Concluding post

In Grace’s final post she concludes that Peter the Great and Hitler were both totalitarian dictators, differing because they ruled in different time periods. While this is untrue simply for how different Hitler and Peter the Great were, I agree with Grace’s point about the evolution of Totalitarian governments. As Grace pointed out, the goal of all Three dictators, Napoleon included was to “persuade the public...exhibit their power and insure that their power is cemented in history.” All three dictators definitely succeeded in this goal.

My research on Napoleon has led me to regard Napoleon as a short fused, conniving man, always eager to prove himself to the world. This image of him is his stereotypical characterization, he is after all napoleonic. From his rise to power to his views on government and civil liberty, Napoleon changed Europe. He removed class distinctions, thereby created the “modern” state, which led to the possibility of totalitarian tyrants such as Hitler.

Napoleon's rise to power

Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes was French Roman Catholic clergymen, and one of the chief theorists of the French revolution. He instigated the coup d’état that brought Napoleon to power in 1799. He was one of the 5 Directors, and planned to institute a stronger executive. He supported republicanism, but wanted it oriented to the right. At this time the French population didn’t know what they wanted, but they generally did not support the directory. Like when Hitler came to power, the population was unhappy with the existing government, and ready to accept a strong leader that would represent them better. Both Sieyes and Barras, another director, approached Napoleon; curious whether he could fill the position of the strong executive that they needed. Napoleon believed that he had a strong enough reputation that he could win over the population without Sieyes and Barras, but it turned out that he was wrong. He went to meet with Sieyes at Napoleon’s brother’s house, Lucien Bonaparte had just been elected president of the Council of Five Hundred. Napoleon declared that he was ready to support Sieyes in his coup if the government would be provisional pending a new constitution. On November 9, 1799, the council of Elders, under the influence of Sieyes, declared an emergency, and gave Bonaparte command of the troops in Paris, and transferred the houses to St. Cloud, where they would be under less outside influence. The elders voted and agreed to make Napoleon commander. Barras was surprised in his bathroom and forced to resign. Two other directors, Gohier and Moulins, were placed under guard. The next day, the council of 500 started to doubt what they were doing—Napoleon took a squad of soldiers, gave a very bad speech, this was followed by chaos. Napoleon and his brother were dragged to safety.
The houses voted to establish the provisional government, after napoleon’s troops terrorized them. Sieyes, Ducos, and Napoleon were named provisional consuls of the regime.
Before he had even seized power, Napoleon had printed proclamations and broadsheets declaring him a hero. The fact that he did this without Sieyes’s knowledge shows that his intention was more self-centered than truly wanting a better government for France. This idea of promoting himself as a hero can be compared to Hitler’s self promotion and demagoguery.

Paving the way for Hitler

After Napoleon conquered Prussia in 1807, reforms were instituted that changed the general political structure of the country so that the middle class became “free” and the noble class lost its privileges. This effectively changed Prussia from an enlightened despotism to a “modern” nation state, which would eventually become the German Reich. It was this change that first sparked a new wave of anti-Semitism in Prussia. In Prussia the emphasis on freedom and equality, and free trade led to anti-Semitism; not simply because of their financial success, in 1812 an emancipation edict reassured the fact that Jews did have equal rights. In reality however, the edict only affected the wealthy and useful Jewish groups who were already privileged—this angered the aristocracy who had just lost their privileges.
The aristocracy was so outraged, that it chose a spokesman who submitted a lengthy petition to the government arguing against Jews receiving special advantages—he spoke of the transformation of the old awe-inspiring Prussian monarchy into a new-fangled Jew-state.
The state had been transformed, not into a Jewish state, but modern state, with the majority of the wealth in the hands of the middle class, many of whom were Jews. The nobles and the wealthy Jews were both opposed to the middle class centered government that praised the individual above all else. Both aristocratic and Jewish culture emphasized family, and ones duty to family as more important than the individual. Both groups considered national allegiance second to loyalty to the family.
By eliminating the privileges of the aristocrats that he conquered, Napoleon helped pave the way for a modern Europe, with a large middle class. He also laid the foundation for stronger anti-Semitism and the possibility for rulers such as Hitler.

Napoleon and civil liberties

Like the other dictators, Napoleon was restrictive of civil liberties in order to better control the general will of the population. Unlike many dictators of the world however, Napoleon’s aim in doing this was to insure equality in his empire as best as he could, while continuing on with his conquest. He took this idea from the ancient Romans, who inspired the Napoleonic codes. He went even farther than the Romans, abolishing hereditary nobility and class privileges. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Napoleonic codes were the first set of laws to be based on reason rather than ancient customs.
Though Napoleon was generally loyal to the Revolutionary ideals, incorporating many of them into the Napoleonic cods, he repressed many liberties gained during the revolution. He eliminated republicanism and required that all printers swear an oath of obedience to him, the emperor; newspapers only published what came from the government. Printers and booksellers were forbidden to circulate “anything which may involve injury to the duties of subjects toward the sovereign or the interests of the state. In addition the codes denied equal treatment to workers in disputes with employers, women were subject to their husbands, children were subject to their fathers
Napoleon favored equality before the law, and equality of opportunity as necessary for a well-run state, but he believed that political liberty was inefficient and threatened the state with anarchy. He would govern in the interest of the people as an enlightened yet absolute ruler.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, like Hobbes believed that in the natural state humans are competitive and warlike, and will eventually result in a master-slave relationship. With that idea in mind, Hegel argued that “war has in it the deep meaning that by it the ethical health of the nation is preserved and their finite aims uprooted.” People must win wars in order to continue to be recognized as the master. This thinking was wildly influential on Mussolini, who believes that “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.” Mussolini concludes that statement arguing that War is the only trial that decides between life and death—this is opinion is similar the Hobbes’ idea that man is naturally either a master or a slave.
Napoleon, perhaps took Hegel’s ideas closest to heart; he definitely shared the view on war that Hegel and Mussolini felt. Napoleon waged continual war, fearing that he would lose prestige and honor if he stopped winning battles. Looking at Napoleon in this way, I can’t help but consider him an early fascist. Or was he simply

Though I definitely agree with Danielle’s point that there is a connection between Hitler’s fascist state, and the ideas based in the theory of the general will; it seems obvious that there is a connection between the general will and all states—people generally tend to form opinions about most things, and even without the right to, some will express their feelings. I would like to add to Danielle’s point, and say that the link between Rousseau and Fascism is an opposing link. According to Mussolini’s
“What is Fascism” “Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.” In case you both lost your sheets that Cas gave us, here is a nice definition of fascism.
the two philosophers that I would give credit to for the idea of fascism are Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche. In Hegel’s discussion of the state he uses the metaphor of the human body, in which the humans are individuals that only serve true purpose or function, when they are part of the whole, the whole being the state. To me, it seems like this is directly influenced by Hobbes, rather than by Rousseau.

to ban communism from itself?

Prior to this class I had always though of Gorbachev as Russian who finally realized that communism doesn’t work. I don’t’ believe this to be the case any more, though considering his predecessors, his liberal demeanor still astonished me for the better. In the Transcript of Russian Federation Duma Session with USSR President Gorbachev, Gorbachev mentions that he was asked “whether socialism should be banned from the USSR and the Communist Party disbanded as a criminal organization.” I was rather shocked to read this. That socialism and the Communist party can be outlawed in Russia perplexes me since less than half a century before socialism and the Communist party were considered more important than the state itself. Gorbachev plainly states that he cannot dissolve the communist party, because he “will never agree to qualify millions of workers and peasants as criminals” and not for the glory and survival of communism. If such a thing had been even referenced to Stalin, it would have been a very different situation for the person who asked the question.

What comes to mind when one thinks of democracy?

When I think of democracy the first things that come to mind are universal suffrage and civil liberties. These were, as the socialist T.H. Marshall pointed out, influenced by enlightenment thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries, such as John Locke. However, when I think about the bureaucracy enveloped in our own democracy, I can’t help but notice socialist elements that would perhaps dilute the true definition of a democratic republic. Marshall argues that the 20th century would bring a much larger range of social rights, including rights to provide protection of economic interests, and welfare and security for its citizens. Though he is a socialist, the compilation of his ideas are what I define as democracy, the modern democratic state is a welfare state.

Why didn’t we blow ourselves up?

We didn’t blow ourselves up because nobody wanted to make a first strike. Neither side knew the full extent of its enemy’s military power…the Russians could always have a bigger bomb, or simply more of them. The USSR and US were immobilized by fear associated with the assumption that the world is ending, an outcome that neither state wanted to be responsible for.
As fun as I found the simulation, there is a flaw to it. We all wanted to blow each other up, because it would be silly and fun…not in real life. In real life, it seems to me, some of the things that we did would have been absurd, but perhaps it just seems that way to me because I know how the Cold War ended. For example, I am fairly certain that Russia would not tolerate nukes in Japan, as the US wouldn’t approve of nukes in Mexico. I know as an example from the other class that the USSR took over Ireland, simply to mess with Declan. Would the Russians have expressed any interest in Ireland in the real world? I highly doubt it, but the Russians in the other class decided it would be fun.
Now, I know that it is a simulation, and that nothing can be perfect, but the game is set up so that each team wants to nuke each other, because total victory on both sides sounds lame and boring—but that’s what happened, and I’m glad of it.

Should we have used the bomb?

I am certainly not suggesting that thousands of Japanese civilians deserved to die, but I believe that in the long run the use of the atomic bomb was not a mistake. I think the use of the bomb was justified—it ended the war. It has been criticized because the bomb was dropped on civilians without warning. Some argue that the bomb should have been shown to the Japanese, that they simply needed to understand the power of the bomb, and they would surrender. These people are wrong. The Japanese hung in, even when being firebombed by the US (which killed more Japanese than the two bombs combined), and attacked by Britain, and China, there is no way that the Japanese would have surrendered after a simple demonstration—they didn’t surrender after it was used! We mention the firebombing today, but it doesn’t have nearly the same weight as the nukes. This is of course because a nuke is one bomb, as opposed to many. Either way though, the end is the same, people become obliterated on a large scale—if those attacks are justifiable, in my opinion, so was the use of the bomb.

that's not change, that's more of the same

The textbook makes the point, on several occasions, that Khrushchev believed Stalin to have been overzealous and overly repressive. As a result of Stalin’s brutality many Soviets wanted reform. Coming to power in 1956, a whole three years after Stalin died, Khrushchev gained control of the Communist party and attempted to appease the masses, while of course, protecting the party. New freedoms were available, which meant that maintaining absolute control over the country, like Stalin had, would be much more difficult. After Khrushchev took power thousands were release from the Soviet prison camps. This new reform, when scrutinized, proved to be a façade; Alexander Solzhenitsyn was released after 8 years in a prison camp; he had been sent there originally because of a letter he wrote criticizing Stalin. Once he was released he started working on a book, reflecting on his own experience in a gulag. This book was published in 1973, twenty years since Stalin died; yet Solzhenitsyn was arrested a year later for treason. For publishing his victimization at the hands of his own government, and emphasizing a point made by Khrushchev himself, Solzhenitsyn was exiled for treason. That this happened shows that in those twenty years since Stalin’s death, no social progress was made.

Replaceable?

In response to Danielle’s post, I do think it would have been very different. However, It is true, especially in Hitler’s case, that there was a very strong sense of anti-Semitism and a general feeling of betrayal emanating throughout Germany. Hitler was definitely not personally responsible for the millions of deaths, I would actually point as much of the Blame at Heinrich Himmler, who actually oversaw the concentration and extermination camps. Though he might have been as ruthless and evil, Himmler was in charge of the SS and may not have had the manipulative skills which Hitler possessed. In response to Danielle’s question about whether another Frenchman would have stepped in if Napoleon were absent, I believe the answer is no. I believe that Napoleon was unique, though at the time of his rise to power France was ripe for change, nobody expected Napoleon to take on the kind of power which he did, he had originally been chosen to be a figurehead, only to go on and stage a coup d'état. I have never considered Napoleon to be a tyrant, even after studying him this year; I consider him to be a brilliant, but egotistical leader who could not have been replaced by anybody, let alone another Frenchman.

I guess that I should respond

In response to Danielle’s choosing of Hitler as her main focus, I claim Napoleon. As one of the earlier benevolent dictators in modern European history, I plan on comparing his system of direct control with those of Hitler, and whomever grace chooses (Peter the Great), and judging them on the basis of economic progress and support and happiness of the people. I will have to be careful that I am comparing the different systems under similar conditions, all three “tyrants” as Danielle puts it in her blog, waged major wars, but their people were affected differently by them. It would be interesting to talk about what could have happened to the state if their respective totalitarian leader had never taken power. Without Napoleon, for instance, there would have been far less of a squabble over the balance of power. Without Peter the Great would Russia have been able to keep up with Europe? Without each of these leaders millions of peoples’ lives could have been spared, was any of it worth it?

the debate

Question: Is fascism a viable form of government that can meet the needs of the governed?

The fascists (Nick, Laura, Liz, Alex): Had a persuasive opening statement on why capitalism and liberal democracy have led to a loss of common purpose and to failure, and that in its place needed to be a new birth of unity. While this was a very good argument against a democratic government, that is not who they were debating. They were debating Anti-fascists, as Mia pointed out, they were not necessarily democrats. After Nick’s statement Charlie pointed out that Fascism was too militaristic, he held that a belief that war was necessary for human progress would inevitably lead to disaster. It took the fascists some time to respond to this. Nick and Laura tried to gain the offensive, claiming that the values established by the entire state could not be incorrect, but Mia was able to regain the offensive by calling the stability generated by fascism forced, which would lead to revolts.

The other folk (Charlie, Sam, Justine, Grace, Mia): Did not have an actual stance on a form of government that would be better than Fascism. Charlie quickly rebuffed Nick’s point about the safety and stability created by Fascism, claiming that these are illusions, and the people actually become more vulnerable. From this point on, mostly because the other folk didn’t actually have a platform to defend, they were on the offensive. When Mia questioned the ideal of Fascism, as well as how they would establish it; the fascists took some time, they even tried to sidestep the question. Once Nick responded, however, Justine was able to refute his point about Fascism keeping deviants from performing evil acts by asking how the fascists judged what evil was.

In general the anti-fascists, or other folk, had the advantage, because there wasn’t anything for the fascists to attack, and they were therefore forced on the defensive. Disregarding this however, as the teams were chosen randomly, I award the victory to the anti-fascists.

the sense in fascism

The way that the fascists operated insured that their tradition was undermined. Rather than preserving tradition, as a good nationalist would, the fascists were more interested in maintaining control over the minds of the people, and therefore control of the state. The fascists used their influence to convince people that they needed to do what was best for the state, and not necessarily what was best for them. They enforced tradition, like religion, by declaring that all marriages were non-secular, but at the same time, a deal was made with the Vatican, giving independence to the pope—so that he no longer has any political power in Italy. The fascists were good at rallying the people, to make them feel spirited. They are like a huge sports arena, full of energized fans that have no role in the game itself; however they are made to feel like they are part of the team.

In both Grace's post and Danielle's post, they argue that the Bolsheviks were able to take power by taking advantage of the chaos that gripped the land. I would definitely have to agree. As Danielle pointed out, the Russian army was making minimal progress against the Germans considering their death toll—this led to many deserters and a feeling amongst the soldiers that they were underappreciated by their governments, which they were. Sentiments were low at home as well—Nicholas II was busy trying to forcefully assimilate non Russian peoples under his rule. As a result of this Russification the Finns lost their constitution, the poles had nothing to call a home, and during all of this there were waves of violent anti-Semitism that were ignored by the government. In 1903 the Social Democratic Party split, yielding the majority party of the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. Then in 1905 after “Bloody Sunday” the tsar pledged individual liberties, and a more democratic Duma. This was revoked less than two years later. By the time of the Great War the Russian peasants had been convinced that they needed to overthrow the tsar.

Truly Modern History

Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points illustrate the kind of political thought that today, we consider logical. The horrors of the Great War rocked the world so hard that it became more humane. It was after the second great wave of colonization that the War began; a war in which there were great advances in technology that had not been met by advances in strategy, leading to absolutely senseless killings and sacrifices. It appears to me that the officers and soldiers were either too stupid or lazy to realize their mistakes, which were never corrected until the very end of the war. The hundreds of thousands of deaths on all sides showed the world that something was wrong with it, and it needed to be fixed everywhere. In his fourteen points Wilson calls for free trade, shared waters, the restoration of a more balanced Europe, and a covenant of nations—in a sense uniting the world into one nation that cares for all of its citizens equally. This is a radical change from common interests and opinions prior to the war. He shows a concern for the interests and sovereignty of colonial populations, considering their well being to be as important as the economic interests of the homeland. To me this is very significant; I have gotten used to interpreting history as motivated by peoples’ self-interest, either for leisure or wealth. Humanity was never a motivation, its sudden appearance is truly modern.

MORE Globalization!

Globalization was further hastened during the 19th century from a sudden explosion of state-sponsored education all across Europe, which led to a much higher literacy rate than before. According to our text book, 85% of Europe was literate by 1900, compared to 50% in 1850; with this higher number, came massive profits for media and advertising, which were obviously less useful industries before. The mass of new readers meant a higher demand for newspapers, and to supply this demand mass media included ads in their papers, which allowed the papers to be produced more cheaply. With newspapers available and affordable to the general public, spreading ideas across all of Europe became easy. The entire educated world was now connected through media, which led further to the globalization of the economy.

The First Stages of Globalization

Though the direct effects of imperialism are often balked at, the relationships established during this period led to the modern world, which is undeniably interconnected in understanding and respect. The puppet governments and foreign outposts that appeared in colonized lands were often cruel and considerably barbaric in their drives to control natural resources and make profit. The Belgians felt no pity for the thousands of suffering Congolese, because they were greatly profiting from the rubber business. The entire western world struck out at China after the Boxer Rebellion, in which they justly struck out against the British who had ruined much of their culture during the Opium Wars. After the rebellion, all of Europe banded together, imposing indemnities and new trade concessions. Though this may be considered barbaric today, it established the first stage of the global economy and brought the world much closer together.

¿¡Regressive progress!?

Lenin's argument about imperialism being the anticapitalism is very convincing. The way that countries and individuals, such as Leopold II of Belgium, established companies and outposts in foreign countries was monopolistic--selfish and ultimately doomed to fail. To me the whole process of New Imperialism is a step backwards in time and progress. Europe had acted so fairly after the enlightenment; slavery was abhorred, and democracy and free trade were praised. Now however, the Europeans seem to have lost their sense of rationale. The monopolies that were created in hopes of benefitting select European countries led to a dissapearance of competition, as those who could employ the cheapest labour boxed out the rest. The carnage that took place in the Congo has always befuddled me, even when compared to other mass tradgedies; it shocked me further to realize that this event took place after such a progressive period.

New?

Old Imperialism is defined by "God, gold, and glory." European powers first colonized the Americas in order to find natural resources, the most coveted of which was gold. Since early colonization Europe has practiced the economic theory of mercantilism, they exploited as much of the natural resources as possible, to solely benefit the home country. Once the Europeans saw the large populations of "uncivilized" heathen peoples they felt compelled to Christianize the savages. Both of these goals served one purpose, to heighten the reputation, wealth, and therefore power of an Empire. Arguably, New Imperialism is a new form of imperialism, but in reality it has the same motivations and many of the same techniques as old imperialism did. The idea that Cecil Rhodes had to make Britain self-sufficient was simply a formal version of mercantilism. The Europeans are now interested in much more than gold, but the idea is the same. The difference is that because of the industrial revolution European technology boomed quickly, making ground shattering advancements in weapons and transportation, and therefore making exploitation easier, and more profitable than it had ever been. As it was in old imperialism local populations had to be dealt with. Slavery and forced labor, which had been widely used until this point became very controversial for New Imperialism. There was still the lasting ambition of old imperialism to civilize local populations, and as it was done before, missionaries flooded Africa just as they had done the Americas over a century ago.

response to JED

In response to the post by JED on January 26

Though his intentions may have been masked by the seemingly liberal emancipation of serfs, Alexander II did not emancipate the serfs in order to gain their support. This may very well have been an outcome, and if it was, it’s a double win. I thought that Cas’s argument that Alexander II liberated the serfs in order to exploit them further was very insightful. Although characteristically cynical of him, this remark stuck with me. Alexander II liberated the serfs so that he could use them industrially. He became aware that his nation suffered because it was so far behind the rest of Europe industrially. However, to build industry, he needed workers in the cities. Abolishing serfdom, and making it so that the serfs’ land was worthless drove the serfs into the cities where they became part of the industrial machine.

A Necessary War

The Crimean War, which lasted only two years, 1854-1856, was an unintentional, and very useful, practice run for World War I. Because there hadn’t been a major European war since 1815 there had been many advances in warfare without a change in the actual conduct of war. The fighting style practiced was similar to the Napoleonic era, and proved useless against advances such as artillery and rifles, which could be devastating from a distance. These advances in weaponry could easily mow down charging soldiers, and trenches were dug as a result. This war, though devastating, was a good thing for Europe, otherwise the new technology would have been tested first during World War I. If the Europeans had made the types of mistakes during World War I that they made during the Crimean War, such as the British “charge of the Light Brigade,” the war would have been immeasurably more catastrophic.

The Crimean War also gave the major powers in Europe practice in nation building. They put together the disputed territories of Moldavia and Walachia to form Romania. After World War I, when "self determination of peoples" was an even bigger issue, they ended up creating many new nations including Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

Machiavelli vs Bismarck

Otto von Bismarck reminds me of Machiavelli. Bismarck’s position as the minister-president was similar to that of Machiavelli’s role in the Florentine government; effectively ruling the state under their sovereign’s authority. Like Machiavelli, Bismarck was ingenious and manipulative. His belief that the end justifies the means is evident in the way that he was able to unify Germany. He weakened Austria by exploiting the Hapsburgs’ economic disadvantages as well as their internal ethnic conflicts. However, the most Machiavellian thing that he did was when he provoked the French so that Britain would not intervene. After meeting with the French to discuss the Spanish thrown Bismarck made it seem as though Germany had been snubbed by France, and angered them by suggesting such. He escalated the conflict until France declared war. He was willing to risk fighting a war with France in order to boost nationalism in the remaining independent German states in hopes that they would want to join the cause of the North German Confederation. After the French were defeated, Bismarck organized the remaining German states into an empire with William I as emperor, or Kaiser.
Mission Accomplished.

the good that did arise

When reading about the revolutions of 1848 my first thought was that the revolutions were all political blunders. This was however not the case; although the revolutions did little to actually change policy, the revolutions showed the people in power that if they wanted to maintain their control and order, they would need to make changes in policy in order to prevent the kind of chaotic revolution that arose from an attempt to change from below. An example of this was the reign of Napoleon III. Napoleon III appealed to both workers and the middle classes by legalizing strikes and trade unions and promoting industrial expansion. He rebuilt Paris, though for multiple reasons, improving water and sewer lines in an attempt to improve people’s living conditions. He didn’t necessarily have to spend time or money on these things, but did because it appeased those who would most likely rebel.

Hungry Times

While reading the section in the book on “The Hungry Forties,” I was reminded of the American Great Depression. Based on the hardships that people faced, the measures that they went to during the 1840s to survive seem completely justified to me. Now that I think about, with the very similar conditions, it is amazing to me that there wasn’t a revolt during the Great Depression in the United States. As the book says, hunger is one of the greatest tests of a government’s effectiveness. It made me glad and proud to know that unlike Louis Philippe, FDR was able to cope with the problems the nation was facing and implement the public relief that was needed. Rather than suppress the workers as Louis Philippe did, FDR created the New Deal, to provide the needed relief for the economy, thereby gaining favor among the workers. By implementing the New Deal, FDR created new organizations to provide reform and relief for all workers. Louis Philippe did the opposite of this; rather than try to help the workers, he tried to shut them up by declaring their organizations and clubs illegal, thereby alienating the people and forcing them to rebel. FDR prevented the type of disorganized revolution that could have easily broken out in the United States as it did in France and then spread across the rest of Europe.

19th Century Ideologies

Aristocrats who had been comfortable prior to the disruptions in Europe championed the conservatism that arose after the defeat of Napoleon. Figures such as Edmund Burke believed that the power of reason was dangerous, and things should instead be based on tradition. The whiny aristocracy was in favor of a strong monarchy and powerful nobles; in some instances reverting European politics back to a near feudal system. Conservative ideas were appealing to people who were so terrified by the possible loss of power and stability, that they were willing to embrace a more restricted lifestyle, similar to that prior to the Enlightenment, thereby in a way disregarding all of the efforts and sacrifices that had been made during the period. The two other rising political ideologies, besides a rise in nationalism, were based heavily on individualism and equality. These ideologies were also focused around peace and stability, but lacked the selfishness of the conservatives, thereby gaining many to their cause. Liberals and socialists, contrary to the conservatives embraced the need for change; the liberals were influenced by enlightenment thought and reason and the socialists were most concerned with the problems that arose after the industrial revolution. Neither faction was unaware of recent events, so what liberal ideas they did facilitate, they did carefully. The liberals wanted a constitutional government that would guarantee certain rights of its citizens including an unregulated economy. Though some liberals wanted more republican governments, most were willing to accept forms of monarchies in order to maintain stability. The socialists believed that this stability could only be reached with absolute equality amongst all citizens. The socialists wanted to redistribute power more fairly, so that nobody could be inferior or superior to anybody else, thereby encouraging amity.

After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo Europe scrambled to organize itself, in case any one power should try to become dominant. Rather than individual desires of land domination European powers focused on maintaining peace and balance between European countries. A large group of European powers met at the Congress of Vienna in 1814 to discuss the political state of Europe. Being focused on maintaining balance meant that France could not be overly penalized as it would be needed to help maintain European balance with Russia; its borders were restored to what they had been in 1789 and had to pay to support an occupying allied army.

Europe had been terrified by effects of the Napoleonic era. Rulers quickly realized the devastation of one dominant power, and to prevent this sort of catastrophe from reoccurring they had to be willing to compromise with other powers. During this age treaties, compromises and alliances were formed in hopes of maintaining peace between all nations.