growth of proletariat. The immediate interests of both classes coincided like free trade, cheaper food, political representation. Aristocracy clearly had to give way. But scared of the proletariat, an alliance emerged between the aristocracy and the middle class.

3. Though it took a much longer time for workers' demands to be met, the whole thing changed the entire framework in which a state's role was seen. Now it was no longer confined to protection from internal and external threats but a more intimate and intricate relationship emerged between the state and its citizens. Thus the institutions of monarchy, church domination and landed aristocratic domination began to crumble.

Liberalism

1. It believed that there should be more organic relationship between the government and society. The government should not be above or apart from the society but at least should be based on the consent of the important sections and should work for the benefit of the people.

2. The biggest obstacles in the path of liberals were the aristocracy and clergy. So they attacked feudal and church rights most vigorously. The most preferred government was a constitutional monarchy where constitutional arrangements, checks and balances, rule of law and meritocracy prevailed.

3. This was distinct from democracy as liberalism believed in the sovereignty of the constitutional arrangements and parliament and not of the people. They valued liberty more highly than equality and fraternity.

4. Their objections to settlement of 1815 was less on nationalistic grounds and more because it restored aristocracy and clergy.

Democracy

1. It stressed on equality more than liberty and fraternity. They even wanted more social and economic equality and thus were hated by liberals. But like liberals, they were opposed to the ancient regime as well. But unlike liberals, they believed, sovereignty lay in people and not in constitutional arrangements.

2. They favored universal male suffrage and sometimes even direct democratic tools like plebiscite and referendum.3. To resist the democrats, liberals were often ready to ally with aristocrats.

Socialism

1. It stressed more on fraternity than liberty and equality. Men in natural state are good and cooperative.2. Earliest socialism was found in Americas in some communities which had escaped from Europe.3. Like the democrats and liberals, their ideals were derived from French Revolution too.

AmericaRevolutionConstitutionCivil WarAbraham LincolnAbolition of SlaveryFranceRole of Philosophers

1. They didn't preach Revolution and in fact most were ready to lend support to any monarch who would patronize them and adopt their teachings.2. Their followers were mainly aristocrats and the lawyers, businessmen, local dignitaries etc. who by no means were the oppressed lot.3. The doctrines of the philosophers were used by the revolutionaries later on only to justify their actions.4. Their contribution was that they made men more ready to question the existing system.

What made people revolt in spite of themselves was the revolutionary situation

1. The core of the revolutionary situation was a king in desperate financial crisis. All the conventional ways of taxation had been exhausted.2. France was a large, powerful, rich country in Europe at that time. It had a larger middle class and a better off peasantry compared to rest of Europe. But even

these conditions turned against the establishment.3. Its not the people who have something to gain who revolt, its people who have something to lose who revolt. These people wanted to protect their belongings.4. The decision of the king to summon estates-generale won him popularity initially, but he could not capitalize on it and ultimately it led to the revolution.5. By now the socio-economic system in France had greatly outgrown her politico-administrative system. The decision to summon Estates-Generale brought

various people together who wanted social and political reforms.6. Thus the act of summoning actually crystallized the revolutionary situation.

It was only the King, in the eighteenth-century France, who could create a Republic

1. Despite the revolutionary situation, no one of significance was demanding the head of the King.2. The king had in fact won popularity by his decision to summon the Estates-General and then by increasing the strength of the 3rd Estate representatives.3. If he had followed it up by declaring a joint session of the Estates-General then with one stroke he would have gained immense popularity with the people and

also destroy the nobles and clergymen which had been keeping checks on him.4. However, his indecisive policies since then led to a failure on his part to actually be a part and leader of the revolution and gave opportunities to others.5. Despite this, until the very last act of the King, republicanism was not a popular opinion. People were looking for reforms under the king and didn't want to

depose him.

Only a monarch prepared to be a revolutionary could have escaped the dilemma which plagued the eighteenth century French monarchy

1. The French monarchy was absolute in theory and the kings claimed to be ruling by divine right.2. In the past, his authority had been checked only by powerful nobles and local parliaments which had been considered generally illegitimate.3. However, his wielding of absolute authority was so enmeshed in the system that he became a slave of the system to rule that way.4. He could rule only through the privileged orders of the society and through wasteful expenditures. Any other way of ruling would have been considered a

weakness and brought about his own downfall.5. But if he continued to rule that way, he was fueling the revolutionary situation by perpetuating the reactionary socio-administrative system.6. Thus only a monarch who was prepared to provide leadership to the revolution could have save the monarchy in France.



Factors behind the rise of Parisian Mob

1. During past few decades, the growth in prices in France had outpaced the growth in incomes by a factor of 3. Factors responsible for this price rise was the accumulation of precious metals due to overseas trade, expansion of credit and slower expansion of production. This had made life very difficult for the people living at the sustenance level and they had no option but to flock to the towns to take any meager jobs.

2. Also during the preparation of the meeting of the National Assembly in May 1789, local bodies were supposed to send them cahiers or list of demands. Most of the peasantry demand either failed to be reflected in the cahiers or they were not raised by the National Assembly. Thus the National Assembly lost touch with the public opinion and the peasants and migrants had to take direct action.

It was not the National Assembly but the peasants who had really overthrown feudalism

1. The demands of the peasantry were not raised by the National Assembly and it lost touch with the popular opinion. The reason for this was it was dominated by bourgeoisie and thus was interested in pressing for their demands only like equality before law, protection of liberty and property, merit and not birth being the basis of holding higher offices etc. The National Assembly was only interested in getting rid of the less valuable feudal rights so as to protect the more valuable property rights.

2. However, the pressure from peasantry was rising as was evident from the Fall of Bastille. Also everywhere in France the peasants had been burning the feudal archives called the chateaux, confiscating feudal property and asserting their freedom.

3. It was only under this immense pressure from the peasant class that all feudal rights were abolished.

The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen was not a manifesto of democracy

1. The citizens meant only the voting class or the active citizens. A vast majority remained the passive citizens.2. There was no universal male suffrage in France and only propertied class were allowed to vote.3. The declaration contained rights which were typically the demands of the middle class like equality before law, freedom from arbitrary arrest or punishment,

meritocracy, right to property, freedom of speech and press and equal distribution of tax burdens.4. If the Declaration began to inspire democratic movements later in the world, it was due to subsequent events and not on its own.

The Declaration was a challenge to entire Europe

1. The Declaration contained Rights of Man which were universally applicable to all men living anywhere in the world who wanted to be free. This universalism posed a direct challenge the existing order in rest of Europe.

2. The doctrine of sovereignty of the nation which means people and the doctrine that "law is the expression of general will" conflicted with the existing autocratic, absolute monarchist systems in Europe where law was the whims and wishes of the ruler.

The most revolutionary doctrine of the Declaration - Right of Resistance to Oppression

1. It is also found in the American Revolution. It was revolutionary in the sense that it ex ante gave legitimacy to any movement to overthrow an oppressive rule. Thus it was invoked later in October to legitimize the extinguishing of king's right to veto all legislation.

2. However, the reasons for including it were also ex post as the actions of Bastille and of the National Assembly had to be legitimized.

Factors behind the transformation of the Revolution into a war

1. The Civil Constitution of Clergy was one source of trouble. It sought to turn the church into a state department and severe all its relations with Rome. Most of the Europe was deeply catholic in those days and this act was disliked.

2. The influence of the émigrés who fled to other countries and encouraged those powers to invade France.3. The universality of the principles of the Revolution and the challenge they posed to the existing order in Europe. 4. The French Assembly declared that any territories occupied by France would be freed from feudal obligations and the church and aristocratic property would

be confiscated.5. Thus Europe witnessed a war - not the traditional mercenary kind of war fought for territory - but one fought by a nation for an ideology.

Factors leading to the rise of Jacobianism

1. The execution of the king after his act of running away provided a death blow to the advocates of constitutional monarchy and increased the popularity of Jacobians who were republicans.

2. The same act of execution led to escalation of conflicts - France now had to fight Britain, Spain, Holland and Hungary as well.3. With the escalation of conflicts, French army began to suffer reverses. So the Giordins who were advocates of war and were in control of power at that

time lost their popularity. 4. In Robespierre, Jacobians had an able leader who could channelize support behind him.

Factors behind the rise of Robespierre

1. His personality - he could easily sway masses and parliamentarians, his personal life, philosophy, fanaticism all appealed to French in the hour of crisis.2. The Jacobian Club had a very sound organization with centre at Paris and branches in all provinces and cities thereby enabling him to mobilize opinion and

carry out his work.3. Many communes had come up in the revolution. These communes were mostly irregular municipal governments and were full of radical elements. They rallied

the Paris mob. Robespierre became the head of the Paris Commune. 4. The nature of the legislature at the time had given most executive powers to the Committee of Public Safety. He became the head of it and could easily

exercise dictatorial power.5. A special court called Revolutionary Tribunal was setup to bypass normal judiciary and convict the alleged enemies of revolution. This helped him in eliminating

many of his opponents.

Significance of the Cult of Supreme Being in Notre Dome

1. It established Deism as against Catholicism.2. The Deism required its followers to practice human duties. This was complementary to the Declaration of Rights in the sense it was like a Declaration of Duties.

This symbolized that the revolution had grown tired.

Reasons for the Reign of Terror

1. The significant pressure exerted by the Paris mob forced each parliamentarian to become more radical.2. The familiar forms of government had been tried and had failed. So there was chaos.3. There was threat of foreign invasion and internal challenges.4. The large scale emigrations helped strengthen the notion that enemies of the revolution were enemies of the state as well and hence should be prosecuted.



5. Eventually the terror was used just to prolong the dictatorial rule of Robespierre.

Impact of the Revolution on War

1. The notion that in times of emergency ordinary public could be called upon to render service and sacrifice property emerged and gained ground. Thus it eventually turned wars from being battles between armies to being conflicts between whole nations.

2. It transformed the wars into one of economic attrition through the Continental system and British blockade. 3. It led to the notion of the duties of the state towards its citizens because if the citizens could be called upon to sacrifice, the state should take care of their

welfare. Overall it made the relationship between citizens and state more intricate and intimate.

The nature and character of the post-Jacobian phase of the Revolution

1. It was not a royalist reaction nor was it a Giordin reaction. It was a turn towards moderate Jacobianism. A new constitution was drafted which was neither Giordin nor Jacobian but it sought to end the feat of executive as well as the Paris mob.

2. The émigrés began to come back in some numbers and Law of Maximum was discontinued. Law of Maximum meant fixing a ceiling on the prices of commodities.

3. It wanted a new parliamentary system on a narrow social basis so that its moderate and avoids personal dictatorship.

Weaknesses of the Directory

1. The directors were self seeking politicians with little credibility.2. Their support base was narrow and was limited to businessmen, lawyers, landlords etc.3. So they had to resort to constant use of force against their own people to maintain their authority.

The Babeuf Conspiracy

1. Babeuf attracted a group of radical Jacobians and organized a secret society called the Society of the Pantheon.2. In February 1796, Napoleon was personally sent to close the meeting place and dismantle the society. Babeuf and his

supporters retaliated by forming a secret directory and preparing for a revolt. They wanted to revive Jacobian constitution of 1793 and create a truly equal society in France.

Domestic circumstances leading to Napoleon's success

1. The Directory had become very unpopular due to their policy paralysis. Their unpopularity was reflected in a successive defeat in the elections which they refused to recognize.

2. Finally in 1799, the situation could no longer be contained and two directors planned a coup with Napoleon's help.

Factors behind French success in the wars

1. Her enemies were never united despite being organized into a coalition. The coalition was merely superficial and they were only interested in furthering their own gains.

19th century Europe would have been a place of profound change and great expansion even if French Revolution had never taken place or Napoleon would never have been born

1. The declared war aims gave way slowly to imperialist tendency with policy of establishing natural French frontiers being followed. Thus the revolutionary war became no different from Louis XIV's imperialistic wars.

2. In the conquered areas, French laws and institutions were imposed with no regard of local aspirations. The locals merely found themselves serving a different set of masters. Areas like Italy and Holland were turned into French colonies. The introduction of machines was encouraged only in France and discouraged everywhere else.

3. The people of these areas had already become acquainted with the principles of the revolution. There began a cultural and ideological movement in these areas to forge themselves into independent nations. However, the importance of French Revolution and Napoleonic wars should not be overemphasized.

4. American Revolution had already taken place which was based on revolutionary ideals.5. The British democracy was already turning towards being more inclusive and liberal.6. The forces of Industrial Revolution would have been unstoppable.7. It was not just the political revolution which changed lives, but the scientific and cultural revolutions led by people like Adam Smith, James Watt, Beethoven etc.

which had more profound impact on the age. So what French Revolution did was merely to accelerate the changes.

The Treaty of Tilsit was a high watermark of Napoleonic Empire

1. Even though the powers in the coalition were always divided and were busy in pursuing their narrow self interests (e.g.. Prussia in N Germany and E Europe, Russia in Poland and Turkey, Austria in Danube Valley), they still put up some sort of semblance of being united.

2. However, by this treaty, Napoleon completely broke even the semblance of unity. He convinced the tsar of Russia that his real enemy was England as her interests in Turkey and Asia conflicted with that of England's.

3. He convinced the tsar that he would be recognized the ruler of the east if Napoleon was recognized the ruler of the west. So Russia and along with Prussia agreed to follow the Continental system and Austria even declared war on England. Thus not only was the third coalition smashed, it was reversed.

Unification in the West had to be accompanied by constant division and conflict in the East ; and his power was never consolidated east of the Elbe and the Adriatic

1. The first three coalitions which were formed against France were more a result of British strategy and superficial coincidence of interests of the eastern European powers than anything else. Prussia, Austria and Russia were the three eastern powers and any real combination of them would indeed have been formidable as was proved in the Fourth Coalition.

2. So Napoleon while consolidating his direct rule in the line west of and including S Germanic states and Italy, used diplomacy to keep the east divided. He avoided any international conferences or multilateral pacts and instead insisted on settling issues bilaterally thus fostering mistrust among the eastern powers.

Only the threat posed by Napoleon could have united the governments of Europe in so solid and formidable an alliance: he made the Grand Empire and he destroyed it

1. 3 Coalitions had been formed and shattered. One big reason was the internal squabbling among the coalition powers and absence of any fundamental unifying cause.

2. But the way Napoleon inflicted defeats after defeats on them and snatched the territories, they felt their survival itself was dependent on defeat of Napoleon.3. England had stifled Napoleon through her naval supremacy and blockade. The challenge was so great that they forgot all their differences.



To embark on so vast an undertaking in the East while Britain remained unconquered in the west was a mistake that Hitler was to repeat 130 years later

1. Bot the would be conquerors of Europe - Napoleon and Hitler - faced this dilemma. The naval supremacy of England had made her conquest look impossible. Both were land powers, so fell in the temptation of solidifying their power by capturing the vast east.

2. In both cases, an east-west alliance was precipitated as a result of the aggression and this devastated the aggressor.

The impact of Continental System on economic system in Europe

1. Now brought out in open, the need to focus on and expand the maritime trade, was reinforced by the continental system and the blockade of Europe.2. Between 1789 to 1815, England's foreign trade trebled and it became more trans-atlantic and far-east in character.3. France, being cut-off from her overseas connections was forced to focus on its trade with continental Europe and near East.

Other reasons for Napoleon's fall

1. The opponents had all finally united against him. It was this alliance which eventually defeated Napoleon after the nationalist sentiments had played their part 2. Napoleon's war tactics had been learnt by others and now used against him.3. The Prussian state relied on heavy mass support and conscription to rebuild against Napoleon.

Forces combining the Aristocracies in Europe in 1815

1. The Church enjoyed a resurgent popularity all over Europe.2. The landed aristocracy and land based production system was largely a common system. The methods of cultivation were still medieval.3. There was cousinhood of kings i.e. most of the dynasties were inter-married and linked to each other.4. French language and culture was prevalent among the elite classes. In the conquered areas, Napoleon had imposed French institutions, laws, administration

etc.

The Treaty of Chaumont, 1814

1. Its aim was to throw Napoleon and then to preserve and consolidate the post-Napoleon order.2. It bound its signatories into an alliance for 20 years with responsibilities to maintain the settlements reached after defeating Napoleon.

The Treaties of Paris, 1814 and 1815

1. The first treaty was very lenient on France as after restoration of the legitimate ruler, she was seen as an ally. Her borders were restored to pre-1792 levels and she only had to surrender some colonies. She was not to be occupied or disarmed and didn't even have to pay any war indemnity.

2. But after the popular support Napoleon received in his 100 days of rule, the second treat fixed harsher terms on France. Her borders were fixed to pre-1789 level which means she lost Belgium and barely managed to hold on to Alsace-Lorraine. She was made to pay a large war indemnity and forced to host an allied garrison till 1818.

The Congress of Vienna resembled an odd assemblage of characters and national interests and yet was more remarkable than the Peace of Paris in its work

1. The characters involved in the Congress were Tsar Alexander I of Russia who usually acted personally, Matternich of Austria, Handenberg of Prussia who acted on behalf of King Frederick William III and Lord Casrlereagh (and in later stages Duke of Wellington) who represented UK and Talleyrand of France.

2. The Tsar was an utopian character and hoped for a liberal settlement; Matternich was most conservative character and stubbornly hostile to all liberal hopes; Casrlereagh was pragmatic and wanted to reach a moderate and generally acceptable solution and Talleyrand merely wanted to protect French interests.

3. England and Russia were grouped alike in the sense their major interests lay outside Europe and they only wanted to intervene in Europe in major issues. Their interest clashed over the Ottoman empire and Asian regions.

4. England wanted to maintain general peace and stability in Europe to secure her market in Europe.5. Austria and France were large continental powers whose interests usually lay inside the continent and conflicted with each other specially in Germany and Italy.6. Prussia was the only power left free to consolidate and this helped her to emerge as the strongest power in Europe.7. Under such mutually conflicting environment suspicion, secret agents and secret alliances ran high.8. They signed the Quadruple Alliance the major European powers pledged to maintain by force the arrangements reached in Chaumont, Vienna and Paris. They

also sought a regular congress of their representatives to iron out issues. This was considered very important by the signatories as it gave a mechanism to resolve future issues without resorting to war.

9. They also signed the Holy Alliance which was advocated by the Tsar and its philosophy was that all European states were parts of one Christian nation and only God was sovereign in Europe. This alliance was not taken seriously by any power and they signed it only because it did no harm and pleased the Tsar. The Holy Alliance was prone to failures in its assumption about the alikeness of European states. The League of Nations formed also suffered from the same weakness as of the Holy Alliance as it assumed that European nations would be democratic and peace loving in nature. Like the Holy Alliance, it abandoned the notion of balance of power. But the Vienna Congress through Quadruple Alliance sought no such replacement of the balance of power neither did it assume that European interests will not clash. It provided for an effective mechanism to iron out these differences and thus brought peace to Europe which it badly needed.



BritainBritish Democratic Politics (1815-50)

1. The attitude of the government in this period was that of conservatism. The parliamentary system ensured that there was no need for a radical revolt but the conservative outlook ensured that any reforms could only be piecemeal and cold be achieved only after a prolonged struggle. Such was the case in abolition of Combination Laws in 1824 (legalizing trade unions) and Emancipation Act in 1829 (giving civil equality to people other than protestants).

Chartists

1. This was a movement of workers which demanded political rights for them. It tried to create an impression that the sole reason for all the miseries of workers was their lack of representation in the £ parliament and thus pressed for parliamentary reforms. Their methods were mainly based on submitting mass petitions etc. The government naturally resorted to repression in the beginning.

2. It became popular specially after 1832 due to the popular resentment against the 1832 reforms (which had set the tax qualification of £10 for voters), the economic fluctuations and crisis and exploitation of workers. In 1838 William Lovett (a cabinet maker) and Francis Place (a tailor) drew up a list of 6 demands which is popularly called the "People's Charter". It called for universal male suffrage, equal electoral districts, removal of property qualifications for MPs, annual elections and secret ballot. They emphasized the doctrine of sovereignty of people as against the £ government doctrine of sovereignty of the parliament (because in those days parliament was not a representative of the people).

3. It made a call for convening a National Convention near the Parliament where it would present to the parliament a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures. But its leaders were indecisive over what to do next should the petition be rejected. While Lovett and Place were in favor of © methods only, O'Connor called for violence. In July 1839 a petition was presented to the parliament with 1.25 mm signatures but was rejected. Riots, strikes etc. broke out. But the movement got divided as some followed violent means, other stuck to © means only.

4. Subsequent petitions were presented in 1842 and 1848 and were rejected each time. The movement died. The middle class which had supported the movement earlier (because it opposed the Corn Laws) had withdrawn its support once the Corn Laws were abolished. Only the workers were left and the fortunes of the movement varied inversely with the economic cycles.

Parliamentary Reforms

1. The pressure of the 1830 revolt in other parts of Europe forced £ parliament to pass the parliamentary reform act of 1832. The Bill was opposed by the upper house but they were coerced into agreement by the lower house (on the threat that the king would reconstitute the upper house). The Act redistributed the strength of constituencies. It gave a share in the political power to the rising middle class by redistributing it from the landed aristocracy.

2. The reformed parliament thus created was much more liberal and it proceeded to pass some more liberal reforms like the abolition of slavery in 1833 in the colonies as well.

Free Traders



1. The period between 1790 and 1830 saw progressive freer trade within the national borders (as internal tariffs and other NTTBs were eliminated) and rising protection against international products (specially £ manufacturers). Thus large free trade areas like zollverein and UK (£ + Ireland) were created. This led to great strengthening of the middle class in europe (particularly west). This new middle class sought policies more favorable to them and hence more political representation.

2. But by 1830, UK manufacturers were feeling the constraints of a saturated home market and a protected european market. They had already gained competitive advantage in manufacturing and were afraid of none. So they pressed their government to set an example and follow a policy of free trade.

3. The reforms of 1832 had given greater power to the liberal and pro free trade elements. Their demand to repeal Corn Laws and to allow freer trade should be seen in this context only. The mill owners wanted cheap bread for their workers so that they could pay them less. They also opposed the Navigation laws (which restricted shipping between £ and her colonies to £ ships only) which were eventually repealed in 1849.

4. Jeremy Benthem had championed the utilitarian philosophy. This philosophy called for a critical examination of any law from the point of view of its benefit to the society and thus disregarded all traditionalism. This helped in furthering the reform process.

5. Even though free traders saw independence of colonies as a natural outcome, they paradoxically were instrumental in strengthening of the colonial system. The Long Depression of 1873-1896 led to increased pressure on European governments to abandon free trade and promote home industries. The protectionist tendencies among various european nations were getting very strong and by 1870 virtually all european nations had imposed strict tariffs against each other's goods and capital. In this context, colonies were seen as safe markets (the major reason) for both manufactured products as well as capital and sources of raw materials. They were now seen less in terms of their commercial value but more in terms of guarantee for free market. Thus in this period we saw a consolidation of £ rule in India, coastal colonies in Africa getting inward, expansion of hold in the Cape and Australia and New Zealand emerging as a full colonized continent.

6.