World History From 1815 To 1945

History of the World 1815 To 1990
(Hist.115)
Module 1
By
Abebe Dires
and
Sisay Megersa
Bahir Dar
June 2006
BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 1

HIST 115 HISTORY OF THE WORLD 1815 TO 1990
History of the World 1815 to 1990 (Hist.115)
For Year III Regular Geography Major (History Minor)

Students
By
Abebe Dires
and
Sisay Megersa
Editor
Damtie Asfaw
Bahir Dar University

Department of History
* 79
' 251 (08) 200137, (08) 205944 Ext 234
Fax: 251 (08) 202025
E-mail-bdtc@telecom.net.et
WEBSITE: http://www.bdu.ethionet.et/~bdu
Bahir Dar
June 2006
2 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

COURSE INTRODUCTION
This course, History of the World between 1815 and 1990, is designed for students taking
History as their Minor. For the effective understanding of the course, it is expected that the
student, taking this course, has taken the pre-requisite course entitled -A survey of world
History to 1815. The prime motive of this course is to expose students in a variety of
experiences so that the student will reveal a behavioral change. Thus, utmost effort is being
exerted to help students develop their cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains.
To this end, the course is structured around two basic historical events that can be used as
watersheds in sorting the various events and periods in the course. These are WWI and
WWII. The other was made to revolve around these two central points. High concern is
being given for the common traits and periods while structuring the events in to three
components. Events which appeared before the outbreak of WWI are structured as pre-WWI
period. For events appeared between WWI and WWII, are discussed in the Inter-War
period. And post WWII period represents for those events that took place after WWII.
The pre-war period is concerned with upheavals in the 19 th c and assessed the possibility that
whether those upheavals, in one way or the other had something to do with the outbreak of
WWI. This will prompt students to see things critically and thereby develop a skill of
evaluation of an event from a different angle of views. In discussing the interwar period,
both the aftermaths of WWI and those events leading to WWII will be seen together with a
view that students will be presented with a variety of opportunities that could help in
building their skill to see a cause –effect relationship.
Finally, the last portion of the course is highly devoted to enable students make use of their
value judgment. To this end, the cold war era and the contemporary world, which came in to
being with the demise of the cold war era, are the two fertile areas of discussion. Therefore,
for the realization of the above stated and demanded behaviors, this module is produced.
While the pre-WWI and inter war periods dealt with in the first part of the module, the
second part of the module is completely devoted to the post WWII period.

MODULE INTRODUCTION
As indicated in the introduction section, this part of the module is concerned with only the
period ranged from 1815 -1945. For post 1945 period, another module, part two is produced.
This module is produced to provide the students with the necessary content and learning
experience so that the student will be able to realize those grand purposes of the course,
which already indicated in the introduction section. The module will also be instrumental in
equipping the student with the required knowledge and confidence that can help in enabling
the student to be effective and efficient in his future career-Teaching Profession.
The module is broken down in to eight units other than the introductory unit. Various
landmarks are used in breaking the units. However, the organization is made in such a
manner that it can exhibit logical flow of ideas and events. Each unit is composed of content
outlines, objectives and resources section that it will be easier for the student to plan before
hand and to adjust his study habit in accordance to the aforementioned elements.
The most important constituent of the module as far as critical thinking on the part of the
learner is concerned, is however, the multitude of activities that are presented in each sub-
sessions of the units. Here, the questions raised may not have direct link with the text
discussed. Any question that will present the opportunity to see local realities, parallel
events, traditional sayings, and other similar learning experience have utmost emphasis in
writing the activities. Besides, each activity is followed by a brief feedback so that a student
can get a mirror for his reflection.
Box materials and focus points are also an integral part of the module. That information
inserted with in the boxes may/may not have direct link with the text discussed. The
rationale behind is to furnish additional learning experience for the learner, which includes:
first hand information on a certain issue; reflection and opinions of renowned. Scholars on
the topic in concern; and comparative analysis of some themes in the topic. On the other
hand, focus boxes are designed to give further elaboration for some concepts which the
writer believes need such measures.

The other components are self-assessment checklists and exercise at the end of each unit.
For the self-assessment checklists, the learner is required to make sure his/her mastery of the
indicated requirement. Otherwise he/she is expected to revise a respective topic. On the
other hand, since answer for the exercises are given at the end of the module, the learner is
supposed to evaluate his performance after being finished with each exercise. Finally,
utmost effort is being exerted to make sure that those references listed on the bibliographic
section are accessible to the learner in his near bye library.
COURSE OBJECTIVES: - The course aims to help you:
● develop a skill of applying historical theories to real life situation
● empathize controversial historical realities with in the eyeglass’ of the time
● cultivate historical thinking in analyzing various historical themes

CHAPTER ONE
CONSERVATISM VERSUS THE FORCES OF CHANGE
CONTENTS
1.1 THE VIENNA CONGRESS 2
1.2 THE PROGRESS OF INDUSTRIALIZATIONS 14
1.3 THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS 20
1.4 SUMMARY
1.5 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
This unit presents about the consequence of the Vienna Congress that led to conservatism;
the development of industrialization in Europe and its subsequent effects, and then economic
and mental changes that brought anarchism and Marxism thoughts. Moreover, it deals with
the causes of the 1848 revolution and some political changes in Europe
Objectives: - After completing this unit, the students will be able to:
 Explain the rationale behind the forces of dynamism
 Analyze the essence of nationalism with your immediate surrounding
 Evaluate the practical contribution of Liberalism for today’s Globalization
 Compare one force of change with the other

Resource:
 For this unit you need to refer kagan and et al (1998).
1.1 THE VIENNA CONGRESS
Though much of the treaty of Vienna was a compromise between the rival aims and
ambitions of the great powers, there was also a considerable degree of general agreement at
the congress about its purpose and the principles by which this should be achieved. The
statesmen were ready to combine to restore what they thought of as the “ancient public law
of Europe”, which had been violated by Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. To this
effect, the congress adopted the principle of “legitimacy”, that is, those “rightful” rulers who
had been deprived of their thrones or territory by the Revolutionary government of France or
Napoleon should be restored. However, we can say that the principle of legitimacy was only
followed in so far as it suited the great powers to follow it. As one historian put it, “What
happened at the congress of Vienna was not that pre Napoleonic Europe was divided.” The
Congress of Vienna that was held from September 1814 to June 9, 1815 in the capital of
Austria passed the following resolutions.
Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain agreed that Europe should be restored as it had
been before the French Revolution and the Napoleonic conquest.
Again those rulers who had been deprived of their crown or territory by Napoleon were to
be restored.
Besides, the art treasure looted by France to be restored for those original owners.
Lastly, in order to check future France expansion, Prussia acted as a barrier by organizing
the German confederation which replaced the Holy Roman Empire.
Activity 1.1
After reading the above quote, what comes immediately to your mind? Doesn’t it give you any
insight about the other hidden aim of the congress?
Please check your reflection with the next and immediate paragraph.

Territorial interest was the other pressing issue that pre occupied the great powers. For the
sake of future peace between them, they accepted the principle of “equilibrium” or balance
of power between themselves that is that each should gain roughly the same. Russia in fact
gained rather more in extent of territory, because she was already in possession of most of
Poland and refused to give it up. Prussia probably gained the most economically and
politically valuable territory though this was not realized at the time. An attempt was also
made to build a strong barrier to check future expansion by France. This was done by adding
territories for France’s neighbors. The congress however, more than any other state in the
period, greatly benefited Austria who had a supreme interest in the establishment of
international agreement and peace because its empire would be in grave danger of collapse
and disintegration without this.
Activity 1.2
Now you have seen the basic points concerning the congress of Vienna. How do you get the
settlement? Does it sound to you good or not?
Please discuss your feeling concerning the settlement with your classmates and read the
following varied opinions about the congress.
__________________________________________________________________________
The work of the congress has been criticized for ignoring the great forces of the day that
would stir the nineteenth century Nationalism and Liberalism. In addition, the congress
was criticized for making territorial changes solely in the interest of the great powers
without giving any consideration to the wishes of the inhabitants. The congress was
condemned by peoples for it forced them to live under despotic rulers even Italians, Poles
and others were condemned to live under alien rule. They added that the congress sharply
had appeared as a wall against the very desire of the peoples for freedom, national
independence and national unity. As a conclusion, one German historian put the Vienna
congress as, “though the congress took place twenty-five years after the beginning of the
French Revolution, its sprit was pre-revolutionary.”
On the contrary, the other groups of historians rejected the above argument. They argued
that the great powers in the Vienna congress would have had more than a human to have
anticipated future problems. It was unusual enough to produce an international settlement

that remained essentially in fact for almost half a century and that allowed Europe to suffer
no general war for a hundred years, as this group confirmed. It is wise to see the view of a
contemporary English diplomat to have a clear image about the concern of the congress
statesmen. He argued that the French revolutionaries, because of their enthusiasm and
violence and their determination to sweep away the traditional institutions of church and
state and replace them by their new forms of government, would destroy the sense of
confidence and security of the people and make them ready to accept tyranny and reaction as
the alternative to anarchy and confusion.
In general, these varied views and feelings towards the Vienna congress had their
importance in the post-Vienna congress each of them gave away for the appearance of new
forces and movements.
These were conservatism, Romanticism Nationalism and Liberalism
1.1.1 CONSERVATISM
Following the Vienna congress, the period was regarded as reaction years of conservatism in
Europe. Governments attempted to resist any further change and popular movement.
Conservatism grew from opposition of the French Revolution to become what today would
be called an Ideology, a coherent view of human nature, social organization, political power,
and the sources of change that generally justified the status quo. Highly concerned with the
limitations of human being the wisdom of established customs, the value of hierarchy, and
the social importance of religion, conservatives made a powerful critique of modern society
dangerously inclined towards anti social individualism, materialism and immorality.
According to the British conservative, Edmond Bruke, the French Revolution had thrown
the French people from despotism to anarchism to (will be treated in the next section which
deals with early socialism) in the name of misguided and abstract principles. Bruke
distrusted the simplicity of reason as the complexity of traditional institutions could serve
the public interest. Burke while attacking the French revolution’s belief in natural rights, he
argued that something was natural only if it resulted long historical development and habit.
He wrote, “Society is a contract between the dead, the living and the unborn.”

Conservatives also interested in history to show how pain fully civilization had developed
and how fragile it remained. The other area of interest in the period for conservatives was
Christianity which was portrayed as a source of strength and defense for a society against
the selfish and prideful nature of humanity. Without it, they argued, society would dissolved
in to revolution and hence to anarchy. This view is very well illuminated in the works of a
French conservative Joseph de Maistre, who argued that the first task of a society was self-
preservation. He claimed that only authority can check the selfish wills of individuals, and
authority requires undivided sovereignty, social hierarchy, close links between church and
state, and suppression of dangerous ideas.
In general, such views gave conservatism in the period, both militancy and depth. In an
attempt to crush revolutions, conservatism highly relied on power while at the same time
speaking of the social good and it left little room for compromise. The next discussions, on
Romanticism, Nationalism and Liberalism will hopefully further enrich your understanding
on conservatism.
Activity 1.3
How do you use the term ‘Romance’ in your ordinary life? Do you think your understanding about
the term has any thing to do with Romanticism?
Please consult your dictionary about the term ‘Romance’ and compare your result with your
prior understanding in face of the following discussion on Romanticism
__________________________________________________________________________
1.1.2 ROMANTICISM
In its various manifestations, Romanticism was a reaction against much of the thought of the
Enlightenment. Two writers who were closely related to the Enlightenment however,
provided the immediate intellectual foundations for Romanticism, Jean Jacques Rousseau
and Immanuel Kant. Let’s have a look on the former one. What Romantic writers especially
drew from Rousseau was his conviction that society and material prosperity had corrupted
human nature. In his works, Rousseau portrayed mankind as happy and originally living in a
state of equilibrium, able to do what it desired and desiring only what it was able to do.

Thus, to become happy again, mankind must remain true to its natural being while still
attempting to realize the new moral possibilities of life in society.
Unlike the Enlightenment thinkers who had attempted to drive religion from the rational
nature revealed by Newtonian physics, the Romantics saw religion as basic to human nature
and faith as a means of knowledge. The Romantic religious thinkers appealed to the inner
emotions of human kind for the foundation of religion. An instance of this was ‘Methodism’
which stressed in inward; heart felt religion and the possibility of Christian perfection in this
life. The pioneer of this religion, John Wesley depicted Christianity as “an inward principle
….. The image of God impressed on a created spirit a fountain of peace and love springing
up in to everlasting life.”
The other aspect of Romanticism was its glorification of both the individual person and
individual cultures. The most prominent thinkers in this case were the Germans Johann
Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Herder had early resented
the French cultural preponderance in Germany. He revived German talk culture by urging
the collections and preservation of distinctive German songs and sayings. He opposed both
the concept and the use of a “common” language, such as French, and “Universal”
institutions, those imposed on Europe by Napoleon. He believed that there were forms of
tyranny over the individuality of a people. His writings led to abroad revival of interest in
history and philosophy, and gave intellectual foundation for German Nationalism.
Hegel on his part believed that ideas developed in an evolutionary fashion that involves
conflict. Several important philosophical conclusions followed from his thinking. One of the
most significant was the belief that all periods of history have been of almost equal value
because each was, by definition, necessary to the achievements of those that came later.
Also, all cultures are valuable because each contributes to the necessary human kind to
develop. Generally speaking, there various Romantic ideas made a major contribution to the
emergence of nationalism. The writers of the Enlightenment had generally championed a
cosmopolitan out look on the world. On the contrary, the Romantic thinkers emphasized the
individuality and worth of each separate people and culture.

Activity 1.4
1. What is a nation?
2. What is nationalism?
3. Why do you think Nationalism has varied in its essence from place to place?
There is no a single definition about a Nation and Nationalism. We can, however, sum up
Nationalism as “a sense of belongingness”, and a Nation as a place where a homogenous
peoples live with in, sharing this license of belongingness. Thus, nationalism has various
grounds in accordance with the distinctive features of the area in focus. For the Arabs and
the Jewish peoples, the ground is religion. And for the 19 th c Germans and Italians, the
ground was a language.
__________________________________________________________________________
1.1.3 NATIONALISM
Let's begin our discussion by defining a ‘Nation’. In the words of the ex-Russian leader,
Joseph Stalin, a nation is defined as, “a historically constituted, stable community of people,
formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make
up manifested in a common culture". On the other hand, a scholar in the area, Anthony
Giddiness, defined the concept on the other way round.
As to him, “a nation only exists when a state has unified administrative reaches over the
territory over which its sovereignty is claimed". For the sake of simplicity, let’s examine
the current Ethiopian state in view of the two definitions. According to Stalin, Ethiopia can
never deserve to be a nation as one of the elements indicated by him is missing. On the
contrary, as the concern of Giddiness is only the jurisdiction of the state Ethiopia can be a
nation. Any how to have a common understanding over the concept, let’s see how the
popular dictionary of international relations defines the concept. It reads as follows:
“A social group which shares a common ideology, common institutions and

customs, and a sense of homogeneity.’Nation' is difficult to define so
precisely as to differentiate the term from such other groups as religious
sects, which exhibit some of the same characteristics. In the nation,
however, there is also present a strong group sense of belonging associated

with a particular territory considered to be peculiarly its own".
[Hutchinson and Anthony S .D. 1994:36]
When we come to nationalists, in the past and in the present they contend that political units
and ethnic boundaries should coincide. The idea came in to its own during the late
eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries. While the late eighteenth century nationalists
traced their origin to the French Revolution, the early ninetieth- century one were the
products of the Vienna congress, as their prime purpose was to oppose directly the principle
upheld at the congress which legitimate monarchies rather than ethnicity.
Nationalists naturally protested multi-national states such as the Austrian and the Russian
empires. They also objected to peoples of the same ethnic group, such as the Germans and
Italians, dwelling in political units smaller than that of the ethnic nation. Consequently,
nationalists challenged both the domestic and the international order of the Vienna
settlement.
The other most important point needs to be discussed is the concept of 'Nationhood'.
Nationalists used a whole variety of arguments and metaphors to express what they meant
by nation hood. Some argued that eliminating the petty dynastic states and gathering, for
example, the Germans in to a unified Germany would promote economic and administrative
efficiency. It foes like that nations determine their own careers.
A significant difficulty for nationalism was, and is, determining which ethnic groups could
be considered as a nation. In theory, any of them could, but in reality nation hood came to
be associated with groups that were large enough to support available economy, that had a
history of significant cultural association, that possessed a cultural elite that could nourish
and spread the national language, and that had the capacity to conquer other peoples or to
establish and protect their own independency. Throughout the century many smaller ethnic
groups claimed to fulfill these criteria and could not effectively achieve either independence
or recognition. They could and did, however, create domestic unrest within the political
units they inhabited.

Activity 1.5
Have you ever experienced the /know any single nationalist movement in Ethiopia? Do you know
what they aspired for?
In Ethiopia, nationalism is believed to trace its origin to the years of 1960s and 70s. The
first of these groups were the Eritrean peoples liberation from with its dedication for
Eritrean independence; Tegray peoples liberation front and Oromo liberation fronts, both
aspiring for a large measures of autonomy or independence for their respective regions.
1.1.4 LIBERALISM
The forces of conservatism could not suppress the forces of change, very significantly
Liberalists, for Liberalism depended on continuing economic changes which could not be
held back, which was the establishment of industrial capitalism.
Liberalism was the legacy of the Enlightenment in its general philosophy and economic
ideas and as a political movement it represented the ideas of the 17 thc bourgeois revolution
in England and the moderate period of the French Revolution.
Liberalism in its broadest sense was rational and anti-authoritarian principle. The 19 th c
Liberalists found them selves in two major subdivisions. These were political Liberalism
and Economic Liberalism. The political ideology of Liberalism is summed up in two of
Newman's the British Liberal thinker, propositions:
“The people are the legitimate sources of power"

“It is lawful to rise in arms against illegitimate princes"
This political ideology had descended from John Locke, Rousseau and the political ideas of
the American and French-Revolutions.
Activity 1.6
From the above Newman's propositions, how do you understand the meaning of the term ‘People’?
Please after coming up yours own interpretation, compare your one with the following
discussion up on the term

For 19th c Liberals, the term 'people' had a limited meaning. It is very well illuminated in the
writings of a French man, Benjamin constant, which read as:
Those whom poverty keeps in eternal dependence are no

more enlightened public affairs than children, nor are they
more interested than Foreigners in national prosperity, of
which they do not understand the basis and of which they
enjoy the advantages only indirectly. Property alone, by
giving sufficient leisure, renders a man capable of
exercising his political rights.
[Kagan and et al 1198:725]
The Liberals sought to establish a political frame work of Legal equality, religious
toleration, and freedom of the press. Their general goal was a political structure that would
limit the arbitrary power of government against the person and property of individual
citizens. They generally believed that sovereignty should emanate from the people. The
popular basis of such government was to be expressed through elected representative, or
parliamentary, bodies. And this government required that ministers be responsible to the
parliament rather than to the Monarch. This to be achieved through the device of written
constitutions.
The leading personalities behind this movement were the wealthier and educated class of the
society. Because of their wealth and education, they highly felt their exclusion from
political power was unjustified. To this and, they argued that political appointment should
not be by birth, but rather only on talent.
Activity 1.7
1. Reading all through the discussion on political liberalism, do you find the 19 th Liberalists
Democrats or not?
2. "… Political appointment should be on merit rather than on birth …” Please reflect yours
view on the above assertion.

Many scholars criticize the 19thc Liberalists for being un democrats as they stood for
property based aristocracy which practically relegated the lower sections of the society in to
apolitical margins.
The other wing of the 19th c Liberalism was its economic thought which found its origin in
the England's economic growth. The movement made its dogma on the argument of Adam
smith's which confirmed that government should withdrew its intervention in the economy
which it left to be regulated only by market would bring prosperty. Individuals should be
left free from government regulation and control to pursue his own economic interest.
Government should limit its function strictly to what the individual could not do for himself-
defense, foreign policy and upholding law and order and private property. In short, the
liberalist sought the removal of the economic restraints associated with mercantilism or the
regulated economics of enlightened absolutists. They wanted to manufacture and sell goods
freely. To that end, they favored the removal of international tariffs and internal barriers to
trade. Economics Liberals opposed the old paternalistic legislation that established wages
and labor practices by government regulation or by guild privileges, nevertheless, when we
assess the specific program of the various states’ liberals; we saw disparity as the socio-
political conditions differed in various countries.
Activity 1.8
Can you see any common interest among the Nationalists and the liberalists? Please discuss about it
with your classmate
Let’s take one example, the German case. Like that of the nationalists, the German
economic liberalists sought for the unification of Germany so as to bring the splitted and
small markets in the petty-German states in to a large and unified whole
1.1.5 THE 1830s REVOLUTIONS
It was not too late for the forces of Liberals and nationalists to transform their opposition to
the Vienna congress in to strikes and in some places in to armed struggle. In 1820 and 1821
uprisings led by young army officers occurred in both Italy and Spain, leaders were
influenced by the memories of Napoleonic reforms and convinced that individual
advancement and efficient government required a constitution. Both uprisings, however,
were crushed easily. A much more effective was rather the Greeks revolt against the

Ottoman Turks as rule in 1821. Cries for freedom from that home of ancient democracy
excited liberals throughout Europe; an early demonstration of the power of nationalist
movement that would be repeated throughout the century. When the sultan subdued the
Greeks, Britain, France and Russia, motivated by their own interest intervened on the side of
the Greek nationalists. This brought for Greece independence in 1829 on terms arranged by
European powers. However, the event was a first shift in the status quo formed by the
Vienna congress.
Beginning in the middle of the 1820s, the conservative governments of Russia, France and
Great Britain also faced new stirrings of political discontent, which were resulted in
suppression, of movements by force.
On Dec 26, 1825, a group of army officers, who wanted constitutional government and the
abolition of serfdom, went out a strike. Tsar Nicholas ordered his cavalry and the artillery to
attack the insurgents, on which five of the plotters were executed and more than 100 others
were exiled to Siberia. Although the result completely failed, it was the first rebellion in
modern Russian history whose instigators has specific political goals.
In the case of France, after Charles X dissolved the Liberals dominated chambers of
Deputies, he restricted the franchise to 25, 000, Liberals and Bonapartists politician
organized protest meetings which finally resulted in barricades. The prevalent economic
recession of 1826 added fuel to the situation. The result was the abdication of Charles X on
August 2, 1830 abdicated and left France for exile in England.
Very contrary to the other parts of Europe, 1830s witnessed in England the essence of
accommodation among the two opposing forces, conservatism and Liberalism. this was the
result of many attributing factors. First and foremost, the commercial and industrial class
was larger in Britain than in other countries. Second, the British liberal circles were only
interested in the reform than in revolution. The third and the last was British Law, tradition
and public opinion all showed a strong respect for civil liberties.
The new cabinet formed as the result of 1830s election, presented a bill to reform the
electoral system. The House of Commons passed the reform bill, but the House of Lords

rejected it. The result was the outbreak of riots characterized by the burning of town’s halls
and bishop's palaces, in Bristol. The event forced the king to intervene so that then under
pressure from the king, the House of Lords also passed the bill, which became a law in
1832. The bill expanded the size of the English electorate through it kept a property
qualification for the franchise. The out come was not as expected the success of the middle
class interest in England. Because for every urban electoral district, anew rural district was
also drawn with the motive the aristocracy to dominate the rural election. Nevertheless, the
act laid the ground work for further orderly reforms of the church, municipal governments,
and commercial policy. By admitting in to the political forum people who sought change
and giving them access to the legislative process, it made revolution in Britain unnecessary.
Activity 1.9
1. As indicated in the discussion, the British liberal circles were only interested in “reforms”
not in “revolution”. How do you understand this? Is there any difference between are form
and a revolution?
2. In the context of today’s world, do you think conservation still represents undemocratic
thoughts? If yes, do you have nay evidence? Please get on of your evidence and discuss with
it with your class mates.
In short, reform is concerned with improvements in the existing structures while revolution
is dedicated to a radical change of the existing structure. As for the second one, we have at
least one democratic conservative party in England.
1.2 THE PROGRESS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION

The late 18thc and early 19thc Europe experienced an extensive economic change which
shattered the existing socio-political structures. The industrial revolution meant mass
production of goods for the first time by power driven machinery in factories and other large
industrial plants in stead of manual labor.
What other important changes were also observed?
The industrial revolution created two new classes: industrial bourgeois, the owner of the
newly formed factories; and the industrial proletariat, the work force in the new factories-

deprived of any ownership and control over the means of production and having only their
labour to sell for wages. Work previously done by simple hand-operated machines, was now
performed by machines which highly required specialization and coal also replaced water
and wind as a source of power.
The revolution believed to take place first in Britain around its 1850 and 1780 and spread to
Western n Europe and USA between 1780 and 1850s.
Why did the industrial revolution happen in Britain first and not somewhere else?
Britain was the first industrialized country in the world. The basic ones were three which
combined together effected industrial revolution in Britain. There were:
1. The British Isles is endowed with natural advantage. Its fertile soil, navigable
rivers and its abundance raw materials, especially coal, iron ore, tin and copper.
Located in between of the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, Britain enjoyed easy
sea access the prevailing trade routes on both of its sides, added to the presence of
natural harbors. In addition, the fact that Britain is an island, it was free from
invasion and far from intra-continental war. Consequently, Britain was able to save
its resource from the cost of maintaining large and expensive armies.
2. The industrial revaluation was preceded (C. 1450-1750) by a period of

“Primitive Accumulation of capital”, of its basic features in Britain were:
a. The dispossession and expropriation of the independent peasants from the

land which produced a pool of labour both for capitalist agriculture and later
for capitalist industry. Capitalist agriculture way more productive than small
peasant subsistence agriculture and provided for a growing urban and industrial
population. It also provided the necessary capital for the industry.
b. Colonial plunder and overseas trade, which was also the case for the other
European states, led to a large profits for merchants of which turned in to
investment in industries.
3. The 17thc England Revolution removed obstacles to the development of

capitalism. Government was also committed to this cause. Internally, it gave for its

capitalists almost complete freedom; externally, it put state power at the service of
developing British capitalism.
What could be the results of industrial revaluation?
1.2.1 ECONOMIC OUTCOME
The industrial revolution was a stimulus for the growth of economy because growth in one
industrial sector stimulated growth in others. Cotton industry, for example, created a large
market for the agricultural sector. Benefiting from a large consumer market, cotton industry
enabled spinning cotton thread and weaving cloth to be mechanized. Increased textile
production accelerated the use of chemical dyes; greater iron production required more coal.
A few factories in one place encouraged the growth of others in the same region, where they
could take advantage of the available work force and capital; this concentration of
production in turn increased the demand for roads, canals, and latter, rail way. All this
growth required more capital, and on the cycle went. In continuity, range of industries
affected, national scope, and rate of increased. The growth in industry also increased
Europe’s productive capacity to unprecedented and unparalleled levels.
1.2.2 SOCIAL EFFECTS
Economic growth on such a scale was accompanied by far- reaching social changes. Even in
its early stages, industrialization impinged on all of society, from the state to the family,
affecting governmental functions, the nature of work, women’s roles, and childhood.
The family was the basic economic unit pooling in come from various sources and dividing
labour in customary ways before the advent of industrialization. For artisans, too the family
was often the unit of production, although the division of tasks by sex was usually more
explicit, and even small workshops had long tended to exclude women, at least from the
better-paid tasks. Working class women and children were accustomed to long hours of
labour. The strain on the family in the industrial age came rather from the lack of housing,
the conditions of work, and the need for cash, which was compounded by the risk of
unemployment.

Adolescents in factory towns, hardened at an early age, were probably more likely to leave
home when their pay allowed, and urban conditions made it more difficult for the family to
support the aged and the sick. Such factors did weaken family ties, as did at least in the eyes
of the upper classes. The common practices for working men and women to live together
with out the trouble or expense of formal marriage rites. Yet among workers, too, the family
survived, and the home remained a special place expected to provide protection for small
children, a heaven for wage earners, and temporary shelter for relatives come to seek a job.

Activity 1.10
Between 1790 and 1840, the first industrial nation’s, England’s, national wealth doubled because of
the profit it incurred from industrialization. Do you think workers gained some share from this
profit- especially in line with their living condition improvement?
The impact of industrial revolution on the living standard is a point of debate among
historians in the field. Let’s see the argument of A.M. Taylor as written in work of M.
chamber and his collogues, 1999.It is there in the following box.
BOX 1 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE STANDARD OF

LIVINGS
“The debate goes on and on because the evidence is ambiguous, lending itself to a variety of
interpretations. Yet taken as a whole, it does point to a few tentative conclusions. The first
generations of two of workers under the industrial revolution experienced no major change in its
standard of living as a result of the economic transformation of which it was a part,… for most of the
workers… the coming of the industrial revolution made little difference with regard to income,
workday, diet, or housing…the goods and services generated by early industrialization remained
largely in accessible to the workers. But the new hardship imposed on the working population by the
rationalization of production was less the result of along term decline in income than of
psychological disorientation. Millions of people who had grown up amid the certainties and
traditions of the village of small town were suddenly thrown in to alien environment of factories,
shops and slums, where the values of rural society soon disintegrated before the hard realities of the
urban experience. The out come was a profound demoralization, which primarily reflected not a
change in the standard of living but a change in the way of life.
“… with in fifty years the standard of living of the lower classes began to rise. The evidence on this
point is incontrovertible.” [Chamber and et al 1999: 790-791]
1.2.3 POLITICAL OUTCOMES
The response to the problems created due to industrialization was a powerful class
movement. Initially, the two classes which were the direct out puts of industrialization were
in a kind of alliance against their common enemy components of old orders. However, this
alliance soon drifted because of the very nature of political and economic theory of
liberalism, which showed no interest towards the working class real problems. This was a
turning period which confirmed the need for an independent ideology peculiar to the
working class that could effectively challenge not only conservatism, but also liberalism,
these were early socialisms.

Socialist though offered a radical alternative to conservation and liberal ideologies. The
early socialists generally well come to the new productive capacity of industrialism. They
saw primarily mismanagement, low wages, misdistribution of goods, and suffering arising
from the unregulated industrial system. Here are the various sects below.
UTOPIAN SOCIALISM
Among the earliest people to define the social question were a group of writers called the
utopian socialists by their later critics. They were considered utopian because their ideas
were often visionary. They frequently advocated the creation of ideal communities. They
were called socialists because they questioned the structures and values of the existing
capitalistic frame work. For example, Saint Simon (1760-1625) who was a French man and
the earliest of the socialist pioneers believed that modern society would require rational
management. Private wealth, property and enterprise should be subject to an administration
other than that of its owners. His ideal government would have consisted of a large board of
directors organizing and coordinating the activities of individual’s and groups to achieve
social harmony. This would alleviate the poverty and social dislocation of the age.
ANARCHISM
Other writers of the 1840s, however, rejected both industry and the dominance of
government. These were the anarchists. They are usually included in the socialists tradition,
a though they do not exactly fit. Some favored programs of valence and terrorism; others
were peaceful. As for instance, Auguste Blanqu (1805-1881) was a major spokes person for
terror. Seeing the abolition of both capitalism and the state, Balnqui urged the development
of a professional revolutionary vanguard to attack capitalist society Pierre Joseph Proudhon
(1809-1865) was the other anarchist who attacked the banking system. He wanted credit to
be extended to small property owners (the poor) so that such people would be allowed to
engaged in economic enterprise he argued that society should be organized on the basis of
mutualism, which amounted to system of small businesses. There would be peaceful
cooperation and exchanged of goods among these groups, with such a social system, the
state as it then existed would be unnecessary.

MARXISM
Was another variant of socialism, but claims to scientific accuracy, its call for revolution
making it very different from the others? Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his close associate
Fredrik Engels published a communist Manifesto in 1847. They preferred to use the term
communist because the term implied the outright abolition of private property rather than
some less extensive rearrangement of society.
In the communist manifesto, Marx and Engles contended that human history must be
understood rationally and as a whole. History is the record t o human kind’s to grips with
physical nature to produce the goods necessary for survival. That basic productive process
determines the structures, values, and ideas of a society. Historically, the organization of the
means of production and those classes who worked for them. That necessary conflict has
provided the engine for historical development; it is not an accidental by product of
mismanagement or bad intentions. Thus, reforms can not eliminate the social and economic
evils that are inherent in the very structures of production. A radical social transformation is
required. That is a property less and classless communist sociality.
1.3 THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS
“One of the out standing features of the 1848 revolutions” said sir Leis Namier (1946), “…
was the European continent responded to the impulses and trends of the revolution with a
remarkable uniformity, despite the differences (Of socio-economic and political levels,
languages and race)…”, Explaining the causes of the revolutions, he went on further saying
that the revolution was born at least as much of hopes as of discontents. These were the
strong sentiment and desires for a better order in government and society.
The dynamic force for change in 1848 originated, however, not with the working classes but
with the political liberals, who were generally drawn from the middle classes. Throughout
the continent, liberals were pushing for their program of more representative movement,
civil liberty and unregulated economic life. To put additional pressure on their governments,

however, they begun to appeal for the support of the urban working classes. The goals of the
latter were improved working and economic conditions rather than a liberal framework of
government. Moreover, the factices of the working classes were frequently violent rather
than peaceful. The temporary alliance of liberals and workers in several states over threw or
severely shook the old order; then the allies began to fight each other.
Outside France, rationalism was an important common factor in the uprisings. Germans,
Hungarians, Italians, Czechs, and smaller national groups in Eastern Europe sought to create
national states that would recognize or replace existing policies entities. The Austrian
empire, as usual was the state most profoundly endangered by nationalism.
The immediate results of the 1848 revolutions were very much attractive. Never in a single
year had Europe known so many major uprisings. The French monarchy fell, and many
other thrones were badly shaken. Yet the revolutions proved a false spring for progressive
Europeans. The revolution failed to establish genuinely liberal or nationals states. More over
the liberal circles in each country discovered that they could no longer push for political
reform without raising the social question. Their refusal to raise social reforms side by side
with the political one isolated them from the support of the masses. And this made them to
be an easy prey to the armies of conservatism.
EXERCISE 1
1. What were the basics concerns of those conservatives’ circles in the Vienna Congress?
in 1815?
2. In the scope of cause-effect relationship, which event do you consider as a cause for?
the 19th c conservatism?
3. As opposed to the widely used term in the world, the German and Oromo Nationalists
used different metaphors for their nationalistic cause. What is that?
4. What was the contextual usage of the term ‘people’ in the 19th c Liberalism?
5. What were the distinctive features of ‘primitive accumulation of capital’ in the British Isles?

SUMMARY
The political turmoil that followed the French Revolution (1789) and Napoleon’s attempt to
dominate the continent made Europe to entertain a conservative’s dominated conference in
1815 in Vienna. Though the aspiration of those conservative circles attending the congress
was to restore peace and stability for the continent, through the implementation of the
principles of ‘Legitimatizations’ and ‘Equilibrium’, the outcome was not the desired one. It
rather brought the unprecedented one into surface that it let Europe to experience a period of
socio-political crisis and confusions in greater degree than before.
The force of changes in the 19th c Europe: Conservatism, Romanticism, Nationalism,

Liberalism and Socialism produced enormous differences on the pre-existing European
value and traditions in a very short period of time. The resultant conflict between those who
attempted to preserve the old system and those who stiffed to build a new structure made the
order of the day to be full of Revolutions and Wars.
Checklist
Please insert a tick mark ( ) on the space provided if you are sure with the answers of the following
short questions. If not, please revise the respective topic.
I can
Yes No
1. tell what ‘Conservatism’, ‘Romanticism’, ‘Nationalism’, ‘Liberalism’,

and ‘Early socialism’ do mean-----------------------------------------------
2. explain the cause of the 1830s and 1848 revolutions--------------------
3. discuss the outcomes of the 19th c industrialization in Europe---------
4. list those criticisms towards the Vienna congress----------------------

UNIT 2: AGE OF NATION STATES
UNIT 2
THE AGE OF NATION STATES
CONTENTS
2.1 THE CRIMEAN WAR 24

2.2 THE ITALIAN UNIFICATION 28
2.3 THE GERMAN UNIFICATION 36
2.4 THE PARIS COMMUNE 44
2.5 SUMMARY
2.6 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
This unit deals about the war between Russia and Ottoman Turkey, the struggle for Italian
and German unification in relation to the major leaders. More over, the fight of Germans
against the French at the battle of Sedan and the workers dictatorship in Paris for seventy-
two days will be discussed.
Objectives: - After completing this unit, you will be able to:-
 Explain the basic features of nationalism in the 19th c Europe
 Compare the German nationalists experience with that of Italian
 Appreciate the role played by important personalities both in the German and Italian
unification
 Evaluate the consistency between the aspired cause and the final out put in the care
of Italian and German unification
 Assess the effectiveness of the various conflict resolution mechanisms used in the
period.

Resources:
 For this unit please have strong attachment with Kagan and etal (1998) .
2.1 THE CRIMEAN WAR
This session is gives you an experience to see as to how all constraints to the process of
Nationalism developed step by step. The Crimean war was very significant in making the
gravel road less un comfortable for the Italian and German nationalists in bringing their
aspiration into existence.
Why Crimean? How it could be viewed as a road cleaner for the German and Italian
unification?
The revolutions of 1848, though all suppressed seriously, affected the European diplomatic
situation. Many former rulers were replaced by new ones, and the relative strength and
influence of the powers was changed so was the old conservative alliance which began to
disintegrate, reversibly to the status quo established at the Vienna congress.
The Crimean War (1853-1856) was one of the basic events which created a rift on the long
established alliance of conservative circles. It was rooted in the long rivalry between Russia
and the Ottoman Empire. Two disputes led to the conflict. First, the Ottoman Empire had
recently granted Catholic France instead of Orthodox Russia the oversight of the Christian
Shrines in the Holy Land. Second, Russia wanted to extend its control over the Ottoman
provinces of Moldavia and Walachia. The Tsar’s (the Russian king) duty to protect
Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire, furnished the pretext for the Russian
aggression. Russia soon responded by threats against Turkey.
Upon rejection of the Russian proposal for recognition as the protector of all orthodox
Christians in Turkey, Tsar Nicholas sent his troops in to the Danubian principalities of
Moldavia and Walachia to force the Sultan to come to terms. Contrary to the Russian

demands, however, the Ottoman sultan, expected British and French support, declared war
on Russia on 23 October. And this resulted in the destruction of 4000 Turkish sailing ships
by the Russian fleet.
The other great powers soon became involved and a war among major European sates
resulted. Both France and Great Britain opposed Russian expansion in the eastern
Mediterranean, where they had extensive naval and commercial interest extensive naval and
commercial interests. Napoleon III also thought that an activist foreign policy would shore
up domestic support for his regime. On March 28, 1854, France and Britain declared war on
Russia. Also Austria regarded the Balkans as her sphere of influence and did not want
Russia to approach the Dan be she preferred abstraction from the conflict. Likewise, Fredrik
William IV of Prussia, who viewed entering into a conflict where his kingdom would have
to face Russian attack over an issue in which its interests were not involved, remained
natural throughout the conflict. Have you ever heard of a word Sebastopol? If so, please tell
to your colleague what Sebastopol stands for.
After an ineffective naval raid in the Baltic, the British and the French governments decided
that their armies should be transferred to make an attack upon Sebastopol, the great fortified
naval base in the Crimea to which the Russian Black sea fleet had withdrawn.
Activity 2.1
Have you found the cause behind the Crimean war sound enough to justify the Russo-ottoman crisis
required war as the only solution?
For the writer, War, let alone the only option, could not deserve to be plausible solution to
wards the crisis. The problem had it not been the hidden interest of the French government
and a lesser degree the British government, it could have been solved simply by diplomatic
means. However, the writer welcomed the War as it cleared the road for the German and
Italian nationalists due to its unprecedented outcomes.
The Franco-British Decision was governed by political rather than strategic considerations.
They hoped that the destruction of this stronghold and the elimination of Russian naval

power in this sea would safeguard Constantinople and ensure the continued independence of
Turkey.
Thought the final victory was consumed by the British and the French, both sides had to
endure the consequences of being improperly prepared to fight such a war. The problems of
communication and supply were formidable. In September 1855, however, after a long
siege, the Russian fortress of Sevastopol finally fell t o the French and British. Though the
neutrality of Austria and Prussia avoided the outbreak of European conflagration and made
the Crimean war a limited conflict, it still involved heavy casualties than and other European
was between the end of the Napoleonic war and the beginning of the First World War.
Nicholas had died and replaced by his son Alexander II that accepted peace treaties to end
the war. The total number of deaths in the war had been estimated that the French lost
95,000 men; the British 20,000; the Russians 110,000 and the Turks 30,000.
In March 1856, a peace treaty was concluded based upon four points forwarded by Austria
in Paris. The terms of the peace treaty of Paris were imposed upon both Turkey and Russia,
though the former was a victorious ally Sebastopol was not to be refortified. The
Dardanelles were to be closed to the warships and open to the merchant vessels of all
nations. Neither Russia nor Turkey was to have a naval fleet in the Black Sea and navigation
of the Danube was also to be free, and an international commission was to regulate traffic on
it and make it navigable to the sea. Moldavia and Walachia were to be self governing Under
Turkish Suzerainty and Serbia was to be given the same position. In addition, the powers
gave up any right to interfere in the Turkish local affair, which was direct blow to the
Russian ambition in the area. In return the Sultan promised to grant his Christian subjects
equality with the Muslims. As such, Russia lost her privileges in the Balkans; the Holy
alliance crumbled.
Much of the Treaty of Paris was as indecisive as the war itself. This was because, as is
common after peace settlements, the victorious powers secured the acceptance of their
wishes on paper but afterwards showed themselves not prepared to enforce those treaty
provisions by intervention and possible war. This applied especially to the neutralization of

the Black Sea, which the victors had regarded first as the most important aim of their war
and then as the most valuable part of the peace treaty. In 1870, when Russia took advantage
of the Franco-Prussian war to repudiate these Black Sea clauses of the Treaty the British
government was not ready to consider military action to stop her. Equally important,
because Britain and France had abandoned any idea of intervening to make the Sultan
observe his promise of equal treatment for Christians and Moslems in his dominions, the
Christians were left without toleration or protection two years after the treaty of Paris, the
Christian inhabitants of Jeddah, the port of Mecca in Arabia, were slaughtered together with
the British and French consuls and their families.
Nevertheless, the Crimean war and the Treaty of Paris had important consequences, though
these were largely, as so often in such circumstance, unintended and unforeseen by the
peace makers. One of these was to encourage the growth of Balkan nationalism. New
independent states born as the subject races of the Balkans gained freedom with the decline
of the Ottomans influence in the region. The other was the war brought a final blow to the
principles of the Vienna congress. This was nicely illuminated in the words of the historian
Gordon Craig as, “After 1856 there were more powers willing to overthrow the existing
order than there were to take up arms to defend it “An instance of this was the feeling of
Napoleon III, who had little respect for the congress of Vienna and favored redrawing the
map along lines of nationality, which was very contrary to the corner stone of the Vienna
congress.
The war also shattered the invincible image of Russia that had prevailed across Europe since
the close of the Napoleonic wars. Yet Russia as a great power was not destroyed. However,
the lesson of the war for the country was clear. The allies, fighting from a great distance and
relying up on only part of their resources, had conducted a local offensive up on a strongly-
fortified place which Russia, despite her own vast size and strategic advantages and the
weaknesses and miscalculations of the allies, had not been able to repulse. Western
European efficiency and industrialization undermined the Russian empire. Thus, the
situation compelled the Russian government to think of reforms, more specifically the
emancipation of the serfs. As a result, the Russian Tsar Alexander II issued the Edict of

Emancipation in 1861- five years after the end of the Crimean war. Similarly, Austria was
isolated and left helpless against nationalism and revolution. This was the direct effect of the
final demise of the Holy Alliance (an alliance between Russia, Austria and Prussia) because
of the failure of Austrian and Prussian government to support Russia.
Generally speaking, for about twenty-five years after the Crimean war, European affairs
were unstable, producing a period of largely unchecked adventurism in foreign policy.
Foreign policy increasingly became an instrument of domestic policy. The two most
significant achievements to result from this new international situation were the unifications
of Italy and Germany.
2.2 THE ITALIAN UNIFICATION
For the sake of convenience, this section is divided in to two: the pre-Cavourian period before
1850 and Cavourian period after 1850.
2.2.1 PRE- CAVOURIAN PERIOD
As indicated earlier, this part is devoted towards the course of nationalists’ movement before
the year 1852. Nationalists’ movements in the Italian peninsula traced its origin in the first
half of the 19th c. The role of the Vienna congress (1815) was also important in the Italian life
as it made Italy a compensation for the lost territories of Austria every where. In the post
Vienna congress, national resentment against Austria was probably greater here in Italy than
in Germany. Italy had known a high degree of unification and measure of efficient
government under Napoleon, and had a larger middle class, at least in the Northern provinces
which directly ruled by Austria. To this effect, there were a number of secret societies in the
peninsula. Before Italian unification, there were eight scattered Italian states. Nationalists then
struggled to unite them under one rule by removing Austria from Italian affairs.
The Carbonari (‘Charcoal burners’) the most prominent of those secret societies in the
peninsula, were founded in Naples after 1815. Their grand aim was to overthrow petty Italian
despots and to expel the Austrians for the Italian soil. However, the group had a wider variety

of members which includes monarchists, republicans, clericals, anti-clericals, conservatives

and radicals. As it is easier to predict from its composition the carbonary was not well-
organized and almost completely without definite plans to gain its objectives. Consequently,
uprisings and outstrikes-uncordianted and sporadic one-undertaken by the carbonaries through
out 1817-1821 were fatally suppressed by the petty Italian despots and the Austrians.
The buried hope of the nationalists revived in 1830 with the appearance of Giuseppe Mazzini
and Giuseppe Garibaldi in the forefront of the movement. Mazzini became the most important
nationalist leader in all Europe and brought new emotional fervor to the cause. It can be seen
how Mazzini used his ink to revive the national sentiment of the Italians in the following
table.
BOX 2 MAZZINI’S NATIONALISTIC TRACT

“Your first duties- first as regards importance area, as I have already told you, towards
Humanity---. If you do not embrace the whole human family in your affection, … if, where so
ever a fellow-creature suffers, or the dignity of human nature is violated by false hood or
tyranny-you are not ready, if able, to aid the unhappy and do not feel called upon to campat, if
able, for the redemption of the betrayed or oppressed- you violate your law of life you
comprehend not that Religion which will be the guide and blessing of the future.
“But what can each of you, singly, do for the moral improvement and progress of
Humanity? … The watchword of the faith of the future is Association, and … [the] means was
provided for you by God when he gave you a country; when, even as a wise overseer of labour
distributes the various branches of employment according to the different capacities of the work
men, he divided Humanity into distinct groups or nuclei upon the face of the earth, thus creating
the germ of Nationalities. Evil governments have disfigured the divine design. Nevertheless you
may still trace it, distinctly marked out-at least as far as Europe is concerned-by the course of the
great rivers, the direction of the higher mountains, and other geographical conditions. They have
disfigured it by their conquests, their greed, and their jealously even of the righteous power of
others…
“These governments did not, and do not recognize any country save their own families or
dynasty, the egotism of caste. But the Divine design will infallibly be realized. Natural divisions,
and the spontaneous, innate tendencies of the peoples, will take the place of the arbitrary
divisions sanctioned by evil governments. The map of Europe will be redrawn. The countries of
the peoples, defined by the vote of free men, will arise upon the ruins of the countries of kings
and privileged castes…
“O my brothers, love your country! Our country is our Home, the house that God has given
us, placing therein a numerous family that loves us, and whom we love ----. Our country is over
common workshop, whence the products of our activity are sent forth for the benefit of the whole
world---. In labouring for our own country on the right principle, we labour for Humanity.

[ As quoted in chamber and et al 1999:850 ]
Activity 2.2
What can you understand from the box?
Have you found the content realistic enough to followed suit with concrete out comes?
The purpose of the content was to incite the Italian peoples against the Austrians and the petty
despots of whom Mazzini discredited them for doing against the wish of God, which demanded
peoples to rule themselves. However, its inclination to religion made Mazzinis work to be
perceived of ideal.
___________________________________________________________________________
In 1831, Mazzini founded the “young Italian” society as a means to inspire the people to think
not only of their own district, but also to regard the whole Italy as their native country in so
long as Austria should be dislodged from the Italian peninsula. In line with this, Mazzini said
to his followers, “Never rise in any other name than that of Italy and all Italy.” As one can
interpret from the name of his association, Mazzini also attempted to bring the ‘Youth at the
head of the insurgent multitude.’ He called upon his followers to discipline themselves and
unite it expel the Austrians from Italy with out foreign help, so that the several petty despots
would collapse and a single national state be created.
Mazzini’s Romantic Idealism, however, proved to be too vague for the demands of the
situation. Though he wished his movement to be more constructive and universal than the
carbonari, he had little knowledge of practical politics and human nature, and he adopted the
same conspiratorial methods and local risings as the secret societies. In 1834, Mazzini and
Garibaldi considered that the time for action had come. Taking several hundred supporters to
Switzerland, he planned an armed invasion of Savoy, which he was convinced would inspire a
popular rising, making possible the overthrow of Charles Albert, who had become king of
Piedmont in 1831, and the establishment of a constitutional government able to reorganize
resistance to Austria throughout Italy. The attempt was a complete failure. Charles Albert

acted with greater severity. Drugs and torture were used to compel arrested conspirators to
betray their comrades, and a number were shot Mazzini escaped and had to take refuge in
England. Garibaldi was captured and sentenced to death but escaped to south America.
1848 ushered both revival and final blow to the pre-Cavorian nationalistic movement. The
news of Metternich’s the Austrian Prime-Minister, downfall brought about fresh resistance to
the Austrians. The resistance started in Milan, where after five days of street-fighting, the
Austrian force had to withdraw their 20,000 troops from the city. The resistance assumed its
climax when Charles Albert declared war on Austria on 24 March and adopted the tricolor of
red, white and green, which by this time was accepted as the Italian flag. Charles was able to
inflict a defeat upon the Austrians. However, he was not in a position to exploit his victory as
he held back his troops to pursue his private territorial ambitions. Wishing to unite all northern
Italy under his rule, Charles Albert engaged in negotiating instead of fighting. And this gave
enough time for the Austrians to get reinforcement from home that Charles Albert’s force was
routed by the Austrians on 23 July. In spite of his defeat, Charles Albert once again tried his
best by launching attack on the Austrians-though unsuccessful. This time, he abdicated in
favor of his son, victor Emanuel II (r. 1849-1880, who appointed Count Camilo Cavour as his
Prime Minister in 1852. With the appointment of Cavour, the Italian Nationalism assumed a
new path and heralded the coming of a new era for the Italians.
2.2.2 THE CAVOURIAN PERIOD
Count Camilo Cavour had begun political life as a strong conservative but had gradually
moved to wards a moderately liberal position. At first he was temporarily unpopular through
his opposition to the wish of the Legislature that Piedmont should renew the war on her own
against Austria in 1849, but he quickly made himself known as a clever debater and clear
thinker victor Emmanuel made him Minister of commerce and Agriculture in 1850, Minister
of the Navy in 1851 and Prime Minister in 1852, a position that, by retaining the leadership of
a coalition of moderate liberal parties, he was able to hold until his death in 1861.
Cavour believed that if Italians proved themselves to be efficient and economically

progressive, the great powers might decide that Italy could govern itself. To this end, he

postulated two goals. First, he wanted to continue the development of Piedmont into a strong
modern state. Constitutionally, this included the reform of the civil code and local
administration and the extension of the ecclesiastical laws to bring about the abolition of all
religious orders except those engaged in preaching, teaching or caring for the sick.
Economically it involved the promotion of industrialization and communications. He
encouraged trade by making commercial treaties with Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and
the Zollverein, and he supported commercial enterprise with government grants, particularly
for the construction of railways which he regarded as very important for the progress of the
state.
This policy of modernization was essentially a preliminary to the achievement of Cavour’s

second aim, which was the extension of Piedmont’s territory and influence in Italy. He
believed that under Piedmont’s leadership, Italian unification should be deprived. But he
doubted whether the Papal States and the kingdom of Naples could be brought in to a single
Italian state. What he believed was possibly the replacement of Austrian predominance in the
peninsula by truly in dependent states with an enlarged, progressive piedmont as the strongest
and most influential among them. To make piedmont more powerful, he increased the size and
efficiency of the piedmontese army and navy, but he thought that it was inevitable that
Austria would not be dislodged from Italy without war, but he, unlike Mazzini, was sure that
this could only be done with military help from some great power. The prevalent ancient
hostility between France and Austria made the former the only power to suit the hope of the
Piedmontese.

Activity 2.3
Napoleon III in most of his reign showed sympathy for various Nationalist groups in Europe.
Can you draw any justification behind Napoleon’s mood in the period? Please discuss with
your class mates.
Probably two possibilities could be taken as the reason behind. One, he might probably saw
himself continuing his most famous uncle’s, Napoleon I, liberation of Europe from
despotism. Second and probably the most important, he might saw the nationalists the only
potential power to undo the Vienna settlement
How Italy was finally found it self united?
With the coming of Cavour to the office of the prime minister, no one expected that with in
ten years Italian unification would largely be achieved. The obstacles against Italian
unification were Austria and the weak bondage of nationalist sentiment in Italy. The risings so
far had all failed. The peninsula was still divided in to ten separate Italian states every one of
which wished to retain its independent existence. There seemed to be no possibility of
reviving even the partial measure of Italian Unity initiated by Napoleon I more than 50 years
previously.
By what calculation then Cavour could pass through these formidable constraints that
were impossible for the Italian generations for at least 30 years previously?
In order to face all the constraints successfully, Cavour believed that Italy first should raise
its reputation in face of the international arena. To this effect, he found 1855 as good
opportunity to bring Italy on the foregrounds of European politics. In 1855, Cavour sent
10,000 troops to the Crimean war on the side of France and Britain. This small but
significant participation in the war allowed Cavour to raise the Italian question at the Paris
conference. But he was not as successful in the conference as he had hoped to he might be.
Piedmont gained neither territory nor an immediate ally. However, his intelligence and
political capacity had impressed every one in the conference to the extent that he gained the
sympathy of Napoleon III.

From this time on wards, Cavour was determined to secure Napoleon III as an ally. Within
two years of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, Cavour was able to get such an alliance when
he met the French emperor in southern France at Plombiere, in December 1858. There they
made an alliance which would enable Piedmont take over Lombardy and Venetia from
Austria and France was to receive French-speaking Nice and Savoy from Piedmont for its
aid against the war with Austria its force. However it was decided that Cavour was to bring
the war about in such a way as to make Austria appear the aggressor. He therefore mobilized
Piedmontese troops on the border with Lombardy. On April 22, 1859 Austria demanded that
piedmont demobilize. This very demand allowed Cavour to claim that Austria was
provoking a war. France intervened to aid its ally. On June 4, 1859 the Austrians were
defeated at Magenta, and on June 24 at Solferino, Meanwhile, revolutions had broken out in
Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and the Romagna provinces of the Papal States against their
rulers. Their rulers were overthrown. Provisional governments were established and then
appealed for union with Piedmont.
With the Austrians in retreat and the new revolutionary regimes calling for union with
Piedmont, Napoleon III feared too extensive Piedmontese victory. On July 11, 1859
independently concluded a peace treaty with Austria at villa Franca. Accordingly, the two
powers agreed that Piedmont should have Lombardy but not Venetia and that the other
Italian states should remain as before. Cavour felt betrayed by France, but the war had
driven Austria from most northern Italy. So only few months after the treaty of Villa Franca,
Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Romagna voted to unite with Piedmont.
Again in 1860, there was uprising in Sicily against the existed unpopular government of the
kingdom of Naples. Soon the revels invited Garibaldi to lead their struggle. No doubt this
event added fuel to the already flaming nationalistic fervor. In May 1860, Garibaldi landed
in Sicily with more than 1,000 troops, and in two weeks the Red Shirts (as Garibaldi’s
troops were called) occupied Palermo and within two months almost all of Sicily. By
September, his forces controlled the city and kingdom of Naples, probably the most corrupt
example of Italian absolutism. Garibaldi had for more than two decades hoped to from are
publican Italy, but Cavour forestalled him. Cavour rushed piedmontese troops south to

confront Garibaldi. On their way, they conquered the rest of the papal state except the area
around Rome, which was protected for the pope by the French troops. Garibaldi’s
nationalism won out over his republicanism, and he unhappily accepted the piedmontese
domination. In late 1860 Naples and Sicily voted to join the northern union forged by
piedmont. With this, the kingdom of Italy was proclaimed in March 1861 with victor
Emmanuel I as its first king. Now Italy to be a unified whole only would wait a favorable
occasion which could enable it to embrace Venetia and Rome with in its dominion.
Persian dynamism was the event that gave conclusion to the Italian unification. As a return
for its side for Prussia in the Austro-Prussian war, Italy annexed Venetia in 1866. Only five
years later, the Italians were able to regain their ancient capital as a result of the defeat of the
French army at the hands of the Northern German confederation. Unlike Germany,
unification was a paradox in the Italian case as it failed to be followed by suit with progress.
The Uneven level of economic realities between the south and the northern part forced most
southerners to portray the unification like foreign occupation. In addition, United Italy was
poor and overwhelmingly agricultural as compared to Germany, let alone the division of its
population due to the popes’ resentment towards Rome’s annexation.
2.3 THE GERMAN UNIFICATION
Activity 2.4
Return in retrospect to the days of your high school can you remember the terms ‘From Above” and
‘From Below’ in your history classes, especially in connection with the German and Italian
unifications? If you remember so, in what aspect was the terms used? If not, can you predict as to
how the terms might be used in the process of unification?
Some historians prefer to use those terms to represent the role played by the various
sections of the society. Most of the time to represent the contribution of the popular mass,
‘From Below’ is used. And to represent that of the higher section, ‘From Above’ is been
used. In the following discussion, you can see the role of there two sections.

2.3.1 BACKGROUND
One of the aspects of the Vienna congress was to redraw the map of Germany. The three
hundred German states which had made up the Holy Roman Empire, bound by nominal
service to the Austrian Hapsburg Emperor, were reconstituted into a loose confederation of
thirty nine states. Most remained small, a few were tiny, and there were five sovereign
kingdoms: Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, and Württemberg. A Federal Diet to which
all states sent representative was established in the free city of Frankfurt. Its purpose was to
settle disputes between the German states and, above all, preserve the conservative status
quo.
FOCUS
Confederation: - is a very loose type of Federalism. To have a better contrast, you can
take Britain and Ethiopia. Britain is composed of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. In the other hand Ethiopia is compose of the 11-Regional states like Tigeray.
Amhara and Oromia……
Diet: - is a German word which means parliament.
The congress of Vienna had established the confederation to meet the following a practical
need: the provision of some sort of a framework to replace the defunct Holy Roman Empire.
Though federalism was accepted as the basis for its organization, the German rulers were
determined to retain their independence, and the confederation was, in fact, little more than
an alliance of practically sovereign states and the Diet an assembly of ambassadors since the
German states were thus regarded as free and self-governing they could wage war and make
treaties with foreign powers, though the constitution stated that neither must be directed
against other members of the confederation. There were no federal laws or executive, no
common currency or safeguards for personal rights and no provision at all for economic co-
operation or even consultation.
The Austrian chancellor, Metternich, set up the confederation in this form because he
believed that it would enable Austria, despite the strengthened position of Prussia, to retain a
measure of influence in Germany. Austrian presidency of the Diet provided him with away

of strongly affecting German affairs. Austria could veto in the Diet any attempt to change
the constitution of the confederation. France under Napoleon III also reinforced Austria’s
policy.
In March 1849, the Frankfurt parliament, alienated by Austria’s obstacle upon German
unification, looked to Prussian rather than Austrian leadership. Consequently, the parliament
produced its constitution, and shortly thereafter, its delegates offered the crown of a united
Germany to Fredrick William IV of Prussia. However, Fredrick William rejected the offer,
asserting that kings ruled by the grace of God rather than by the permission of manmade
constitutions. On his refusal, the Frankfurt parliament began to dissolve and not long after
ward troops drove off the remaining members. With this the German unification was to wait
two crude decades.
What do you know about ‘Zollverein’?
In spite of its tragic culmination, the Frankfurt parliament was one of the factors in the
German unification. The Diet did discuss the possibility of arranging a general German
tariff, which would provide for free trade among them and impose a common customs duty
upon foreign goods entering the territory of the confederation. Prussia took a lead in making
its territory a large free trade area and invited the other members of the confederation to do
the same and form an economic union-the Zolleverein in 1818. Austria, as its backward
industries required protection, did not join the Zollverein. The consequence of this was
Austria gradually excluded from Germany’s economic organization and Prussia became an
important country commercially as well as politically. Thus, making Prussia virtual leader of
the German confederation, Zollverein played a vital role in the process of building a German
state.’
2.3.2 PRUSSIAN INTERNAL DYNAMISM
It is obvious that one of the factors which accounted for the unification of Germany was the
dominance of Prussia in the German confederation. This in turn was an attribute of Prussian
dynamism which began in 1858 with the coming of William I to the Prussian crown.

As discussed earlier, Prussia under Fredrick William’s rule was not ready to be the center of
German nationalist hops. Thus, during the reign of Fredrick William, Prussia seemed to be
under a government determined to preserve the old order and maintain its position as a
separate German kingdom. very fortunate to the German unification, in 1858 Fredrick
William was incapacitated by a stroke and died three years later, consequently his brother
William, become Regent and then, in 1861, king as William I. The new king was less
idealistic than his brother and more of a Prussian patriot. His first concern was to re
strengthen the Prussian army. In 1860, his war minister and chief of staff proposed to
enlarge the army to increase the number of officers, and to extend the period of conscription
from two to three years. The Prussian parliament, created by the constitution of 1850,
refused to approve the necessary taxes. The liberals, who dominated the body, sought to
avoid placing additional power in the hands of the monarchy. For two years monarch and
parliament were deadlocked.
The crisis made the king to realize Bismarck’s conservative reputation and unfailing
determination was the only one to settle the crisis. Bismarck was a member of the Junker
class (noble land lords), better educated than many and displayed an interest in German
unification. From 1851 to 1859, Bismarck served as the Prussian minister to the Frankfurt
Diet of the German confederation. Later he became Prussian ambassador to Russia and had
just been named ambassador to France when William I appointed him prim minister of
Prussia.
When attending the Diet at Frankfurt, Bismarck had realized that some sort of unity was
inevitable in the future; but the question still was how would it come? He remained firm in
his determination that it should not be under the liberals, who would destroy Prussia as it
existed. He saw that their great handicap, which had led to their failure in 1848, was that
they had no organized force at their command. Hence his speech to the Diet in 1862 in
which he said, “Germany does not look to Prussia’s liberalism, but to her strength, and then,
in his best-known words. “The great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches

and resolutions of majorities-that was the great mistake from 1848 to 1849-but by ‘Blood
and Iron.”
Activity 2.5
First analyze Bismarck’s speech, which says, “The great question of the day will not be decided by
speech and resolutions of majorities…but by blood and iron.”, and answer the following question.
What do you think the intention of Bismarck could be in saying so?
This was to indicate that though the Frankfurt assembly agreed to unite Germany under
Fredrick William presidency in 1849, the resolution remained futile as it lacked any means
to enforce it-as its only means was resolution. Thus, Bismarck’s intent was to indicate that
resolution by it self is weak unless supplemented with any kind of force.
THE ROAD TO UNITY
Soon after his assumption of chancellorship, Bismarck made his first move to end the
budgetary crises with the parliament. He argued that even without new financial levies, the
Prussian constitution permitted the government to carry out its functions on the basis of
previously granted taxes. There fore, taxes could be collected and spent despite the
parliamentary refusal to vote them. The army and most of the bureaucracy supported this
interpretation of the constitution. So he ignored parliament whenever he could and encouraged
divisions within the legislature whenever possible. He closed opposition newspapers and
manipulated the rest. Promotions in the civil service and judiciary went to those
unquestionably loyal; and once confident of his position, Bismarck Spent funds and collected
takes without parliamentary, authorization. He there fore set about uniting Germany through
the conservative institutions of Prussia. Germany was separated in to thirty nine states. These
states were loosely federated. The Bund was presided by Austria. Among german states,
Prussia was the strongest of all states. Its king was William I supported by the war minister,
Von Roon.
THE DANISH WAR
Bismarck’s implementation of his first plan of action was made easy as he was presented with
three important developments, which Bismarck used them to serve his own goal with typical
opportunism. Austria was to be excluded from a united German state. This goal required

complex diplomacy. In order to gain compensation for her defeat in Italy (due to the
intervention of Napoleon III), Austria attempted to remodel the constitution of German
confederation as it could suit its advantage. To this effect, the Austrian Emperor Francis
Joseph invited the German princes to meet at Frankfurt to discuss the Scheme. Bismarck
taking the weak position of Austrian’s diplomacy and military power in the period persuaded
William I not to go, and he princes were not prepared to accept the arrangement without
Prussia. With this, Bismarck had shown that Austria could no longer make herself stronger in
Germany against Prussian opposition.
On the other side of the coin, Bismarck was also working tiresomely to wards Russian
friendship. When in 1863 Russia repressed a polish uprising with such severity that Austria,
France and Britain joined in protest, Prussia supported the Tsar. Because, Bismarck had long
believed that Prussia needed Russian friendship if she were to succeed in fashioning Germany
as she wished. The Polish revolt further supported Bismarck as it divided France from Russia
and at the same time made British suspicious of Napoleon III. The result made it clear that
Prussia was now in a better position than at any time since 1815 to establish the position of the
German confederation with out the like hood of united European action against her.
The resultant situation became apparent during the third development in 1863 when the
Schleswig-Holstein question became acute. The two northern provinces of Schleswig-
Holstein had long been ruled by the kings of Denmark without being part of Denmark itself.
Their populations were a mixture of Germans and Danes. Holstein, where Germans
predominated, belonged to the German confederation. In 1863 the Danish government
proposed to incorporate these provinces with Denmark, which aroused German opinion
indignantly. Bismarck used the situation to assert leadership in German affairs. In an attempt
to block any action of German nationalists (those liberalists), Bismarck forged an alliance with
Austria (the Austrian only agreed for fear of not to get aloof from German affairs). Denmark
was so easily defeated in the summer of 1864 and, contrary to her expectations, received no
help from the great powers. Schleswig was placed under Prussian administration and Holstein,
surrounded by Prussian troops, under Austrian control, in an awkward arrangement sure to
breed contention between Austria and Prussia. It seemed a necessary condition to fight against
Austria in order to assure German unification. The Danish war thought it was militarily

insignificant it was of great political importance. It showed that Prussia was now able to
ignore the German confederation and compel Austria to fall into line with her wishes.
THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR
Why the other great powers remained silent while Prussia increasingly enlarging itself?
After his victory over the Danish king, Bismarck’s primary concern was to be sure of Austrian
isolation. He was convinced by the conduct of Britain and Russia during the Danish war that
they would not intervene in a conflict between Austria and Prussia. This was on the ground
that British isolationism had been growing since the Crimean war and had become strongly
opposed to interference on the continent’, and there was still Russian sympathy towards
Prussia in return for its support of Russia in the polish crisis of 1863. Most importantly, ,
Bismarck secured neutrality from Napoleon III. Side by side Bismarck also concluded a treaty
with Italy promising that Italy would get Venetia if it mobilized its troops against Austria if
war broke out. Finally, having defeated Austria diplomatically, Bismarck made a move to his
subsequent action, to provoke Austria. With an effort to provoke Austria and in fact to have a
pretext, Bismarck demanded that the German confederation be reformed by a new and a
national German parliament, which would create a new German constitution from which
Austria would be excluded. When Austria refused, Bismarck announced that Prussia has as
much light to Holstein as to Schleswig; an event which made war was an inevitable.
On June 1, 1866, Austria appealed to the German confederation to intervene in the dispute
Bismarck claimed that the request violated the terms of the 1864 alliance. On June 6, he
ordered Prussian troops to enter Hollestein. And on June 15, Prussia delivered ultimatum to
neighboring Hanover and Saxony: Prussian troops would march through their territories to
attack Austria; resistance would mean war with them also. The war broke out in the summer
of 1866 and lasted for seven weeks, which at the end led to the decisive defeat of Austria at
the Battle of Sadowa. And the war soon followed by the Treaty of Prague on August 23. The
treaty was lenient towards Austria as it only lost Venetia it Italy. The treaty, however,
permanently excluded Austria from German affairs. And it made Prussia the sole major power
among the German states.

Above all, the treaty redrew the map of Germany. The Diet at Frankfurt was dissolved. A new
political entity, the North German Confederation, dominated by Prussia, was created north of
the river main. The reverberation of Prussia’s victory rolled across the continent. By showing
itself the military superior of Austria, Prussia threatened France’s position as the dominant
power in Europe; French hegemony had been based in part on antagonism between Austria
and Prussia. Bismarck already achieved popularity. But Napoleon was frustrated by the
growing power of Prussia. He then determined to resist any further attempt at German
unification.
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR
Bismarck’s preoccupation for the four years that followed was France. The Empire of
Napoleon III based its foreign policy in two assumptions: France was the great power in
Europe and its supremacy must not be challenged by a unified Germany. The North German
confederation the result of Prussian sudden victory over Austria was as far as France would
permit Bismarck to go; any movement toward greater unification would lead to Franco-
Prussian war.
Activity 2.6
According to some historians at the battle of Sadowa it was not Austrian military force defeated, but
also France’s hegemony.
What do you think the reason behind?
As one can simply see from the out come of the Austro-Prussian war, Prussia was able to
bring the Northern German states under its side under the banner of North German
confederation. In addition, the victory over Austria enabled Prussia to conclude a secret
military alliance with the Southern German states. Thus, in face of the combined resource and
military potential of the Germans states in central Europe, French hegemony would be only
insignificant.
On the other hand, Bismarck was waiting for an opportunity to complete unification by
bringing the states of southern Germany into the confederation. Events in Spain gave him
the excuse. In 1868 a military coup deposed the corrupt Bourbon queen of Spain, Isabella II.
In search for a new monarch. The Spaniards hence chose prince Leopold of Hohenzollern, a
Catholic cousin of William I of Prussia. On June 19, 1870, Leopold accepted the Spanish

crown with Prussian blessings; Bismarck knew that France would react strongly against the
idea of a Hohenzollern Spain ruler.
On July 2, the Spanish government announced Leopold’s acceptance, and France reacted as
expected because she would be encircled by hostile Prussian-Spanish alliance. Prince Anthony
disliked such political crisis, so urged his son to resign. On 12 July Leopold’s father
renounced the Spanish throne on his son’s behalf and with William I’s approval. If French
government had really been concerned with Spain or even with scoring a diplomatic success,
the crisis would have been over. However, to the worsening of the crisis, on July 12, the
French government ordered its ambassador in Berlin to demand that William I should endorse.
Leopold’s withdrawal and should guarantee that his candidature be never renewed; with an
intention of provoking war or else of inflicting on Prussia a humiliation equivalent to a
military defeat. William I refused to do so, but in very polite terms. However, Bismarck
intervened and began to exploit the situation as the liked. Having the whole substances of the
king’s meeting with the French Ambassador through a telegram, Bismarck released an edited
version of the dispatch on a less polite way than it was in reality. The French government with
out waiting to learn from its ambassador what actually happened, tell to Bismarck’s traps.
Consequently on July, 19, 1870, France declared war on Prussia. Once the conflict erupted,
the southern German states, honoring treaties of 1866, enthusiastically joined Prussia against
Napoleon III pushed by his wife and advisors, who was fatally defeated on September 1, at the
battle of Sedan. There Napoleon III surrendered and was taken prisoner. By late September
Paris was besieged and finally capitulated on January 28, 1871. While the war was still in
progress, German unification was completed and the federal German empire was proclaimed
at Versailles. William I was proclaimed Emperor of United Germany and Bismarck
chancellor.
The brief war had profound effects. A German national state was created. In France the 2 nd
Empire fell to be succeeded by the 3 rd Republic after bitter internal conflict. France was
required to pay an indemnity of five billion Francs and cede Alsace and Lorraine, harsh terms
that breed enmity between France and Germany as a central fact of European affairs.

2.4 THE PARIS COMMUNE
In 1871 France went into a war with Prussia on which the French force was defeated
disastrously. This national humiliation, added to the already economic and social crisis due
to the ever widening gap between the poor and the rich, and the prevalent food shortages,
instigated the Parisians to get out of strikes. A specific demand was that Paris should be self-
governing, with its own elected commune, something enjoyed by most French towns, but
denied Paris by a government wary of the capital’s Unruly populace. By this time, the head
of the national government was Adolph. Theirs, who had negotiated the details of the peace
with Prussia. After doing this, he was faced with the problems of regaining control of Paris,
of Convincing the city that the war with Prussia was over and of disarming the National
Guard. Adolph theirs has only twelve thousands troops left after the truce to do this against
several hundred thousands national guards.
By that time many tense of thousands of Parisians were armed members of a citizens’ militia
known as the “National Guard”, which had been greatly expanded to help defend the city. It
remained on alert, ready to resist any forcible entry on the Prussians in to Paris. Cannons left
over from the siege of were taken to various parts of the city. In the end, it was those canons
taken to the working class districts of Paris that made the situation very tense.
What was the problem with keeping the canons in the working class districts? Why the
provisional government feared so much?
It was government’s attempt to capture these canons that sparked the revolution early on the
morning of Saturday. Theirs feared that the workers would arm themselves with the canons
and could come to from an alternative center of political power. Events first took a serious
turn when on March 18 government ordered regular troops to seize the canons stored on the
Butte Monometer (working class inhabited district of Paris). Instead of following
instructions, however, the soldiers, whose morale was in any case not high, fraternized with
National Guards and local residents. In addition, the troops rather arrested their own
commander, who was later shot. Other army units joined in the rebellion which spread so
rapidly that president Thiers ordered an immediate evacuation of Paris by as many of the

regular forces as would obey; by the police; and by administrations and specialists of every
kind. He himself fled ahead of them, to Versailles. The central committee of the National
Guard was the only effective government in Paris it almost immediately abdicated its
authority and arranged elections, for a commune to behold on March 26. They found Paris
open for the taking but the main concern of the National Guard central committee was to
legalize its situation by divesting itself of the power that had so unexpectedly fallen into its
hands. Instead therefore of following up the rout of the army by marching on Versailles as
the Blanquists had urged the committee entered into the negotiations with the only
constitutional body left in the city the Mayors to arrange the holding of the elections.
Activity 2.7
In later years, the International socialist movement claimed the Paris commune as part of his history.
Very contrary to the above claim Karl Marx argued as, “The commune was in no way socialist, nor
could it be.”
What do you think the reason behind that the international socialist movement’s perception of the
Paris commune was quite in contrary to Karl Marx perception of the commune? Please discuss with
your class mates.
Because of the inclusion of some socialist circles as its member and some of its social
reforms, this was satisfactory for the international socialist movement to claim the commune
as its history. For Marx, however, who claimed the commune was only are former not a
revolutionary, it could not deserve to be considered as a socialist element. For details, while
reading the below text, please try to analyze the commune’s actions-whether they were
reformatic or revolutionary actions.
The charismatic socialist, Louis August Blanqui was elected president of the council, but
this was in his absence, for he had been arrested on March 17 and was held in a secret prison
throughout the life of the commune. The Paris commune was proclaimed on March 28, in
the Hotel de Ville although local districts often retained the organizations from the siege.
Despite internal differences, the council made a good start in maintaining the public services
essential for a city of two million; it was able to reach consensus on certain policies whose
content tended towards a progressive social democracy rather than a social revolution. Thus,

the commune’s social legislations portrayed it as a reformist rather than Revolutionary.

Rents owing for the siege were cancelled out other wise the rights of private property were
not questioned. After much debate a three years delay was granted for the payment of
outstanding bills. The act of guillotine and night work in the hundreds of Paris bakeries was
also abolished. The commune also allowed the granting of pensions to the Unmarried
companions of National Guards killed on active services. Debts were also postponed and
interests on debts were to be abolished. The commune also allowed trade unions and
workers co-operatives to take over factories not in use in order to start up them again.
However, more extreme suggestions that all the big factories of the monopolists should be
taken over y the workers were rejected. Taken together all these measures shocked
bourgeoisie opinion out side Paris.
In the field of education the main effort was to provide basic elementary education for all.
The reform movement was strongly against the church schools which amounted to just over
half the schools in Paris. National guards were used to evict priests and nuns and replace
them by republicans. None of these schemes of co-operative industrial organization or of
educational reform, however, could come to much. There was too little time and the war had
to be won. More important than any particular measure was the very existence of the
commune as a government that included a substantial proportion of working men and one
that for once seriously intended to improve the lot of the majority of the population.
FOCUS
Despite the formal reformism of the commune council, the composition of the commune as a
whole was much more revolutionist. Revolutionary trends present included anarchists and
socialists, Blanquists and more libertarian republicans. The Paris commune has been celebrated
by anarchists and Marxist. Socialists continuously until the present day, partly due to the variety
of tendencies, the high degree of workers control and the remarkable cooperation among different
revolutionists.
On the other corner of France, Thiers reorganized his forces at Versailles, doubling their
numbers to 80,000 by successfully negotiating with Bismarck for the release of French
prisoners of war. While the German occupation forces remained inactive in the suburbs, the

second siege of Paris began in April. This time it was by a French army under Marshal Mc
Mahon, who had fought in Algeria and the Crimean and been wounded and taken prisoner at
Sedan. His troops shots prisoners taken in clashes, and the commune retaliated by seizing
hostages in the city. After a bombardment lasting six weeks, his forces broke into the city
and took it after a week of merciless street fighting. With in a week, the General’s troops
restored order to Paris and killed about 20,000 in habitants. The communards claimed their
own victims as well.
The short lived Paris commune quickly became a legend throughout Europe. However, the
immediate consequences of the defeat of the commune were disastrous for the French labour
movement as a period of sever repression followed the blood letting of the last week. The
Thiers government represented the commune as an attempt by the extremists in the capital to
impose a socialist dictatorship upon the rest of the country. This also was held to justify the
severity with which its supporters were treaty after its 72 days of defiant existence. The
result was that the French socialist movement, through the loss of its leaders, was eliminated
from national politics for nearly ten years; but the third Republic gained the support of the
peasants and property-owners and all who wanted stability and order in the state. This did
much to enable it to develop in a peaceful and constitutional manner and survive the
hostility of its opponents during its first uncertain years.
EXERCISE 2
1. Which clause of the Paris peace treaty (1856) were the reasons in portraying the
Treaty as indecisive?
2. What was the essential element that mended the damage inflicted on the German
unification in 1849?
3. Compare and contrast the outcomes of the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the
Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) in respect to their impact on the future
relationships between the victorious and vanquished powers?
4. As Prussia initiated unification for the German, which Italian state initiated
unification in Italy?
5. What was the membership composition of the Paris commune looks like?
SUMMARY

The Crimean war though it’s the real cause behind its outbreak remained vivid, it had a
remarkable ending. On the foregrounds of its outcomes, nationalism was the greatest
beneficiary for the war freezes the commitment of great powers towards the statuesque of
the Vienna congress. Consequently, Europe submit the membership of two new states-
Germany and Italy. And the process of Nation building by itself enabled the world entertain
a new experience the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Checklist
Make sure that you put a tick mark ( ) in the box provided for those concepts and terms you
feel ease understanding. If not, please get consulted yourself with the appropriate part of the
module.
I can
Yes No
1. define the terms like ‘Sebastopol’, ‘Drandless’, ‘Balkanization’,

‘Young Italy’, and ‘Paris Commune’---------------------------------------
2. discuss the outcomes of the Crimean war, Austro-Prussian war, and

Franco-Prussian war-----------------------------------------------------------
3. explain the causes behind Crimean war, Danish war, Austro-Prussian War,
Franco-Prussian war, and revolution in Paris (1871) -----

UNIT 3: NON EUROPEAN STATES IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY: UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA AND JAPAN
UNIT TRHEE
NON-EUROPEAN STATES IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY: UNITED
CONTENTS
3.1 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 52
3.2 THE MODERNIZATION OF JAPAN 65
3.3 SUMMARY
3.3 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
In this unit historical facts with the 19 th century USA and the causes of the civil war and its
consequences will be presented By then the northern industrialists fought against the
southern planters who depended on slave labor. Moreover, the 19 th century brief history of
Japan and the causes and effects of Meji Reform will be presented.
Objectives: - At the end of this unit, students will be able to:
 Explain the Socio-economic and political realities of the pre-nineteenth century

American and Japanese society
 Analyze the fundamental cause behind the process of dynamisms in both societies
 Evaluate the out comes of the American civil war and Modernization of Japan
 Appreciate the skills displayed by the 19th c Japanese generation in building modern
Japan

Resource:
 Other than your assigned books for the module, please get frequently advised
with the following two books for this particular unit. The books are Davidson, J.W. and
et al (1998) for the American civil war; and Stavrianos, L.S. (1971) for modernization of
Japan.
OVERVIEW
This unit is highly concerned with two major regional phenomena of the 19 th c but had a
global significance, and which appeared outside of the European continent. In teaching or
writing about a world history (with the exception of ancient and contemporary world
histories) it is common to see that the content is dominated with a European history. This is
partly because the level of European cultural advancement of which bi-implication made
European historiography in the period very rich. On the contrary, non-European societies,
because of their very low level of development, their historiography is not as matured as that
of the Europeans. Even in some cases, like Africa, the historiography remained un revealed.
This reality justified the discrepancy observed in the share of world history among
Europeans and other regions. The other reason of course is the majorities of scholars in this
field were /are Europeans. Therefore, the writer of this part of the module, who strongly
believes that World history should represent all regional societies, completely devoted the
unit for the 19th c U.S American and Japanese societies, at least to ease the discrepancy.
Dear students, for your better understanding of the concepts and facts of this unit, please do
your best to refer the particular pages, which will be indicated in various parts of the unit.

3.1 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
3.1.1 BACKGROUND
Activity 3.1
Can you please remember the grand goal of the American Revolution? What were the basic
achievements of the Revolution? Please, discuss with you classmates.
The basic aim was to end the British colonialism over the American people. A part from
succeeding with its major goal, the Revolution was successful in issuing the ‘Bill of rights’
which stressed ‘all men are created equally’.
Having achieved their independence from Great Britain at the conclusion of the
Revolutionary war in 1783, the former English North American colonies had become the
United States of America. Indeed, some political issues remained as they were in the past.
Yet, the constitutional convention had left some issues unresolved. One was the extent of the
power of the central government over citizens. The adoption of 1791 Bill of Rights of the
first ten amendments to the constitution, clarified this question. These amendments in fact
guaranteed certain rights to citizens, including free speech, assembly and religion, as well as
the rights to bear arms and to secure a speedy trial. Nevertheless, in a society where liberty
and equality viewed with utmost importance and all citizens were said to be “created equal”,
little was done to change the status of those enslaved Black- Americans. Under these
circumstances, the question of the day was, how could black Americans feel a bond with
white Americans when so often the only existing bonds had been forged with Chains? The
other most important issue which left unresolved was whether the power of the federal
government or the states should predominate if they clashed.
A nation growing as rapidly as the United States in the middle decades of the 19 th c changed
continually in hundreds of ways. The country was developing a national economy marked
by the dependence of each area on all the others, the production of goods in one region for
sale in all, the increased specialization of agricultural and industrial producers, and the
growth in size of the average unit of production.

When America declared its in dependence there was only half a million enslaved black
Americans, which reached to unprecedented level by about 1800. After the abolition of
slavery in the north, slavery became the “peculiar institution” of the south and formed the
foundation for the plantation economy of the south. To surrender slavery, southerners
believed, would be to usher in economic ruin. No one could devise a way politically or
socially acceptable to the slave-owners of the south to abolish it. In addition, the very fact
that the majority of Americans believed in the period the right for property as one of the
inalienable rights of economic right, no one was not courage enough to intervene in the
property rights of the southerners, who claimed slaves as if their property. Perhaps, the most
pressing reason for the prevalence of slavery in the American continent in the early 19 th c,
however, was the racist thinking that saw blacks as fundamentally inferior to whites, which
is a case also in the present time among some Europeans, the very people who claim self-
actualized societies.
Slavery as an institution in one section of the 19 th c American Society divided North and
South on a radically different course of social development, sharpening economic and
political divisions.
3.1.2 SECTIONALISM: NORTH VS SOUTH
The original thirteen American states that stretched along the Atlantic seaboard were far
from homogenous.
Activity 3.2
Can you list the original thirteen American states?
Please refer the following page and map from your assigned book, Craig and etal (1997):
page No, 690; Map 25-1.
The North had more cities and a predominantly white population. The south was more rural
and was characterized by the institution of black slavery who worked in the plantations and
domestic services freely.. There were other economic differences: The Northern states were

more commercial and were soon industrially oriented who used hired labor but the south
remained primarily agrarian by using the slave labor.
Sectional differences could trace its origin in the time of the Revolution when the question
of slavery divided the North and South as to what proportion of the slave population would
be counted toward representation in the House of Representatives. A compromise allowed
the slave-holding states to count three-fifths of their slaves when calculating their population
for representation in congress. The constitution also for bade any federal attempt to prevent
the importation of slaves before 1808. .
 For the following immediate paragraphs, please sea the Map on page 776 of your
assigned book(kagan and et al 1998)
The pressures that gave rise to the most serious sectionalism arose as Americans began to
move across the continent. In 1803 Thomas Jefferson purchased Louisiana, which more than
doubled the size of the United States and allowed for westward movements. There was no
problem with this expansion until 1819. Because, with the expansion, free and slave states
were added to the union in equal numbers, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois being balanced by
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
FOCUS
Free states- Those states which forbade the slave system relationship in their own
Domain.
Slave states- Where the institution of slavery strongly planted in states structure.
In 1819 there were 22 states, of which 11 slave and 11 Free states. This meant that an equal
number of senators from Slave and Free states. In 1820, Missouri was admitted as a slave
and Maine as a free one. It was also decided that in the future no slave state would be carved
out of land north of the southern border of Missouri. For the time being, this compromise

end congressional debate over slavery. Nonetheless, the economies of the North and South
were rapidly diverging.
ECONOMIC POLARIZATION
Attempt is being made to discuss the economic natures of the two sections independently,
the Northern one being the first. Family farms, free labor, commerce, and early
industrialization in textiles characterized the economy of the Northern states. The farms
were relatively small and worked by families. Farm laborers were free. Similarly, free
laborers worked in the towns, on the ships, and in the factories of the North. The political
spokesmen for the North tended to favor tariffs to protect their young industries from
cheaper foreign competition.
The most obvious change in the North in the decades before the civil war was the rapid
growth of industry. It was the site of the earliest textile factories in the United States. By the
second decade of the nineteenth century there were hundreds of cotton factories in the
North. These mills used cotton that was produced in the south, though most southern cotton
sold in England, where the textile industry was globally powerful.
The growing industry of the North displayed a remarkable receptivity to technological

change. The expanding market inspired businessmen to use new techniques. During the
second quarter of the century innovations in transportation let to the fuller integration of
different parts of the northern economy. Canals were built to link the major rivers and the
Great lakes. Most significant in this aspect was however, the construction of a vast rail road
network. From the beginning, the impact of rail way was profound. Farmers along the tracks
began to specialize in cash crops and market them in distant locations. With their profits,
they purchased manufactured goods that earlier they might have made at home. It also
stimulated other areas of economy, not ably the mining and Iron Industries.
The most far reaching effect of this new means of transportation was that it isolated the
southern slave owning states from the North eastern and the Western states. Most of the
railways linked the North east and the West. The rail lines fostered the commercial
agriculture of the Midwest. Its products were sold in the North east and exported from

northern parts. Hence, bringing a shift of direction on the western trade, the development of
east-west rail ways undermined the older river based trade routes, which was basically
advantageous to the southern section. Few major lines ran north and south. So farmer ties
between the sections based on river weakened. The linking of East and West had fateful
effects on politics. The increased ease of movement form section to section and the ever
more complex social and economic integration of East and West stimulated nationalism and
those became a force for the preservation of the union. Citizens of the West became hostiles
to slavery, especially to its west ward extension. Economic ties with the North east
reinforced cultural connections.
The south might have preserved its influence in the Northwest if it had pressed forwards its
own railroad-building program. It failed to do so because of the scattered population of the
south, the seasonal nature of much of the freight business- because of scattered population of
the south, the seasonal nature of much of the freight business-because of seasonal
production of cotton-and absence of large cities. But the fundamental cause of the south’s
backwardness in railroad construction was the attitude of its leaders who were less interested
in commerce than in industry, though their capital found other outlets that industrialization
seemed difficult in south. Instead the increased importance of cotton, especially with the
invention of the cotton gin in 1793 which made cotton cultivation more profitable,
strengthened the hold of slavery on the region. Slave trading became a big business. Well
managed plantations yielded annual profits of 10 percent and more and in general money
invested in southern agriculture earned at least a modest return. However, the south failed to
develop locally owned marketing and transportation facilities for which slavery was at least
partly responsible. Northern capitalist gradually came to control much of the south’s cotton
from the moment it was picked. The same middle men supplied most of the foreign goods
that the planters purchased with their cotton earnings.
Southerners complained about this state of affairs but did little to correct it. As a number of
southerners’ nationalists, who advocated that the south should be a separate nation, pressed
for greater industrialization to make the region more independent? Nonetheless, so long as

investments in cotton and slaves absorbed most of south’s capital, efforts to promote
southern industry were doomed. In addition social pressures in the south militated against
investment in trade and commerce. Ownership of land and slaves yielded a kind of psychic
income not available to any middle man. Still more depressing under slavery was the
reservoir of intelligence and skills that the blacks represented was almost entirely wasted.
Despite southern prosperity, the sections leaders complained that the North used its power
over banking and commerce to convert the south into a colony. The southerners convinced
themselves that the profit they earned from cotton plantation was drained into the pockets of
Northern merchants, Bankers and Shippers. And this made them to assert that the Northern
economy grew at the expense of the south. In line with this, this assertion made the
southerners to resist federal aid to economic development, which they were convinced,
would inevitably enrich the north at southern expense. This attitude further weakened the
south’s political attachment with the west, which needed federal aid for transportation.
ABOLITIONISM
Activity 3.3
1. How do you see slavery from the moral point of view? What about from Humanity.
2. Do you think you religion support or reject the essence of slavery? Please refer the
respective spiritual scriptures of your religion, and then discuss with your class mates or any
collogue.
Some religions justify slavery as it can be easily found and read within the various holly-
scriptures.
What do you think ‘abolitionism’ is concerned with particularly in this session?
Slavery had been one of the causes of indignation to reform-minded Americans.

Humanitarians were outraged by the master’s whip and by the practice of disrupting
families. Democrats protested the denial of political and civil rights to slaves. Out of this the
genesis of Abolitionist movement-antislavery movement-was laid down under William
Lloyd Garrison on January 1, 1831.

To many of the Northerners, slavery was wrong: they would not tolerate it in their own
communities. But since the constitution obliged them to tolerate it in states where it existed,
they felt no responsibility to fight it. Indeed, they might felt there was no way of getting rid
of slavery short of revolution. Most of them believed that under the constitution, the
institution was not subject to federal control.
To Garrison, however, no additional time should be spared fro compromise. In his own
newspaper, the Liberator; he indicated his uncompromising position as. “On his subject, I do
not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation … I am in earnest. I will not
equivocate- I will not excuse- I will not retreat a single inch-and I will be heard.”
Repudiating gradual emancipation and embracing “immediatism.”
Garrison insisted that slavery end at once. He denounced colonization (Persuading slave
owners to treat their property humanely) as a racist, anti-Black movement and upheld the
principle of racial equality.
Activity 3.4
1. What were the economic questions of slavery?
2. What were the moral questions?
As slaves were not considered as human beings at individual level for all their efforts and
contribution in the economy, they gained no return. This is like a work for nothing. At
national level, particularly in line with the topic under discussion, it had negative
implication over the growing industrial sector. This was so because as the new industries
demanded economic protection from the government like international tariffs on foreign
commodities, the slave owners rejected this demand. Because, if tariff was going to be
imposed on European commodities reaching America, at the same time tariff would also be
imposed upon the American export, cotton, while reaching Europe. Therefore, the slave
owners in order to have a free door to the European market, they hindered any law with
economic protection no to be passed in US- Senate. Slavery also appealed to moral
questions the slaves were considered as an object, they were treated not more than like an
animal by their masters.

To Abolitionists, slavery was moral not an economic question. The institution seemed a
contradiction of the principle of the American Revolution that all human beings had been
created with natural rights. Then, too, it went against the Romantic spirit of the age, which
celebrated the individual’s freedom and self-reliance. Most of all, they denounced slavery as
outrageously contrary to Christian teaching. In line with this, Garrison exclaimed that it was
very surprising to see that a professed Christian who tolerated slavery for even an instant
could hope for salvation.
Gradually, the abolitionism cause was getting its base in the North. In 1832 the abolitionists,
Lewis Tappan and his brother Arthur, Theodore Weld and James G.Birney (ex-slave holder
converted to abolitionism), along with Garrison, joined together to from the national
organization, the American Anti-slavery society. The new organization coordinated a
loosely affiliated network of state and local societies. During the years before the civil war,
perhaps 200,000 northerners belonged to an abolitionist society. Added to this, it could be
asserted that all freed ex-slaves were the members of the organization, providing important
support and leadership. Frederick Douglass, who escaped from slavery in Maryland and
became an eloquent critic of its evils, assumed the greatest prominence.
One of the first preoccupations of the abolitionists to develop a network of antislavery

sympathizes in the north to convey runaway slaves to Canada and freedom. Underground
railways were formed to hid fugitives and transported them northward from one station to
the next. Free Black Americans, who were more readily trusted by wary slaves, played a
leading role in this aspect. The other was the abolitionists were also preoccupied with
smuggling a million of anti-slavery pamphlets in the southern states.
1840, in spite of a strong challenge from the south, heralded that Absolutism reached to its
climax. Many abolitionists by this time began to feel that an anti-slavery political party
should be formed. Accordingly, the liberty party was formed in 1840 to give a political
manse for struggle. And this heralded, from now onwards abolitionism would be adecesive
force in the political arena than to remain a merely voluntary reform organization.

The growing northern concern about slavery partly due to abolitionism’s role, aggravated
sectional differences and there by conflicts.
POLITICAL TENSIONS
 For this topic and the immediate next, please refer to maps on pages 339, 479 and 495
of Davidson (1998) in order to make your learning of the topics effective.
Activity 3.5
1. What do you think the rationale behind representation both in the US-senate and Congress?
2. Can you see any similar organization in the Ethiopian case? Please don’t forget to discuss
with your desk-mate before attempting the question by your self.
In its essence of representation, the House of federation and house of people representative
have some resemblance with the US-legislative branch. What else you can see?
__________________________________________________________________________
Clearly by 1840 or so the American north and south were developing two different cultures
and economies. These variations, based primarily on slavery, put pressures on the
preservation of the union. Yet the union persisted and was valued by the leaders and most of
the citizens of both sections. Further more, so long as slave and none slave votes in the US
senate were evenly balanced, the south felt reasonably secure. Compromises had repeatedly
prevented the disruption of the union, despite the deep-seated differences of the two regions.
Needless to say, the influence of Abolitionism on the Northern political policy, in the late
1840s another development upset the political compromise that had maintained both the
union and southern slavery. In 1847 the United States defeated Mexico in war and gained

new territory in the southwest and California, in addition to Texas, which had been annexed
in 1845. The United States also acquired the vast Oregon territory in the Northwest. These
new territories reopened the question of the expansion. The victory opened debate on the
extension of slavery into the huge new territory it created. Leaders in both the North and the
South saw their sectional interests threatened as the debate raged. In particular, the south
feared that the changing climate of national debate and the opening of territories where
slavery might be prohibited would give the south a minority status and thus eventually over
turn its political and social importance. On the other hand, the North came to believe that a
slave power conspiracy exercise decisive control over the federal government. During 1850s
various political groups took more extreme positions. Northern abolitionists resented the
enforcement of the federal fugitive slave law, which required the return of escaped slaves to
their owners. One reason for the hostile reaction was that the law deprived escaped slaves of
virtually any recourse to the courts.
In 1854 the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill renewed the national debate over
slavery and galvanized that antislavery forces senator Stephen Douglas, as a chairman of the
Senate’s committee on Territories, he was eager to organize federal lands west of Missouri
as part of his program for economic development. As he was an Illinois, he wanted Chicago
selected as the eastern terminal of the continental railroad to California which could only be
possible with the admission of Kansas-Nebraska territories in to the union. Under the terms
of Missouri compromise of 1820, Slavery was prohibited in this portion of the Louisiana
Purchase. However, now under the cover of popular sovereignty, and owing to a good deal
of southern pressure, Douglas removed the prohibition on slavery that had been in effect fro
34 years. Thus, the Missouri compromise was explicitly repelled as the territories were to be
arranged as Kansas-slave state and Nebraska-free state. The action outraged the Northern
politicians. Thereafter, slavery dominated the national political debate in the North and led
to the formation of a Republican party in 1854. So far until 1850s, the southerners
dominated US politics so their fear on the issue of slavery was minimal. However,
Republican Party began to condemn slavery. It had become popular by late 1850s that
threatened the position of slave states.

3.1.3 THE WAR AND ITS OUTCOMES
What do you think the pretext for the outbreak of the war?
In the presidential election of 1860 the Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln as its
candidate. The party promised that slavery would spread no further protection for the
growing industry, and the enactment of a law granting free homesteads to settlers who
would help in the opening of the west. In the meantime the Democratic Party was split in to
two over the issue of slavery as northern and southern Democratic Party which was an
advantage to the Republican Party.
The election was held in November 1860. Although Lincoln received less than 40 percent of
the popular vote and had virtually no support in the south, he won 180 electoral votes, 27
more than needed fro election. Lincoln’s election struck many southerners as a blow of
terrible finality. Lincoln already accepted the existence of slavery in the south but opposed
the further spread of slavery. On the contrary the southerners sensed that slavery and their
privileges would be diminished. One fear of the south was that Lincoln would use federal
aid to induce the Border States to voluntarily free their slaves. Once slavery disappeared
there, and new states were added, the necessary three-fourths majority would exist to
approve a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. Or perhaps Lincoln might send an
agent into the south to stirrup more slave insurrections. As result, the southern states thought
of secession so as to protect southern equality and liberty. South Carolina’s secession from
the union, if Lincoln were elected, was a foregone conclusion for the state had long been
waiting for an event that would unite the south against the antislavery forces. Once the
election results were certain, a specifically summoned South Carolina convention declared
“that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states under the name of
the ‘United states of America’ is here by dissolved.” Other southern states followed suit. On
February 8, 1861 eleven slave states formed the Confederate States of America under the
presidency of Jefferson Davis. Attempts at political compromise to maintain the union
failed, and when confederate forces fired on fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor in April,
1861, the most destructive war in US history commenced. Abraham Lincoln soon promised
that he would use force to maintain force to maintain the union.

The people of each section entered the war with high hopes for an early victory. In material
resources the north enjoyed a decisive advantage. Twenty-three states with a population of
22 million were arrayed against 11 inhabited by 9 million. The industrial superiority of the
north exceeded even its preponderance in manpower, providing it with abundant facilities
for manufacturing arms and ammunition, clothing and other supplies. Similarly, the network
of railways in the north contributed to federal military prospects.
Activity 3.6
1. How do you view ‘Equality’?
2. Do you think ‘racism’ was the case only between two divergent races? If your
answer is no, can you have anther traits of racism? Can you please have an example?
With respect to race, ethnicity, cultural difference, language and religion diversity, an
appeal for equality completely resides with the commitment which says, “All men are
created equal” and Hegel’s dialectical philosophy which asserted that all culture, language,
religion and ethnic have equal importance. However, if the questions are political and
economic rights, equality mean “equal Opportunity.”
__________________________________________________________________________
The civil war lasted almost exactly four years, and a new nation emerged from the violence.
In September , 1862, Lincoln issued an Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves in the
rebelling states as of January 1, 1863 and inviting them to join the armed forces of the
north. The proclamation served as a weapon. Because slaves in the rebel states flocked to
north as fighting men. The Emancipation Proclamation had immense symbolic importance,
for it redefined the nature of the war. The north was fighting no to save the old union but
also to create a new nation. The proclamation transformed the northern cause from that of
suppressing a southern rebellion in to that of extending liberty. By the time the confederacy
was defeated in April 1865, the south was occupied by northern armies, its transportation
network disrupted, and many of its cities in ruins. Southern political leaders had virtually no
impact on the immediate post war decisions. In a series of amendments, slavery was
abolished, ex-slaves granted the citizenship and allowed to vote.

The outcomes were, however, not as anticipated, especially by the Black community. The
fruits of liberty for blacks in the quarter century following the war proved ephemeral. Let
alone the Blacks, the liberty of native Americans was even curtailed. Racism backed by
legislation came into the ascendant. In the former slave states, a system of legalized
discrimination against blacks slowly arose in the form of segregation. Through laws passed
by city councils and state legislatures, social life became divided into black and white
spheres. Race defined nearly all the institutions to which persons had access. Furthermore,
southern states legalized poll taxes and literacy tests, depriving blacks of their right to vote.
American blacks were also subject to physical intimidation and terrorism, the most famous
white terrorist group was the KU KIUX Klan, founded in 1866.
In the context of one global phenomenon the civil war has its own significance. It was the
greatest war that occurred any where in the world between 1815 to WWI. It represented the
triumph of federal authority over the challenges of regional states. It resulted in the
establishment of a continent-wide free labour market, even though freed blacks lived in
great poverty and an economic dependence. The war allowed American political and
economic interest to develop without the distraction of the debates over states rights and the
morality of slavery. There after, free labour would become the American norm.

3.2 THE MODERNIZATION OF JAPAN
3.2.1 BACKGROUND
When Europeans first appeared in the 16 th c., Japan was a peripheral country with its old
civilization. This does not mean that the Japanese were primitive; indeed, they had evolved a
complex and dynamic society. The importance of geographical location is particularly
apparent in the case of Japanese history. The Japanese have been close enough to the
mainland to benefit from the great Chinese civilization, but distant enough to be able to
select and reject as they wished. In fact, the Japanese have been unusually sensitive and alert
to what they have imported from Abroad. Although popularly regarded as a nation of
borrowers, they have independently evolved, because of their isolation, a larger proportion
of their own culture than have any other people of comparable numbers and level of
development.
Early Japan was organized in a large number of clans, each ruled by a hereditary priest-
chieftain. Toward the end of the first century, the Ymato clan established a loose political
and religious hegemony over the others. Its chief was the emperor, and its clan god was
made the national deity. This organization begun to be undermined with importation of
Chinese civilization, which begun on a large scale in the sixth century. Buddhism introduced
from Korea and appeared as the medium fro cultural change. The impetus for change
culminated in the introduction of the Taika Reform in about 645 which transformed Japan
into a centralized state. Accordingly, the country was divided into provinces and districts
ruled by governors who derived their power from the emperor and his council of state. All
land was also nationalized in the name of the emperor and allotted to peasant households.
The new owner=cultivators were responsible for paying cultivators were responsible for
paying to the central government a land tax that sometimes involved military service. There
strengthen imperial authority, and they did so in comparison with the preceding clan
structure. But in practices the Japanese emperor was far from being the undisputed head of a
highly centralized state. The powerful hereditary aristocracy forced certain modification
upon the system of administration that ultimately brought about its down fall.

Though the Japanese borrowed a lot from Chinese civilization, in each borrowed items they
made their own modification so that the items suit the Japanese local structure. Chinese
ideographs, Confucianism and Buddhism were borrowed, but soon reaching Japanese soil,
all of them were modified to fit the Japanese realities. As for example, the Japanese
borrowed the concept of centralization and appointment of officials on the basis of merit
from the Chinese, the old aristocracy maintained its positions of status and power. Like
wise, the aristocracy was also able to retain its land possession, which was usually tax
exempt and became manors outside the governmental administrative system. It was during
this time that the Fujiwara family perfected the diarchy (dual system of government) where
they did the actual work of ruling while the emperor passed his life in luxurious seclusion.
This dyarchical system of government, which had no parallel in China, remained the pattern
in Japan until the country was opened up by the Europeans in the 19 th c. This pattern of
government cleared the way for the coming of the new age of feudalism in Japan, when
political power shifted from the imperial court to the rural warriors.
3.2.2 EVOLUTION OF FEUDALISM
Activity 3.7
What do you think the basic features of feudalism could be?
To mention some: loose central authority, vassal-lord relationship and agrarian way of life.
As discussed earlier, one of the reasons for the evolution of feudalism in Japan was when the
centralization essence of government eventually replaced by the essences of delegation of
power and responsibility for local subordinates by the fujiwara families. The other was when
powerful local families and Buddhist communities were willing to bring new land under
cultivation so long as the incentive of tax exemption was maintained. These friends reduced
the amount of tax paying land, which meant an increased tax load for the peasant owner-
cultivators. The net result of this process was that by the end of 12 th c, tax paying land
amounted to 10 percent or less of the total cultivated area, and local power had been taken
over by the new rural aristocracy.

At the same time, this aristocracy had become the dominant military force because of the
disintegration of the imperial armed forces. The role of the rural aristocrats became
paramount in the military affairs as they became mounted warriors and gradually increased
their military effectiveness until they completely over shadowed the imperial forces. A
feudal relationship now developed between these rural lords and their retainers, or samurai
(literally “one who serves”). This relationship was based on an idealized ethic, “way of the
warrior.” The samurai enjoyed special legal and ceremonial rights, and in return they were
expected to give unquestioning service to their lords. The samurai family was closely
integrated into society because of its subordination to the interests of its lord. This harmony
between the family and the state was much strong that it facilitated the modernization of
Japan in the 19th c by providing a grass root basis for national unity and action.
By the 12th c, Japan was controlled by competing groups of feudal lords. For some time the
Fujiwara were able to maintain a balance of power by throwing what strength they had on
one side or another. In the end, one of these lords, Minamoto Yoritomo, emerged victorious.
And the emperor commissioned him ‘Shogun’ (General), with the right to nominate his own
successor. With this post, the Shogun was responsible for both the internal and external
defense of the realm. In reality, however, the Shogun was also conducting non-military
affairs of the state in the name of the emperor, who continued to remain in seclusion in
Kyoto-the seat of government. This tradition continued to the 17 th c when the emperor
commissioned Tokugawa Ieyasu as a Shogun in 1603 who served as regent to the Japanese
eperor.. And this marked the beginning of the great Tokugawa shogunate that was to rule the
country until the restoration of imperial rule and the beginning of modernization in 1868.
Meaning that Shogunate had become hereditary in the ruling Tokugawa family. Their center
was Edo(now Tokyo) where as the emperors resided at Kyoto.

3.2.3 THE CHALLENGES OF THE WEST
Activity 3.8
1. What do ‘close door’ and ‘open door’ policies mean?
2. Do you agree that close door policy retards ones state’s progress?
If yes, how? If Not, Why not?
3. Can you have one example of close door policy in Ethiopia? Please specify why and when it
happened?
So long as each state is interdependent upon the other states in our Globe, close door
policy is very harmful.
The Tokugawa policy of preserving the status quo was fro awhile threatened by the intrusion
of western Europeans. The first to appear were a band of Portuguese sailors who were
shipwrecked in 1542. The local chief greeted the Portuguese with wonder and awe. The
Japanese were eager to learn from them, especially about weaponry. This initial contact was
followed by regular visits by Portuguese traders who discovered that rich profits could be
made in commerce between China and Japan. Because of raids by Japanese pirates, the
Ming emperors had bond all trade with Japan. The Portuguese quickly stepped into the void
and prospered handsomely, exchanging Chinese gold and silk for Japans silver and copper.
It looked as if the traditional geographic isolation of Japan might end.
The Portuguese combined missionary enterprise with their commercial activities. Francis
Xavier and other Jesuit fathers landed in 1549 and were allowed to preach among the masses
of the people. Gradually, Christianity received protection and encouragement from Japan’s
military leader, Oda Nobunaga. Nobunaga welcomed the new religion as a counter weight to
the independent Buddhist communities that were causing him trouble. Thus, in less than 50
years 300,000 Japans were converted into Christianity and this made Japan to be regarded as
the most promising field of Christian evangelism.
The successor of Nobunaga, Toyota Hideyoshi, viewed with concern both the new trade and
the new religion. The Portuguese for example, were demanding the right to disinter the city
of Nagasaki, and threatened a trade boycott if they were refused. Likewise, the militant

activists of the foreign missionaries seemed to Hideyoshi to be subverting the traditional

Japanese society. In 1587Hideyosh ordered that all missionaries must leave, but his order
was not effectively enforced, because of the fear that it would affect the profitable trade. Not
soon, however, the arrival of New Europeans Merchants in the areas, the Dutch and few
British one, gave the Japanese a new freedom of action because of the prevalent rivalry
among the Europeans. Thus, the Japanese could now move against the missionaries without
fear of loosing commerce that Tokugawa Ieyasu issued decree in 1614 which ordered all
European Missionaries to leave Japan and all the 300,000 Christian converts to renounce
their faith. The order was ruthlessly enforced and as a control measure, converts were forced
to belong to a Buddhist temple, and many were executed on refusing. More importantly, the
Japanese followed a policy that secluded Japan fro the outside world. The Japanese moving
a step further, in 1637 all European merchants, but the Dutch who had never shown any
interest in propagating Christianity, were forced to depart. The Dutch, along with the
Chinese, were allowed to carry on trade under severely restricted condition in Nagasaki port.
The isolationist policy was also extended in 1636 to Japanese subjects, who were prohibited
from going abroad on penalty of death. This policy of excluding all foreign influence and
freezing the internal status quo was designed to perpetuate the Tokugawa dominance, which
proved to be extra ordinarily effective for the next two crude centuries.
Despite the fact that Japan closed its doors to the international communities, increasing
commercial activities in northern pacific waters in the early 19 th c made situations difficult
for the Japanese. Ships engaged in Whaling and fur trading needed Japanese ports to obtain
provisions and to make repairs, but they were denied all access. Finally the United States
government decided to take the initiative that at the Middle of the 19 th c the American ships
of commodore Perry came and forced Japan to sign a treaty of friendship, Treaty of
Kanagawa. With this, Japan abandoned its policy of seclusion which lasted fro more than
two centuries.

3.2.4 THE MEJI RESTORATION 1868-1890
In 1868 the Tokugawa Shogun was overthrown due to its inability to defend Japan;s interest
and the emperor was restored to its supreme position. The emperor took the name Meji
(“enlightened government”) as his reign name; and the event was known as the Meji
Restoration. And the day marked the transition of Japan from the life of hermit to the
process of modernization. This revolution led a change in Japan;s political and social
structure. As Hobsbown put it was “Not just a new regime but a new Japan.”
Activity 3.9
1. What do you think the basic reason behind Japan’s very rapid modernization in the 19 th c?
Which in puts of this modernization impressed you much?
2. The incumbent Ethiopian prime Minister claims his government will transform Ethiopian
society in to a middle-income earning society with in the following couple of decades. Are
you optimistic or pessimistic towards this commitment? Why?
The writer is optimistic in the Prime Minister’s commitment. Expansion of

infrastructures in each direction the state and the very fact that at present Ethiopia has
the best investment policy at least in east Africa can help in realization of governments
ambition lots of common things could be observed between the Meji reign in the 19 th c
and the current Ethiopian economic reform.
The shameful treaty signed with the Americans enabled the Japanese to see back their
institutional and technological backwardness which made them an easy pray for the
western powers. This was the result of feudalism and partly its closed door policy. When
the Meji emperor was restored, the nation was a military weak country, was primarily
agricultural, and had little technological developments. It was controlled by hundreds of
semi-independent feudal lords. The western states imposed their extra territorial interest
demanding that crimes concerning foreigners in Japan be tried not in Japanese but in
Western courts. There fore, the first task of those Meji leaders was to build an enhanced
national power. to this end, a remarkable reform program was launched in every aspect
of the political and socio-economic life of the Japanese, under a strong state’s

supervision to make sure that the reforms were not to result in a mere replication of
Western state, but a strong and modernized Japan.
The first move was made in the fields of ideology to unite the Japanese nation around
the emperor. The emperor was the head of the Shinto religion, Japan’s native religion,
which holds that the emperor is descended from the sun goddess and the gods who
created Japan and therefore is semi divine. In addition .compulsory elementary education
was decreed large numbers of foreign educators were brought to Japan to found schools
and Universities, and thousands of Japanese studied abroad and returned to teach in the
new institutions. But the entire educational system was kept under close state
supervision to ensure Uniformity of thought as well as of administration.
The next was military. The new leaders abolished the old feudal levies and organized
modern armed forces based on the latest European models. They built a conscript army
with the aid of a German military mission, and a small navy under the guidance of the
British. The Meji leaders for saw that the new military forces required a modern
economy to supply their needs. Accordingly, they secured the establishment of the
needed industries by granting subsides, purchasing stock or farming government
cooperation’s. In order to facilitate industrial growth, they concentrated at first on
financial institutions, commodity exchanges, shipping companies, railways, and
telegraph lines. This was very expensive, however, and strained government finances, so
in 1880 the government decided to sell most of these industries to private investors, there
after encouraging such activity through subsidies and other incentives. Some of the
Samurai and merchants who built these industries established major corporate
conglomerates called Zaibatsu, which controlled much of Japan’s modern industrial
sector. It might be added that the capital for this industrial expansion was obtained
largely from agriculture. A substantial increase in agricultural yield was attained at a
relatively low cost by introducing better seed strains, improving land use and expanding
irrigation and drainage.

More over, the legal system was the other area of reform which was meant for providing
conducive environment for national growth, win the respect of the westerners, and build
support fro the modern state. In 1817 a judicial department was organized and in the
following years new codes were adopted and distinction was made between judicial and
administrative powers. In the scopes of politics, too, the government introduced an
elected parliament called the Diet. And in 1889, borrowing ideas from the German
imperial constitution of 1871, the first constitution was promulgated. This written
document promised for the citizens’ freedom from arbitrary arrest, protection of property
right, and freedom of religion, speech, and association. But, in each instance,
government was given special authority to curb these rights whenever desired.
With the adoption of the constitution and reforming the legal system the Japanese were
in a position to press hard for the abolition o the unequal treaties in fact by agreement
thereby assured its independence. . Thus, the Western nations finally agreed to revise the
treaties in 1849, acknowledging Japan as an equal in principle, although not in
international power. Therefore to stand equally in the international affairs, Japan
launched the final phase of its modernization policy, territorial expansion . In the process
of expansion, in 1894 Japan fought a war against China over its interest in Korea, which
China claimed as a vassal state. During the Sino-Japanese war, Japan won the war and
gained control over Korea and Taiwan. Japan’s sudden, but decisive victory over China
surprised the world and worried some European powers who had a special interest in the
area, particularly Russia. By 1904, when the Russians were threatening to extend their
influence over Korea, Japan declared war on Russia and, using all its strength, won the
victory in 1905. Russia was defeated and Japan enlarged its colonial annexation by
annexing southern Sakhalin. Let alone the confirmation of its position in Korea and
establishing Japan as a colonial power in East Asia, the victory presented to Japan an
international fame thus one of the great powers of the world.
Exercise 3

1. What were the fundamental and immediate causes for the American civil war?
2. What did the term ‘colonization’ in the American civil war refers to? Was it supposed to be
an immediate or gradual process?
3. What was the ‘Missouri Compromise’ all about in short?
4. Where was the source of capital in the Japanese modernization scheme in the 19 thc?
5. What sort of Japanese behavior you like to recommend for the Ethiopians to develop?
6. Indicate one basic Global phenomenon which demonstrated the effectiveness of both the
Japanese and Americans 19th c dynamisms.
SUMMARY
 In the extreme locations of our globe, two societies undergone a remarkable struggle
to change the pre-existing status quo. Though, unity would be at a stake, the 19 th c
American societies were not in a position to spend any additional day in embracing
slavery. Thus, through the civil war which was fought between 1861 and 1865, the
desired goal was finally at head, abolition of slavery without making harm to the
national unity. Likewise, though modernization could possibly turn in to a complete
westernization, by maintaining the good aspects of their customs and traditions the
Japans were able to build a new trait of modernization in Fareast, which was far from
Western acculturation.
 Check lists
Please make sure that you inserted a tick mark () on boxes provided below if you feel the
respective words or phrases are clear for you
I can
Yes No
1. explain the cause behind the Japanese and American’s 19th c-------------
2. list the basic features of Japanese Modernization----------------------------
3. discuss the outcomes of the American Civil War and Modernization of

Japan-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. define the terms ‘free states’, ‘slave states’, ‘Kansas-Nebraska act’,

‘the Bills of rights, the ‘Samurai’, and ‘Zaibatsu’---------------------------

UNIT FOURTH
THE ORIGIN AND CAUSES OF WWI

CONTENTS
4.1 ALLIANCE SYSTEM 77
4.2 IMPERIALISTIC RIVALRIES 83
4.3 THE ROAD TO WAR 86
4.4 THE OUT BREAK OF THE WAR 90
4.5 SUMMARY
4.6 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
This unit deals with one of the most devastating wars known as the First World War that
took place from 1914 to 1918. To begin with, the formation of the military blocs, the
immediate cause of the Great War, the course of the war and the defeat of the central powers
by the Allied powers will be discussed in brief.
Objectives: - After completing this unit, you will be able to:
 trace the origin of WWI in particular reference to basic historical developments
 analyze the roles of European states men in the period as to their contribution to the
war in one way or the other
 evaluate as to whether a cause-effect relationship is exhibited between those

indicated as causes and WWI, or not
 judge as to which group should bear the responsibility for the war

UNIT 4: THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF WWI
 reflect your opinion in respect to the lesson the current generation may take from
WWI.
Resources:
 Other than your assigned books for the module [Kagan and etal 1998], please have
a close tie with those relevant books to this unit, which are indeed very well listed in the
bibliographic section of this module.
Different historically literatures maintained distinct position in writing about the causes of
the First World War. From different angles of historical points of view, lots of historical
elements are raised as an attributing factor behind WWI. To mention some for instance,
John G. Stoessinger (1993) argued as, “… Wars were begun by people. Yet this personality
dimension was seldom given its due weight in traditional books on war. Instead, forces over
which people had no control often were enthroned as ‘fundamental’ causes.” Thus, for
Stoessinger what had to be taken as a fundament cause behind the war was the personality of
each and every policy makers of the European states in the period, like for example William
II in Germany.
On the other side of the coin many historians like (Goff and et al (1994) and Craig (1972)
maintained a popular view. There groups of historians are committed to those factors which
Stoessinger referred them as a ‘Mechanistic forces’ which include Imperialism, Nationalism,
armament and Alliance system to be the engine behind the outbreak of the first world war.
Nevertheless, it can be held that almost all historical literatures come consensus in one
reality that the seeds for the First World War were rooted in the after math of the Franco-
Prussian was of 1870-71. Thus, by tracing the origin of WWI to the aftermath of the Franco-
Prussian war, Utmost effort is being exerted in writing this unit to illuminate the worth of
arrange of factors as a possible causes of the war.
Activity 4.1

Why do you think the writer claims the origin of WWI traced back to the Franco-Prussian War.
For the writer of this module, every war is followed by enmity between the victor and the
vanquished one. Therefore, the writer believes that the enmity which emerged after the
Franco-Prussian war responsible in cultivating the need for revenge among the hearts of
French nationalists and distrust on the German ones. This can be an explanation behind
why Europe was reduced in to two armed camps at the eve of WWI: Triple Ententé and
Triple Alliance.
4.1 ALLIANCE SYSTEMS
4.1.1 BISMARCK’S ALLIANCE SYSTEM
It is assumed that the Franco-Prussian war was a turning point in the European history of the
19th c. Obviously it marked the end of two centuries of French predominance on the
continent of Europe, and hence forward, as her relative economic-strength and population
declined the balance of power went steadily against France in comparison with Germany.
German victory over France and the resultant reorganization of Europe left all states feeling
insecure and distrustful of their neighbors. Equally important, it was commonly believed
that French desire for revenge constituted the chief threat to European and might bring about
an early war.
After 1871, Bismarck began to insist that Germany was a satisfied power and wanted no
further territorial gains, and he meant it. He wanted to avoid a new war that might undo his
achievement. Rather he tried to neutralize French resentment by friendly relations and
supporting French colonial aspirations. His aim for Germany was security and isolating
France from other great powers. Above all, France should not establish alliance with Austria
and Russia. He feared this because in 1760, when Frederick the Great of Prussia had made
his state a great state, Prussia was attacked by a coalition between France, Russia and
Austria. He wished, therefore, to keep France in diplomatic isolation and to prevent any
international development that would give her an opportunity to make such an alliance. As a
result, he planned to attract both Russia and Austria to his side at the expense of France.

Bismarck’s first move was to establish the Three Emperor League in 1873. It brought
together the three great conservative empires of Germany, Austria and Russia. However, the
league was little more than an uncertain understanding by which the three rulers agreed to
settle peacefully any difference that they might have in the Near East in Order to Uphold
monarchical solidarity in the face of subversive republicanism and socialism. Therefore, the
league soon collapsed in 1875 as a result of Austro- Hungarian and Russian rivalry in the
Balkans. In forming the league, neither Russia nor Austro-Hungary abandoned their
conflicting aims in foreign policy. The league was like the earlier Holy Alliance. It was
vague and made no attempt to settle the difference between the powers. It was therefore, a
superficial arrangement which could exist only as long as there was peace and understanding
in Europe.
Actually, Russia’s attitude alarmed Bismarck. He feared that if Russia continued to be

inspired by Pan-Slavonic ideas, it would provoke an alliance against itself by the Western
powers and that this alliance would be joined by Austro-Hungary. Moreover, such a new
alliance might take action which would further humiliate Russia and again prestige for itself
and in the process would then be in a position to oppose Germany. Thus, in order to check
any further Russian aggression and to detach Austria from Britain, he decided to form an
alliance with Austro-Hungary. It was called the Dual Alliance of 1879. This was a military
alliance, valid for three years and stipulating that if one of them would be attacked by
Russia, the other bound to help, and if the attack would be from any power other than
Russia, at least to remain n Apparently, Germany had fear of French aggression where as
Austro-Hungary was threatened by Russia. The terms remained secret until 1888 and the
alliance was regularly renewed until 1918, but it was bound to be full of danger unless
Germany could keep a close, control over Austrian foreign policy.
The alliance was also a departure in European diplomacy. Bismarck regarded the alliance as
an arrangement which could be abrogated or replaced whenever occasions arose in the
future. He did not intend it to involve Germany more and more deeply in the recurrent
troubles in the Near East. Nor did he envisage it as the beginning of the period of the system

of alliance in Europe, which was to divide the great powers into opposing groups and
counter-groups.
Bismarck believed that monarchical, reactionary Russia would not seek an alliance either
with republican, revolutionary France or with increasingly democratic Britain. In fact, he
expected the news of he Austro-German negotiations to frighten Russia into seeking closer
relations with Germany, and he was right. Russian diplomats soon approached him and by
1881 he had concluded a renewal of the Three Emperors’ League on a firmer basis. The
three powers promised to maintain friendly neutrality in case any of them was attacked by a
fourth power. Other clauses included the right of Austria to annex Bosnia-Herzegovina
whenever it wished and the support of all three powers for closing the Dardanelles to all
nations in case of war. This was a great benefit for Germany and Russia since it meant in
practice that Russia would not support France against Germany, and Austria-Hungary would
not support Britain against Russia.
For the Austrians, however, the renewal of the league did bring nothing new. Austro-
Hungary disliked having to come to terms with Russia, its inevitable rival in the Balkans,
whom Austria would see always in distrust. Thus, Bismarck sought to pacify Austro-
Hungary in a strange way. He turned to Italy, alarmed, with the news of French annexation
of Tunisia in 1881. Italy annoyed by France joined the Dual Alliance hence transformed in
to the Triple Alliance which was an agreement between Germany, Austro-Hungary and
Italy. The result was Italy promised to remain neutral in the event war broke out between
Austria and Russia. Since France did not intended to attack either Italy or Germany,
Bismarck was prepared to make there terms which pleased Austria because they drew her
nearer to Germany and pleased Italy because they recognized her as a great power, but he
was still determined not to support Austrian expansion in the Balkans, neither Italian in the
Mediterranean. The Triple alliance was renewed for another five years in 1887. Side by side,
Bismarck tried to keep on good relationship with Russia thereby prevented Russian alliance
with France. Moreover, Germany was in good terms with great Britain.

BOX .3
THE TERMS OF THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE

“ARTICLE I. The high contracting parties mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter
in to no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their states ….
“ARTICLE II. In case Italy, without direct provocation on her part, should be attacked by France
for any reason whatsoever, the two other contracting parties shall be bound to lend help and
resistance with all their forces to the party attacked.
“This same obligation shall devolve upon Italy in case of any aggression without direct
provocation by France against Germany.
“ARTICLE III. If one, or two, of the High contracting parties, without direct provocation on their
part, should chance to be attacked and to be engaged in a war with two or more Great powers no
signatory to the present Treaty, the casus foederis will arise simultaneously for all the High
Contracting parties.
“ARTICLE IV. Incase a great power no signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the
security of the states of one of the High contracting parties, and the threatened party should find
itself forced on that account to make war against it, the two others bind themselves to observe
towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to
take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally.
“ARTICLE V. If the peace of one of the High contracting parties should chance to be threatened
under the circumstances foreseen by the preceding Articles, the High contracting parties shall
take counsel together in ample time as to the military measures to be taken with a view to
eventual cooperation……
“ARTICLE XII. The High contracting parties mutually promise secrecy as to the contents of the
present Treaty.”
As presented in chamber and etal (1999) which was in return Quoted From Sidney
Bradshaw Fay, The Origin of the World War, Macmillan, 1930.
Bismarck’s diplomacy was a great achievement, but an even greater challenge was to
maintain this complicated system of secret alliance in the face of the continuing rivalries

among Germany’s allies. Despite another Balkan war that broke out in 1885 and that again
estrange led Austria and Russia, he succeeded. To restore German relation with Russia,
Bismarck negotiated the Reinsurance Treaty of 1887, in which both powers promised to
remain neutral if either was attacked. All seemed smooth, but a change in the German
monarchy soon upset Bismarck’s arrangements.
In 1888 William II (r. 1888-1918) came to the German throne, and came soon at odds with
Bismarck. Taking as an excuse a disagreement over domestic policy, the young emperor
dismissed Bismarck from office in 1890. Thereafter, he attempted to divert his foreign
policies. William II believed that a lasting German Understanding with Russia was
impossible and dangerous delusion. He thought that Germany must associate herself
completely with Austro-Hungary and that the establishment of good relations with Britain
would make this more likely. One of these first actions was his refusal to renew the
Reinsurance Treaty. This marked the beginning of a period of fundamental change in the
European situation during which Germany found herself opposed by the very combination
of powers which Bismarck had tried to prevent.
4.1.2 FORMATION OF TRIPLE ENTENTÉ
After the withdrawal of Bismarck from office, what sort of diplomatic arrangement
prevailed in Europe?
Almost immediately after Bismarck’s retirement, the policy of William freed France from its
isolation. To this mess, both William II and the newly appointed chancellor, General Leo
Von Caprivi was responsible for the forthcoming political disasters. On one hand, it is
believed that the emperor and his new chancellor, neither of whom had experience in foreign
affairs, might felt difficulty in the complexity of Bismarck’s diplomatic system that they
might want to clarify Germany’s commitment by eliminating the incompatibility Austro-
Hungary.
In the meantime, Russia sensed that Germany had followed anti-Russian policy. So it
created the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894. Thereafter, France offered loans to Russia.

French investors were encouraged to pour their capital in Russia in order to consolidate the
alliance.
Activity 4.2
In the text, it is being indicated that Britain was affirm enemy of Russia. What do you think the
reason was? Could you please relate your reflection with your previous learning, particularly with
the units discussed earlier in this module? In any case, better if you discuss with your classmate.
You may use ‘divergent political ideology’ and ‘the Crimean war’ as your points of insights.
As for the British, there was no reason to think that they would soon become friendly to its
traditional rivals or abandon its accustomed friendliness towards the German. Because,
colonial rivalries had made the British at odds with the Russians over Constantinople and
central Asia, and with the French over Africa.
BOX 4
ALLIANCE FOR PEACE OR WAR?

Alliances, in theory constructed to deter war, in practice threatened to bring on wars that
otherwise might not have occurred. Nations baked by allies sometimes acted more aggressively
than they would have alone. In some situations, such as in the summer of 1914, European nations
in both alliance systems urged their allies to refuse compromise, thus creating an explosive
situation.
As argued by Goff and etal (1994)
The Irony was, however, the British-long accustomed to finding the French in their way, now
began to feel in the 1890s that whenever they hoped to extend their possessions in Africa or
the pacific, the Germans were likely to appear as a destructor. The following instances
demonstrate this fact. In the Boers war in 1890-91- the Germans sent their sympathy and
encouragement to the Boers against the British. Simultaneously, the Germans attempt to
launch the Baghdad railway scheme, which Britain perceived it as a threat to its imperial
interest in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, was an annoying to London, where the feeling
was beginning to grow that Germany was bent on opposing British interests in every part of

the globe. By all odds the most alarming German action and the one most calculated to make a
working agreement with the British impossible was, however, the decision to build a battle
fleet. The German commander Admiral Alfred Von Tirpitz proceded in naval building since
1898. All these events combined together initiated are a rapprochement between the British
and French government. The Anglo-German naval race urged Britain to ally with France by
abandoning its “splendid isolationist” policy. In 1904 both governments reached an agreement
called the Anglo-French Entete. It was not a formal treaty and had no military provisions, but
it settled all outstanding colonial differences between the two nations. In particular, Britain
gave France a free hand in Morocco in return for French recognition of British control over
Egypt.
The Anglo-French entente soon received an accretion of strength by the conclusion of an

agreement between Britain and Russia. The event that cleared the way for an Anglo-Russian
agreement was Russia’s defeat in the Far East during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. The
fact that Russia appeared from the war weakened, reduced British apprehension about Russian
power in the area. The other was both sides felt that the Germans became a real threat to their
areas of interests. In August 1907 the Anglo-Russian Entete was born with that the Triple
Entete comprised of Britain, France and Russia was created. This arrangement led to the
formation of the two armed camps in Europe. This agreement laid the foundation for
consistent diplomatic cooperation among Britain, France and Russia. The diplomatic
revolution that had begun when the Germans allowed the reinsurance treaty to lapse in 1890
was now complete, and the Triple Entente had come into existence to balance the Triple
Alliance.
4.2 IMPERIALISTIC RIVALRIES
Activity 4.3
What comes to your mind whenever you heard about ‘Imperialism’?
You can take the text below as a means to see how your reflection on the concept relates to the
scholastic explanation.

Up to the close of the Napoleonic era, modern European wars were largely dynastic in nature.
The concept of the nation in arms did not emerge until the period of international upheaval
attending the spread of the French Revolution. After 1815, wars increasingly came to be
waged between national states rather than between monarchs. The stakes became higher
coveted by two or more powers in the national interest. In this age, ‘National Interest’ was
given primacy that rivalry for control of remote African, Asiatic and pacific areas and the
economic opportunity it afforded became an increasingly disturbing factor in international
relations.
Opposing interest of the British and the French in the Middle East in the late 1830 s and
early 1840s brought them dangerously close to war. When, however, Russia began
encroachments in the Holy land in the 1850s, the old enemies Britain and France, who
regarded the Near East as their particular preserve, joined forces against Russia in the
Crimean war (1853-56). Similarly, when the Austro-Prussian war of 1866 terminated
Austria’s leadership in Germanic affairs, the Hapsburg interest turned to southeastern
Europe where the Austrian’s soon found themselves at odds with Russians. The Russian, on
their part, capitalized on the Ottoman atrocities against on their Christians subjects,
unleashed a war against the Ottomans, by which Russia emerged with hegemony over the
Balkans by the treaty of san Stefano in 1878. But this result of Russian military triumph was
denied as Britain and Austria-Hungary summoned the powers to the congress of Berlin,
where they collectively deprived the Tsarist regime of the spoils of victory. Thus, the
Russians turned their neck to eastern and south eastern Asia, where they were to face the
challenge of the Japanese and the Britons.
FOCUS
MOTIVES FOR IMPERIALISM

Economic:- The rapid economic growth particularly Industrialization highly demanded abundant
Raw material and extensive market
Strategic: - the British occupation of Egypt in 1882 was justified by the fact that the opening of
the Suez Canal in 1869 made it a matter of survival for Britain to control Egypt as it is an easy
access to its colony, India. It was believed that Britain was highly dependent on the food
imported from India.

The Franco-Prussian war had important overseas repercussions, too. Republican leaders in
defeated France sought to regain prestige by creating a new empire in Africa and Asia. The
United Germany, now it wanted its share in the overseas empires. Germany’s sudden
emergence as a colonial power, coupled with rapid expansion of German trade in traditional
British areas of exploitation, in turn brought Germany into rivalry with Great Britain.
Generally speaking, as the various diplomatic alliances-which partly was the result of
imperialistic rivalry - among the major powers began to take shape in the 20 th c; the imperialist
struggles provided a further testing ground of their strength. The Bosnian crisis of 1908, the
Agadir crisis of 1911, the Italio-Turkish war of 1911-12, and finally the Balkan wars of 1912-
13 not only evidenced the Imperialistic strife of the period, but influenced profoundly the
diplomacy of all the powers. Certainly this ceaseless conflict became a dominant factor
conditioning the psychology of the leading politicians to accept a Great War, World War One.
4.3 THE ROAD TO WAR
BOX 5
THE COMING OF WORLD WAR I

“ 1871 The end of the Franco-Prussian War;
Creation of the German Empire;
“ 1873 The Three Emperors’ League
“ 1875 The Russo- Turkish War
“ 1878 The Congress of Berlin
“ 1879 The Dual Alliance between Germany and Austria
“ 1881 Renewal of The Three Emperor League
“ 1882 Italy joins Germany and Austria in the Triple Alliance
“ 1888 William II becomes the German emperor
“ 1890 Bismarck is dismissed
“ 1894 The Franco-Russian alliance
“ 1898 Germany begins to build a battle ship navy

“ 1899-1902 Boer War

“ 1902 The British alliance with Japan
“ 1904 The Entente Cordiale between Britain and France
“1904-1905 The Russo-Japans War
“ 1905 The first Moroccan crisis
“ 1907 The British agreement with Russia
“1908-1909 The Bosnian crisis
“ 1911 The second Moroccan crisis
“ 1911 Italy attacks Turkey
“1912-13 The first and second Balkan Wars
“1914 Out Break of World War I” [Kagan and et al 1998:934]
The years after 1907 seemed much more important that it had ever been before to possess
allies and much more damaging to lose them. Every government now suffered from recurrent
night mares in which it saw itself abandoned by its friends and encircled by a host of enemies;
and every government, in its waking moments, strove to strengthen the loyalty of its allies and
to avoid even the suggestion of defection. Intent upon this objective, the power not unnaturally
lost some of their freedom of action. Their ability to cooperate in dangerous crisis with
members of the opposing coalition was limited by their estimate of how their own friends
might react, and fear of offending allies was sometimes enough to prevent disinterested action
in behalf of the general peace. By the same logic, the ability of the coalition to restrain or
discipline its own members by with holding support from moves that did not appear to be in
the common interest was rendered imperfect by the fear of defection. These trends were
accompanied by two dangerous tendencies which worsened the situation.
In the first place, there was a general increase in armaments between 1900 and 1914. And this
resulted in to two serious out comes. Massive armament programs both in the army and navy
increased military influence upon policy determination that army and navy officers began to
play a vital role in the political decisions. The other was increase in armament led to arm race-
particularly between Germany and Britain. Naval in the race-building of the Dreadnoughts-
was the main bone of contention between the two right up to 1914. Therefore, these factors

played their own part in the consolidation of the Alliance system, which was basically the
result of mutual fear and distrust of each block to one another.
In the second place, a series of crisis, which came to represent the general feature of
International Relation in between 1900 and 1914, together with the division of Europe into
two armed camp were responsible to facilitate the ground for the First World War.
Can you mention some of there crisis which could be viewed as events-which cleared the
way for WWI?
4.3.1 THE FIRST MOROCCAN AND BALKAN CRISIS
Activity 4.4
1. To which area of Europe do the term ‘Balkan’ stands for?
2. Can you comment on the ethnic composition of the area under focus?
The Southern-Eastern portion of Europe is commonly referred as the Balkan. With the
exception of Greek and Romania, it can be said that Slavic people are the dominant ethnic
group for the countries in the region.
The first of such crises arose over Morocco when France attempted to make Morocco under
its sphere of influence and William II visited Tangier and pledged German support in 1905. In
an attempt to test the recently signed Anglo-French agreement, the Germans announced that
they would assist the sultan of Morocco to maintain his country’s independence, and
demanded an international conference to discuss its future. To the amazement of the Germans,
the majority of the participants supported France and to end such German threat in the future-
the British and French military officials begin consultation.
The second crisis which was useful in testing the alliance was the Balkan crisis in 1908. The
crisis was caused when Austro-Hungary, taking advantage of the revolution in Turkey,
annexed the Turkish province of Bosnia. This was a deliberate blow to Serbia which had long
been hoping to acquire Bosnia. The Austrian move also outraged the Russians who were
sympathizers to the Slavic peoples. Nationalists who believed that Russia should defend the

interest of Slavs every where demanded an international conference. The conference ended in
a triumph for Austro-Hungary for it kept Bosnia. But it had unfortunate results because Serbia
remained bitterly hostile to Austria, and it was this quarrel which led to the outbreak of war.
The Russians, who considered the result of the conference as humiliating to them, were
determined to avoid any further humiliation and embarked on a massive military build-up but
advised Serbia to avoid war. Any how such failure was a big victory to the Triple Alliance.
Despite the fact, secret societies were organized in Serbia that aimed to launch terriorist
attacks against Austro-Hungarian officials in Bosinia.
4.3.2 THE AGADIR CRISIS AND THE BALKANS WARS
In the summer of 1911, as a result of disorders in Morocco, the French had sent troops in to
Fez-the capital of Morocco, presumably to protect foreign residents. A French annexation of
Morocco seemed imminent; without a warning the Germans sent their gun boat panther to the
Moroccan part of Agadir, hoping to pressurize the French into giving Germany some
compensation, perhaps the French Congo. The British were worried in case the Germans
acquired Agadir, a possible naval base for threatening Britain’s trade routes. Thus, backed by
Britain, the French stood firm, making no major concessions, and eventually the German gun
boat was removed. The Germans agreed to recognize the French protectorate over Morocco in
return for two strips of territory in the French Congo. The consequence was without any
formal treaty, the German naval construction and the Agadir crisis had turned the Entente
cordiale into an alliance defacto. If Germany attacked France, Britain must defend the French,
for its own security was inextricably tied up with that of France.
The second Moroccan crisis also provoked another crisis in the Balkans. Before the dust had
settled in Morocco, in fear of further French expansion in the area the Italian government
informed the Turkish government that it intended to extended its “protection” over Tripoli
and, when the Turks rejected this communication, Italy declared war and invaded Tripoli in
September 1911.
The Italian action, in turn, led the Balkan countries to fear that Austria might take advantage
of Turkey’s embarrassment to seize what was left of its European possessions. Thus, Serbia,

Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria after forming the Balkan league, in 1912 they jointly
attacked the Ottoman Empire easily and turned to the pleasant task of dividing the spoils. This
turned out to be rather more difficult that the victors fell out among themselves over the
division of Macedonia, and in 1913 a second Balkan war erupted. This time Turkey and
Romanian joined the other states against Bulgaria and Stripped away much of what the
Bulgarians had gained in 1878 and 1912. In both of the conflicts peace was maintained among
the Great powers by the cooperation of Britain and Germany. The consequences were,
however, very serious, Serbia had been strengthened and was determined to stir up trouble
among the Serbs and Croats inside Austria-Hungary; the Austrians were equally determined to
put a stop to Serbian’s ambitions. The German took the Britain’s willingness to co-operate as
align that Britain was prepared to be detached from France and Russia.
4.4 THE OUT BREAK OF THE WAR
On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Principe, a Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austrian archduke
and heir to the throne, Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo, Bosnia on a ceremonial visit. The
nationalists belonged to a revolutionary movement, young Bosnia, which indeed aimed to
liberate Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia from Austria-Hungarian rule. This
underground society were also known in the name of “Union of Death”, or better known as
the Black Hand. It was also learnt that the Serbian military intelligence chief was giving
leadership to the organization. So the assassin was member of this society that provided him
pistol.
The response was so swift. The Austro-Hungarian ruling circles believed that war would be
a solution to punish Serbia. Soon Austria Hungary sent a harsh ultimatum on 23 July to
Serbia. It accused Serbia of harboring terrorist organizations that aimed to deprive the
Hapsburgs of Bosnia and their other territories inhabited by south Slavs. Besides the
punishment of those implicated, the Austro-Hungary demanded that anti-Habsburg
publications and organizations should be suppressed, suspect officers and civil servants
purged and that Austrian representatives should take part in a judicial inquiry. Of the
demands Serbia accepted some of them which compromised its sovereignty So that her reply

on July 25 to Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was very conciliatory. Nonetheless, Austro-

Hungary at once broke off diplomatic relations with Serbia and, declared war on 28 July.
The Serbian capital, Belgrade, on the following day was bombarded.
The war that broke out on July 28 was a localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-
Hungary. The Austro-Hungarians hoped that it would remain so. Contrary to the Austrians
expectation, however, the Russians previously so often forced to back off, responded angrily.
By ordering partial mobilization; making clear that it was aimed at Austro-Hungary only. And
the following day due to some constraints of militaristic organization, announced a general
mobilization to create pressure on Austro-Hungary.
Mobilization of any kind, however, was a dangerous weapon because it was generally
understood to be equivalent to an act of war. It was especially alarming to the German general
staff. Germany was now determined to practice its war plan, i.e. the Schileiffen plan. The plan
was designed to attack France by crossing the Neutral countries Belgium and Luxemburg.
With in six weeks Germany would break the French and then shifted to the east against the
Russians. Thus, on July 31 Germany proclaimed a state of readiness, sent Russia an ultimatum
demanding demobilization within twelve hours, and requested France to declare what it would
do nothing in case of Russo-German war. The following day, Germany mobilized and
declared war on Russia. Convinced this step meant war on the Western front as well, on
August 3 Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium. The next day Britain
declared war on Germany. The First World War commenced.
The war turned out to be quite different from what most people had anticipated. It was widely
expected to be a short decisive affair, like other recent European wars. However, the
Schlieffen Plan failed to achieve the rapid defeat of France. The British and French forces led
by general J.Joffere strongly resisted the Germans. Although the Germans penetrated deeply,
Paris did not fall, and stalemate quickly developed on the Western front-with all hope of a
short war gone. Both sides dug trenches and spent the next four years attacking and defending
lines of trenches which were difficult to capture because the increased fire=power provided by
magazine rifles and machine guns made frontal attacks suicidal and rendered cavalry useless.

In Eastern Europe, Russian movement was rapid so half of the German troops were
transported against the Russians. But by December 1917, the Germans had captured Poland-
Russian territory- and forced the defeated Russians out of the war. Britain, suffering heavy
losses of merchant ships through submarine attacks, and France whose armies were paralyzed
by mutiny, seemed on the verge of defeat. Russians withdrawal from the war was
compensated by the USA that joined the allied powers in April 1917. It boosted the power of
the allies. Meanwhile, the Allied powers secured decisive military victories over the central
powers. The first country to surrender was Bulgaria and followed by Turkey. On November
9,1918, William II abdicated his power.
By the late summer an armistice was signed on 11 November 1918, although Germany itself
had scarcely been invaded; a controversial peace settlement was signed at Versailles the
following year by the German high command that ended the First World War.
The division of Europe in to two armed camps after 1907 corresponded roughly to the process
of polarization that was taking place in internal politics and was dividing country after country
into two extreme factions. The erosion of the moderate position, the abandonment of the
liberal attitude, the flight from the reasonable solutions and indeed, from the very use of the
human reason to reach solutions had their counter parts in its diplomatic history. And now in
1914 that idealization of power that characterized so many areas of European thought and
activity became complete, and Europe ended its century of progress in an excess of violence
from which it never recovered.
Activity 4.5
Now reading all through the sections of this unit, which European power you found should bear the
responsibility? Why? Please discuss with your classmate.
The issue-because of its complexity, is one of the most argumentative events in modern world
History. Various scholastic literatures have been forwarded from the different historical
angles. For the purpose of this discussion, the writer is delighted to present Craig’s view,
which navigates in between of the two extreme. It is presented as:

“ … Whatever one may decide about the relative guilt of the powers-and this is
something on which historians still differ widely-it is clear that no power bears the
full responsibility for the war and none is completely guiltless”
[Craig G. A. 1972:447]
EXERCISE 4
1. How was Imperialism linked with the advent of WWI?
2. How do you evaluate the Bismarck's Alliance system in short?
3. Some groups of historians claim that as WWI traced its origin in the aftermath of Franco-
Prussian war, Bismarck should be on the forefronts of those who should bear the
responsibility for the genesis of the war. Do you agree with this assertion? Why?
4. Categorize and indicate the major European states in their alliance system between 1907 and
1914.
5. What was the event that heightened the outbreak of WWI?
SUMMARY
 Though the Prussians treated the Austrians very leniently in the aftermath of Austro-
Prussian war, their treatment towards France in the peace treaty of Frankfurt in 1871
was very harsh. This disparity born a bitter French enmity towards Germany, which
planted a seed fro the coming of WWI.
 In the presence of oversees territorial interests and other economic and political
rivalries, the diplomatic atmosphere of Europe between 1900 to 1917 made it clear
that the principle of isolation as a means to far away from war is impossible. Thus,
the two isolated countries; Britain and USA were obliged to involve in the
continental affair of Europe and the result was very disastrous to Germany as these
two states stood on the side of France.
 WWI contrary to the anticipation of the majority of European societies its heavy
human and material damages plus the unprecedented decline of European pre-
dominance made the European pre-dominance made the European public afraid of
the coming of another great war-though this was a vacuum hope.

 Checklist
Please insert a tick-mark ( ) for those phrases and words you feel mastery. If not, please go back to
the related topic to refer so.
I can
Yes No
1. define the terms “Imperialism”, “Dreadnoughts”, “The Three Emperors

League”, “Entente Cordiale”, “Panther”, “The Balkan League”, and
“Black Hand”-----------
2. discuss the significance of the two Moroccan and Balkan crisis for
WWI----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. explain why Russia and Britain resolved their traditional enmity-------
4.list the factors that eroded Anglo-German relationship-------------------
5.explain what Schlieffen War Plan was all about------------------------------
__________________________________________________________________________

UNIT 5 PEACE SETTLEMENTS AFTER WWI
UNIT 5
PEACE SETTLEMENTS AFTER WWI

CONTENTS
5.1 THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES 97
5.2 PEACE SETTLEMENTS WITH AUSTRIA HUNGARY 99
5.3 PEACE SETTLEMENTS WITH TURKEY AND BULGARIA 100
5.4 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 102
5.6 SUMMARY
5.7 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
According to the view of many historians, an important feature of the outbreak of WWI was
that many (if not all) of the varying groups had no clear objectives to achieve. However, in
the courses of the war, different countries began to give justifications for the war from their
own point of views. For example, the British mentioned in January 1918 that their country
was part of the war in defense of democracy and combating the hitherto injustices made in
various parts of the continent. To mention some of these points, the British urged the
restoration of French territories, the restoration of Belgium and Serbia, democratic self
government for nationalities of Austria-Hungary and Germany, and equally important was
the establishment of an international organization to prevent future wars of such type.
By the end of the war, Woodrow Wilson had drawn the famous Fourteen Points which are
said to have touched many aspects of European politics and were, therefore, assumed to
bring peace and stability. The Fourteen Points encompassed the idea to secret treaties and
secret diplomacy, encouraged freedom of the seas, removal of barriers and inequalities in

international trade, reduction of armaments by all powers, colonial readjustments,

evacuation of occupied territory, self determination of nationalities and a redrawing of
European boundaries along national lines, and the fruition of the democratic, liberal,
Progressive and nationalistic movements and for the ideas of the enlightenment. But the
Fourteen Points were not applied as many concerned groups expected and this disparity
brought a sense of being neglected on the part of the beneficiaries. As member of the Allied
Powers, France, again worked to liberate her territories and restore her sovereignty.
As a whole, in this unit the need to punish Germany its allies, peace settlements, the
organization of the international association will be discussed.
Objectives:-After this unit, students will be able to:
 analyze the aftermath of WWI;
 explain the material and political loses of the central powers after WWI;
 discuss the significances of the settlements made with the end of the war;
 appreciate change and continuity in the political dynamics of European power;
 mention important personalities who played great roles for settlements after the war.
Resource:
For successful completion of this unit, students are required to refer to the
following sources
 Norman Lowe, Mastering Modern World History, 2nd edition, (The Macmillan Press Ltd,
1988) London
 Albert Craig, The Heritage of World Civilizations, Prentice-Hall International Ltd. 1997).

London .
5.1 THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
As indicated earlier, the Allied Powers had some problems in arriving at consensus to punish
or excuse the Central Powers. France wanted sever and harsh arrangement to ruin Germany
economically and militarily so that she could never again threaten French frontiers. Britain
on the other hand was in favor of a less sever settlement enabling Germany to recover
quickly so that she could resume her role as a major customer for British goods. Germany on
her part renounced the lenient ideas of the Fourteen Points and turned aggressive after the
Germans ignored this plans and signed the harsh Brest-Litovsk treaty on March 1918, by
which Russia was forced to loose many territories, i.e. a third of her population, half of her
industry and two-third of her coalmines.
In any case, by June 1919 the conference had come up with the Treaty of Versailles for
Germany, and other treaties were also made with Germany’s allies. The Treaty of Versailles
in particular was one of the most controversial settlements ever signed and was criticized
even in Allied countries. The settlement was found to be too harsh for the Germans
particularly in terms of reparations and disarmament.
The Versailles Treaty with Germany had the following terms as important settlements:
I. Germany had to lose territories in Europe. Besides the restoration of Alsace-

Loraine to France, Germany was forced to give important territories to Belgium,
Denmark, Poland and Lithuania. In addition, Germany’s African colonies and
few European territories to be given as mandate territories by the League of
Nations.
II. German armaments were strictly limited to a maximum of 100,000 troops and no
conscription, no tanks, military aircraft or submarines and only to posses six
battleships. The Rhineland was to be permanently demilitarized.

III. The War Guilt clause fixed the blame for the outbreak of the war solely on
Germany and her allies.
IV. Germany was to pay reparations for damage done to the Allies(i.e. France and
Britain)
V. A League of Nations was setup, its aims and organization being set out in the
League of Covenant.
But the Germans found it too sour to swallow; still they did not have choice rather than
signing the treaty although they strongly objected the harsh arrangement. They forwarded
their resentments against the treaty and its clauses with their own justifications.
Firstly, the settlement was said a dictated peace where the Germans were not allowed to join
the discussion; they were simply presented with the terms and told to sign. Secondly, they
claimed that they had been promised terms based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points, but others
said that this claim was not valid as the German themselves ignored the plan in January
1918. By November, German tactics caused the allied attitude to harden and Wilson to add
two further points: Germany should pay for damage to civilian population and property and
should be reduced to virtual ‘impotence’. In the third place, Germany forwarded her
objection to her loses of territories in which she entertained a relative victory. The Upper
Silesia, an industrial region with a mixed population of Poles and Germans, was given to
Poland. But after a plebiscite, Germany was allowed to keep about two-third of the area.
Actually, the Germans had more grounds for the objection to the losses of their African
colonies which was hardly an ‘impartial adjustment’.
The mandate system in which Britain took over German East Africa (Tanganyika) and part
of Togo and the Cameroon, France most of Togo Land and the Cameroon and South Africa
acquired German South West Africa (Namibia) was really a device by which the Allies
seized the colonies without actually admitting that they were being annexed. Fourth, the
disarmament clauses were deeply resented. The Germans appealed that 100,000 troops were
not enough to keep law and order at a time of political disturbance to the victor powers
which was fruitless.. The other resentment was against the War Guilt clauses which made

Germany and her allies responsible for the out break of WWI and the subsequent
destruction. The last objection to the Versailles Treaty was against the payment of reparation
to the Allies. In what so ever conditions, it was evident that Germany and its people were
annoyed and prospered economically very quickly and became strong for retaliation.
5.2 THE PEACE TREATY WITH AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
When Austria was on the verge of defeat in the war, the Habsburg Empire disintegrated as
various nationalities declared themselves independent. Austria and Hungary separated, and
declared themselves republics. Many important decisions therefore had already been taken
before the peace conference. However the situation was chaotic and the conference was to
formalize what had taken place.
The Treaty of St. German in 1919 dealt with Austria gave Bohemia and Moravia to the new
state of Czechoslovakia; Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina to Serbia; Bukovina to
Rumania; Galicia to Poland and some three territories to Italy. The Treaty of Trianon
dealing with Hungary again granted Slovakia and Ruthenia to Czechoslovakia; Croatia and
Slovenia to Yugoslavia. (Serbia with Montenegro is now what Yugoslavia is). Based on
these arrangements and some adjustments on the consent of the people following the end of
WWI, more peoples were now placed under governments of their own nationality than ever
before in Europe. But there were some anomalies, such as the three million Germans placed
in Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland) and one million Germans in Poland (by the Treaty of
Versailles), but these were justified on the ground that the new states needed them to be
economically viable. It was unfortunate that both of these instances gave Hitler an excuse to
begin territorial demands on these countries in 1930s.
So far the treaties left both Austria and Hungary with serious economic problems. Austria
was a small republic; its population reduced from 22 million to 6.5 million, and its industrial
wealth lost to Czechoslovakia and Poland. Vienna, once the capital of the huge Habsburg
Empire was left hopeless surrounded by farming lands which could hardly support it. Not
surprisingly Austria was soon facing sever economic crisis and was constantly having to be

helped out by loans from the League of Nations. Hungary was badly affected as her
population reduced from 21 million to 7.5 million and some of the richest corn land lost to
Rumania. Matters were further complicated when all the new states quickly introduced
tariffs which hampered the flow of trade in the region in Europe.
5.3 THE PEACE SETTLEMENT WITH TURKEY AND BULGARIA
Like some other Germany’s allies, Turkey was also to lose territories by the arrangements of
the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. Eastern Thrace, many Aegean islands and Smyrna were given
to Greece; Adalia and Rhodes were lost to Italy; the Straits were to be permanently open
where as Syria became a French mandate. Palestine, Iraq and Trans-Jordan were given to
Britain as mandates. But with the strong struggle of the Turkish nationalists, a revised
settlement was made by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) by which Turkey regained Eastern
Thrace including Constantinople, and Smyrna. Turkey, therefore, was the first state to
challenge the Paris settlement successfully.
One important result of the Treaty of Severes which was to cause a problem was the
mandated territories which were peopled largely by Arabs who had been hoping for
independence after their brave struggle against Turks. Nor were the Arabs happy about the
talks of establishing a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine. Bulgaria lost territories to
Greece, Yugoslavia and Rumania by the Treaty of Neuilly in 1919.
In conclusion it is possible to say that this collection of peace treaties were not a
conspicuous success. It had the unfortunate effect of dividing Europe in to states which
wanted to revise the settlement, and those which wanted to preserve it. The USA failed to
ratify the settlement and never joined the League of Nations; this in turn left France
completely disenchanted with the whole thing because the Anglo-American guarantee of her
frontiers could not now apply. Russia was ignored. Italy felt cheated because she had not
received the full territory promised to her before. All this tended to sabotage the settlement
from the beginning, and it became increasingly difficult to apply the terms fully.


Focus
By the latter part of the 1920's, the guarantees of peace were somewhat different from those
that had been envisioned in 1919. The articles of the Treaty of Versailles designed to keep
Germany in check were supplemented by defensive alliances between France and certain of
Germany's eastern neighbors: Poland (Feb. 19, 1921) and the nations of the Little Entente,
Czechoslovakia (Jan. 25, 1924), Romania (June 10, 1926), and Yugoslavia (Nov. 11, 1927).
At a conference held in Locarno on Oct. 5-16, 1925, the German government entered into
treaties (signed in London on December 1) with France, Britain, Belgium, and Italy,
guaranteeing the existing Franco-Belgian-German frontiers. On Sept. 8, 1926, Germany was
admitted to the League. The peace thus rested on three sets of undertakings: the pledges of
mutual support between France and her allies, the guarantees exchanged at Locarno, and the
promises of collective action made by those nations that subscribed to the Covenant. Events
of 1931 and later years were to prove all these safeguards frail.
Activity 5.1
The different peace settlements in the aftermath of WWI did not bring lasting solutions as intended.
Work with your friend to discuss how it was not successful.
In many of the peace settlements, the central powers who were Vanquished in WWI signed
the treaties reluctantly and making themselves ready to retaliate those humiliations after
sometime. In addition, the boundary delimitations based on nationalities was not an
exhaustive one where some people were forced to stay with nationalities to which they did
not belong and this was made for some political and economic reasons. But this later on
brought boundary disputes based on nationalities.
__________________________________________________________________________
Argue for or against the discontent of the Germans over the mandatory grant of the ex-German
African Colonies to the Allies on ground that the Allies wanted to have colonies in the name of
protectorate ship.
In view of many historians, once the ex-German African colonies were given for Britain and
France as mandates by the League of Nations, they experienced the fate of colonial
territories. And therefore, the justifications of the Germans might have been note worthy as

far as the political, economic and ideological status of the peoples of the territories under
discussion was concerned.
__________________________________________________________________________
5.4 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
One of the important developments following the conclusion of the First World War was the
establishment of the League of Nations with a grand objective of curbing future wars. The
League of Nations was formally established on 10 January 1920 the same day that the
Versailles Treaty came in to operation. With its headquarters at Geneva in Switzerland, one
of its main aims was to settle international disputes and so prevent war from ever breaking
out again. Not only it achieved valuable economic and social work, such as helping
thousands of refugees and former prisoners of war to find their way home again but also
solved a number of minor international disputes during the 1920s.
However, during the early 1930s the authority of the League was several times challenged,
first by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and later by the Italian attack on Ethiopia
(1935). After 1935 respect for the League declined as its weaknesses became apparent. In
Germany’s dispute with Czechoslovakia and Poland which led to the Second World War,
the League was not consulted and it was unable to exert the slightest influence to prevent the
outbreak of war. After 1939 it did not met again and it was dissolved in 1946-a total failure,
at least as far as preventing war was concerned.
The League of Nation is usually considered to be the contribution of president Woodrow

Wilson of the USA. In addition Robert Cecil of Britain, Jan Smuts of South Africa and Leon
Bourgeois of France put forward detailed schemes as to how such an organization might be
set up. The League had two main aims:
1. To maintain peace through collective security: If one state attacked by another, the
member states of the League would act together, to restrain the aggressor, either by
economic or military sanctions.

2. To encourage international cooperation in order to solve economic and social

problems.
Its operations were conducted through its different organs. The General Assembly met
annually and contained representatives of all the member states with one vote. Its function
was to decide general policy; it could for example propose a revision of peace treaties and it
handled the finances of the League. The council was a much smaller body which met more
often, at least three times a year, and contained four permanent members Britain, France,
Italy and Japan, and four other members to be elected by the Assembly for periods of three
years. Its task was dealing with specific political disputes and discussion had to be
unanimous. The permanent court of International Justice was another organ based at The
Hague and consisted of 15 judges of different nationalities. It dealt with legal disputes
between states. The secretariat on its part was concerned with paperwork, preparing
agendas, and writing resolutions and reports for carrying out the decisions of the League. In
addition, there were a number of commissions and committees to deal with specific
problems. The main commissions were those which handled the mandates, military affairs,
minority groups, and disarmament, while there were committees for international labor,
health, economic and financial organizations, child welfare, drug problems and women’s
rights.
As indicated earlier, the League had inherent problems and was proved to be inefficient to
perform its purposes. As major obstacles and challenges, some factors are mentioned. In the
first place, the League was associated with the Versailles Treaty and as a result people
considered the organization to be another benefit of the victorious Allies. On the other hand,
a serious blow came to the organization in March 1920 when the United States Senate
rejected both the Versailles Settlement and the League. Many Americans wanted to follow a
policy of isolation and feared that membership of the League might cause them to enter
another war. Similarly, Germany was not allowed to join until 1926 and the USSR became a
member only in 1934, which indicated that for the first few years, the League was with out
the three most important powers.

In its peace keeping, it was expected that the League would operate as follows: all disputes
threatening war would be submitted to the League and only members which resorted to war,
thus breaking the covenant would face action by the rest; the council would recommend
‘what effective military, naval, or air force the member should contribute to the to the armed
forces.’
With its limitations and weaknesses, the League continued to exist and member countries
were prepared to retrain from aggression and accept the League’s decisions between 1925
and 1930. But the decline of the League was aggravated with economic crisis which began
in 1929. It brought unemployment and falling living standards to most countries, and caused
extreme right wing governments to come to power in Japan and Germany and as well as
Italy, they refused to keep to the rules and pursued a series of actions which revealed the
League’s weakness.
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Italian aggression of Ethiopia in 1935 were
the final proofs of the League’s failure to meet its aims. The real explanation for the failure
of the League was simple; when these aggressive states defied it, the League member,
especially Britain and France, were not prepared to support it either by decisive economic
measures or by war.
There were serious weaknesses in the Covenant making it difficult to ensure that decisive
action was taken against any aggressor. It was difficult to achieve unanimous decisions; the
League had no military force of its own. The continued absence of the USA and the USSR
plus the hostility of Italy made the very much a Franco-British affair. And the failure of the
World Disarmament conference (1932-3) which met under the auspices of the League was a
disappointment. The Germans asked for equality of armaments with France, but when the
French demanded that this should be postponed for at least eight years, Hitler was able to
use the French attitudes as an excuse to withdraw Germany from the conference and later
from the League.

Exercise 5
1. List at least six points of Wilson’s 14 points
2. What was the fate of the Habsburg Empire after the end of WWI?
3. What was the reaction of the Germans against the disarmament of Germany at Versailles
Treaty?
4. Why Turkey was successful to regain some territories from Greece?
SUMMARY
After First World War representatives of the victorious powers met in Paris to devise a
peace settlement that would protect future generations from another such conflict. All agreed
that a new framework or system was needed in international relations. Each power,
however, had different views as to what that framework should be. From their compromises
emerged treaties of peace, the chief of which was that with defeated Germany signed at
Versailles on June 28, 1919. Based on the assumption that Germany and her allies had been
the disturbers of the status quo, these treaties attempted to place curbs on their future
actions.
But these punitive clauses were not supposed to form the keystone of the new system. That
was to be the League of Nations, the organization whose Covenant was incorporated in the
treaties with the defeated nations. With the victorious nations as the original members of the
League and with provision for the admission of other states, including eventually even the
Germans and those who had been on their side, its Assembly was expected to provide a
forum for the airing of all international issues. In the event of any aggression by one state
against another or any breach of one of the peace treaties, its Council was to mobilize all
members, large and small, for a collective effort to keep the peace.
Neither the punitive clauses of the treaties nor the Covenant worked out quite as their
authors had hoped. Although the Germans complied with most of the restrictions imposed
on them, they recovered rapidly in relative strength. At Rapallo on April 16, 1922, they
signed with the other outcast of Europe, the Bolshevik USSR, a treaty providing for mutual
renunciation of claims and future economic cooperation. The victors meanwhile fell out.

The British and French disagreed about Middle Eastern issues and about the amount of
reparations that should be exacted from Germany. So sharp did their exchanges become that
by 1923 it was commonly assumed that if there were another war it might well be one
between Britain and France. As for the United States, its Senate declined to ratify the Treaty
of Versailles; it took no part in the League and withdrew into self-imposed isolation,
denying that it bore any responsibility for the maintenance of peace in Europe.
 Checklist
I can
Yes No
1. Explain about the Paris Peace Treaty
2. Elaborate about the fate of Germany after WWI
3. Discuss about Locarno treaties
4. explain the purpose of League of Nations

UNIT 6
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
CONTENTS
6.1 THE TWO REVOLUTIONS (MARCH & NOVEMBER 1917) 109
6.2 STALIN AND THE BOLSHEVIKS 113
6.3 SUMMARY
6.4 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
Some time before the out break of the First World War, Russia was in a serious problem. Its
Tsar, Nicholas II (1894-1917), insisted on ruling as an autocrat but had failed to deal
adequately with many problems in the country. The March Revolution in Russia was neither
planned nor led by any political faction. It was the result of the decline of the monarch’s
ability to govern efficiently. Military and domestic failures produced massive causalities,
widespread hunger, strikes by workers and disorganization in the army. The first overthrew
the tsar and set up a moderate provisional government. The provisional government itself
was overthrown by the Bolsheviks revolution in October 1917 because it was not better than
the tsar. Thanks to the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky the Bolsheviks (now calling
themselves communists) survived and Lenin was able to begin the task of leading Russia to
recovery until his death in 1924. All these points will be discussed in this unit.
Obviously, by the Russo-Japanese war of 1904/05, Russia was defeated. Social unrest and
criticism of the government had reached a climax due to this humiliation. In the same year a
general strike had burst out forcing Nicholas to make concession (the October Manifesto)
including the granting of an elected parliament (Dumas). However, when it became clear
that the Dumas were ineffective, political unrest increased and culminated in Two
Revolutions of 1917.

Despite the fact Nicholas had survived the 1905 attempted revolution only because his
opponents were not united as a result of the absence of central leadership and his willingness
to compromise. Tsarism was having a breathing space in which Nicholas had a chance to
make a constitutional monarchy to satisfy people demanding moderate reforms. On the other
hand he seems to have had very little intention of keeping the spirit of the October
Manifesto, having agreed to it only because he had no choice. The First Duma (1906) was
not democratically elected; the system was rigged so that land owners and middle classes
would be in the majority. Even so, it put forward far reaching demands including
confiscation of large estates. The second Dumas (1907) suffered the same fate in which
peasants and urban workers were deprived of their rights to vote.
The Third and Fourth Dumas were much more conservative and therefore lasted longer,
covering the period 1907 to 1917. Although the Dumas criticized the government on
occasions, they had no real power, since the tsar controlled the ministers and the secret
police. The first two Dumas were dismissed without provoking another general strike
because the revolutionary impetus had subsided for the time being while the last two
resulted in the 1917 Russian Revolution
Objectives:-After this unit, students will be able to:
 trace the origin of the Two Revolutions;
 analyze the course of the revolutions;
 indicate the successes of the Bolsheviks;
 discuss the relation between the Russian revolution and WWI;
 Summarize the influence of the war on world politics and history .
Resources:
For successful completion of this unit, students are required to refer to the following books:

1988) London
London
6.1 THE TWO REVOLUTIONS
In the early March 1917 strikes and worker’s demonstrations erupted in Petrograd (St.
Petersburg). The ill-disciplined troops in the city refused to fire on the demonstrators, and
the tsar abdicated on March 15. The government of Russia fell in the hands of members of
the Dumas, who formed a Provisional Government composed of constitutional democrats
with western sympathies.
Mobs seized public buildings, released prisoners from jails and took over police stations and
arsenals. The new Provisional Government was just as perplexed by the enormous problems
facing it as the tsar had been, and in November a second revolution took place which
removed the provisional government and installed the Bolsheviks (the Soviets). The
provisional government was a bourgeois which favored reforms up to a certain point. In fact
it did proclaim freedom of speech, press, and assembly; it declared an amnesty for political
and religious offenses; recognized the legal equality of all citizens without social religious or
racial discrimination; and passes labor legislation including the eight-hour day. Despite this
reform record, the provisional government never sank roots in the country.
The period between March and November, 1917 was a time of struggle for power between
the Provisional Government and the Soviets. In this struggle the provisional government was
fatally handicapped because from the beginning, it refused to consider the two things that
most Russians wanted (peace and land). But the government could not immediately
withdraw from the war to bring peace because Russia had certain commitments to her allies.
At the same time, the redistribution of land had to wait a constituent assembly that would be

truly representative of the people and would have the authority to decide on such a basic
issue. These arguments were sensible and understandable. But this opened a vacuum for the
Soviets to agitate the people against these statements of the Provisional Government.
The origin of the Soviets goes back to the 1905 Revolution when workers elected councils,
or soviets to coordinate their struggle against Tsarism. Although suppressed at this time, the
Soviets had proven their value as organs for agitation and direct action. They had precisely
that quality which the provisional government lacked- intimate rapport with the masses.
Very naturally, the Soviets reappeared with the crisis precipitated by the World War.
Because of their origin and composition, they had none of the provisional government’s idea
of waiting for election before proceeding with peace negotiations and land distribution. With
out hesitation or reservations they gave voice to popular yearnings, and in doing so attracted
more and more mass support. The Soviets were soon appearing in the villages and in
military units as well as in the cities.
At the beginning, the delegates elected to the Soviets were predominantly Socialist
Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks remained insignificant until the return of
Lenin from Switzerland in April 1917. Lenin promptly issued his famous “April Theses”
demanding immediate peace, land to the peasants and all power to the Soviets. But his idea
faced challenges from Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks.
The new provisional government led by Kerensky cooperated with the Mensheviks and
Socialist Revolutionaries in order to withstand Lenin and his Bolsheviks. Kerensky declared
that his objective was “to save the revolution from extremists.” Kerensky tried many options
to work against the Bolsheviks. But unfortunately, he could not attract the support of the
military men and other conservatives. They regarded him as a weak, loud-mouthed
politician and demanded that he take immediate steps to crush the Soviets. When he refused
to do so, a certain general Kornilov staged an army revolt against Kerensky with the
objective of freeing the government from Soviet domination. In this occasion, the Soviets
took advantage and emerged dominant. In general, as remarking points, there were a number

of factors that led to the fall of the provisional government and to the rise of the Soviets. To
mention:
I. The Provisional Government decided to continue the war (WWI) against the will of
the society
II. Kerensky delayed the meeting of a Constituent Assembly which he had promised and
did nothing about land reform and this condition lost him support on all sides.
III. In the midst of general chaos, Lenin and the Bolsheviks put forward a realistic and
attractive policy to the Russians. Lenin demanded all power to the Soviets, and
promised in return an end to the war, all land to be given to the peasants and bread to
the poor.
IV. The government had to share powers with the Petrograd Soviets, on elected committee
of worker’s and soldiers’ representatives’ which tried to govern the city.
V. The Petrograd Soviets took the crucial decision to attempt to seize power. Leon
Trotsky made the most of the plans which went off with out a problem.
However, the easy victory of the Bolsheviks did not mean that they commanded the support
of all the Russian people or even the majority. This was demonstrated by the composition of
the Constituent Assembly that was finally elected on November 25, 1917. The Socialist
Revolutionaries won 370, Bolsheviks 175, Left Socialist Revolutionaries 40, Cadets 17,
Mensheviks 16, and national groups 86 from the total 700 seats. But the Assembly had only
one chance to make a meeting in Petrograd on January 18, 1918. The Assembly was
dispersed by the Bolsheviks and never met again.
The next major problem for the Soviets was how to withdraw from the war. In November
1917, Trotsky broadcast to all belligerents a radio message inviting them to conclude an
immediate armistice. The Allies rejected the idea of the Soviets and as a result the Soviets
decided to negotiate with the Central Powers separately. Accordingly, in March 1918, the
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed between Russia and the Central Powers that denied
Russia much of its population, territories and Industries. Therefore, Russia dropped out of

World War I and the new Bolsheviks rulers proceeded to organize the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and its effects were still felt in all parts of the world.
On the other hand, by April 1918, armed oppositions to the Bolsheviks were breaking out in
many areas in Russia leading to a civil war. Until 1921 the new Bolsheviks government
confronted massive domestic resistance. A civil war erupted between the “Red Russians
supporting the revolution and the “White” Russians who opposed the Bolshevik triumph.
The situation was complicated by foreign intervention to help the Whites with the excuse
that they wanted a government which would continue the war against Germany. When
intervention continued even after the defeat of Germany, it became clear that the aim was to
destroy the Bolshevik government which was now advocating world revolution. The U.S.A,
Japan, France and Britain sent troops to help the Whites. However, led by Trotsky, the Red
army eventually overwhelmed the domestic opposition. By 1921, Lenin and his supporters
were in firm control.
From early 1921 Lenin had a difficult task of rebuilding an economy shattered by the First
World War and then by the civil war. The different discontents from various sections of the
society seem to have convinced Lenin that a new approach was needed to win back the
flattering support of the peasants. And as a result, he put in to operation what became known
as the New Economic Policy (NEP). The New Economic Policy as a temporary compromise
encouraged private ownership smaller factories, private trade and to some extant such
capitalist incentives as bonuses and price rates although the heavy industries were under
state control. Gradually the economy began to recover. Lenin saw NEP as a return to a
certain amount of private enterprise until recovery was assured; his long term aim remained
full state control of industry and of agriculture (through collective farms).Actually there
were recurrent food shortage for few years.
Russia was now the World’s first Communist State with power held by the communist party
and no other parties were allowed to participate in the political power. In March 1921 Lenin
banned groups who criticized his policies within the party and during the rest of that year
about one-third of the party members were ‘purged’ or expelled. However, in May, 1922

Lenin had his first stroke and after this he gradually grew weaker suffering two more strokes
until he died in January 1924.
The success of the Communist was attributed to some important factor:
1. The whites were not centrally organized and they lost the support of many peasants
by their brutal behaviors and because peasants feared a white victory would mean
lose of their newly acquired land.
2. The Red Armies had more troops plus the inspired leadership of Trotsky
3. Lenin took decisive measures, known as war communism, to control the economic
resources of the state.
4. Lenin was able to present the Bolsheviks as a nationalist government fighting against
foreigners.
6.2 JOSEPH STALIN AND THE BOLSHEVIKS
With NEP of Lenin, after 1921 the countryside became more stable, and a secured food
supply seemed assured for the cities. Similar free enterprises flourished within light industry
and domestic retail trade. By 1927 industrial production had reached its 1913 level. The
revolution seemed to have transformed Russia in to a land of small family farms and
privately owned shops and businesses.
However, the NEP had caused sharp disputes with in the Politburo, the highest governing
committee of the communist party. The partial return to capitalism seemed to some
members nothing less than a betrayal of sound Marxist principles. In 1922 Lenin suffered a
stroke and never again dominated party affairs. With the death of Lenin in 1924, two
factions started an intense struggle for leadership of the party. One was led by Trotsky and
the other by Joseph Stalin who had already became General Secretary of the party since
1922.
Each faction wanted to control the party but the struggle was fought out over the question of
Russia’s path towards industrialization and the future of the communist revolutionary
movement. Trotsky speaking for the left wing urged rapid industrialization and looked to

voluntary collectivization of farming by poor peasants as a means of increasing agricultural

production. Trotsky further argued that the revolution in Russia could succeed only if new
revolutions took place else where. The right wing faction opposed Trotsky. In the mid 1920s
this group pressed for the continuation of Lenin’s NEP and a policy of relatively slow
industrialization.
Stalin was the ultimate victor in these intra party rivalries. Stalin’s power lay in his
command of bureaucratic and administrative methods. He was neither a brilliant writer nor
an effective public speaker. Between 1923 and 1927, he supported the moderate right wings
because he needed their support to defeat his chief rivals for supreme power-most of who
like Trotsky, were member of the left opposition. In 1927 Trotsky was expelled from the
party, and a year later he was forced in to exile abroad. Now Stalin was able to push the
Soviet Union further to the left.
Through 1928 Lenin’s NEP had steered Soviet economic development with the support of
Stalin. Private ownership and enterprise were permitted to flourish in the countryside to
ensure enough food for the workers in the cities. A few rich farmers, Kulaks, had become
prosperous. During 1928 and 1929 they and other farmers with held grain from the market
because prices were too low. Food shortage occurred in the cities and caused potential
unrest.
The goals of the NEP were no longer fulfilled. Some time during these troubled months,
Stalin came to a momentous decision that Russia must industrialize rapidly to match the
economic and military power of the West. Agriculture must be collectivized to produce
sufficient grain for food and export and to free peasant labor for the factories. This program
which basically embraced Trotsky’s earlier economic position, unleashed a second Russian
revolution.
Stalin’s decision to industrialize rapidly and to move against the peasants aroused internal
political opposition because they were departures from the policies of Lenin. In 1929 Stalin
forced Bukharian, the fervent supporter of the NEP and his own former ally, from the

Politburo. Sometime in 1933 Stalin began to fear that he would lose control over the party
apparatus and that effective rival might emerge. And this resulted in the Great Purges from
1934-1938 when many important and potentially dangerous personalities were removed.
The trials and purges astonished observers from outside the Soviet Union. Nothing quite like
these phenomena had ever been seen. The scale of the political turmoil was also
unprecedented. The Russians themselves did not believe or comprehend what was occurring.
In effect, the purges created a new party structure absolutely loyal to Stalin. The “Old
Bolsheviks” of the October Revolution were his targets because they knew how far Stalin
had moved from Lenin’s policies.
Activity 6.1
During 1928 and 1929 food shortage and potential unrest occurred in Russia. How do you
evaluate the remedial actions taken by Stalin?
Although Stalin had no economic experience, he seems to have had no hesitation in plunging
the country into a series of dramatic changes designed to overcome the problems. The NEP
was said to be unacceptable at least for the time being. It was abandoned and according to
Stalin, both agriculture and industry must be under government control. Stalin rushed to his
bold decision that Russia must industrialize as quickly as possible as oppose to his former
policies.
1. Why the Bolsheviks prefer to withdraw from WWI?

2. Why the two revolutions in Russia are still known as the February and October
Revolutions?
The Bolsheviks granted to attract the attention of the society and entertain mass support.
Therefore one of the crucial questions of the mass was making Russia free from any foreign
intervention including the First World War. For that end the Bolsheviks followed a strategy
of gaining mass support just by making a peace settlement with the central powers although
Russia lost much of its wealth to Germany. But their decision to withdraw from the war did
not bring all Russian to the Bolsheviks side. Even they did not gain fifty percent support
which was evident in the parliamentary election in January 1917.
This was because the Russians were still using the old Julian calendar which was fifteen
days behind the Gregorian calendar used by the rest of Europe. Russia adopted the
Gregorian calendar in 1918.

Exercise 7
1. What were the main causes for Russian Revolution of 1917?
2. What was the purpose of the NEP by Lenin?
3. How Stalin succeeded to plant himself as dictator in Russia?
SUMMARY
The reforms of Tsar Alexander II had unleashed a movement for constitutional change.
Local government (zemstvo) was seen as the embryo of parliamentary government, and
liberalization of the legal profession stimulated the idea of legislation, both on a national
scale. The end of serfdom created a desire and indeed a need for farther-reaching agrarian
reform, and Alexander's educational reforms, which had opened the doors of high schools
and universities to the children of the non-noble classes, generated a large, vociferous, and
sometimes violent community of radical and revolutionary youth.
Russian Revolution, series of events in imperial Russia that culminated in 1917 with the
establishment of the Soviet state that became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR). The two successful revolutions of 1917 are referred to collectively as the
Russian Revolution. The first revolution, which began with the revolt of March 8 to 12,
1917 (February 23 to 27 in the Julian, or Old Style, calendar, then in use in Russia),
overthrew the autocratic imperial monarchy; it is frequently called the February, or March,
Revolution. The second, which opened with the armed insurrection of November 6 and 7
(October 24 and 25), organized by the Bolshevik party against the provisional government,
effected a change in all economic, political, and social relationships in Russian society; it is
often designated the Bolshevik, or October, Revolution. (The Gregorian calendar was
adopted by the Soviet government on January 31, 1918; therefore, all further references to
dates in this article are made in accordance with the new calendar.)
 Checklist

I can
Yes No
1. Explain about the two Russian Revolutions
2. Elaborate about the Russian civil war
3. Discuss about the success of the Bolsheviks
4. Explain the influence of Russian revolution on world politics

ANSWERS FOR EXERCISES
UNIT 7
THE INTER WAR PERIOD AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
CONTENTS
7.1 THE POST PEACE SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT 119
7.2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FROM 1919 TO 1933 122
7.3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FROM 1933 TO 1939 130
7.4 EVENTS LEADING TO WW II 141
7.5 SUMMARY
7.6 CHECK LIST
INTRODUCTION
Every war is waged to fashion a better and more acceptable peace. Peace, in the sense of
a legitimate framework within which States can pursue their interests without recourse to
arms. The fashioning of a better and legitimate peace is especially important in the wake
of wars among Great Powers, which have an immense impact on the international
system as a whole.
In fact, some wars among Great Powers – like the Thirty Years’ War, the French
Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars – are expressly waged to
determine a new framework for the conduct of international relations. Such wars occur when
the old order is eroded, and the earlier equilibrium is upset, by transformations in the social,
economic and political arenas leading to the phenomenon of ‘rise and decline’ of States.
These wars result in the establishment of new power equilibrium and a new framework for
the conduct of international relations.

In short this unit deals about the rise of fascism and Nazism, tha aggrandizement of the
Italian and German leaders that disturbed the world. Subsequently, the formation of the axis
powers, the annexation of the Austria and Czechoslovakia will be discussed.
Objectives:-After this unit students are required to:
 analyze the aftermath of WW I;
 discuss major developments between the wars;
 evaluate power balances in the interwar period;
 indicate the nature of international relations in the interwar periods;
 discuss social, economic and political phenomena in Europe in the period under
discussion;
 analyze political and military preparations that led to WW II.
Resource: For successful completion of this unit, students and required to

refer to the following sources:
1988) London
London
7.1 THE POST PEACE SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT
The fundamental cause of the Second World War lies in the erosion of the framework that
was established at the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. Its intermediate cause can be
traced to the inconclusive nature of the First World War and the high-minded but
impractical peace established at Versailles in 1919. And the immediate cause lies in Adolph

Hitler’s violent overthrow of the peace terms imposed upon Germany as well as his fanatical
determination to colonise Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to create lebensraum.
Equilibrium among five Great Powers – Austria, Britain, France, Prussia and Russia – as
well as the legitimacy of the ancient regime was the bases on which the order established in
1815 rested. Prussia’s subsequent transformation into the German Empire, its emergence as
a great industrial power and its ambition to acquire overseas colonies, combined with the
rise of a unified Italy and its dreams of territorial acquisitions within and outside Europe, to
upset this equilibrium. Outside of Europe, the United States and Japan emerged as Great
Powers and sought to establish their respective spheres of influence.
At this time, statesmen were animated by the idea of ‘living’ and ‘dying’ powers and
extrapolated the Darwinian notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ on to international relations.
It was also a fashionable thesis at this time that the world would soon come to be composed
of three or four World Empires, which further increased the jostling and competition among
the aspirants for this exalted status. Thus, not only was the power equilibrium in the world
upset by the rise of these new states, but also the framework established in 1815 became
inadequate to mediate their competing ambitions. The result was the First World War.
However, the First World War ended inconclusively in spite of the fact that it produced
million casualties – both civilians and soldiers. Britain and France were exhausted after
losing the flower of their youth in the trenches and among the barbed wires of the Western
Front. The United States, which had emerged as the strongest economic, and hence also
military, Power in the world, withdrew into its isolationist shell. Russia collapsed from
within in revolution, and was consequently excluded from the framework established at the
end of the war. It had also been at the receiving end of a harsh peace imposed by Germany,
including the loss of a third of its European territory and the establishment of a German
protectorate over Ukraine.
The German military had actually stood undefeated and was in occupation of French and
Belgian territory when the armistice was concluded. Yet, Germany was forced to give up

territory, pay reparations, unilaterally disarm, and castigated as solely responsible for the
war. No continental Power was eventually satisfied with the outcome of the conflict or the
framework established to govern international relations. In spite of the great potential and
justifiable motives for territorial revisionism in Germany and Russia, no mechanism was
established to prevent major unilateral changes. It was presumed that the moral force of
world public opinion would operate through the League of Nations to preserve peace.
Another assumption that animated the framers of Versailles was that self-determination and
the atomisation of political entities would be an effective antidote to military expansionism,
dreams of empire and world power.
International relations between the two world wars fall in to two distinct phases with the
division at 1933 when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Before that there seemed a
good chance that world peace could be maintained in spite of the failure of the League
Nations to curb Japanese aggression in Manchuria.
In the aftermath of WW I, relations were disturbed by problems arising from the Paris peace
settlement. Both Turkey and Italy were dissatisfied with their treatment, Turkey being
prepared to defy the settlement. The Italians who came under Mussolini in 1922 showed
their resentments to the peace settlement in many occasions. The problem of German
reparations and whether or not she could afford to pay caused strained relations between
France and Britain on account of their differing attitudes towards German recovery.
Britain’s attempt to reconcile France and Germany failed and relations deteriorated further
in 1923 when French troops occupied Ruhr and important German Industrial regions in an
attempt to seize what the Germans were refusing to pay in reparations.
Meanwhile, the USA, though choosing to remain isolated, exercised considerable economic
influence on Europe by insisting on full payment of European war debts. The USSR, now
communist, was viewed with suspicion by western countries. Many of the European
countries along with Japan intervened against the Bolsheviks in the civil war which ravaged
the USSR during 1918-20.

A general improvement in the international atmosphere was seen from 1924 to 1929 because
of changes in the political leadership in many countries like in France, Germany and Britain.
With the participation of America, Germany’s reparations were simplified. Germany was
again allowed to join the League of Nations in 1926. Moreover, the 1929 Young Plan
reduced German reparations to a more manageable figure.
However, towards the end of 1929 the world faced major economic difficulties which again
helped to cause deterioration in international relations. From 1929-1933, there was world
wide Economic Depression. In this regard, it was party for economic reasons that Japans
troops invaded the Chinese province of Manchuria in 1931. Again, mass unemployment in
Germany played an important role in enabling Hitler to come to power.
7.2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN 1919 AND 1933
The German attempt to discard the shackles of the Versailles Treaty began in the 1920s and
was initiated by Gustav Stresemann, Foreign Minister and later Chancellor. Stresemann’s
policy was to pay off the reparations and in return to obtain Allied guarantees of Germany’s
western borders as well as their consent for German rearmament and the revision of the
territorial status quo in the East. In effect, his goal was to restore Germany to its pre-War
status, attain military parity with Britain and France, and conclude the union with Austria
(Anschluss).
Hitler discarded this peaceful approach and instead adopted a belligerent course. His goal
was the creation of an empire akin to the Holy Roman Empire, but cleansed of Jews,
Gypsies, and other non-Teutonic elements. For his part, Mussolini dreamt of creating an
empire in the tradition of Rome, while the Japanese wished to establish a Greater East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere. What all these meant was the creation of a new global order
dominated by Germany, Italy and Japan. As for the Soviet Union, though contended for the
time being with safeguarding ‘socialism in one country,’ it was intent on eventually bringing
about world revolution. The United States shut itself off from entangling European rivalries,
while Britain and France merely wished to be allowed to live in peace and enjoy the fruits of
their empires.

All over Europe, the old order was being questioned in the aftermath of WWI partly because
of the effect of the war and partly because of the impact of the Great Russian Revolution.
European history after WWI to 1929 was largely a history of struggle between revolutionary
and counter revolutionary forces.
In Russia, communism emerged triumphant after a year of civil war and intervention. In
central Europe the extremist revolutionary forces were crushed and a variety of non-
Communist regimes appeared, ranging from the liberal Weimar Republic in Germany to the
rightist Horthy government in Hungary and to the Fascist Mussolini state in Italy. Western
Europe was spared such Violent Upheavals, but even there, the authority of traditional
parliamentary institutions was being strained by economic difficulties, mass unemployment
and cabinet instability.
On the other hand the Paris Peace settlement after WWI had many inherent problems. It was
criticized on many grounds. It violated the principle of national self determination by
leaving significant pockets of minorities outside the boarders of their national homelands.
The economic clauses, the most important being the reparation clause, were highly
criticized. The peace treaty is also said to have failed to accept reality.
Germany and Russia must inevitably play an important part in European affairs, yet they
were excluded from the settlement and from the League of Nations. With many discontented
parties, the peace was not self enforcing or no satisfaction machinery for enforcing it was
established. The League was never a serious force for this purpose. It was left of France with
no guarantee of support from Britain and no hope of help from the United States to defend
the new agreements.
On these conditions, the Germans abandoned the policy of restraint and sought a new
position of greater power and influence for their country. And the result was a system of
alliance that divided Europe in to two armed camps and greatly increased the chance of a
general war. But before European countries and other nations make distinct alliances and

aggressive preparations, a number of attempts were made to reconcile hostile groups and at
least to take time before a general war was evident.
The League of Nations played important roles in settling a number of international disputes
and problems. However, its authority tended to be weakened by the fact that many states
seemed to prefer signing agreements independently of the league, which suggests that they
were not brimming with confidence at league’s prospects.
In the Washington Conference (1921-1922) tried to improve relations between Japan and the
USA. It was aimed that Japan must be controlled from her growing power in the Far East
and Japan’s navy would be limited. But it was not successful. Japan remained a supreme
power in the Far East and possessed the world’s third largest navy. The Genoa Conference
(1922) was an attempt to solve the pressing problems of Franco-German hostility, European
war debts to the USA and the need to resume proper diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia.
Unfortunately the conference was not fruitful. The American refused even to attend; the
French refused all compromises and insisted on full reparations payments; and the Germans
and Russians withdrew and signed a mutual agreement at Rapallo.
The French troops occupied Ruhr in 1923 when the Germans failed to pay the amount due
as scheduled. The Dawns Plan was drawn up and finally accepted at a conference in London
in 1924. In this plan no reduction was made in the total amount Germany was expected to
pay, but it was agreed that she should pay annually only what she could reasonably afford
until she became more prosperous. France agreed to withdraw its troops from Ruhr and as a
result the plan is said to be successful.
The Locarano Treaties (1925) were a number of different agreements involving Germany,
France, Britain, Italy, Belgium, Poland and others. The most important one was that
Germany, France and Belgium promised to respect their joint frontiers. Following these
developments Germany was admitted to the League of Nations in 1926. Around 1929, the
French were willing to compromise to reduce reparations.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION
Although a number of efforts were made to improve international relations, the fragile
balance existed as long as there were no aggravating situations. But with the collapse of
economic property suddenly, all the old hostilities and suspicions surfaced again and
authoritarian regimes which were prepared to risk aggression came to power.
Obviously, after WWI, American investors and businessmen dominated the world. But,
September 1929 the buying of shares at the Stock Exchange in Wall Street, New York,
began to slow down and people rushed to sell their shares before price fell too far. By 24
October the rush reached panic proportion and share prices fell dramatically; thousands who
had bought their shares when prices were high were ruined. And this disaster is always
remembered as the Wall Street Crash. Its effect spread rapidly and so many people in
financial difficulties rushed to the banks to draw out their savings that thousands of banks
had to close. Similarly, as demands for goods fell away, factories had to close and
unemployment rose alarmingly. The great boom had suddenly turned in to the great
depression which rapidly affected not only the USA but also foreign countries all over the
world and so that it became known as the World Economic Crisis. However, the Wall Street
crash did not cause the depression; it was just assumptions of a problem whose real cause
lay much deeper.
It had soon become clear that most European governments would be unable to continue
making payments on World War I debts. Ever since the early 1920's, British statesmen had
been urging that the United States forgive all or part of what was owed by her wartime
allies, proposing that they in turn remit some or all of the payments due them from Germany
as reparations. The American government had rejected this proposal, but in 1931, faced with
the depression, President Hoover relented and arranged for a one-year moratorium on both
debt and reparation payments. Seeking reelection in 1932, he dared not repeat the
experiment. Some of the debtor states were forced to default. In the end all but Finland did
so, and the result was not only to embarrass the governments involved but also to strengthen
isolationist feeling in the United States.

Eventually almost all the affected states sought solutions for their economic problems in
independent, nationalistic action. Seeking a commercial and financial advantage over other
countries, the British abandoned the gold standard and devalued the pound in 1931. Through
agreements reached in a conference held at Ottawa on July 21-Aug. 21, 1932, they also
abandoned the tradition of free trade and established preferential tariffs for the
Commonwealth. The American government deserted the gold standard in 1933 and in the
same year caused the failure of the London Monetary and Economic Conference by
declaring that it would not join in an agreement to stabilize exchange rates.
Fascist Italy adopted more drastic measures, instituting rigid economic controls and creating
jobs by enlarging the armed forces and accelerating weapons production. Germany, which
was ruled after January 1933, by the National Socialist (Nazi) dictator Adolf Hitler, went
even farther in the same directions. The community of nations envisioned in the Paris peace
treaties dissolved into anarchy of jealous states seeking national advantage and national self-
sufficiency.
The financial collapse of 1929 triggered the Great Depression in American although there
were other underlying domestic causes. American industrialists were producing too many
goods for the home market to absorb aided by increased mechanization and as the 1930s
approached, unsold stocks of goods began to build up. There was also a misdistribution of
income. The enormous profits made by industrialists were not being shared evenly among
the workers which showed that there was not enough buying power in the hands of the
general public to sustain the boom. On the other hand, exports began to fall away partly
because foreign countries were reluctant to buy American goods when the USA put up tariff
barriers to project her industries from foreign imports.
The economic crises affected people outside the USA because American businessmen
stopped investing abroad even stopped buying from abroad. Many states, especially
Germany, were severely affected as their prosperity depended to a large extent on loans
from America. As soon as the crash came there were no further loans, and the Americans
called in short-term loans they had already made. By 1931 most of Europe was in a similar

economic plight. The depression had political results too. In many states including Germany,
Austria, Japan and Britain right wing governments came to power, when existing regimes
failed to cope with the situation. Much more dramatic and fate-full was the rise of Hitler to
power in Germany. The Depression affected the course of political events directly and
decisively in Germany.
A Western type republic had been established with the adoption of the Weimer constitution
in 1919. During its first years, the new republic had to face Communist Uprisings in Bavaria
and Ruhr. The instability persisted through 1923 when French and Italian forces occupied
the Ruhr because of the reparations dalliance. Like socialist ministries else where, the
ministry in Germany was undermined by dissension over how to cope with unemployment
and other problems created by the Depression. The Left favored increased unemployment
relief while the Right insisted on retrenchment a balanced budget which was supported by
most communists. The government of Germany led by a left-center coalition led by the
socialist Chancellor, Herman Muller and its cabinet, was forced to resign in March 1930 and
from then in, Germany was ruled by parties of Center and Right.
THE NEW DEAL
The social dislocation incurred by the Great Depression inevitably had profound political
repercussions in many countries worldwide. Even in the United States with its superior
resources and its tradition of political stability, these were years of strange ideas and
agitations. Among other unrests, one manifestation of the political turbulence was Franklin
Roosevelt’s sweeping electoral victory in 1932. The New Deal that followed served as an
escape value for the political discontent, and effectively neutralized the extremist
movements.
The electron of 1932 was one of the most crucial in American history. Franklin Delano
Roosevelt (1882-1945) pledged his party to a “new deal for the American people”. He
overwhelmingly defeated Hoover and quickly set about redirecting federal policy toward the
depression. Roosevelt’s first goal was to give the nation a sense that the federal government
was acting to meet the economic challenge. Coming in to office at the height of the crisis in

the banking system he immediately closed all the banks and permitted only sound institution
to reopen. Congress convened in a special session and rapidly passes a new banking act.
There after a number of acts were made:
 Agricultural Adjustment Act
 Farm Credit Act- tried to help farmers, whose main problem was that they were still
producing too much, thereby keeping price and profit low
 Civilian Conservation Corps –to provide jobs for young men in conservation projects
in the countryside.
 Federal Emergency Relief Act –This provided 500 million dollars for dole money
and soup kitchens.
 National Industrial Recovery Act –this tried to get people back to work permanently,
so that they would then be able to buy more.
 The Social Security Act-Introduced old age pension and unemployment insurance
scheme, to be jointly financed by federal and state government, employers and
workers.
Through the New Deal legislations, the federal government was far more active in the
economy than it had been in the past. The government itself attempted to provide relief for
the unemployed in the industrial sector. The major institution of the relief effort was the
Works Progress Administration created in 1935. It undertook a massive program of large
public works, including the erection of numerous public buildings.
In evaluation of the New Deal and its effects, in spite of some draw backs, it achieved much.
In the early days its chief success was in relief for the destitute and jobless, and in the
provision of millions of extra jobs; government confidence was restored and violent
revolution have been presented. The New Deal changed much of American life. It also did
preserve American Democracy and Capitalism more important, never before had an
American government intervened so directly in the lives of ordinary people. Roosevelt’s
achievement was to rescue the American middle way-democracy and free enterprise at a
time when other crisis-ridden states were going over to fascism and communism.

Activity 7.1
1. The world balance in the 1920s was fluctuating for different reasons. In this regard the Great
Depression was one that affected the world very much. Discuss with your friends to analyze
its effect.
2. What were the aims of the New Deal?
The Great Depression became a fuel to the turmoil of the First World War and the post war
inflations and led to chaos in international monetary exchanges. The world economy
disintegrated in to fiercely competing national economic systems. Each state tried to create
an island of economic security for its own people. The war time Allies defaulted on their
debt payments to the United States. The American government denied the Europeans to float
bonds or obtain new loans which led to economic nationalism and even aggression. The
Great Depression had also the worse effect on domestic affairs of each state in addition to
international relations and world balance.
Basically Roosevelt had three aims: relief (to give direct help to the property stricken
millions with out food and homes); recovery (to reduce unemployment, stimulate demand for
goods and get the economy moving again); and reform (to prevent a repeat of the economic
disaster).
7.3 INTERNATIONAL SETTINGS FROM 1930S TO 1939
This period is of crucial importance in world history because it culminated in the Second
World War. Economic problems caused conducive atmospheres to evaporate. International
affairs were dominated by the three major aggressors: Japan, Italy and Germany whose
extreme nationalism led them to commit so many acts of violence and breaches of
international agreements that in the end the world was Plunged in to the ordeal of total war.
Three major powers had been dissatisfied with the outcome of World War I. Germany, the
principal defeated nation, bitterly resented the territorial losses and reparations payments
imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles. Italy, one of the victors, found its territorial gains
far from enough either to offset the cost of the war or to satisfy its ambitions. Japan, also a
victor, was unhappy about its failure to gain greater holdings in East Asia.
The authoritarian governments of Germany, Italy and Japan all had agendas of nationalistic
aggression. They were prepared to move wherever they saw fellow nationals living outside
their borders or where they could establish dominance over other peoples and thus became

imperial powers. Japan moved against Manchuria and later other areas of Asia. Italy invaded
Ethiopia. Germany sought union with German speaking peoples in Austria and
Czechoslovakia and then sought to expand through out Eastern Europe.
1. Germany
BOX 6 MEIN KAMPF
By far the most ominous event of these depression years was the emergence of Hitler in
Germany. A psychopathic personality, he rejected all conventional moral standards. In his
book Mein Kampf and in later speeches he had disclosed his abhorrence of such concepts as
equality and majority rule, his hatred of Jews, his belief that "Aryans were a "master race
entitled to dominate others, and his conviction that the state had a right to use any means to
achieve its ends. He had also set forth his views on foreign policy. He held that Germany
should expand in order to bring within it all Europeans of German nationality. Saying also
that the German people needed Lebensraum (space for living), he indicated that it was to be
found in Eastern Europe. At the same time he declared that Germany had to have a final
active reckoning with France. His words showed that he desired German hegemony over
Europe and would have no scruples about the methods he used.
The Weimer Republic in Germany was born in 1918 from the defeat of imperial army and
the hopes of German Liberals and Social Democrats. Its name was derived from the city in
which its constitution was written and promulgated in August 1919. While the constitution
was debated, the republic headed by Social Democrats accepted the humiliating terms of
Versailles Treaty. Through out 1920s the government of the republic was required to fulfill
the economic and military provisions imposed by the Paris Settlement. And this condition
opened the way for nationalists and military figures to blame the young republic and the
Socialists for the results of the conflict. More than in any other country, in Germany the
desire to revise the treaty was closely related to the desire to change the mode of domestic
government.

The Weimar constitution was a highly enlightened document. It guaranteed civil liberties
and provided for direct election by universal suffrage of the Reichstag and the president. On
the other hand it also contained some crucial structural flaws that eventually allowed it to be
over thrown. More important was ministers were technically responsible to the Reichstag
but the president appointed and removed the Chancellor, the head of the cabinet. In addition
the law allowed the president in an emergency to rule by decree which showed that the
constitution permitted the possibility of presidential dictatorship. Behind this new
constitutional façade, much of the old Germany remained unchanged. The bureaucracy, the
judiciary and the policy survived intact. In the universities, the most undemocratic and anti-
Semitic faculties and fraternities continued untouched on the ground of academic freedom.
The social and economic turmoil following the French occupation of the Ruhr and the
German inflation gave the newly emerging party an opportunity for direct action against the
Weimar Republic, which seemed incapable of providing military or economic security. By
this time, because of his immense oratorical skills and organizational abilities, Hitler’s
personality dominated the Nazi party. On November 9, 1923 Hitler and a band of follower
attempted unsuccessful coup detat after which Hitler was put in to prison. Hitler used the
trial to make himself into a national figure. In his defense he condemned the republic, the
Versailles Treaty, the Jews and the weakened condition of his adapted country. During his
brief imprisonment, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) and at the same time he
decided to seize political power by legal methods. After few months imprisonment, he was
released.
In foreign affair, the Weimar republic pursued a conciliatory course. Stresemann full filled
the provisions of Versailles Treaty even as attempted to revise it by diplomacy. He was
willing to accept the settlement in the west but was determined, if sometimes secret, revise it
in the east. He aimed to recover German speaking territories lost to Poland and
Czechoslovakia and possibly to unite with Austria, chiefly by diplomatic means. The first
step, however, was to achieve respectability and economic recovery.

It was unfortunate that the outflow of American capital from Germany that began in 1928
undermined the economic prosperity of the Weimar Republic. The resulting economic crisis
brought parliamentary government to a halt. In 1928 a coalition of Center Parties and the
Social Democrats governed and there was no problem until the Great Depression. But after
the Depression the Coalition partners differed sharply on economic policy. The Social
Democrats refused to reduce social and unemployment insurance. The more conservative
parties on the other hand insisted on a balanced budget. The coalition then dissolved in
March 1930. The over all results of this chaos was that the Weimar republic was
transformed in to a presidential dictatorship.
The economic down turn and the Parliamentary deadlock worked to the advantage of the
more extreme political parties. In the elections of 1928 and 1930, the Nazi won 12 and 107
seats respectively. And some time after a third election, Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor
of Germany on January 30, 1933. His coming to power followed legal procedures. All the
proper forms and procedures were observed. This was important because if permitted the
civil service, the courts, and other agencies of government to support him in good
conscience. Hitler promised the people security against communists and socialists and an
uncompromising nationalist vision of a strong Germany. Hitler’s supporters were on their
part suspicious of business and giant capitalism.
The Japanese conquest of Manchuria was a rude challenge to the status quo in the Far East,
but even more upsetting was Hitler’s threat to the status quo in Europe. Before this time the
French system of alliances had dominated the continent with little difficulty. The more
diplomatic and less hostile foreign policy of Stresemann had now been replaced by Hitler’s
aggressive policies and the comfortable situation was drastically altered when Hitler became
Chancellor in 1933. In addition to the international disorder, Germany was having a
totalitarian regime. Hitler called his new order the Third Reich. He claimed to represent the
absolute sovereignty of the German people.
2. Italy

One of the victors' stated aims in World War I had been “to make the world safe for
democracy”, and post-war Germany adopted a democratic constitution, as did most of the
other states restored or created after the war. In the 1920s, however, the wave of the future
appeared to be a form of nationalistic, militaristic totalitarianism known by its Italian name,
fascism. It promised to minister to people's wants more effectively than democracy and
presented itself as the one sure defense against Communism. Benito Mussolini established
the first Fascist dictatorship in Italy in 1922.
The new state of Italy was far from being a great success in the years before 1914; the strain
of the First World War on her previous economy and the bitter disappointment at her
treatment by the Versailles Treaties caused growing discontent. Between 1919 and 1922
there were five different governments, all of which were incapable of taking the decisive
action that the situation demanded. In 1919 Benito Mussolini founded the Italian Fascist
party which won 35 seats in the 1921 election and he formed a government in October 1922;
he remained in effective power until July 1943.Gradually Mussolini took on the powers of a
dictator and attempted to control the entire way of life of the Italian people.
The first authoritarian political experiment in Western Europe that arose in part from fears
of the spread of Bolshevism occurred in Italy. The general term fascist was derived from the
Italian fascist movement of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) which has been used to describe
the various right-wing dictatorships that arose between the wars.
Post war Italian politics was a muddle. During the war the Italian parliament had virtually
ceased to function. Ministers had ruled by decree. Many Italians on the other hand felt that
Italy had emerged from the war as less than a victorious nation, and had not been treated as a
great power at the peace conference, and had not received the territories it deserved. After
the war, like other countries, Italy suffered from the burden of wartime debt and from acute
post war depression and unemployment and as result social unrest spread. In the countryside
land seizures took place; tenant farmers refused to pay rents; peasants burned crops and
destroyed livestock. In the cities great strikes broke out in heavy industry and in
transportation.

In 1919 the first post war election was held under a law that added propositional
representation to the universal male suffrage introduced in 1913. The Socialists and
Christian Socialist Party made an impressive showing. Again in 1921, in the wake of
popular disturbances, new elections were held. Liberals and democrats, moderate socialists
and the Catholic Popular Party (Christian Socialist) were all turned in large number by
Mussolini’s fascist movement. In October 1922 the Fascists, dressed in their Black Shirts,
began a march on Rome.
The Black Shirts mobilized for a threatened coup and began to converge from various
directions on the capital and Mussolini remained at a safe distance in Milan. The Liberal
Democratic Coalition Cabinet had viewed the events of the past two years with disapproval
but at the same time with satisfaction that the Black Shirts were serving a useful national
purpose by suppressing trouble makers on the left. The cabinet made belated but in effectual
gesture to save the situation by an effort to have material law declared but king victor
Emmanuel III refused to authorize using the army against the marchers. The cabinet
resigned in protest and Mussolini was named premier. Technically, Mussolini had come in
to office by legal means. But behind the legal façade of his assumption of power lay the
months of terrorist disruption and intimidation.
Mussolini had not really expected to be appointed prime minister. He worked carefully to
consolidate his power. He was successful because of the impotence of his rivals, his own
effective use of his office, his power over the masses, and his sheer ruthlessness. On October
23, 1922, the king and the parliament granted Mussolini dictatorial authority for one year to
bring order to the lower level of government. In the election of 1924, the Fascist won a great
victory and complete control of the Chamber of Deputies. They used the majority to end
legitimate parliamentary life. A series of laws passed in 1925 and 1926 permitted Mussolini
to rule by decree. In 1926 all other political parties were dissolved, and Italy was
transformed in to a single party dictatorial state.
Mussolini once in power wanted Italy to be great respected and feared. But he was not sure
how to achieve it. In addition he wanted the revision of the 1919 peace settlement and for
that end he agitated a lot. Until 1934 his policy was determined by rivalry with the French in

the Mediterranean and the Balkan. On the other hand, Italians feared that the weak state of
Austria along the north eastern frontier of Italy might fall too much under the influence of
Germany. For both problems mentioned above, Mussolini tried to deal mainly by diplomatic
means.
Accordingly, he attended the Locarno conference (1925) though he was disappointed when
the agreement signed did not guarantee the Italian frontier with Austria. Besides friendly
atmosphere with Greece, Hungary and Albania, Mussolini cultivated good relation with
Britain. Moreover, Italy became the first state after Britain to recognize the USSR and
signed a non-aggression pact with her in 1933. Mussolini tried to bolster up Austria against
the threat from Nazi Germany by supporting the anti-Nazi movement.
After 1934, Mussolini gradually drifted from extreme suspicion of design on Austria to
grudging administration of Hitler’s achievements and a desire to imitate him. Eventually
Mussolini recognized that it was more important to make friendship with Germany than with
Britain and France, and the more he fell under Hitler’s influence the more aggressive
became.
3. Japan
From the seventeenth century into the nineteenth, the natural isolation of the island of Japan
was augmented by its policy of seclusion making Japan in to a little world of its own. Yet
Japan after the 1866 Meiji Restoration was developing nation. The lords of Choshv and
Satsuma now concluded that the only way to deal with the west was to adopt the military
and technical equipment of the west itself. They would save Japan for the Japanese by
learning the secrets of the western power.
But, though Japan had the assets for modernization there was no blueprint for progress. The
government faced tough decisions as the modernization and progress was advancing by trial
and error. The government again demanded the sacrifice from the people for the sake of the
future.

The immediate goal was to centralize political power. And once having centralized political
authority in 1871, about half of the most important Meiji leaders went abroad for a year and
a half to revise the unequal treaties and to study the West. They traveled in the United States
and Europe visiting parliament, schools, and factories. On their return to Japan in 1872, they
discovered that the stay at home officials were planning to war with Korea. They quickly
quashed the plan insisting that the highest priority be given to domestic developments.
Japan turned in to a modern national state. Feudalism was abolished; most of the Great lords
voluntarily surrendered their control over the samurai and the common people in to the
hands of the emperor. The legal system was recognized and equality before the law
introduced. A new army was established on the Prussian model. The navy was modeled on
the British. Control of money and currency was passed to the central government and a
national currency was adapted. In 1889 a constitution was promulgated. It confirmed the
civil liberties than common in the west and provided for a parliament in two chambers. In
practice, in the new Japan, the emperor never actively governed.
Industrial and financial modernizations went along with and even preceded the political
revolution. The island empire, like Great Britain, became depended on exports and imports
to sustain its dense population at the level of living to which it aspired. The westernization
of Japan still stands as the most remarkable transformation ever undergone by any people in
so short a time. It resembles the westernization of Russia under Peter over a century before.
But the condition in Russia was different in that it was conducted less brutally, more rapidly
and with a wider consent among the population.
What the Japanese wanted from the West was primarily science, technology and
organization. The Japanese were again content enough with the inner most substance of their
culture, their moral ideas, their family life, their arts and amusements, their religious
conception. Essentially it was to protect their internal substance, their Japanese culture that
they looked over the external apparatus of western civilization. This apparatus-science,
technology, machinery, arms, political and legal organization was the part of western
civilization for which other peoples generally felt a need, which they hoped to adopt with

out loosing their own spiritual independence, and which therefore, became the common
ground for the interdependent world wide civilization that emerged at the close of the
nineteenth century.
The years before and after the turn of the century represented the culmination of what the
government had striven for since 1868. Economic development was under way. More
important, however, was the international event that gave Japan recognition as a world
power. The first event was a war with China in 1894-1895 over conflicting interest in Korea.
From its victory Japan secured Taiwan, the Pescadores Islands, the Kwantung Peninsula in
Southern Manchuria, an indemnity and a treaty giving it the same privileges in China as
those enjoyed by the western powers. The second event was the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of
1902. For Britain this alliance ensured Japanese support for its East Asian interest and
warded off the likelihood of a Russian-Japanese agreement over sphere of influence in
Northeast Asia. For Japan the alliance meant it could fight Russia without fear that a third
party would intervene.
The other important event was the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, when Japanese troops
launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur. On land Japanese armies
drove the Russians from their railway zone in Manchuria and seized Mukden in March
1905. After months of war both countries were worn out, and Russia was plagued by
revolution. President Theodore Roosevelt of America (1856-1919) proposed a peace
conference at Ports Mouth) New Hampshire. The resulting treaty gave Japan the Russian
lease in the Liaotung Peninsula, the Russian railway in south Manchuria, the Southern half
of Sakhalin, and a recognition of Japan’s paramount interest in Korea.
In any case the Japanese surprisingly joined the imperialist scramble for colonies. Certainly
the desire for colonies is not to be explained by Japanese tradition which had rarely looked
for foreign expansion. Nor is it to be explained by Japan’s economy, which was just
beginning to build its modern industries and could not export capital. The explanation was
simpler. Japan wanted equality with the great western powers, and military power and

colonies were the best credentials. Interest for empire was shared by political party leaders,
most liberal thinkers, and conservative leaders alike.
The new multilateral treaties that replaced the earlier system of bilateral treaties, such as the
Anglo Japanese alliance, recognized the existing colonies of the victors of WWI but
opposed new colonial ventures. On the other hand Japan’s position in Manchuria was
ambiguous. Because Japan maintained its interests through a tame Chinese warlord,
Manchuria was not, strictly speaking, a colony. But Japan had gained its special position in
Manchuria at high cost in lives in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War; it saw its claim to
Manchuria as similar to that of Western nations to their colonies.
Like some other countries elsewhere, in Japan the government increasingly embraced by
economic, financial and political problems fell under the influence of the military in the
early 1930 s. And this had a negative repercussion on the rest of the world. In addition to the
undemocratic practices, corruption of politicians, the influence of world’s economic crisis,
matters were brought to head in 1931 by the situation in Manchuria where the Chinese were
trying to squeeze out Japanese trade and business. Japan had emerged from the First World
War in a strong position but after 1929 she was severely affected by the world economic
crisis. On the other hand, to preserve their economic advantages, Japanese army units
invaded and occupied Manchuria in September 1931. The League of Nations failed to force
Japan to withdraw rather Japan withdrew from the League in 1933. It was clear that
international relations were moving in to a new phase dominated not by the Locarno spirit
but by major acts of aggression and violence.
The occupation of Manchuria by Japan had many advantages for Japan. It was a valuable
trade outlet, and besides the Japanese had been investing in the area which gave them
dedication to the province of Manchuria. In addition in 1933 the Japanese began to advance
from Manchuria in to the rest of northeastern China to which they had no claim before. And
by 1935 a large area of China had fallen under Japanese political and commercial control
while the Chinese themselves were torn by civil war.

Mean while the League of Nations condemned Japanese aggression but was powerless to
act, since Japan was no longer a member and refused to attend a conference about the China
situation. Britain and France were too preoccupied by Hitler to take much notice of China
and the Russians did not want full scale war with Japan. The USA, the only power capable
of effectively resisting Japan, was still bent on the isolation. Thus, on the eve of WWII, the
Japanese were in control of most of east of China. With Japanese conquest of Manchuria
one tributary of the coming torrent had began to flow. By 1935/36 Italy, Germany and Japan
formed the Axis Power and aimed to divide the world by military force.
Activity 7.2
1. Evaluate the status of the League of Nations to smooth the harsh relation of world powers
from 1930s to 1939s.
In the interwar period, the League of Nations working through collective security was
totally ineffective. Hitler carried out his most ambitions project to date the annexation of
Austria. Nor did the League of Nations made remarkable efforts to check Japanese invasion
of Manchuria and other Chinese territories. In similar fashion, the Italian aggression to
Ethiopia was another issue to be solved by the League had it been a strong and powerful
organization in defense of the world. But why the League remained powerless and weak way
is explained in a more detailed economic political and military analysis of the period.
7.4. EVENTS LEADING TO WWII
Some of the salient features of Japanese militarism may be revealed by a comparison with
Nazi Germany. Both countries were late developers with elitist academic bureaucracies and
strong military traditions. Both had authoritarian family systems. The parliamentary systems
of both were more shallowly rooted than those of England, France, or United States. Both
were stricken by the Great Depression and sought a solution in territorial expansion,
justifying it in terms of being have-not nations. Both of them persecuted socialists and then
liberals. Both were modern enough in their military service, schools, governments, and
communications to implement authoritarian regimes, while their values were not modern
enough or democratic enough to resist their antiparliamentary forces.

But the differences between Japan and Germany were also striking. Despite the contrast
between its small educated elite and the rest of the population with only a middle-school
education, and despite the cultural split between the more traditional rural areas and the
Westernized cities, Japan was more homogenous than Germany. The political process
during the 1930s was also different. In Germany parliament ruled, so that to come to power
the Nazi had to win an election. They were helped by the combination of the Great
Depression and a runway inflation that destroyed the German middle class and the centrist
parties along with it. But in Japan’s constitutional system, the Diet was weaker. Control of
government was taken away by the authoritarian leaders. The process by which the two
countries went to war was also different. In Germany the Nazi rose as a mass party, created
a totalitarian state, and then made war. But in Japan there was neither a mass party nor a
single group of leaders in a continuous control of the government more over, in Japan it was
not the totalitarian state that made war as much as it was war that made the state totalitarian.
By 1938 it was clear that the nations had fallen in to two opposing camps as they had before
the First World War. On one side were the democratic governments headed by Britain and
France; on the other were the totalitarian powers. Japan occupied Manchuria and Italy
annexed Ethiopia in violation of the covenant. The League of Nations failed to give
assistance to the victims of these outrages; and this marked the end of its influence over
international affairs. When Germany, Italy and Japan withdrew their membership, the
League had no further value as a bulwark of peace. Then Germany began to tear up the
Treaty of Versailles by openly announcing her intention to rearm and sending her soldiers in
to the Rhineland. And as the totalitarian powers drew together in to an alliance and built up
their military machines, Britain and France at last began to increase their armaments.
The Axis leaders accused the democratic countries that they hold most of the world’s
territory and wealth while the Axis powers were denied sufficient living space (Lebensraum)
and raw material. Both Hitler and Mussolini denounced the League as a body which existed
only to perpetuate this arrangement. The democratic countries still looked back to the Treaty
of Versailles and the numerous non aggression pledges to preserve the peace in Europe.
They still had faith in conference and arbitration to settle international disputes. On the other

hand, the Axis powers had left the postwar period behind them. They were looking a head to
scrapping the treaties and establishing a new order which would create a Greater Germany, a
modern Roman Empire, and a Greater East Asian ruled by Japan. Italy and Japan had
conquered backward countries, unable to defend themselves. Germany was also preparing
herself to reach beyond her boarders to seize the lands of her nearest neighbors.
In the years that had passed since 1919, many forces had worked to brink of war. It was not
solely that the Axis powers had fallen in to the hands of ruthless and aggressive leaders; the
world situation had been growing steadily worse. The peace settlements began to crumble
almost from the date when the treaties were signed and as time went on there was a gradual
shifting of power in Europe. As the energy and foresight of the democracies dwindled, the
vigor and purpose of the Axis countries increased.
In the firs place the Allies, which had stood together during the conflict, differed and fell
apart? There was dissatisfaction among them over the treaties. Italy was angry that she had
not received a large share of the Ottoman Empire and bore a special grudge against France,
her rival in the Mediterranean. France felt insecure and blamed Britain and the United States
for not agreeing the safety of her eastern boarder against the enemy. The United States
rejected the treaty of Versailles and made a separate peace. Britain and France soon
disagreed over reparations and the invasion of the Ruhr. The League of Nations, which
many politicians had hoped would be the great bond among the nations, had failed. It had
been handicapped from the start, since the united state had refused to join and Russia and
Germany were not invited until later. Moreover, the League had no armed forces to enforce
its authority. When the test came, it did not prevent war in Manchuria, Ethiopia or Spain.
One of the main obstacles to peace was the economic and financial breakdown which led to
the Great Depression. In all countries the depression was primarily due to the mass
destruction of wealth, the collapse of peacetime industry and trade, and the enormous costs
of the war, which entailed vast borrowings, piled up debts, and destroyed credit. These
effects of war became apparent long after the fighting had ceased.

Unfortunately, the powers, instead of cooperating to find some general solutions to the
problem, had sought relief in strictly individualistic policies; each country went its own way
without realizing how its own fortunes were bound up with those of others. The United
States, the largest creditor nation, returned to its policy of isolation. It wished to collect its
debts, but raised its tariffs, so that other countries found it difficult to sell their goods.
The right of nations to self-determination which the peace makers had urged as a means of
satisfying suppressed people, turned out to be the causes of many problems. No boundaries
could be drawn which would include in one state only its own nationals. The most serious
minority problem was that affecting the peoples of the former German and Austria-
Hungarian empires. Asserting that these countries had been denied the right granted to
others, Hitler reached out together Germans back in to the Reich and made this his excuse
for his first move in creating a greater Germany.
Although, in 1936, Hitler promised to respect Austria’s independence, he had been secretly
promoting the growth of the Nazi movement in that country. On March 9, 1938, he finally
issued an ultimatum to president Miklas, demanding that he name a new chancellor,
acceptable to Berlin, or German troops would move in to Austria. To avoid bloodshed, the
Austrian chancellor resigned, but as soon as a Nazi official had taken his place he invited
German armies to enter Austria. Nazi troops poured across the boarder, and on March 12,
Berlin declared Austria a part of the Reich.
The Anschluss, or union of Germany and Austria, had great strategic significance, especially
for Czechoslovakia, one of the bulwarks of French security. The Czechs were now
surrounded by Germany on three sides.. It was democratic and pro-western and it had been
created as a check on Germany and was allied both to France and to the Soviet Union. It also
contained about 3.5 million ethnic German who lived in the Sudetenland near the German
boarder. The Germans in Czechoslovakia supported by Hitler agitated for privileges and
autonomy with in the Czech state. Hitler’s intention; however was not to improve the lives
of the Sudetenland Germans but to destroy Czechoslovakia.

APPEASEMENT OF THE ALLIES
Hitler once he annexed Austria known as the Anschluss March 1938. The next country to be
occupied was Czechoslovakia particularly the Sudetenland which contained three million
Germans. When the Czechs refused to Hitler’s demands, the British prime Minister,
Chamberlain who was anxious to avoid war at all costs, took up Hitler’s invitation to a
conference at Munich (September 1938) at which it was agreed that Germany should have
the Sudetenland, but no more of Czechoslovakia.
Appeasement was a policy followed by the British and later by the French to avoid war with
aggressive powers such as Japan, Italy and Germany by giving way to their demands
provided that these demands were not too unreasonable. From the mid-1920s until 1937
there was a vague feeling that war must be avoided at all costs, and Britain and sometimes
France drifted along accepting the various injustices made on Manchuria, Ethiopia and other
areas. Moreover, the origin of appeasement can be seen in British policy during 1920s with
the Dawas and Young Plans which tried to conciliate the Germans, and also with the
Locarno Treaties and their significant omissions. But appeasement reached its climax at
Munich where Britain and France were so determined to avoid war with Germany that they
made Hitler a present of Sudetenland and so set in motion the destruction of
Czechoslovakia.
The appeasement policy at that time was debated in different views. The appeasers were
convinced to the rightness of their policy just by giving important explanations. According
to some people Italy and Germany had genuine grievances. Italy had been cheated at
Versailles Treaty and Germany was treated very harshly. Therefore Britain should react with
sympathy and with regard to Germany, try to revise the most hated clause of Versailles. In
addition, since the League of Nations seemed to be helpless, chamberlain believed that the
only way to settle disputes was by personal contact between leaders. The other factor for
appeasement was fear of communist Russia especially among British conservatives. Many
British politicians were willing to overlook the unpleasant feature of Nazism in the hope that
Hitler’s Germany would be a guarantee against communist expansion westwards; in fact
many admired Hitler’s drive and achievements. The other was that economic co-operations

between Britain and Germany would be good for both; if Britain helped the German
economy to recover, the internal violence would die down.
Above all, what motivated the British politicians and leaders to be patient against the
aggressors was that there was a belief that Britain ought not to take any military action in
case it led to a full-scale war which Britain was totally unprepared for. Again the USA was
for isolation and France was weak and divided. In the meantime, Chamberlain speeded up
British rearmament and the longer the appeasement lasted the stronger Britain would
become and the more this would deter aggression. This appeasement had a profound effect
on the way international relations developed. But some historians believe that it convinced
Hitler that Britain and France were weak and he became bold to start the Second World
War.
In annexing Bohemia and Moravia, Hitler no longer appealed to the tights of self-
determination, but now boldly asserted that the Germans needed more living space, and that
he intended establishing a new order in central Europe. The Allied powers were at least
thoroughly alarmed. They finally saw that Hitler intended to lay hands on any country that
his heart desired. There were already signs that Poland was to be the next victim on his list.
Led by Chamberlain, Britain and France turned against the policy of appeasing Hitler and
prepared to meet him on his own ground. On March 31, 1939, the two countries announced
that they would support Poland if she should be forced to fight to keep her independence. On
April 15, Great Britain made a Treaty of Mutual Assistance with Poland similar to the
Franco-Polish treaty. This was soon followed by guarantees of aid to Greece and Rumania.
The powers wished to include Russia in this series of protective arrangements, but Poland
and Rumania objected to any agreement that would permit Soviet troops on their soil.
Turkey also made pacts of mutual assistance with Britain and France.
Hitler matched the moves of the Allies by renouncing his non aggression pact with Poland
and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935. On May 22, 1939, Germany and Italy
made an alliance, pledging each other military and economic aid in case of war. Mean while
the Allies knew that to help Poland according to their promise, they must be supported by
Russia. But on August 23, 1939, came the announcement that the arch-enemies Russia and

Germany had made a Nonaggression pact, in which they pledged themselves not to attack
each other and to remain neutral in case either became involved in a war with a third power.
This desertion on the part of Soviet Union at a moment when war seemed ready to break out
stunned the Allies. The whole strategy of Britain and France was upset, for Hitler was now
safe on his eastern boarders and could turn the full of his armies against the west.
On the morning of September 1, 1939 German troops marched into Poland, Planes bombed
Polish cities, and Hitler announced that Dazing had been reunited to the Reich. Britain and
France at once notified Berlin that unless the German forces were withdrawn from Poland,
they would go to her aid, and on September 3, Britain and France declared that they were at
war with Germany and the Second World War had began.
Why did war break out? Was it Hitler or the appeasers to be blamed? The debate still
continues about who was responsible for the Second World War. The Versailles Treaty has
been blamed for filling the Germans with bitterness and the desire for revenge. The League
of Nations and the idea of collective security have been criticized because it failed to secure
general disarmament and to control potential aggressors. The world economic cases have
been mentioned, since without it Hitler would probably never have come to power.
Activity 7.3
1. What was the contribution of the Nazi-Soviet pact to the out break of WWW II?
The USSR has been accused of making war inevitable by signing the non-aggression pact
with Germany. It is argued that she ought to have allied with the west and with Poland,
there by frightening Hitler in to keeping the peace. But the Russia historians justify the pact
on the ground that it gave the USSR time to prepare their defense against a possible
German attack. But in its implication the pact was recognized as the signal for war after all
last minute negotiations failed.
Exercise 7
1. What do we mean by appeasement?
2. Indicate the gaps created during post war settlements after WWI among Allies and central
powers?
3. List major development for the out break of WW II

SUMMARY
Three major powers had been dissatisfied with the outcome of World War I. Germany, the
principal defeated nation, bitterly resented the territorial losses and reparations payments
imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles. Italy, one of the victors, found its territorial gains
far from enough either to offset the cost of the war or to satisfy its ambitions. Japan, also a
victor, was unhappy about its failure to gain greater holdings in East Asia.
France, Great Britain, and the United States had attained their wartime objectives. They had
reduced Germany to a military cipher and had reorganized Europe and the world as they saw
fit, with the French Empire and the British Empire controlling much of the globe. The
French and the British frequently disagreed on policy in the post-war period, however, and
were unsure of their ability to defend the peace settlement. The United States, disillusioned
with the Treaty of Versailles, with the selfish nature of Allied war aims, and with the secret
treaties they had signed during the war, disavowed the treaty and the League of Nations
included in it, and retreated into political isolationism.

 Checklist
I can
Yes No
1. Explain about the aim of the Axis Powers
2. Elaborate about Nazi Germany war plans against France and Russia
3. Discuss about the terms of the Yalta conference
4. Explain the defeat of Germany
5. Discuss about the surrender of Japan

EXERCISE 1.1
1. To restore those deposed monarchs by either the French Revolution or Napoleon to

their throne, and to create equilibrium among great powers of Europe in the period
by the means of territorial annexation.
2. The French Revolution
3. The widely used metaphor is ‘Mother Land’. But the one used by the Oromo and
German Nationalists is ‘Father Land’.
4. The propertied and the educated class of the Society, who was excluded from
political affairs of the state.
5. Though the common feature of primitive accumulation of capital in Europe was

Colonial plunder and overseas trade (which indeed unfair one), in Britain it had
additional feature-that was the dispossession of peasants from their plot of land by
the capitalist agriculture.
EXERCISE 2.1
1. Though the Black sea was agreed to be free of any military activity both from the
Russians and the Turkish, Russia taking the event of Franco-Prussian war to its
advantage, violated the demilitarization of the Black Sea Clause. The other was
as opposed the promise made by the ottoman sultan to equally treat its Christian
sub ejects with the Muslims, many Christians were slaughtered in the ottoman
provinces of Jeddah. These two realties witnessed the ineffectiveness of the Paris
peace treaty.
2. Zolleverien- The German Economic Union

3. As Prussia treated very leniently Austria in the Peace treaty following Austro-
Prussian war, the result was friendship between the two empires. However, the
fact that France was treated in the other way round-harshly-that their future
relationship was based on mutual enmity and distrust.
4. Piedmont-Sardinia
5. The membership composition of the commune was composed of anarchists,

socialists, and Blanquists and Libertarian republicans.
EXERCISE 3.1
1. The Fundamental cause was a polarization developed in the American South and
North. The Immediate was the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of USA in
1861.
2. Colonization was a gradual process which was meant for Liberalizing the Black-
Americans from slavery by deporting them to Africa.
3. According to the Missouri Compromise, it was agreed that with the admit ion of
Missouri as a slave state to the Union, slavery not to expand any further to the
Northern territory.
4. The return from the high production of agricultural sector was turned to be an
Investment to the Industrial sector.
5. You may recommend whatever you like. As for the writer ,their behavior in
Mixing the innovations, which they borrowed from the west, with their local
Realities to produce a new variant of their own. In short, the writer appreciate
Their high value modernization without being westernized. This is something
which Ethiopia should adapt.
6. The present economic level of the two states. America being the 1st while Japan

assuming the next position.
EXERCISE 4.1
1. Because, since the term represent the powerful states interest to extend their
Political, social and economic influence over the weaker ones, which
involves computation among those powerful states as seen at Fashoda-
Sudan-between France and Britain.
2. For the writer, the alliance system was only concerned with short term goals.
As for instance, Bismarck attempt to engage Germany in alliance with the
two extreme rival empires in the period: Russia and Austria-Hungary was
incompatible, and it was clear that in the long run Germany would found
itself in a difficult situation which it would hardly cope up with.
3. The writer , though dare not totally to refute the assertion because he admits
that there was a mistake committed by Bismarck while he devised the
alliance system, likes to impose the accusation rather on both William I
and William II ,along with their military dignitaries. Because, as it is evident
that the origin of WWI was linked with Franco-German enmity which in
return the result of the annexation of the two French provinces of Alsace
and Lorraine by Germany. Behind this pavilion paramount role was played
by William I and his dignitaries, not Bismarck. In addition, the major steps
towards the outbreak of WWI was undertaken in the years between 1900
and 1914. This time Bismarck was dismissed from his office. Thus, it was
William II and his new Chancellor, who both lacked Bismarck’s diplomatic
competence, that played a vital role in making WWI happen.

4. Britain , France ,Russia and Serbia represented the Triple –Entente while
Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy formed the base of Triple Alliance. With
the withdrawal of Italy and the admission of Turkey and Bulgaria in to the
alliance, Triple Alliance was replaced by the Central Powers.
5. The Sarajevo crisis 1914.
EXERCISE 5.1
1. Wilson diplomatically worked to liberalize Allied war aims, and in January 1918 he
outlined his peace program in the Fourteen Points, which called for national self-
determination, an end to colonialism, and a League of Nations to maintain peace.
The Fourteen Points not only raised the hopes of liberals around the world but also
helped shorten the war by furnishing the conditions under which Germany sued for
the armistice that ended the fighting in November 1918.
2. Defeat in World War I led to the final break-up of the Habsburg Empire and the
alienation of most of its territory. The last Habsburg, Emperor Charles I, refused to
renounce his own claims and those of his dynasty to their hereditary positions. The
new Austrian republic consequently banished the Habsburgs in 1919. Charles’s two
attempts in 1921 to regain his Hungarian throne proved unsuccessful; he died in
exile.
3. By the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was required to abolish compulsory military

service; to reduce its army to 100,000; to demilitarize all the territory on the left bank
of the River Rhine and also that on the right bank to a depth of 50 km (31 mi); to
stop all importation, exportation, and nearly all production of war material; to limit
its navy to 24 ships, with no submarines, the naval personnel not to exceed 15,000;
and to abandon all military and naval aviation by October 1, 1919. The Germans
were unsatisfied with this harsh treatment and began to show their discontents from
the beginning.

4. With the strong struggle of the Turkish nationalists, a revised settlement was made
by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) by which Turkey regained Eastern Thrace
including Constantinople, and Smyrna. Turkey, therefore, was the first state to
challenge the Paris settlement successfully.
EXERCISE 6.1
The reforms of Tsar Alexander II had unleashed a movement for constitutional change.
Local government (zemstvo) was seen as the embryo of parliamentary government, and
liberalization of the legal profession stimulated the idea of legislation, both on a national
scale. The end of serfdom created a desire and indeed a need for farther-reaching agrarian
reform, and Alexander's educational reforms, which had opened the doors of high schools
and universities to the children of the non-noble classes, generated a large, vociferous, and
sometimes violent community of radical and revolutionary youth.
1. The New Economic Policy as a temporary compromise encouraged private

ownership smaller factories, private trade and to some extant such capitalist
incentives as bonuses and price rates although the heavy industries were under state
control. Gradually the economy began to recover. Lenin saw NEP as a return to a
certain amount of private enterprise until recovery was assured; his long term aim
remained full state control of industry and of agriculture (through collective
farms).Gradually the economy began to recover, though there were recurrent food
shortage for many years.
2. By skilful manipulation and clever publicity, but especially by interpreting Lenin's

precepts to a new generation coming of age in the 1920s, Stalin bested all his rivals.
By his 50th birthday (1929), he had cemented his position as Lenin's recognized
successor and entrenched his power as sole leader of the Soviet Union. In the mid-
1930s Stalin launched a major campaign of political terror. The purges, arrests, and
deportations to labour camps touched virtually every family. Former rivals
Zinovyev, Kamenev, and Bukharin admitted to crimes against the state in show trials
and were sentenced to death. Untold numbers of party, industrial, and military
leaders disappeared during the “Great Terror”, making way for a rising generation.

EXERCISE 7.1
1. Appeasement, term used to describe the response of the British and French
governments to the expansionist activities of Germany and Italy under Adolf Hitler
and Benito Mussolini in the 1930s in attempting to achieve a negotiated settlement.
Politicians use the term today to denote a policy of weakness and capitulation.
Traditionally, appeasement was regarded as a naive policy that gave the democracies
the appearance of weakness and encouraged the Fascist powers in their attempts to
construct empires.
2. After defeating Germany in World War I, the victorious parties found it difficult to
agree on the price Germany should pay in war reparations. Leaders from the United
States, Great Britain, France, and Italy met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919
and drafted the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty mandated a number of restrictive and
compensatory measures for Germany, including massive demilitarization and
financial reparations. Representatives at the conference included, left to right, British
Prime Minister Lloyd George, Italian Foreign Minister Giorgio Sonnino, French
Premier Georges Clemenceau, and US President Woodrow Wilson.
3. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles, which German officials had signed at the end
of World War I, Adolf Hitler built up Germany’s armed forces and sent troops into
the Rhineland and Austria. Hitler’s forces then seized Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and France.This is the
result of the Failure of Peace Efforts, Rise of Fascism, Formation of the Axis
Coalition and German Aggression in Europe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chamber and et al. The western Experience. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Collage, 1999.
Cowie and Robert Wolfson. Years of Nationalism: European History 1815-1890. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1985.
Craig, Gordon A. Europe , 1815-1914. 3rd ed. Illinois : The Dryden Press inc. , 1972.
______________The Heritage of World Civilizations, Prentice-Hall International Ltd.
1997). London
Davidson and et al. Nation of Nations: To 1877. Vol. I . Boston: McGraw Hill, 1998.
Garraty and et al. A Short History of the American Nation. 7th ed. New York: Longman,
1997.
Gilbert, Martine. First World War. London: Harper Collins Publication, 1994.
Goff and et al. The Twentieth Century. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1994.
Hatchinson and Anthony S. D. Nationalism. 1994.
Kagan and et al . The western Heritage: Since 1648. Vol.II. 6th .New Jersey: Upper Saddle
River,1998.
Lowe , Norman . Mastering Modern world History. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1988.
Massie, Robert K. Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of Great War. London:
Jonathan cape , 1991.
Namier , Lewis. 1848: The Revolution of intellectuals. Oxford university press , 1992.
Palmer and J. Colton. A History of modern World. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1984.
Stoessinger , John G. Why Nations Go To War. 6th ed. New York: St. Martinis Press, 1993.
Stavrianos, L.S. The World since 1500: a Global History. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1971.
BDU HISTORY DEPARTMENT 157

Stevenson, David. The out Break of the first World War: 1914 in Perspective. London:
Macmillan Press LTD , 1997.
Taylor , A. J. P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918. Oxford University press,
1954.
United States Information Agency. An outline of American History. USA.
Contemporary Japan http://architronic.saed.kent.edu/PDF/v5n3/v5n3_02.pdfv [accessed

15 April 2006]
158 BDU HISTORY DEPARTMENT

World History From 1815 To 1945

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World History From 1815 To 1945

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

World History From 1815 To 1945

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of the World 1815 To 1990

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 1

History of the World 1815 to 1990 (Hist.115)

For Year III Regular Geography Major (History Minor)

Bahir Dar University

2 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 3

4 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

COURSE OBJECTIVES: - The course aims to help you:

● develop a skill of applying historical theories to real life situation

● empathize controversial historical realities with in the eyeglass’ of the time

● cultivate historical thinking in analyzing various historical themes

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 5

1.1 THE VIENNA CONGRESS 2

1.2 THE PROGRESS OF INDUSTRIALIZATIONS 14

1.3 THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS 20

 Explain the rationale behind the forces of dynamism

 Analyze the essence of nationalism with your immediate surrounding

 Evaluate the practical contribution of Liberalism for today’s Globalization

 Compare one force of change with the other

6 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

 For this unit you need to refer kagan and et al (1998).

1.1 THE VIENNA CONGRESS

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 7

8 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

These were conservatism, Romanticism Nationalism and Liberalism

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 9

10 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 11

“A social group which shares a common ideology, common institutions and

12 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 13

“The people are the legitimate sources of power"

14 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

Those whom poverty keeps in eternal dependence are no

[Kagan and et al 1198:725]

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 15

16 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 17

1.2 THE PROGRESS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION

What other important changes were also observed?

18 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

2. The industrial revaluation was preceded (C. 1450-1750) by a period of

a. The dispossession and expropriation of the independent peasants from the

3. The 17thc England Revolution removed obstacles to the development of

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 19

What could be the results of industrial revaluation?

1.2.1 ECONOMIC OUTCOME

1.2.2 SOCIAL EFFECTS

20 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 21

BOX 1 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE STANDARD OF

1.2.3 POLITICAL OUTCOMES

22 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 23

1.3 THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS

24 BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT

BDU, HISTORY DEPARTMENT 25