Congress of Vienna (1815)

After the defeat of Napoleon in the battle of Leipzig, the victor powers assembled at Vienna,

the capital of Austria, under the leadership of Austrian chancellor prince Metternich. It

resumed after the defeat of napoleon in the battle of Waterloo in June 1815.

Objectives of the Congress of Vienna: To create post-revolutionary arrangement/order in

Europe.

• To re-arrange the map of Europe which had been disfigured by Napoleonic war.
• To maintain the Balance of Power in Europe in order to avert the situation of war again

in future.

• To suppress the ideals of the French revolution and to crush the ideas of Liberalism and

Nationalism which threatened the stability in Europe.

Program:

• To maintain the principle of legitimate rule.
• Principle of balance of power

1. To maintain the status quo in Europe and eliminate the possibility of wars.
2. To prevent emergence of any one strong state from becoming too dominant.

• Principle of rewarding victors to compensate for losses.

Major Powers: In the Congress of Vienna, the victor party consisted of Britain, Austria,

Russia, and Prussia. All these nations were dominant in the proceedings of the Congress of

Vienna. However, this whole system that was created out of it was known as the Metternich

system.

Territorial re-arrangements:

In order to strengthen

the bordering states

of France.

• Belgium merged with Holland, to form Netherlands, to check

future expansion in that direction. It was created a an

independent and neutral state.

• Switzerland's permanent neutrality was recognized.
• Norway was separated from Denmark and merged with

Sweden.

• Genoa was given to Piedmont-Sardinia to prop it up against

possible future French aggression. Thus, Piedmont-Sardinia's

territory was enlarged, and it became a powerful state.

Principle of

Legitimate Rule

The Dynasties replaced by the Forces of revolution were restored.

• Rule of Bourbon dynastywasrestored in France, Spain,Naples

and Sicily.

• The House of Savoy was restored in Piedmont Sardinia
• The House of Orange was restored in Holland.
• Rule of Pope was restored in central Italy.

Principle of

Rewarding the victor

• Russia was rewarded with Finland and most of Poland.
• Prussia was given parts of Rhineland and Saxony.
• Austria was given north Italian territories of Lombardy and

Venetia.

To suppress the

feeling of liberalism

and nationalism

which were generated

by the French

revolution.

Germany

• Germany was earlier reorganized by Napoleon into 16 bigger

states in Confederation of Rhine, but the Congress of Vienna

tried to divide it consciously. With this purpose, the

confederation was dissolved into pre-revolutionary 38 states.

No longer under French control. Simultaneously, Austria was

made the guardian and supervisor of the region.

• German Confederationof 39st ates,bigandsmall,wascreated

with (continued till 1848). Austria and Prussia had significant

influence within the German Confederation.

Italy: Italy was geographically divided so that it should not rise as

a nation in the future. With this purpose,

• Lombardy and Venetia in Northern Italy were placed under

Austria.

• Parma, Modena and Tuscany under the Habsburg Dynasty
• In southern Italy, Naples and Sicily, the king from Bourbon

dynasty was placed.

Metternich's System

Metternich:

• Prince Metternich was the Chancellor of Austria. He was a complete reactionary
• In the post-Napoleonic decades, there was a conflict between the forces of continuity

and forces of change.

• The forces of continuity were represented by monarchy, aristocracy, and the

churchwhiletheforcesofchangeswererepresentedbyliberalismandnationalism

on an ideological basis and industrial revolution and growth in population on

material basis.

• The conflict took place during 1820, 1830, and 1848.

• Metternich was guided by the interest of a multi-ethnic empire like Austria, which was

threatened by the idea of rising nationalism. It questioned the unity and integrity of the

empire.

• So, Metternich followed the policy of check and balance among the people from

different nationalities and preferred to create a cleavage among them.

The forces of change: Ideological Forces

A. Liberalism

It is the political ideology of the middle class, and it is guided solely by the interest of the

middle class.

It emphasized the following factors:

• Limited monarchy
• Constitutionalism
• Representative government
• Laissez faire economy
• Individual freedom

In other words, one can say that what is capitalism in economic field and individualism in

social field, liberalism is in the political field. All of the three were guided by middle-class

interest.

B. Nationalism

A nation denotes a community of people linked to each other through

land/history/ethnicity/language etc. It is the product of the historical force.

• Early Modern Era:

• Themodernconceptofnationalismbegantotakeshapein Europeduring the early

modern period (17 th c).

• Factorssuchas the riseof centralizednation-states,thespread of literacy,andthe

development of vernacular languages contributed to the growth of national

identity.

• Intellectual movements like the Enlightenment and Romanticism fueled

nationalist sentiments, emphasizing cultural uniqueness and shared heritage.

▪ Counter: Benedict Anderson argues that national identity is not a natural

or inevitable phenomenon, but rather a socially constructed one.

• French Revolution played a pivotal role in the spread of nationalism:

• It destroyed internal division of society and created equal citizens.
• It promoted the idea of popular sovereignty (Rousseau).
• Revolutionary France's "citizen armies" highlighted the concept of a nation

defending its own territory.

• Napoleonic Era (Early 19 th Century):

• Napoleon's conquests across Europe inadvertently stimulated nationalist

resistance movements in occupied territories. Nationalism became a force for

liberationandself-determination,asseeninthe Spanish Warof Independence and

the German Wars of Liberation.

• Congress of Vienna (1814-1815):

• It aimed to restore monarchies and traditional order in Europe, but it also planted

seeds of nationalism by redrawing borders without regard for ethnic and cultural

identities.

• Nationalist movements sought to challenge the established order and gain

independence.

Nation-State (16-18 th c) Liberal Nationalism (19 th c)

• Common geographical region
• Common language, value system and

identity (cultural uniformity)

• Centralized government
• Monarchical
• Representative government
• Parliamentary politics
• Constitutionalism
• Popular sovereignty
• Individual freedom
• Middle class

Both combined to make Modern Nation State

The forces of change: Material factors

Growth in population and the industrial revolution prepared the basis for change.

(A) The growth in population

It created a situation for a change in that, it brought a mismatch between the demand for

the resources and the availability of the resources. This situation created unrest among the

people.

(B) Industrial revolution

It brought a change in the means of production. So, it prepared the way for social change as

well. It issaidthateven if French revolutionhadnottaken place,almostallthechanges which

occured in as the result of the revolution, might have anyway occurred eventually (David

Thomson). The main reason being the role of the industrial revolution.

Metternich System: Concert of Europe

Institutional Structure of Metternich System:

It was a system of regular diplomatic meetings and cooperation among the major European

powers:

• To maintain peace and manage conflicts.
• To act as an observer of Europe.
• To ensure that there is no challenge to the territorial arrangement of the Vienna

Settlement.

• It was based on the idea of collective security.

It included not just the four members of the Quadruple Alliance but also other European

powers, including France.

• Congress System

• A series of international meetings to preserve the balance of power.
• Four important Congresses

▪ Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818)

▪ Congress of Troppau (1820)

▪ Congress of Laibach (1821)

▪ Congress of Verona (1822)

• These congresses discussed issues related to the balance of power and territorial

arrangements.

• It provided a framework for the powers to intervene in the affairs of other

European nations to maintain stability and prevent conflicts. This policy was used

to justify interventionism.

• Quadruple Alliance (1815-1818)

• Military alliance of the four powers Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
• In 1818,Francewasaddedtoit -->Quintuple Alliance(Congressof Aix-la-Chapelle

1818)

• It was a key element in maintaining peace and stability with the purpose of:

▪ Working together to preserve the territorial arrangements established by

the Congress.

▪ To intervene militarily if any European power attempted to upset the

balance of power.

Working of the Metternich System:

The alliance was established at a time when the European powers were still recovering from

the Napoleonic Wars, and there was a general consensus that cooperation was necessary to

prevent future conflicts. However, as time passed, the individual interests of the member

states began to diverge, and tensions arose between them.

The Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe tried to maintain the old order in Europe.

Inspiteofthewholeconservativeorderof Metternich system,the forcesofchangecouldnot

be crushed. The legacy of the French Revolution thundered throughout this time. It was due

to this fact, a series of revolts and revolutions occurred in Europe between 1815 and 1848.

Thus, the system could not work smoothly.

• Internal division: Thus, differences cropped up over time.

• Austria (Prince Metternich) and Russia (Tsar Alexander I) were conservative and

hated the ideas of liberalism and nationalism.

• Britain and France were liberal members.
• Prussia was a middling power.

• During the Greek War of Independence, which broke out in 1821:

• Russia and France supported the Greek rebels, while Great Britain and Austria

were initially opposed to the rebellion.

• Such differences created a rift within the alliance. Still, the system was in place until the

mid-1830 s, when a series of revolutions and uprisings throughout Europe marked the

beginning of a new era of political upheaval and change.

Analysis of the Metternich system

Limitations of the Congress of Vienna:

• Congress worked as a reactionary and conservative force.
• It tried to restore the old order and to suppress progressive ideas like liberalism

and nationalism. (The forces of continuity)

• It wasanintegralpart the Conservative Order,inwhich democracyand civil rights

associated with the American and French Revolutions were de-emphasized.

• It was due to this fact that it turned out to be a failure in the long run. Within four

decades, the arrangements made by the Congress of Vienna collapsed.

Achievements of the Congress of Vienna:

• The Congressof Viennacouldmaintainthebalanceofpowerin Europefordecades.After

1815 till the Crimean War (1854-1856), no important war could take place in Europe.

Another major war in Europe after 1815 was only when World War I started in 1914. It

was one of the major achievements of the Congress of Vienna.

• The Concert of Europe, which was created in the Congress of Vienna, remained to be

muchactiveandwatchful.Itwasasignificantstepin the transitiontoanewinternational

order in which peace was largely maintained through diplomatic dialogue. (Henry

Kissinger)

• Contrarian Views: French historian Henry Rousso argued that the Congress represented

a clash between competing visions of European identity and power, with the British,

Prussians, and Russians all seeking to impose their own models on the continent.

Thus,although the Congressof Vienna preserved the balanceofpower in Europe, itcould not

check the spread of revolutionary movements across the continent some 30 years later.

Impact of Nationalism on European Politics

Hardly did any other ideology influence the course of History as deeply as nationalism. Since

American and French revolution, it became a very powerful force. It kept Europe busy for the

next 150 years. Not simply that, it changed the configuration even of Asio-African and Latin

American countries.

Nationalism did not produce a uniform impact on all the regions equally. Nationalism can be

a source of unity and self-determination, but it can also lead to exclusion, conflict, and

intolerance.

• Somewhere it worked as the unifying/cementing force.
• In other regions, it worked as a divisive factor as well.
• In Western Europe, states peacefully transformed into modern nations.

• Here, it was a force for political and social liberation.
• Nationalist movements sought to create new nation-states based on shared

cultural, linguistic, and historical identities.

▪ Inthesestates,therewaslessculturaldiversity,andthesizeofthecountry

was not unmanageably large.

▪ Moreover, some basework was already done by earlier monarchs.

• These movements, in the post-Napoleonic era, were often associated with liberal

and democratic political reforms, and the subjects gradually became citizens.

• In Central Europe: it also worked as a unifying force in the case of Italy and Germany.

• The Year of Revolutions in 1848 saw widespread nationalist uprisings across

Europe but after their failure, romantic nationalism took the refuge to militarism.

• Unification movements sought to consolidate smaller, fragmented regions into

singlenation-statesbasedonsharedculturalandlinguisticties. Italyand Germany

emerged to be a modern nation-state.

• In Eastern Europe, the situation was more complex. Subversive forces became active in

three old/medieval empires of Austria, Ottoman and Russia.

• These empires were characterized by authoritarian rule. Autocratic monarchy,

centralized bureacracy as well as coercive army suppressed various national

identities.

• The ethnic and cultural diversity of Eastern Europe made the process of nation-

building more complicated.

▪ Nationalist movements often struggled to establish a sense of common

identity among these groups.

▪ Here, nationalismgaveaseverechallengeto theunityand integrity ofthe

empire and encouraged separatism.

▪ There was also an issue of marginalization and persecution of national

minorities.

• Nationalist movements were met with repression from the ruling powers and

thus often took on a more revolutionary/violent character.

• Examples:

▪ Austria: Hungarian Revolution (1848) was brutally suppressed by the

Austro-Hungarian Empire.

▪ Russia:Implementedapolicyof"Russification"initsterritoriesthatsought

to suppress national identities and assimilate them.

▪ Ottomans: the divisive impact became so wide that it took the form of an

Eastern question and created permanent unrest in the Balkan region.

More Dimensions:

• Ideological force nationalism gave a strong

push to imperialism also.

• Nationalism in European powers

fueled imperial expansion, as

nations sought to exert dominance

over other regions.

• Colonized nations often developed

their own nationalist movements in

opposition to imperial rule.

• It took the form of supra-nationalism also.
• Finally resulted in two world wars.

• The devastating world wars of the

20 th c. highlighted the destructive potential of extreme nationalism.

• Post World War

• The aftermath of World War II led to the formation of the United Nations and the

recognition of self-determination as a principle.

• Decolonization: The post-World War II period witnessed the decolonization of

many African and Asian nations, driven by nationalist movements demanding

independence from colonial powers.

• Cold War: It could not substitute nationalist division. Rather, the formation of

newly independent nations in Asio-African countries presented a new challenge

to cold war politics.

• Era of Globalization

• It remains a potent force in contemporary politics, with variations ranging from

ethnic nationalism to civic nationalism. Even globalization could not put an end to

the nation-state system. Rather, globalization is working over the infrastructure

of nationalism.

• New issues of national conflict appeared.

▪ Globalization and migration have influenced debates on national identity

and multiculturalism.

▪ Balancing national identity with global interdependence poses challenges

in the 21 st century.

Nietzsche saw nationalism as a source of

cultural decay and degeneration. He

believed that nationalism was rooted in

the desire for power and domination,

and that it led to a glorification of the

state, manifestation of herd mentality

and the suppression of individual

freedom and creativity. For him,

nationalism was incompatible with the

individualism and self-expression that he

valued so highly.

UPSC CSE PYQs

• Stages

• Trace the various stages that led to the Unification of Italy between 1848 and

1. [1980, 60 Marks]

• Trace the course of the movement for Italian Unification from 1848 with special

reference to the contribution of Mazzini. [1983, 60 Marks]

• How was Italy transformed from 'a geographical expression' to a nation-state?

[2019, 20 Marks]

• Discuss the different stages of the unification of Italy from 1848 to the

occupation of Rome in 1870. [2023, 20 Marks]

• Role of Cavour

• "They have stopped me from making Italy by diplomacy from the North; I will

make it by revolution from the South." Comment. [1985, 20 Marks]

• What were the obstacles to Italian unification till 1852? How and with what

methods was the unification of Italy achieved? [1993, 60 Marks]

• "They have stopped me from making Italy by diplomacy from the North; I will

make it by revolution from the South." Comment. [2005, 20 Marks]

• Role of Mazzini

• "Mazzini's conception of Italian nationality was not exclusive, and his dominant

ideal was the recreation of moral unity of mankind." Critically examine. [2015,

10 Marks]

• With Reference to the Co V

• "The unification of Italy completed…the destruction of the European order."

Comment. [1997, 20 Marks]

Italian region did have a sense of a shared culture from the time of renaissance itself, but

remained geographically, politically and economically divided at the beginning of the 19 th

century.

Risorgimento was a 19 th-century ideological as well as political movement which aroused

national consciousness for Italian unification. It culminated in the establishment of the

Kingdom of Italy in 1861, by expelling foreign domination and uniting different regions

politically.

Obstacles in unification of Italy

• Internal Division: "Italy was merely a geographical expression" (Metternich)

• Congress of Vienna divided Italy in various parts under different rulers.

▪ Piedmont-Sardinia: A separate state under the House of Savoy.

• It was the most powerful state in the region.

▪ Lombardi, Venetia: Vested under the

control of Austria.

▪ Parma, Modena and Tuscany:

Habsburg prince was established as

the monarch.

▪ Middle Italian region: given to Pope

(Papal region)

▪ Naplesand Sicily:Kingsfrom Bourbon

dynasty were restored.

• Regionalism: Every Italian states had its own

unique history, culture, and language.

• Italy was economically divided between

northern-southern part. Slight

industrialization had taken place in North

Italy but South Italy was primarily agrarian.

• The feudal lords and nobles were very powerful and wanted to keep Italy

fragmented to ensure their interests.

• Opposing forces:

• Foreign domination:

▪ Italy was divided into several small states and territories that were under

the control of foreign powers, such as Austria, France, and Spain.

▪ Austrian Empire was working as vigilante opposing any change.

• Papal Opposition:

▪ The Catholic Church held significant influence in Italy and was opposed to

the idea of unification because it would threaten its power and influence.

▪ Some region in middle Italian part was under the control of Pope and no

Europeanpowercoulddaretoinvade.Ifdisturbed,even Francewould have

to intervene.

• Weakness of the Unification movement

• Lack of popular support:

▪ The idea of Italian unification was initially popular only among a small

group of intellectuals and liberals.

▪ Most of the population was largely indifferent to the idea of a united Italy

and did not actively support the cause.

• Limited resources:

▪ The Italian states were poor and lacked the financial resources to fund a

war or a significant political movement for unification.

• Internal/ideological divisions:

▪ The Italian unification movement was marked by internal divisions,

rivalries, and disagreements among its leaders and supporters. These

divisionsweakenedthemovementandmadeitdifficulttoachieveaunified

strategy and approach.

▪ On this issue, there were three different models.

• Monarchists: Unification under the leadership of the monarch of

Piedmont-Sardinia. (eg Cavour)

• Republicans: Unification under the leadership of the republic as in

Italy.

• Italy had a long tradition of republicanism since Roman era.
• Leader: Mazzini and his disciple Garibaldi.

• Neo-gulfs: Favoured the unification under the leadership of Pope

of Rome. (eg Priest Geoberti)

Despite these obstacles, Italian unification was eventually achieved through the leadership of

figures such as Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Camillo di Cavour.

The Timeline of Unification

• Role of Napoleon Bonaparte

• Italy was conquered by Napoleon during 1796-97. He liberated Italy from Austria.

Entire Italy was divided into three parts and a republican state was established in

Italy.

• Napoleon carried out reform in accordance with the ideas of French Revolution.

Politicallibertywasgranted,principleofequalitywasdeclaredasthebasisof state

andsocietybydestroyingfeudalism.Freedomofpressandreligionwereprovided.

• Napoleon also reminded Italiansof their past greatnessand paved the wayfor the

growth of awakening.

• When the rule of Napoleon turned despotic, the spirit of nationalism emerged in

Italy. This Italian nationalism inspired the process of Italian political unification in

future.

• Role of Congress of Vienna:

• The Congress of Vienna, in order to suppress the idea of Nationalism, reversed

the political changes carried out by Napoleon.

• With this objective, it divided Italy and converted it merely a geographical

expression. The changes carried out by Vienna congress were strongly against

Italian nationalist aspirations, but the integration of Genoa with Piedmont

Sardinia created the possibilities of Italian unification under its leadership.

• Carbonari (1800-1831) (charcoal burners)

• It was a secret society and revolutionary movement inspired by the

Enlightenment and French Revolution. It aimed to overthrow foreign rule and

absolute monarchy, promote liberal and nationalist ideals, constitutional

government, and civil liberties.

• The Carbonari included members from all walks of life, including peasants,

artisans, merchants, and professionals (mobilized a broad range of people in

support of Italian unification).

• It was also involved in revolutionary activities like uprisings, conspiracies, and

insurrections against foreign rulers and conservative governments in Italy. (e.g.

Neapolitan Carbonari uprising of 1820)

• However, the secrecy made coordination difficult, and internal divisions hindered

effectiveness. Additionally, their uprisings faced harsh repression from foreign

powers, such as Austria and the Bourbon monarchy in Naples.

• Still, they contributed to the early awakening of Italian nationalism and their

legacy as a symbol of Italian resistance and the desire for unification endured and

inspired future generations of Italian nationalists, including Giuseppe Garibaldi

and Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour.

• The course of events carried the movement of unification naturally in favour of

monarchy.

• 1820 s: disturbance in Naples, Sicily and many other regions.
• 1830 s: Activism of republican leader Mazzini who promoted his organization

'Young Italy' encouraged the revolution through republican ideas. (already

covered in earlier class)

• 1848:

▪ Charles Albert rose up to the occasion and he declared a war against

Austria.

▪ But Piedmont-Sardinia was not a match for the Austrian empire. So, It was

defeated at the hand of Austria and the process of unification received a

serious jolt.

The Era of Victor Immanuel II and Count Cavour

• Victor Immanuel II was a very competent ruler. He decided to make Piedmont-Sardinia a

powerful state in Italy. So, he started a process of reforms in Piedmont-Sardinia.

• The king appointed Count Cavour I as the finance minister.

▪ He was a proponent of constitutional monarchy and liberal reforms.

▪ He carried reforms in agriculture, worked for the promotion of

industrialization, and in order to promote trade and commerce, he

pursued the policy of free trade and concluded treaties with European

countries. Banks and cooperative societies were established.

▪ So, economically now Piedmont-Sardinia was in a better position.

• After that in 1852, Victor Immanuel II promoted Cavour to the post of Prime

Minister.

▪ He now did a lot for the reorganization of the army of Piedmont-Sardinia.

So,evenonthemilitaryfront,Piedmont-Sardiniabecameapowerful state.

A strong force of 90,000 soldiers was created.

▪ Stepswere taken to provide civilliberties to people. Therole of the Church

was curtailed and a secular polity was established.

• Thus, Piedmont Sardinia became a model state in the Italian Peninsula - the

wealthiest, powerful and most liberal state.

• Crimean War and diplomatic gains of Piedmont-Sardinia (1854-56)

• After having been prepared economically and militarily, Cavour set a foot in

international politics.

• Firstly, he discarded the doctrine of Italia-fara-da-se (Italy will go alone)

promoted by earlier King Charles Albert. He started to search for an international

ally.

• Crimean War gave him a good opportunity for internationalizing Italian issue and

find an international ally.

▪ He supported Britain and France in the battle. In this war, he volunteered

for a military contingent of 15,000 soldiers.

▪ As a result of this move, Piedmont-Sardinia could get a seat in the Paris

Conference (1856) after the war. Thus, Crimean war proved the game

changer - thus from the mud of Crimea the unified Italy emerged.

• Inthisconference,Cavourinternationalizedtheissueevenafter the

objection from the Austrian representative.

• Rift caused between Austria and Russia
• In the Paris Conference, Cavour developed personal rapport with

Napoleon III, which helped in Plombiers' Pact. It was with the

Frenchhelpinthesecondwarof Italianunification,that Austriawas

expelled from some Italian reigon.

• Treaty of Plombieres (1858): In Paris conference, Cavour came near to French Monarch,

Louis Napoleon III as well. Now he decided to conclude a treaty to reserve the support

from France for Piedmont-Sardinia on the Italian issue.

• Treaty

▪ It established a military alliance between Piedmont-Sardinia and France.

France promised assistance of 2 lakh soldiers.

▪ France would help Piedmont-Sardinia to recover Lombardy and Venetia

from the Austria. In return, France would get Nice and Savoy.

• The Plombières Pactmarkedaturningpointin the Risorgimento,andsetinmotion

the process that eventually led to the unification of Italy under the leadership of

Sardinia. It was a diplomatic success by Cavour.

• Second war of Italian Independence (1859) → Unification of Lombardy

• After getting assurance of French support, Cavour instigated a revolt against

Austria in Lombardy, at this Austria attacked Piedmont in 1859. As per the pact,

French forces arrived for help.

• Then France and Piedmont started a joint military operation against Austria. After

this operation, when they got initial success, French emperor Louis Napoleon III

changedhismind.Hedida volte-faceandsigned the Treatyof Villafrancain 1859.

• Why did he do so?

▪ In fact, it was in the hope of Nice and Savoy from Piedmont, Louis had

joined the alliance, and he was hopingfor domestic support. However, the

people of France became disturbed because

• France being a Roman Catholic Nation fighting against another

Roman Catholic Nation, Austria.

• Large number of French casualties were reported.

▪ So, he withdrew from the war and signed a separate peace from Austria.

▪ Thereby, Piedmont-Sardinia received a serious jolt. Cavour felt

backstabbed and considered it as deceit of Villafranca.

▪ Cavour: "They have stopped me from making Italy by diplomacy from the

north, I will make by revolution from the south."

▪ At least, due to the intervention of Louis Napoleon III, Austria had to cede

the region of Lombardy to Piedmont-Sardinia but Venetia remained under

Austrian control. So, a part of the original plan was successful.

• Parma, Modena, Tuscany

• With annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont-Sardinia, there was a wave of the

nationalistsentimentsin the Italianregion.So,amovementforunificationstarted

in the region of Parma, Modena and Tuscany. (revolutionary environment

prevailing in the region)

• Cavourwasconfidentthatifareferendumwasconductedinthe region,theregion

could be merged with Piedmont-Sardinia.

• He assured Louis Napoleon of transfer of Nice and Savoy afterthe referendum the

region. So, the French emperor intervened in the matter.

• Onthebasisofthereferendum, withalmostunanimousvote,theregionof Parma,

Modena and Tuscany were integrated with Piedmont-Sardinia. So,the integration

of Northern Italy was almost over.

• Austria wanted to intervene in Italy to restore the rulers of Parma, Modena,

Tuscany, but British neutrality did not allow Austria to do so. British government

led by PM Palmerston declared that Italians must he left alone to decide their

future, and nobody must interface from outside.

• Based on referendum, Savoy and Nice was also united with France. When

Napoleon III accepted Nice and Savoy, Cavour said, "We are not accomplices."

• Southern Expedition by Garibaldi:

• The nationalist transformations going on in North Italy triggered popular

revolution in Naples against the foreign rule of Bourbon dynasty. But it was not

possible for Cavour to intervene in Naples and Sicily directly because of the

possibility of French Reaction.

• Integration of Southern states became possible due to the role of Garibaldi who

was a disciple of Mazzini, a republican.

• Garibaldi, in association with his 1000 well-disciplined volunteers (Redshirts),

moved towards southern states.

▪ En route, Garibaldi captured Naples and Sicily in 1860. He overthrew the

Bourbonmonarchy there.Soon,Cavouralsoconquered Umbria&Marche.

He was asked to merge these territories with North Italy, but he refused to

do so because he

wanted to create a

Republic.

• Cavour realized that

Garibaldi might convert

southern states into

republics.

▪ So, he suggested

Italian king Victor

Immanuel II to go

south and to take

charge of Naples and

Sicily from Garibaldi.

While moving

southwards, Victor Immanuel II captured some region of Pope, and then

he took charge of Naples and Sicily from Garibaldi.

▪ A plebiscite was held in all these regions to understand people's desire.

When the result was announced, Garibaldi realized his mistake and he

surrendered to king victor Immanuel II but was pardoned and was allowed

to go away. As per the result, all these territories were merged with North

Italy and Victor Immanuel II was coronated as the king of united Italy.

• So, except Venetia and Rome, the whole of Italy was unified and Victor Immanuel II

became the emperor of the Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946).

• The further development on the issues of Venetia and Rome was linked to the issue of

unification of Germany.

• Third War of Italian Unification (Venetia, 1866)

▪ When Prussia defeated the Austrian empire in the Battleof Sadowa, there

was the Treaty of Prague. Being an ally of Prussia, Italy also gained the

region of Venetia from Austria.

• Papal States (Rome, 1870)

Meeting at Teano (1860)

Garibaldi shook Victor Emanuel's hand and

hailed him as King of Italy; thus, Garibaldi

sacrificed republican hopes for the sake of

Italian unity under a monarchy.

▪ In the Battle of Sedan between France and Germany (1870), France came

under pressure and withdrew its soldiers from Rome. Prussia soon

defeated France.

▪ Italy seized the moment, sent its army and capture Rome. Pope was left

with small territory known as Vatican City and Rome was made the capital

of Italy.

• Thus, the unification of Italy was completed.

The relative contribution of different personalities in the unification of Italy

Victor Emmanuel, Garibaldi, Cavour, and Mazzini have been referred as Italy's Four Fathers

of the Fatherland.

Mazzini:

• Mazzini was a very important personality. He was a great visionary. It was he, who

conceived the idea of unified Italy.

• However, he was too idealistic in his approach. Republicanism was his first priority and

unification was the second one. So, wherever there was a conflict in the objective of

unification and republicanism, he gave priority to republicanism than to unification.

• When he found his disciple, Garibaldi, coming under the influence of monarchy of

Piedmont-Sardinia, discarding the objective of republicanism, he was grieved and

declared that "Aah, ultimately Machiavelli emerged to be victorious".

Victor Immanuel II:

• The first important personality was King Victor Immanuel II.
• He took charge of the affairs after the failure of his predecessor, Charles Albert.
• After coming to power, he did a lot for the modernization of Piedmont-Sardinia, and to

make it militarily a powerful state.

• He not simply chose Count Cavour as Prime Minister of Italy but also gave him sufficient

power to deal with the affairs.

Count Cavour:

• Count Cavour was a constitutional monarchist.

• Hisfirstobjectivewastostrengthenthepositionoftherulerof Piedmont-Sardinia.

Earlier, he was not in favour of Italian unification as a whole. Thus, his initial

objective was to geographically expand Piedmont-Sardinia in the region of

Lombardy and Venetia.

• He wassuspiciousaboutthemovementof republicanism.He tookrepublicanistas

a danger to the monarchy of Piedmont-Sardinia. However, it was after the treaty

of Villafranca, he became soft towards republicanism.

• When France deserted him, out of reaction, Cavour declared that they (European

powers)havestoppedusfromunificationthroughdiplomacyfromnorth,wewould

complete it through a revolution from south. Then it was with the support of

republicans he won through the referendum in the states of Parma, Modena and

Tuscany.

• Still, throughout his life, he remained worried about republicans.

• Afterthe integration of Northern Italy,he wasnotin a moodto go to southfor the

fear that republican ideas could prevail in Italy.

• But when Garibaldi chose the independent course of action, so for the fear of

southern states turningto be republican, he intervened in the matter and decided

to go to south.

• So, what appeared later as unified Italy, was not totally according to the vision of Count

Cavour.

Garibaldi:

• Without the role of Garibaldi, one can't explain unification.
• He was the disciple of Mazzini, and he was the republican. But he gave priority first to

unification and then to republican ideas, and whenever there was a contradiction

between the two he chose the course of the unification.

• That's why he welcomed the decision of Italian republicans, when they accepted

the leadership of the monarchy of Piedmont-Sardinia.

• But it didn't mean that he was at peace with monarchy.

• Once he expressed hisgrief,"Aah, what have youdone, we have expelled Bourbon

(Naples and Sicily) but brought another dynasty (Immanuel II), we have dismissed

a corpse from the throne but restored on that his sick brother".

Inthisway,theunificationof Italywasneithertotallyinthevisionof Cavournotinthevision

of Garibaldi, both had to make a lot of compromises.

Role of Popular Movement in the unification of Italy:

There is a debate over the relative importance of elites and the masses in the Risorgimento.

• Somehistorianshaveemphasizedtheroleof political andintellectualelitesin shapingthe

direction of the movement, while others have focused on the role of popular uprisings

and mass movements in achieving Italian unification.

• In the unification of Italy, popular sentiments played a very significant role. Sometimes

thepeopleenthusiasticallyparticipatedinthemovement,butmiddle-classleadership was

always conscious about its rights and privileges and used the popular movement in its

favour.

UPSC CSE PYQs

• Overall

• What determinant factors, along with diplomatic, shaped the process of

German Unification? [2017, 20 Marks]

• Napoleon

• "Napoleon kindled the national sentiment, but German unity was achieved by

Bismarck." Discuss. [1981, 60 Marks]

• "It is one of the ironies of history that Napoleon was the creator of modern

Germany." Comment. [1984, 20 Marks]

• "Napoleon kindled the national sentiment, but German unity was achieved by

Bismarck." Discuss. [2002, 60 Marks]

• Bismarck

• "The Unification of Germany was the one thing Bismarck was determined to

prevent." Comment. [1987, 20 Marks]

• "The political unification of Germany was accomplished solely by Bismarck."

Comment. [1999, 20 Marks]

• "Bismarck created a new Germany with the policy of 'blood and iron'."

Comment. [2001, 20 Marks]

• Bismarck united Germany not by majority of votes and speeches but by a policy

of "Blood and Iron". In the light of this statement assess the contribution of

Bismarck to the unification of Germany. [2003, 60 Marks]

• Was German unification achieved more by 'coal and iron' than by 'blood and

iron'? [2012, 30 Marks]

• "From Bismarck's 'Blood and Iron' speech and his forceful actions to achieve

German unification, Bismarck came to be known as the Iron Chancellor."

Critically examine. [2020, 20 Marks]

Right from the time of Westphalia, German

stateswasa sleeping Satan.Noneattemptedto

wake it up.

In was merely a geographic entity in 1805,

divided into numerous units. Austria & Prussia

were two big states, while there were more

than 300 small German states. All of these

together were part of Holy Roman Empire

headed by the king of Austria.

Emergence of sense of national consciousness:

• Historical Context:

• The protestant movement under Martin Luther gave the German region a

common cultural identity particularly for the fact that Martin Luther translated

the Bible into German language.

• Role of Napoleon Bonaparte proved to be an unconscious stimulator for German

unification. His conquests and reforms had a profound impact on Germany.

• Territorial reorganization: He defeated Austria in the battle of Austerlitz in 1805

and imposed the peace of Pressburg. As per which,

▪ He demolished the relic of the so-called Holy Roman Empire.

▪ Created Confederation of Rhine by reorganizing 300 tiny German states

into 16 bigger states. (In Future, Bismark was required to merge these 39

into one.)

• Internal Reforms:

▪ Napoleon abolished feudalism, put control over Church, and introduced

the Napoleonic Code. So, he internally organized the administration of

Germany. These reforms helped to create a sense of national identity

among the German people.

• War of Nations:

▪ The influence of these ideas resulted in the growth of awakening among

Germany and when the rule of Napoleon turned despotic during the last

year of his reign, a strong wave of German nationalism emerged.

▪ In a war against Napoleon Bonaparte, German states participated. So,

unconsciously the German states developed a sense of fellow-feeling

among themselves.

• It was this spirit of German nationalism that guided and inspired the process of

German unification which was concluded finally by Bismark.

▪ "Napoleon kindled German national sentiment & Bismark carried out

political unification."

▪ "Napoleon wrote the preamble of German unification, but it was Bismarck

who provided it with the finishing touch."

• However,Napoleon'sdefeat in 1815 led tothe dissolution of the Confederation of

the Rhine and the restoration of the old order in Germany.

• Inspite of being an imperialist, the works of Napoleon helped in the emergence of

modern unified Germany. That iswhy,it is commented that 'It is one of the ironies

of history that Napoleon was a creator of modern Germany.'

• Congress of Vienna (1815)

• It made every possible effort to restore the pre-Napoleonic picture in Germany.
• Since the 39 states of Rhine Confederation could not be reverted, a German

Confederation was created.

▪ It consisted larger kingdoms like Austria and Prussia, as well as smaller

duchies, principalities, and free cities.

▪ It was a patchwork of states, each with its own ruler, laws, and degree of

autonomy.

• The Frankfurt parliament, closed down by Napoleon, was also reestablished. Its

powers were limited.

▪ The Federal Diet could not levy taxes, maintain a standing army, or enact

significant legislative measures. Decisions required a consensus among

member states, making it difficult to take decisive action. Austria and

Prussia were the most influential states and competed for dominance.

• Cultural-Ideologicalfactor:Soon,the Germanphilosopherspromotedthesenseoffellow-

feeling as well as nationalist consciousness.

• Theirspeeches&writingsintensifiednationalistawakeningamongthepeople and

this German nationalism was responsible for the political unification of Germany.

• The Romantics wanted to discard the cold, artificial logic of the Enlightenment to

return to the roots of a simple and authentic life based on direct experience and

community.

▪ Language was seen by Herder as a vessel that molded community and

national identities.

▪ The brothers Grimm went out to collect "authentic" German folk tales

while at the same time studying the German language, pursuing the

Romantic conviction that language and folk culture were deeply related.

• The German historians re-interpreted the past of German people in a positive

light. The achievements of rulers like Frederick, the Great were highlighted the

common elements prevailing among Germans living in different parts were

brought to the notice of people.

• Some Germanthinkerslike Johann Herder,Fichte,Hegelrejectedtheuniversalism

of Enlightenment, rather they gave emphasis over the German unification.

• These German philosophers and historians brought about cultural unity in

German. Their efforts prepared a solid-cultural platform our which the political

unificationof Germanycouldbecarriedout.Thatiswhyitiscommented that"The

Political unity of Germany was placed on a solid cultural base."

• Burschenschaft (student union)

• It wasan organizationofuniversitystudents,withthegoalofpatriotism,unityand

liberal rule. In the Wartburg Festival (1817), students from various universities

gathered and burned reactionary books and expressed their desire for political

reform.

• The reactionary political authorities in the various German states, including

Metternich, viewed the Burschenschaften with suspicion. They cracked down on

the student fraternities, leading to arrests, censorship, and the banning of their

activities.

Economic-Industrial factor:

• The unification under Austria might have been historical for the fact that Austria carried

the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire. But German states preferred the integration with

Prussiainplaceof Austria,forthefactthat Prussiawaseconomicallyandindustrially more

advanced than Austria.

• Economic and material basis for integration:

• At the beginning of 19 th century, industrial revolution started in Prussia, and it

spread to the other parts of Germany. As Prussia was the leading region in

industrialisation, all other regions were looking to Prussia for leadership.

• In 1834, there was the formation of the custom union Zollverin in Germany.

• In 1830 s and 1840 s, it paved the way for the development of means of

transportation such as roads and railways lines. Thus, the geographical distance

among Germans got reduced. Also, the German market was better integrated.

(geographic and economic unification)

• Since Austria refused to join it, the lesser German states gradually moved away

from Austria and closer to Prussia and their economic interests got interlinked.

(integration of economic interests with Prussia alone).

• It helped in the growth of modern industries in Germany and thereby a strong

capitalist group emerged. In the international competition with British capitalists,

they preferred and supported strong unified centralized state for better

protectionist policies and colonies abroad for raw material/markets. They threw

their weight behind Bismarck. (class interest in unification)

• The economic progress brought about by its success allowed Bismarck to raise a

large army. This military strength imparted the winning edge to German

nationalism. (resources for militarization)

• So, the economic-industrial factor played such a significant role in the unification of

Germany.

• John Maynard Keynes, declared that "It was not blood and iron rather iron and

coal which made the unification of Germany possible."

• The success of Bismarckian policy of blood & iron depended to a large extent on

the forces of coal and iron.

• The forces of coal & Iron prepared a strong material base for the political

unification of Germany.

• Without the support of the forces of coal & iron German nationalism would have

remained a much weaker force.

Political-Diplomatic Factor:

From 1815 to 1866, about 37 independent German-

speaking states existed within the German

Confederation. The 'German question' was debated

intensely during these decades. The question about the

best way to achieve aunification wasconfoundeddue to

historic problem of German Dualism.

The alternate two solutions were discussed:

• Greater German solution: Favored unifying all

German-speakingpeoples under one state and was promoted by the Austrian Empire and

its supporters.

• Little German solution: sought only to unify the northern German states and did not

include any part of Austria; this proposal was favored by the Kingdom of Prussia.

When the Revolutions of 1848 swept across Europe, demands for political reforms,

constitutional rights, and national unification were widespread. The Frankfurt National

Assembly was convened in 1848 in an attempt to create a unified and liberal German state,

but it ultimately failed.

(A) Failure of 1848

• In spite of the economic integration, political integration was not possible till the demise

of Austria as the political power. Whenever some step was taken towards German

integration, due to opposition from the side of Austria, it failed. It is here, the role of

Bismarck that of the policy of blood and iron became decisive.

• In 1848, at Frankfurt Parliament, an attempt was made by Prussian monarch,

Fredrick William IV, to bring a model of unification. The whole project failed due

to the resistance/threat from Austria, and he had to withdrew.

• Furthermore, on the basis of Olmutz Punctation of 1850, the old German

confederacy was restored by Austria.

• Outcome:

• The Failure of liberal methods in accomplishing the task of German unification

convinced German nationalist that onlymilitarism could succeed.Rise of Bismarck

in German polities was the outcome of the same.

• It also became crystal clear that no future constitutional revolution in Germany

was possible without a war with Austria. So, far Austria was there, such political

unification under Prussia was a impossible.

• Attitude of Bismarck: "The Unification of Germany was the one thing Bismarck was

determined to prevent."

• Bismarck was basically reactionary.

▪ He came from Junker class. He was ultraconservative champion of Junker

interests.

▪ He was a radical nationalist, totally dedicated to the institution of

monarchy.

• He didn't believe in parliamentary politics.

▪ He hadnofaith in theefficiencyof liberalmethods. He saw liberalism asan

expressionof the political,economic,and social interestsofthe propertied

urban class associated with industrialization.

▪ He countered it by raising the material interests of the Junkers to the level

of patriotic duty.

▪ If this unification was to be carried out under Liberal leaders, they would

prevail, and the demand of liberalism was constitutional monarchy.

▪ He believed that the German unity forget through liberal method would

remain weak and fragile. He wanted to create united Germany only

through military methods.

• He never left anyone in doubt that he was a Prussian patriot, not a German

nationalist. "Prussian we are and Prussian we wish to remain" he said in June

1848.

▪ He wanted to carry out the Prussianization of Germany rather than

Germanization of Prussia.

▪ He believed that only Prussia's internal strength can overcome its

revolutionaries and helped to protect Germany from its foreign enemies.

▪ Bismarck believed that Germany was too small for both Austria and

Prussian. He wanted to oust Austria from Germany, so that Prussian

domination could be imposed. Thus, there was no place for Austria in

Bismarckian vision. Thus, he created obstruction in the way German unity

till the time Austria was ousted.

• Bismarck also wanted that German prestige must be highest in Europe. He

wanted to carry out German unification in such a way that Austrian and French

Prestige could be shattered.

▪ That is why, it is commented that 'Bismarck did not fight his wars for the

sake of German unification but in reality, he used the Process of German

unification as an ensure to fight his wars.'

• So, it is true that initially Bismarck was opposed to the unification of old Germany.

(B) Bismarck In the Parliament

From 1865 onwards,Bismarckwasreadyforthisgreatjobof

unification, and it was he who, through a diplomatic and

military option, made the unification possible.

(machtpolitiks - power politics, realpolitik - pragmatism).

• Before Bismarck:

• William I was a strong German nationalist. He

wanted to carry out political unification of

Germany. He knew that Prussia might have to

fight a war with Austria. Thus, William I started a very ambitious plan for

militarization.

• But the liberal members of the bicameral parliament turned down his proposals.

▪ The lower house of Prussia parliament was dominated by liberal. This

house did not approve the budget for military reforms.

• Having failed repeatedly in his efforts to persuade the liberal dominated Prussian

Parliament, king William I appointed Bismarck as Prussian chancellor in 1862

because bythistime, Bismarck developed a strong reputation for hisruthlessness.

(1862)

▪ With the appointment of Bismarck as Prussian chancellor, the process of

German unification commenced in a real way. He provided complete

support and promised, "I will be destroyed in fight against the parliament,

but I will never desert you."

• Bismarck's approach:

• Bismarck too faced significant opposition in the House of Representatives when

he sought to pass military reforms and increase funding for the Prussian army.

The liberal majority in the House resisted these measures, seeing them as

potentially strengthening the monarchy's power at the expense of parliamentary

democracy.

• Liberal thinkers also preferred unification but not through military means. To

counter their method, Bismarck gave his famous Blood and iron (Eisen and Blut)

speech in parliament in the course of getting these proposals passed. (30 Sept

1862)

▪ In the speech, Bismarck called for a small German nation-state dominated

by Prussia.

▪ He stated that the great questions of the day should be decided by blood

and iron.

• 'You are mistaken, German states are not looking upto us for our

liberalism but for our power… it is not by speeches and majority

resolutions that the great questions of the time are decided - that

was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood…

With power game only, this problem could be solved. This The

Gordian knot was not to be untied by the gentle methods of dual

policy and could only be cut by the sword.'

• But the liberal members were not ready in

1. So, Bismarck neglected the lower

chamber of the parliament.

▪ Ultimately, Bismarck used a

combination of political

maneuvering, diplomacy, and the

threat of external conflict to

navigate these hurdles and push

through his policies.

▪ He started bypassing the lower

house, used ordinances, and passed budgets with the help of upper house

to sanction funds for the military reforms.

• Thus, He led Prussia into three wars in seven years, eschewing democracy and its

plebiscites and achieve a united German aristocracy behind the king of Prussia. He

became known as "the iron chancellor".

(C) The Three Wars (1866-1871)

• Phase 1: Integration of the two dutchies, Schleswig and Holstein

• Two Duchies in the north of Germany, named Schleswig and Holstein were a kind

of frontiers. From time immemorial, it was not clear whether they were with

Denmark and Germany.

• They were placed under the nominal control of Denmark by Vienna congress of

1815 but the majority of population there was German.

• So, Prussia and Austria invaded them and annexed them.
• Under the Gastein Convention of 1865. The regions were put under joint

administration.Althoughthe Convention temporarilypostponedthefinal struggle

between them for hegemony over Germany. Bismarck managed to engineer a

difference between Austria and Prussia with the help of intentional vagueness in

the arrangement.

• Phase 2 - Creation of North German Confederation.

• The joint administration led to disputes between the two powers.
• Finally, in 1866, Prussia was so prepared. So, Bismarck provoked a war with

Austria. In the Battle of Sadowa (1866) he gave Austria a crushing defeat. Within

6 weeks Austrian empire was routed.

• So, northern German states were integrated with Prussia, in the Treaty of Prague

(1866).Withthis,morethan 50%unification

was completed.

• Before the war began, Bismark had ensured

French and Russian neutrality, while Italy

was on the Prussian side, to gain Venetia.

• In the battle of Sadowa, it was not Austria,

rather France which was defeated.

• Bismarck now dissolved the Austria-dominated

German Confederation and replaced with North

German Confederation.

• Austria was excluded from German affairs,

and the North German Confederation, led

by Prussia, emerged asthe dominant power

in northern and central Germany.

• Prussia-dominated Reichstag was also

established to represent people.

• Zollverin was reconstituted with enlarged

territories.

▪ The new Zollverein was stronger, in that no individual state had a veto.

• A key feature of the North German Confederation was its unified military

structure. This military cooperation not only enhanced the confederation's

defense capabilities but also underscored Prussia's dominance.

• Phase 3: Integration of South German states

Frenchpoliticalcartoon:Bismarck

is shown sewing together the

German states into a nation

dominated by Prussia. The

caption reads "It is one thing to

know how to use a needle.... But

it's a skill that should not be

abused."

• South German states were close to France because of their Catholic religion.

Bismarck had to first create a division between them. Bismarck used German

Nationalism for bringing southern German states into his fold.

• Bismarck consciously created tension with France and provoked a war by leaking

the edited version of Ems Telegram, to hurt both French as well as German

sentiments.

• Since he was already prepared for war, he roundly defeated it in the Battle of

Sedan in 1870.

• Then, on the basis of the Treaty of

Frankfurt in 1871, southern German

states were integrated with Prussia.

In this way, German unification was completed.

So, if iron and coal created the basis for

unification, it was blood and iron which gave it a

finishing touch.

Impact of German Unification:

"With the battle of Sedan, Europe lost a mistress and got a master."

• The completion of the process of German unification resulted in the emergence of most

powerful empire in Europe.

• German prestige was highest in whole of Europe. Berlin emerged as the capital of

Germany as well as Europe, because all important decisions were taken in Berlin

under the leadership of Bismarck.

• Till the time Bismarck remained German chancellor (resigned in 1890) not a single

important event took place in entire Europe that was not dictated or directed by

Germany.

• With the unification of Germany, Europe gained a master, and their master replaced that

role of minister played by France.

• The French influence in Europe had been mild. It was positive because France

spread the ideas of revolution in whole of Europe these liberal and progressive

ideas propagated by France were liberating in nature. France was a leader of

Europe ideologically.

• While France enjoyed soft power in Europe, but German dominance was an

example of hard power. The Bismarckian system of alliances ensured that no

country was left in Europe that could stand against German domination.

William is proclaimed German

Emperor in the Hall of Mirrors in

Versailles, France

Comparison between Italian and German Unification

Similarities:

• Geographic division
• Role of Napoleon
• Role of Vienna Congress as an obstacle
• Austria as a common enemy
• Bigger states taking lead - Piedmont Sardinia and Prussia
• Prime Ministers played important role - Cavour and Bismarck
• Use of Diplomacy, war, and nationalism

Differences:

Italy Germany

Obstacles

Role of

intellectual

unification

Leadership

Role of

King and

Monarchy

Method

Wider

Impact

"Diplomacy is war by other means"

Prussian military General Carl von Clausewitz

• Objective and strategy of Bismarck:

• After unification, Now Germany is a satiated power. So, Germany does not need

to make further expansion in any new region.

• Rather it had to work to maintain its unity and integrity.

▪ The nearest danger that Germany faced was from France which was

humiliated in Sedan

▪ So, Bismark's objective was to isolate France completely in European

politics. So that France would not dare to retaliate without

support/help/friends.

▪ Grand Strategy:

• Among the six powers of Europe except for Germany and France,

the other four were Britain, Austria, Russia, and Italy.

• Here the grand strategy of Bismarck was to bring three powers

much near to Germany and the fourth-one should not very distant

from Germany.

• If a war takes place, then French isolation would be over and both Germany and

France would have to take opposite sides. So, another major concern of Bismarck

was to avert any possible war.

▪ Just after German unification, in 1873, at Berlin, Bismarck organized a

conference of three emperors - German (Hohenzollern), Austrian

(Hapsburg) and Russian (Romanov).

• Symbolically, this was organized against Republican France (third

republic founded in 1871 after Napoleon III was removed).

• But the basic problem for Bismarck was that the Austrian and

Russianinterestswereatcrossin Balkans.Therewasafundamental

clash of interests and thus, he could not take both these monarchs

together for a long time.

• Clashof Interestamong Europeanpowersin Balkanregionledto Berlin Congressof 1878

• In 1878 Britain and Austria were offended at the behavior of Russia in the Balkan

Region and on this issue Berlin Congress was convened.

• This was presided over by Bismarck. Here, Bismarck did not work as a neutral

broker. He rather sided with Austria and Britain.

▪ Bismarck decided that the place where the problem started - Bosnia and

Harzegovina-shouldbeputunderthepatronageof Austria.Thiswasquite

disturbing to Serbia and Russia both.

▪ On the other hand, Bismarck wanted to keep Britain in good humor. So,

Britain gained Cyprus, so he favoured Britain as well.

• Consequence - Beginning of a Treaty System.

• Its natural consequence was a treaty between Austria and Germany. So, the

double alliance was created in 1879. It was a defensive alliance. (Dual Alliance

between Germany-Austria in 1879).

▪ When Italyjoinedit,the Dual Alliancewastransformed into Triple Alliance

in 1882.

• Not simply that, Bismarck even signed the treaty of Re-assurance with Russia in

1. In this treaty, there was a provision that if any third party attacks either of

them, none of them would support that third party. This treaty was signed for

three years. (Triple alliance was defensive treaty but re-assurance is little less the

collective defence. It only translated as - if in future France invades Germany then

Russia would not extent support to France against Germany)

Foreign policy under Emperor Kaiser William

• First Reversal: Russia

• Although Bismarcksignedatreaty with Austria,hewasnotwillingtoisolate Russia

as well. He followed a policy of balance between the two.

• However,Kaiser Williamintroducedapro-Austrianpolicywhileneglecting Russia.

He allowedthe Re-assurance treatyto lapse after 3 years.Bismarck, in frustration,

resigned in 1890 from the post of Chancellor. It was the first reversal.

• William Kaiser allowed Austria to annex Bosina-Herzegovina which created

major rift between Austria-Russia. And since in the meanwhile, re-assurance

treaty was lapsed, Russia drifted towards France.

• In 1894, France and Russia signed a treaty of Double Entente.

• Second reversal: Britain

• Bismarck was not willing to antagonize Britain. He avoided giving any challenge to

her naval supremacy, but William Kaiser started to give a challenge to the naval

supremacy of Britain.

• Third Reversal: Britain

• Bismarck was inclined to confine Germany to its European bounds (satiated

power) but William Kaiser gave emphasis on weltpolitik (World Policy). In other

words, William Kaiser was willing to follow the expansion in Asia and Africa also.

• Britain found that in the continent there was a Triple Alliance between Germany-Austria-

Italy.Andthenthere was Double Ententebetween Franceand Russia.Britainrealized that

it was isolated.

• It moved towards France and signed a separate double entente in 1904. This

happened because Britainhadalong-seatedhatred against Russiahistorically,and

it chose not to enter into Triple Entente suddenly. Thus, it was a separate treaty.

• Now on one hand there was a Triple Alliance (Ge-Au-It) and two Double Ententes (Br-Fr,

Rs-Fr).

• This separate treaty emboldened William Kaiser even more, who was sure that the bear

and whale could never go together. But this miracle happened in history, and both went

together in WW 1. Why?

• Britain was undoubtedly irritated at Russia over the Great Game. So, in the East

Britain signed Anglo-Japanese Treaty with Japan in 1902. It emboldened Japan,

which was an Asian power.

▪ For the first time a reputed western power signed such a treaty with Asian

power on equal footing.

▪ Japan got so much emboldened and even challenged giant Russia and

crushing defeat despite being a pigmy country.

• Russia came to its sense that it is not wise to antagonize Britain any further. So, it

assured Britain about its future and in 1907, there was a treaty between Russia

and Britain Thus, it led to Triple Entente - the two Double Ententes were recasted

into one single Triple Entente in 1907.

Why did Kaiser William make a reversal of the policy of Bismarck?

• William Kaiser represented the aspiration of the German capitalist class, which was in

search of a vast market at the cost of the British capitalist class. So, this factor compelled

William Kaiser to search for new colonies, even outside of Europe.

• However, William Kaiser was mistaken to think that British can be pressurized by

challenging their supremacy and then they would be ready to share the colonies with

Germany. Instead, his policy resulted in a counter-reaction from Britain. It came near to

France and Russia and there was the formation of a Triple Entente which consisted of

Britain, France and Russia in 1907.

Did Bismarck become successful in his foreign policy after 1870?

Although Bismarck got initial success because, as a result of his policy during his tenure,

France was isolated, and the situation of war was averted in Europe. However, in the long

term, his policy turned out to be a failure and led to WWI.

• During his earlier tenure, Bismarck demanded changes in Europe and through giving a

military challenge to the power equation of Europe, he could unify Germany. But after

unification during his second tenure as a chancellor, he became an ardent follower of the

policy of status-quo in Europe. But here, Bismarck was mistaken. The forces of change

could never be reversed, it was not wise to work against the tide of History.

• Bismarck was inclined to keep Germany within its European bounds, but the demand of

the German capitalist class and ultra-German nationalists was to go for expansion. So,

he was rejected by these forces.

• Bismarck's foreign policywas too complex, but hedid not develop any successor to carry

his foreign policy further after him.

That's why the Bismarckian system collapsed in course of time.

• Nationalism produced both the impact, unifying as well as dividing, on Europe in the

19 th century.

• In context of Italy and Germany, it produced a unifying impact. That's why Italy

and Germany emerged as a modern nation.

• But in the context of old empires of Europe like Ottoman Empire, Habsburg

Empire, and Russian Empire it produced a destabilizing impact.

• Eastern Europe

• The countries of western Europe progressively transitioned into modern nation-

states as modern nationalism rose in Europe, but the empires of eastern Europe

continued to be of a mediaeval type.

• They were an empire made up of many different languages, regions, and races.

These ethnic groupings were acting as if they were different nationalities.

• These empires steadfastly worked to uphold their unity and integrity through the

use of the monarchy, bureaucracy, and military. Hence, the old empires,

particularly the Ottomanand Habsburg Empires,continuedtoresistpressure from

various socioeconomic classes throughout the 19 th century.

• As a result of this continuous pressure, the First World War eventually broke out.

• The situation of the Ottoman Empire was quite different from other contemporary

empires. By the beginning of 19 th century, it was converted into a sick man of Europe.

There were several factors that contributed to the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the

19 th century.

▪ One was the empire's long-standing economic and administrative problems,

which had been compounded by the cost of maintaining a large and expensive

military. Thismade it difficult for the Ottoman state to keep up with the economic

and technological changes that were taking place in Europe.

▪ Another factor was the empire's multiethnic and multicultural makeup, which

made it difficult to maintain political unity and led to internal divisions and

conflicts. This was particularly true in the Balkans, where nationalist movements

were seeking independence from Ottoman rule.

▪ It was suffering from religious strife as well - as the ruler was Muslim while the

majority of subject people from Balkans Christians.

• In addition, unlike Russia/Hapsburg, the Ottoman Empire continuously faced

external pressureand intervention from European powers,who were competing

for influence and territory in the region.

▪ So, different European powers were having their greedy glance over the

Ottoman Empire and they were inclined to benefit from their weak

position.

▪ Thisledtoaseriesof militarydefeatsandterritorial lossesforthe Ottoman

state, including the loss of Egypt, Greece, and parts of the Balkans.

• As the interest of the European power collided with each other, so, there was a big

confusion in their policy towards Turkey in the Ottoman Empire. So, the Ottoman Empire

was neither permitted to survive, nor to die. It was in this duality in the approach of

European power that the Eastern Question (Balkan Question) laid in that time.

• Colliding interests of various powers:

• Russia was a neighbor of the Ottoman Empire.

▪ Theshort-termobjectivewastohavecontrolovertwostraits,Dardanelles

and Bosporus. So that, Russia could come directly to the Mediterranean

Sea from the Black Sea.

▪ The long-term objective was to make a complete dismemberment of the

Ottoman Empire and to capture a larger chunk of it.

• Austrian Empire was also a neighbouring region.

▪ Due to shared ethnic compositions with Ottoman Empire, Austria was

about any ethnic-national movement emerging within Ottoman Empire.

• Britain was much suspicious about the Russian move.

▪ She was worried about two things:

• Balance of power in Europe in case of Ottoman disintegration
• Route to eastern empire

▪ That's why Britain always opposed to dismemberment of the Ottoman

Empire but simultaneously, it was inclined to take some concessions from

it.

• France had invested a lot in Egypt which was a part of the Ottoman Empire at that

time. So, France was much concerned about its investment.

• In this way, the interests of European powers collided with each other and it was this

collision of interests that made the matter more complicated. This is known as Eastern

Question and Eastern Question always became an international question.

Disintegration of Ottoman Empire

From the beginning of the 19 th century due to the rise of modern nationalism, the Ottoman

Empire faced racial/ethnic tensions. The intervention by the European powers complicated

the process of disintegration.

• Greece: A nationalist movement started in Greece in 1820 s.

• The Christian powers of Europe intervened in the matter on the behalf of Greece.

So, Greece got independence in 1832.

• Formation of Romania

• Wallachian Revolution of 1848: liberal constitution
• Moldavian Revolution of 1848: liberal constitution
• In 1859, Romanian population from Ottoman Empire got separated and there was

the creation of separate Union of the Principalities (two principalities of Wallachia

and Moldaviawere united). The new state was known asthe United Principalities

of Wallachia and Moldavia. It was later renamed as Romania in 1866.

• The Crimean War (1853-56) (Russia v/s France, Britain, and Ottoman)

• Causes:

• The Eastern Question
• Russian expansionism:
• Tsar Nicholas I wanted to expand its territory towards Balkans,

increase influence in Eastern Europe.

• Additionally,therewereterritorialdisputes between Russiaandthe

Ottoman Empire over areas such as the Crimea and the Danubian

principalities.

• Greek Orthodox Church was supported by Russian Tsar.
• France: Napoleon III had to follow aggressive foreign policy to bring glory

to the French people as a consequence. France traditionally supported

Catholic Church of Pope.

• In Jerusalem, both Roman Catholic monks and Greek Orthodox monks

inhabited the city. So, when the differences appeared between the two,

both Russia and France had to intervene to protect the respective

interests.

• British interests: Great Britain wanted to maintain its access to the Black

Sea trade routes.

• Balance of power issue:
• Russia always tried to invade India through either Afghanistan

route or Tibet route during the Great Game. It also tried to

dismember the Ottoman Empire and enter Balkans/Med sea.

• So, British quickly came to support France and offered help to LN III

to maintain the Bo P. Both British and French gave assurance of

support to Ottoman Caliph.

• The war was marked by several significant battles, including the Siege of

Sevastopol, and resulted in the defeat of Russia.

• The Treaty of Paris (1856) ended the war

• It recognized the Ottoman Empire as a European power.
• It limited the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea
• Severalterritorialchanges,includingthetransferof the Crimeafrom Russia

to the Ottoman Empire.

• The Crimean War has been called the "most useless war": Perceived lack of

strategic or long-term significance.

• Although the war resulted in the defeat of Russia and limited its

expansionism, it did not lead to any significant changes in the balance of

power in Europe.

• Trajectory of Serbia and Bulgaria (both Slav people)

Serbian nationalism:

• Desire for independence and the creation of a

larger, pan-Serbian state that included other Slavic

populations in the region. They were supported by

Russia.

• Thus, conflict with the Ottoman Empire, which

controlled much of the Balkans.

• The Serbian Revolution (1848-1850): A rebellion in

the Principality of Serbia against Ottoman rule,

which resulted in the recognition of Serbian

autonomy.

• Serbian-Ottoman War of 1876-78 resulted in the

establishment of an independent Serbia, but also

created new tensions between Serbia and its

neighbors.

Bulgarian nationalism

• Wanted independence and

creating a larger state that

included other Slavic

populations in the region.

• Russo-Turkish War of 1877-

78, in which Bulgaria played a

significant role, led to the

creation of an autonomous

Bulgarian state.

• However, the country

remained ethnically diverse,

and tensions between

Bulgarian majority and

Turkish/Greek minority

persisted.

Competition between Bulgaria and Serbia for leadership in the Pan-Slavic movement.

• Both countries saw themselves as natural leaders of the Slavic peoples
• Both sought to promote their own regional interests within broader Pan-Slavism.

The competition between Bulgaria and Serbia came to a head in the Balkan Wars (1912-

1913).

• The Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878): This war marked the beginning of the end for the

Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Bosnia-Herzegovina (Slav populated region in Ottoman

area)wasincitedtorise against Ottomans.Serbiansand Russiansupportedit.Russiaeven

crossed Bulgaria and reached Turkeyand attacked it.The Ottomansweredefeated bythe

Russian Empire, and as a result, they were forced to sign the Treaty of San Stefano,

▪ Independence: Romania, Serbia, Montenegro.

▪ Autonomy: Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

▪ The first attempt to establish autonomous Greater Bulgaria under Russian

protection. Thisprovision fueled nationalist sentiments among Slavs in the region.

▪ As per the treaty, only Russian warship was to ply in Black Sea and no other

European countries were allowed to come to Black Sea.

• This threatened British interests. So, PM

Disraeli made Russia submit the treaty to

European powers. At Berlin Congress (1878)

Russia's military-political gains were severely

restricted. In this congress:

▪ Independence and enlargement of

Serbia was confirmed.

• Enlargement: Access to the

Adriatic Sea via the newly

established state of

Montenegro.

▪ Bosnia-Herzegovina were taken from

the Ottoman Empire and put under the protectorate of the Hapsburg Empire.

• Theoccupationincreasedtensionsin the Balkans.Serbiawasoffended and

Russia was disturbed. In future, the rivalry between Austria and Serbia

became the immediate cause for the Word War One.

▪ Autonomy to Bulgaria in reduced size.

• It created a semi-autonomous region of Bulgaria with a Christian ruler and

its own constitution.

• It greatly reduced the size of Greater Bulgaria (created by San Stephano)
• Thelossofterritorywasasignificantblowto Bulgariannationalaspirations,

and it led to significant resentment among the Bulgarian population.

• It created a strong revanchist demand in Bulgaria. The nationalist demand

continued and in 1912 it became one of many causes of the First Balkan

War.

• 1885:
• A nationalist movement started among the Bulgan population

under the Ottoman Empire.

• Russia, as it was alreadyfrustrated with Berlin Congress, supported

the cause of the Bulgan population, encouraged them to be free

from Ottoman.

• With Russian backup, Bulgaria annexed Eastern Rumelia in 1885.

(bloodless revolution). So, there was a creation of unified Bulgaria

again to some extent.

• This was a rupture of the European Order created by the Berlin

Conference. So, Hapsburg, Britain, Italy - all were offended at this

point, and it created a war-like situation.

• 1908
• Bulgarian declared independence in 1908 completely from

Ottomans.

• Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is seen as a

blow to Slavic nationalism in the region.

• Young Turk movement (1908-18):

▪ In reaction to the expansionist policy of European powers, nationalism in various

minorities in Balkan and declining position of the Ottoman Empire, a group of

young Turks reacted, and they decided to bringthe Ottoman Empire out of dismal

condition.

▪ So, they captured the government and established constitutional rule in 1908.

They also implemented a number of significant reforms in the areas of education,

law, and public administration, which aimed to modernize and secularize the

Ottoman state.

▪ Butthemeasurestakenbyyoung Turksprovedafailureinhistory.Thereweretwo

problems:

• Young Turks' commitment to modernization and reform was often

accompanied by authoritarian tendencies and suppression of political

dissent.

• Theyemphasized Turkishnationalisminreactionto the Greek/Slav/Bulgan

ethnic nationalisms. This measure proved counterproductive. Some critics

have rightly told, "young Turks started the wind of nationalism and in

return, they had to face the whirlpool of nationalism."

• In particular, nationalist movements among non-Turkish ethnic groups,

such as the Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds, emerged in response to Turkish

nationalism. Their policies led to territorial losses to the Ottoman Empire.

▪ In reaction to young Turks, in 1912, Balkan states like Greece, Romania, Serbia,

Bulgaria etc. invaded the Ottoman Empire. So, it resulted in the Balkan wars.

• Two Balkan Wars (1912, 1913)
• Conflictsbetween the Ottoman Empireand several Balkanstates,including

Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Bulgaria.

• The Balkan stateswerevictorious,andasa result,the Ottoman Empirelost

almost all of its remaining territory in the Balkans.

▪ Attheendofthe First Balkan war,Europeanpowersintervened and inthe London

Conference

• They forced the Ottoman Empire to cede most of its remaining European

territory to the Balkan states.

• An independent nation, Albania, was created.
• During/After World War 1

▪ Britain, France, and Russia planned the dismemberment of the Ottoman

Empire, which was aligned with the Central Powers during the Great War.

▪ Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916)

• A secret agreement between Britain and France to divide up the

Ottoman Empire into respective spheres of influence.

▪ Treaty of Sèvres (1920)

• Between the Allied powers and the Ottoman Empire.
• Creation of an independent Armenia, an independent Kurdistan, and

the partition of the Ottoman Empire's Arab territories between Britain

and France.

▪ However, these plans were not fully

realized, as the Turkish War of

Independence,ledby Mustafa Kemal

Atatürk, ultimately resulted in the

formation of the modern-day

Republic of Turkey in 1923.

▪ He signed the Treaty of Lausanne as

revised treaty, and his leadership in

the war cemented his position as the

founder of the Turkish Republic.

• Creation of Turkey as a modern nation

under Mustafa Kemal Pasha: The remaining part of Turkey was converted it into a

modern westernized nation-state by Mustafa Kemal Pasha.

▪ He abolished the Caliphate.

▪ Breaking with the past

• Changed the names of various towns to create a new identity and not

medieval Islamic identity (eg Istanbul)

• In place of Friday, Sundays were declared to be holidays on European

pattern.

• Maulavi cap was banned while European hats were encouraged.

▪ Westernisation

• In place of Arabic script - Roman script
• Western science, education, technology was promoted.

▪ Industrialization was promoted.

Disintegration of Habsburg Empire

• The Habsburg Empire was a medieval empire, and it was carrying the legacy of the Holy

Roman Empire.Later,Habsburgkingsbecamethehereditarykingsof the Austrianempire.

• Like the Ottoman Empire, even the Habsburg Empire was multi-racial, multi-lingual and

multi-regional in character.

• In the population of the Austrian empire

• Germans were in majority.
• Magyar community (Hungarians) was the second.
• Slavs formed the third major community.

• During the medieval age, it faced the challenge from regionalism and during the

modern age it got the challenge from nationalism to its unity and integrity.

• On many occasions, the Austrian Empire tried to promote administrative centralization,

but it did not get success.

• When in 1866 Austria was defeated at the hand of Prussia in the Battle of Sadowa then

the Austrianempirewascompelledtogiveamajorconcessionto the Magyarcommunity.

• There was the creation of dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. Under this, Austria

and Hungary were co-equal in power. The two states conducted common foreign,

defense, and financial policies, but all other governmental faculties were divided

among respective states. It lasted from 1867 to 1918.

• Uptothe First World War,itsaveditselfbutwhenitlostthewarthealliedpowersdivided

it into different nations and new nations

• Austria, Hungary
• New states: Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia

Disintegration of Russian Empire

• The Russian Empire wasa multi-racial Empire like the Ottoman/Habsburg Empire, but the

situation of the Russian Empire was different from both of them.

• In Russia, there was a clear majority of the Slav population.
• Russia maintained its separate Church like the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, the

religious loyalty of the Russian people remained to be undivided.

• In comparison to the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire, Russia adopted

a modernization programme in a better manner.

• Furthermore, except one or two wars, Russia did not lose any major war

• Itwasduetothesefactors,inspiteofthenationalistpressurefromminoritycommunities,

Russia could maintain unity and integrity in a better manner.

• Russia was a party in the First World War on the behalf of allied powers, but it was in

course of the First World War that Russian Revolution took place. Then there was the

formation of a Communist government in Russia.

• This communist government signed a separate peace with Germany in March

1918, and withdrew from the First World War. But it lost one-fourth of the

European region as war compensation.

• Later, European power in Paris Peace Conference created four separate nations

like Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine out of the Russian region.

• Ussr

• But in 1939, USSR came near to Nazi Germany and signed a No Aggression Pact

with Hitler.Onthatbasis,head ofthe USSR,Stalinreconquered the Russianregion

of Lativia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine. So, Russia was re-united.

• Under Stalin, there was the imposition of a tough and strict communist

government in USSR under which there was no scope for the right to expression.

Under the tough government, the racial division in USSR remained to be

dominant.

• But when there was the rise of Gorbachev, a liberal president, in 1980 s, Russian

people regained the right to expression. So, racial division once again re-surfaced

and USSR just collapsed in 1991.