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.