France, Britain, and Ireland under the Responsive National State

What is the Dreyus Affair? 

• Alfred Dreyus, an innocent Jewish man who was a Captain in the army , was accused of treason in France in 1898 
• He was accused of passing treasonous notes to the Germans 
• This juicy incident has a lot to do with it's time. it was the time of YELLOW JOURNALISM, which means that newspapers exaggerate stories to sell (this is why it reminds us of modern times) 

Where does the Church fall in this scandal? 

• So the Church had MAJOR influence over society and this altercation was not surprising because Dreyus was Jewish and the tensions among the Church and all else had been building up for many years

What's happening in Britain? 

• there's a battle and tension between the Conservatives and Liberals in Parliament. at the time it was two party system but this changed to a multi-party system that is used today and in many other countries 
• the multi-party system makes the parties work together and cross party lines to form majority government. this process also gives people more of a voice in the government 
• it could not have happened if the reform bills were not passed 
• People were getting the right to vote !!!
• 
• (the people) 
• 
  
• the politicians were letting this happen bc they wanted some more support for their ideas 
• the First Reform Bill in 1832 increased the number of people allowed to vote from 8% to 12% 
• as a reaction John Stuart Mill, a Benthamite, wrote On Liberty 
• a Benthamite follows the ideas of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism ---> the greatest good for the greatest number of people  
• 
  
• 
• (Jeremy Bentham) 
• his goal was to safeguard individuals' differences and unpopular opinions 
• he was all in favor of more people voting but he thought that it was important to protect the voice of the opposing, minority views so that one opinion does not "steamroll" the other 
• why would this protection be needed at this time? 
• so there's a new urban class bc of the Industrial Rev. and they're being mistreated and simply bc the minority voice was not being heard 
• the Second Reform Bill in 1867 
• Disraeli (Prime Minister) and the Conservatives extended the vote to all middle-class males and the best-paid workers when they passed this 
• Disraeli was willing to "take a leap in the dark," meaning that he was willing to listen to the people (not than the aristocrats, the middle class people) in hopes that he would gain popularity and votes. it was a "leap in the dark" because there was a 50/50 chance that "the people" would take to his politics 
• the Third Reform Bill of 1884 
• gave a vote to ALMOST every adult male 
• by this time the Chartists' (from last chapter) wants were mostly fulfilled 
• the People's Budget 
• it was a bill for social welfare for the people 
• promoted less aristocracy and more democracy 
• increased people's mass loyalty to Great Britain 

What's up in Ireland? 

• it was all controlled by Great Britain 
• Gladstone (Prime Minister) wanted to "Pacify Ireland" by setting up a government where the people could rule themselves but still but under the giant umbrella of British lands 
• sorta like Canada 
•  but some people (Protestants in the North) wanted to stay under the British control bc: 
• they were tied to GB through their religion (the Church of England) 
• they wanted to be part of the greatest empire in the world (at the time) 
• the people in the north were descants of the British colonists (so they weren't really Irish) 
• opposing them were the people (Catholics in the South) who wanted nothing to do with Britain and wanted their freedom from the suppressor 
• the Catholics had been persecuted by the Brits (especially during Cromwell's reign) and wanted out 

(the Irish Catholics to the British) 

• nothing happened though bc World War I came around and Britain dropped the altercate with the Irish to fight the Axis powers 

Marxism? 

• back yet again, know that you need to know the Manifesto for the test and that it is a COMPLETE upheaval of society so people are hesitant to believe in it 

Russia HSM themed

SOOO, Russia? and high school musical bc thats my life right now...

so we'll start of this lovely blog with the question:

why was Russia so behind

- behind because they were backwards. Agriculture contributed to this mainly because they were behind in agricultural technology. You may ask, why do they not have technology or advancements?

Well, it's mainly because the ruling classes lacked the desire to allow anything to change that might slightly take away their power. But a big lol because not changing things made Russia weak and made them have no power anyway

Russia needs to get its head in the game. 

.

Russia: 

Alexander I 

He was at the same time as Napoleon and Metternich. He fit into their international relations because he was a total conservative. 

Nicholas I

everyone in Russia during this time

So he was really big into nationalism. You may ask why? Mainly because Russia was so diverse so the government used nationalism to united the different groups together. Basically Russia had the same problem as Austria: subject nationalities. This means that Russia (and Austria) had different nationalities that are all subject to them. Nationalism was used to prevent revolt.

Alexander II

He was known as the liberator because he freed the serfs. But did he really free the serfs? Well, on paper yes because legally they were free. In real life, they were still in the same situation because they governed as groups, but it was still almost as impossible to get their own land. So, we could say that the tsar liberator is a misnomer. We decided that we could say its similar to the freed slaves of america.

He is unique because he gave up some of his control while most tsars tried to keep all their control

Unforch, he was blown to pieces. Why? Wasn't he giving the people what they wanted? Yes, but you know you give them an inch, they want smile. The People's will killed them and they are a relative of vladimir lenin.

more like explode in Alex II's case... ooo too harsh? 

 

Alexander III

So was the industrialization really a product of alexander III or was it a product of the time?
- Well it could said that Alexander III tried to create more industrialization through the people he chose (like Sergei Witte)
- It could also be said that it was just a product of the time, that it was inevitable this industrialization would happen

Nicholas II

- was he effective or not?
Well he didn't really know what he wanted to do. He became the tsar really young, probably never wanted to be the tsar and never learned how to be either. He always went back on his decisions and trusted the wrong people.

Japan and Russia went to war over North Korea and China Manchuria.

This loss is one of the reasons for the Revolution of 1905. No this isn't a civil war because it was too short. Russia's civil war would come later. Remember: military disaster brings political disaster at home. 

Nicholas II was also very responsible for the revolution because of the october manifesto. In it, he gave the people what they wanted and then slowly he took everything back. For example with the Duma, he let it occur until they went against what he wanted, and when they did he dissolved it. Same with civil rights.

Nicholas II with basically WHATEVER he did

Third Republic of France

Couple main ideas to look at: mainly crises

How did they get to the third republic?

- Napoleon III and the second empire preceded the republic. When the Franco-Prussian War ended, so did the second empire.

The Parisian Commune

After came the Parisian commune where Paris said they didn't want those dirty countryside people having anything to do with government. This was similar to the Revolution of 1848 where Paris wanted to control themselves and because of the crazy Paris people, the country voted for Napoleon III. So, we know the drill. The commune lost before and it'll lose again. Sorry Parisian commune.

Leon Gambetta was next with his desire for absolute parliamentary control. This desire forced the autocratic president to resign. Uh oh. 

Finally, the Dreyfus affair which will be discussed on the next blog.

Don't forget to prepare the communist manifesto for next class!

hint hint Yarn for the next test

Bismarck and his issues

Seven Weeks War/Austrio Prussian War 

- Bismarck wanted to kick the Austrians out of Germany (even though they thought they were on their side against the Danes) 

- Bismarck's reasoning for this was that he didn't want to share a power with Austria 

He basically thinks that the only way to accomplish what he wants/be super powerful is to kick Austria out. 

- So what does he do? he instigates a war... 

The war ends after seven weeks hence the name 

- After the war ended, Bismarck made the peace terms very generous... which was a little sus 

This was way different than how he treated the French after the Franco-Prussian War. 

• France was forced to pay a huge indemnity of 5 billion francs and to cede the rich eastern province of Alsace and part of Lorraine to Germany 

Why so mean to France??

Bismarck saw that Napoleon III was a very strong leader so he didn't want to give him any leeway or opportunities

It basically boils down to the fact that Bismarck couldn't handle the idea of any other powerful nation, so he just wrecked them

The French were deeply scarred by these harsh terms, and it stayed with them all the way to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles

Bismarck 

- An analogy that really bothers Brielle is that he is like a nineteenth century sun king 

True, he will never have Louis's amazing dancing skills, but there are many reasons why he would be considered as powerful as Louis: 

- First of all, he practically created Germany, aka he is responsible for its unification that made it the country it is today 

so Germany owes everything to Bismarck 

- He also was able to tame the parliament by refusing to listen to them- much like what Louis did with the nobles 

However, in typical Bismarck fashion, he realizes that making up with Parliament would actually be a better idea because it would benefit him 

- it would unite the people under him more- make him more powerful 

Of course, Bismarck plays this off and acts like it wasn't an impulse action to get what he wanted 

So why did he go to Parliament? 

- He realized that everyone wanted to participate in the government so he let them believe they were in order to get support 

- He needs Parliament because its all about image- parliament is very important in terms of public opinion of him 

• He is going to use nationalism to get what he wants- in order to be nationalistic, they have to be ok with the people in charge
• If he did not get on the good side of parliament, they could give him a hard time which could lead to revolts
• Trying to keep everyone happy in order to support him
• Basically Wants to make sure no one wants to kill him
  
  
  

• Church had this voting block that made him nervous

• Wanted to take Catholic political power out
• Worried that people would be listening to the Pope instead of him- Papal infallibility
• In Protestant Russia- he made laws that were hostile to the Catholic Church
• Doesn’t get much done- his attack on the Catholic Church was less of a success
• “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them made.”
  
  
  

  Finally: His deal with socialism: 

  • Fearful of Socialism/Communism
  • Scared he would be out because he was conservative
  • Thought they would ruin society
  • Some of their ideas were popular with the German people- so he takes some of his ideas and puts them into action to make the socialists less popular
  • He puts these social reforms into place/takes them for his own
  • He wanted to have popular support, not divide the nation any further
  • If the government is already doing these things, it makes the socialists less popular
  • Kept him in power

Unification in Italy and Germany

Unification in Italy

So, beginning in Italy, we started to discuss some of those who made it onto the list of four important dead  guys . Just to refresh who was on said list we had :

-  Mazzini

- Cavour

-Garibaldi

- Victor Emmanuel

Now given this list :

Which one was most important out of them in the formation of a unified Italy?

• Based on his actions, it was determined that Cavour proved to be the most important in this process,  becoming a major force in catalyzing the unification under the Sardinian king, Victor Emmanuel. Further, Cavour took advantage of the situation as they were presented to him, as in the later case of Garibaldi, in order to promote his goals.

Cavour

Going off of this last point, how did Cavour take advantage of Garibaldi?

• Garibaldi was an ardent nationalist who wanted to free the kingdoms of the Two Sicilies using his group of fellow nationalist guerrilla fighters, known as the Red Shirts.

- This group of  Red Shirts are reminiscent of earlier nationalist radical, Mazzini, who employed the use of the il Risorgimento.

• Even though he promoted a more conservative constitutional monarchy political approach, Cavour secretly aided Garibaldi in his plan of opening up the kingdoms in Sicily. In this way, Cavour saw Garibaldi as an important tool to help get his ideas of breaking the local kingdoms down in favor of a singular state pushed forward.

- As we said, Cavour agreed with the mission, not the means of Garibaldi , but what did this mean?

• Favoring more diplomatic approaches, Cavour did not particularly like the more aggressive, guerrilla methods that were employed by Garibaldi and his men. 

- Force, however can sometimes do a lot more than lofty political agreements to further a cause.

• Although this force was a somewhat effective way to tear through kingdoms like Sicily, it ultimately proved problematic when Garibaldi wanted to go on into the Papal States which could incite foreign and domestic problems with leaders of the Catholic church.

• Almost more alarming to the conservative Cavour was the popular appeal that Garibaldi was gaining among the peasant classes in the areas he traveled through.

- Both issues lead Cavour to organize a plebiscite ,or vote, in the places where Garibaldi conquered.

Why was this so?

• Garibaldi was gaining a degree of support from the peasant classes. Cavour, although using Garibaldi in his plan for unification, did not want any actual threat to the monarchy that he was trying to extend across Italy. So, by doing this, Cavour prevented any more popular support from  fomenting for Garibaldi and instead instituted a vote for monarchy.

Cavour to Garibaldi

Because of this move, did it make Cavour the same as Metternich?

•  Although Cavour used a radical nationalist in a way that Metternich may not have, the two men can be seen as similar. In both leaders, there was a fear of radicalism and popular appeal. Neither Cavour nor Metternich aimed to remake society, but rather to establish a traditional form of government in the way of a constitutional monarchy.

Unification in Germany

From the unification efforts in Italy, we turned to those that were happening farther north in the German Confederation.

• Prior to this time :  nations within the German Confederation tried to unite through economic means  under the Zollverein, an overarching customs trade union.

However, the true force that ultimately did the most to unite the German nationalities was  Otto von Bismarck.

• Originally from the Prussian aristocratic class, known as the Junkers, Bismarck became the chief minister to the Hohenzollern  monarchy in Germany.

The two things that Bismarck said that united Germany was "blood and iron" rather than revolutions.

What did "blood and iron" stand for?

- Iron = industry of the nation

- Blood = international warfare that could expand and bind the confederation together

Another idea that  Bismarck  was a proponent of was  having "two irons in the fire"

• Two irons in the fire meant that in case one plan or course of action failed, there would be another one that could easily replace it as another adequate option that he could follow.

Adhering to his own advice, the three most influential steps taken by Bismarck to unify Germany included:

1. War against Denmark

• Fought over claims by both Denmark and Prussia over the provinces, Schleswig-Holstein
• The Danish king believed in the legal claims that he had to the provinces, however, with the majority of the population being German , Prussia also firmly held that the lands were theirs.

Looking at this issue, it can be viewed as having a Hitler-like quality where Hitler forcibly took present-day Czechoslovakia using the claim that the citizens wanted to go back to their German heritage and rule.

2. The Austro-Prussian War

3. The Franco-Prussian War

Based on what this information about Bismarck,

                       Was Bismarck a great visionary or a great manipulator?

• Given his actions until this point, Bismarck is more of a master manipulator than a visionary. While vision might have influenced him, Bismarck employed numerous calculated power plays to achieve the maximum benefit for the growth of his country. Therefore, he used cunning and the art of manipulation in his political position.

REMEMBER When we had that pop quiz??

and apparently there were right and wrong answers...

Well let's address why the countries were or were not liberal, socialist, and nationalistic

• In class we mainly focused on nationalism

Who were the only REAL nationalists and why

• France → it was only actual nation (unified under one ruler with one language, etc.)

Didn't we ALSO say Germany exhibited nationalism??

• Germany →Since it was inspired by Italian efforts to unite and created customs union (Zollverein) that somewhat united them

This begs a larger question: Why were Italy and Germany so slow to unify??

• Both:



What the city-states thought of each other

• They were a conglomeration of a bunch of small city-states
• Why Italy in particular:
• Renaissance promoted city-state rivalries
• Each city-state had a level of nationalism in its own areas, NOT as a Nation of Italy
• Prioritized personal goals 
• Church → "thorn in side of Italy unification,"
• Believed that pope shouldn’t have a king

Now that Italy and Germany are finally seeing the light of nationalism...

...HOW do they do it, what's the key to nationalism, it's secret ingredient one may say

• Common goal (common enemy)

The Secret Formula for Nationalism was a COMMON ENEMY

What made nationalism appealing??

• Nationalism wears many masks which means that it is adaptable to each country cuz it supports the ideals of the country
  • Not dull tool; it can effect anything that you want as long as it's country first

Math

JKJKJKJKJKJK let's go back to France

Why did Napoleon III (Napoleon cubed) get power weren't people afraid after Napoleon I?

• They were more afraid of socialism and were tired of revolution
• They wanted a strong ruler to combat both

Why was Napoleon III special

• He wore many masks → Acted socialist, liberal, national, imperial
• Supported whatever people wanted
• “A strong leader serves all people”
• “Public opinion wins the final victory”
• How does this connect to mass politics?
• Because he used popular opinion to do stuff

Politics are the people

SO as we ask for everyone that shares the same name: Was Napoleon cubed an improvement over Napoleon I?

Napoleon III being better than Napoleon I

• Sure
• Napoleon III → More open to people → improved economy, more jobs
• Cool with reducing political tensions
• Created credible public banks (Credit Mobilier) → helped poor people
• Napoleon I
• Okay with tensions 
• Started wars with everyone (we are pretending Napoleon III didn't start wars because we haven't read that far yet)
• Didn’t care about people because he came back for his own power rather than for France

What event happened between the Napoleons 1 and 3

• Industrial Revolution → Napoleon III was dealing with a new class created and people were more vocal

Once again:

Back to Italy

4 important people from Italy (the political powers)

• Mazzini
• Garibaldi
• Cavour
• Victor Emmanuel

Are any of them similar to Metternich (the Austrian Conservative dude)

• Nope:
• Mazzini → radical democratic republican
• Garibaldi→ radical nationalist
• Cavour and Emmanuel → pretty liberal with constitution (but they did like stability under monarchy)
• Metternich might not have thought that these rulers were legitimate