Essays - Euro Qstns Answers..

EUROPEAN HISTORY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS [9155/1]ADVANCED
LEVEL COMPILED BY MR TASARA O [2017]

SECTION A
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
[1]‘The French Revolution was caused largely by errors of omission rather than those of
commission’. Discuss this view of the reasons for the outbreak of the French Revolution.
The 1789 revolution in France was largely caused by what Louis xvi failed to do [errors of
omission]. The errors of omission included Louis xvi’s failure to reform unfair taxation, his
failure to reform the feudal system of government, his failure to reform the autocratic system
of government and his failure to reduce expenditure at the royal court. However, the errors of
commission [what Louis xvi did] also contributed to the outbreak of the French revolution. The
errors of commission are that, Louis xvi’s dismissed able ministers; he sanctioned the
involvement of French forces in the American war of independence and he signed the
commercial treaty with Britain which worsened the economic situation in France.
Errors of omission / Errors omitted
-The errors of omission were largely responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution, for
example, Louis xvi failed to reform unfair taxation which was a burden only to the peasants.
-He failed to reform the class system.
-He failed to reform the feudal system of government which he inherited from his predecessors
-He failed to reform royal absolutism of the ancient regime.
-He did nothing to reduce expenditure at the royal court with Marie Antoinette as the major
culprit hence worsening the financial crisis.
-Nothing was done to promote religious tolerance.
-Nothing was done to alleviate the effects of poor harvests [inflation, unemployment,
starvation, shortage of food and the like.
-He failed to address grievances of the army.
-He failed to solve grievances of the third estate when the estates general meeting was called.
Errors of commission / Errors committed
*However, errors of commission also led to the outbreak of the French revolution; for instance,
Louis xvi withdrew his support from able ministers at critical moments.
-He dismissed competent ministers. For instance, he dismissed Louis xv’s ministers Terray and
Mampeou whose advice could have changed the situation in France. He also dismissed
competent ministers like Turgot, Necker, Calonne and DeBrienne who could have helped to
improve the situation.
-He sanctioned the involvement of French forces in the American war of independence.
-He listened to grievous influence from his wife, Marie Antoinette and the royal entourage.
-He signed the commercial treaty with Britain which worsened the economic situation in France
[1] ‘A revolt against the ancient system of government’ How valid is this assertion to the
outbreak of the French revolution?
The 1789 revolution in France was largely due to the ancient system of government. The
ancient system of government entails royal absolutism, feudal system of government, unfair
taxation, religious intolerance and social stratification. However there were other factors which
Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 1

also led to the outbreak of the 1789 revolution in France, for instance, poor harvests, financial
crisis and influence of philosophers as well as the American war of independence.
Ancient system of government
-The ancient system of government was largely responsible for the outbreak of the French
revolution in 1789. For instance, Louis xvi’s government was characterised by unfair taxation.
-There was also royal absolutism in France.
-The class system [social stratification] in France was another cause of the French revolution.
-The feudal system of government also led to the outbreak of the French revolution.
-There was religious intolerance in France.
Other causes
-Poor harvests
-Financial crisis.
-Influence of philosopherss
-American war of independence
[1] Why the long-standing problems of the ancien regime in France became more acute in
1789?
Louis xvi was largely responsible for the worsening crisis in France by 1789. This was because he
was incompetent, weak willed, inefficientand corrupt. However, there were also other factors
which worsened the problems in France, for instance, the poor harvests of 1787-88, an
ambitious nobility, just to mention but a few.
Contribution of Louis xvi
-Louis xvi was largely responsible for worsening the problems in France, for instance, he was
incompetent.
-He was inefficient.
-Louis xvi was corrupt.
-He was weak willed.
Other factors
-harvest failures of 1787-88
-an ambitious nobility
-the financial crisis
[1] ‘The revolt of 1789 was against a government which was tyrannical, inefficient and
insensitive to the needs of the people’. Do you agree?
The 1789 revolution in France was largely caused by a government which was tyrannical,
inefficient and insensitive to the needs of the people. However, there were other factors which
also led to the outbreak of the French revolution though to a lesser extent. These factors
included an ambitious nobility and the influence of philosophers.
Tyrannical government
-The king, Louis xvi was an autocratic ruler. He ruled not by permission of the people but by
divine right. Divine right of kings led Louis xvi to refuse reform, protect privileges and dismiss
ministers at will.
-Louis xvi handled the estates general meeting in an absolute manner. He continued to stand by
the first and second estates.
-There was imprisonment without trial [letres de catchet].
-There was censorship of the press.

Insensitive government
-He failed to reform unfair taxation which was high in the agenda of peasants and middle class.
-The royal family was wasteful and insensitive to the needs of the people.
Inefficient government
-The king lacked the ability to make correct decisions, for example, he plunged France into the
American war of independence yet France was financially unstable.
-Due to his inefficiency, he failed to cushion people from the effects of poor harvests of 1788.
The government was unable to provide relief to the people.
Other factors which also contributed to the 1789 revolution
-The ambitious nobility
-Influence of philosophers
[1] How far was discontent among peasants responsible for the outbreak of revolution in
France in 1789?
Discontent among peasants was largely responsible for the outbreak the French revolution of
1789. This was because peasants were not happy about the taxation system, they were not
happy about their exclusion from political posts, they resented arbitrary arrests, they were
discontented by discriminatory laws and lack of education. However, not only discontent
among peasants can explain the outbreak of the French revolution but the middle class was
also not happy about the manner in which Louis xvi conducted business, lack of promotion and
chaotic system of administration. More so, it must also be noted that there were other factors
which were also responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution like the financial crisis,
natural disasters, role of philosophers and king’s character.
Discontent among peasants
-Discontent among peasants was largely responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution,
for example, peasants were not happy about the taxation system.
-They were not happy about their exclusion from political posts.
-They resented arbitrary arrests [letres de catchet].
-They were discontented by discriminatory laws.
-They lacked education.
However, it must be noted that discontent among the middle class was also responsible
forthe outbreak of the revolution in France, for example, the middle class were also not happy
about the manner in which Louis xvi conducted business.
-There was lack of promotion among members of the middle class.
-They resented the chaotic system of administration.
Apart from discontent among peasants and the middle class, it must be noted that there
were other factors which were also responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution, for
example, the financial crisis.
-Natural disasters [poor harvests]
-Role of philosophers
-King’s character
[1] ‘A revolt against privilege’. How far true is this explanation of the outbreak of the French
revolution in 1789?
The discontent among peasants and middle class largely caused the French revolution. For
instance, they suffered exploitation from the nobility and the church, they had many taxes to

pay and they were excluded from politics. However, there were other factors which also
contributed to the 1789 revolution, for example, incompetence of the king, financial crisis,
influence of philosophers and poor harvests.
Discontent among the peasants and the middle class
-The 1789 revolution was largely due to discontent among the peasants who suffered
exploitation from the nobility and the church.
-The peasants had many taxes to pay yet the nobility and the clergy were exempted.
-The bourgeoisie which was made up of the educated middle class did not like their exclusion
from politics.
-The combination of the peasants and the middle class in forming the Third Estate was crucial in
the outbreak of the revolution
Other causes of the French revolution
-Incompetence of the government
-Financial crisis
-Influence of philosophers like Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire
-Poor harvests
[1] ‘An irresponsible foreign policy that stoked the fires of discontent’. How valid is this
assertion with reference to France in 1789?
France’s foreign policy largely contributed to the outbreak of the 1789 revolution. This was
because France’s problems had their roots steeped in the incessant wars France fought. The
French interference in the American war of independence and the commercial treaty with
Britain also caused the crisis of 1789. However, there were other factors which also caused the
1789 revolution in France, for instance, poor harvests and inequitable tax system.
Contribution of France’s foreign policy
-France’s foreign policy was largely responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution. This
was because her foreign policy weakened the economic situation, for instance, between 1733
and 1788 France waged four wars which were costly.
-The American war of independence also had debilitating effect.
-The 1786 commercial treaty with Britain also stoked fires of discontent in France. By this treaty
Louis xvi accepted British goods at cheap prices. As a result French industries suffered and most
of the industrial workers lost jobs since industries were closing. These former industrial workers
were subjected to poverty. Louis xvi lost their support and this prompted them to revolt.
Other factors
-Poor harvests
-Inequitable tax system
[1] What contributed most to the crisis of 1789 in France; an incompetent king, an ambitious
nobility or poor harvests?
The incompetence of the king contributed greatly to the outbreak of the 1789 revolution in
France. For instance, he failed to handle financial matters resulting in bankruptcy, he was
dominated by his wife, he failed to reform unfair taxation, he failed to address grievances of the
third estate when the estates general meeting was called and he dismissed competent
ministers who could have helped to change the situation. However, an ambitious nobility and
poor harvests also contributed to the crisis of 1789.
Contribution of the incompetent king

-The incompetent king contributed most to the crisis of 1789 in France, for instance, the king
was dominated by his wife, Marie who gave him bad advice.
-He failed to handle financial matters resulting in bankruptcy by 1788.
-He failed to reform unfair taxation system.
-He failed to address grievances of the third estate at the estates general meeting was called.
-He withdrew failed to support competent ministers at critical moments.
-He dismissed able ministers like Necker who could have helped to improve the situation.
-He dismissed Louis xv’s ministers whose advice could have helped to improve the situation.
-He failed to reform the feudal system of government.
Contribution of an ambitious nobility
-The nobility were concerned with their own sectional interests than with reforms in France.
-They launched the revolution [1787-1788] to preserve their interests in the army [privileges].
-They emphasised on voting by estates.
Contribution of poor harvests of 1787-8
-The poor harvests added to the disorder and chaos in both towns and the country side.
-The poor harvests led to food shortages, decline in trade, unemployment and rise in prices.
-Louis xvi failed cushion the people of France from the effects of poor harvests.
[1] How far can the outbreak of the French revolution be explained by political factors?
Political factors contributed greatly to the outbreak of the French revolution, for instance,
autocratic system of government, the influence of philosophers, feudal system of government,
the American war of independence, grievances of the army, the incompetence of the king, the
character of the king and poisonous influence from the royal entourage and Marie Antoinette.
However, there were other factors which also contributed to the outbreak of the French
revolution, for example, social stratification, poor harvests and financial crisis.
Political factors
-The political factors were largely responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution, for
instance, France was ruled by an absolute ruler which depended on divine right of kings.
-There was political decay as the estates general meeting had not met for over hundred years.
- The influence of philosophers who challenged the monarchy to provide a better framework of
operation also contributed to the outbreak of the French revolution.
-The feudal system of government also led to the outbreak of the French revolution of 1789.
-The American war of independence is another political cause of the French revolution.
-The character of the king is also attributed to the 1789 crisis in France.
-Poisonous influence from the royal entourage and Marie Antoinette also caused the 1789 crisis
Other factors which led to the French revolution of 1789
-The poor harvests of 1787-8 also led to the 1789 revolution in France.
-The financial crisis also contributed to the crisis of 1789 in France.
-The social order centred on privilege led to discontent of peasants and the bourgeoisie.
[1] How far was the financial crisis responsible for the 1789 revolution in France?
The financial crisis contributed greatly to the outbreak of the 1789 crisis. Louis xvi inherited the
financial crisis from his predecessors and worsened it through interfering in the American
Revolution and through lavish spending at Versailles epitomised by his wife, Marie Antoinette.
However, there were other factors which also led to the outbreak of the French revolution.
Contribution of the financial crisis

-The financial crisis contributed greatly to the outbreak of the French revolution. The financial
crisis was particularly caused by France’s aggressive foreign policy which set the country on its
road to bankruptcy. Louis xvi inherited the financial crisis from his predecessors.
-Louis xvi worsened the financial crisis through entering into the American war of independence
[1776-1783]. Louis xvi borrowed heavily so as to sponsor this war.
-The financial problems were also worsened by an inefficient system of taxation.
-The financial crisis was also worsened by blatant extravagancy at the court at Versailles.
-This deepening crisis led to the summoning of the estates general meeting whose failure
became the casus belli for the revolution in France.
Other causes
-The character of the king, Louis xvi who was also well meaning but weak willed and vacillating.
-The poor harvest of 1787-8 is another factor which caused the 1789 revolution in France.
-The influence of philosophers was also critical. This refers to the impact of the ideas of the
philosophers of the enlightenment who generated new concepts of what a society was and
how it should be organised. There was a mounting demand for emancipation of the individual
from the political tyranny of the absolute monarchy, dominance of the church and the social
inhibitions of the feudal system.
[1] To what extent did the American war of independence cause the French revolution?
The American revolution contributed greatly to the outbreak of the French revolution, for
example, it provided a practical example of a revolution, the French soldiers who participated
in this war came back home with democratic ideas from the writings of men like Thomas
Aquinas and it also worsened the financial crisis as the soldiers were financed by enormous
loans borrowed from the nobility, clergy and the bourgeoisie. However it must be noted that
there were other factors which also led to the 1789 revolution in France, for instance,
incompetence of the king, influence of philosophers, poor harvests and royal absolutism.
Contribution of American war of independence
-The American war of independence contributed greatly to the outbreak of the French
revolution. Although the French did well in the American war of independence, its effects were
negative for France. This was because the revolution in France was an outcome of this war. It
provided a practical example of a revolution.
-This war worsened the financial crisis because France already had a sizeable army which was
difficult to maintain yet she borrowed heavily so as to finance this war resulting in a deficit.The
French were already overburdened through various taxes, for example, the corvee, and gabelle
yet extra taxation was imposed to pay debts. To avoid bankruptcy reform was necessary. It was
this reform which provoked the political crisis which led to the revolution.
-This war also disrupted trade; industry got depressed, incomes were low and prices high,
hence demonstrations and demands by the Paris Mob.
-Politically, the war led to the spread of new ideas [democratic and liberal ideas] such as
freedom against tyranny, need for sovereignty and a constitution. Through discussions
prompted by people like Lafayette, the French were inspired into action [to revolt].
Other causes of the 1789 revolution in France
-Incompetence of the king
-Poor harvests

[1] To what extent can it be argued that the character of Louis xvi was the major cause of the
crisis of 1789 in France?
The character of the king contributed greatly to the outbreak of the 1789 revolution in France.
For instance, he was weak willed and feeble minded, he lacked the personal ability to impose
himself effectively; he lacked wisdom and was frivolous. However, there were other factors
which also led to the crisis of 1789 in France, for example, financial crisis, poor harvests and
grievances of the army as well as the influence of philosophers.
Character of the king
-The character of the king contributed greatly to the outbreak of the French revolution. This
was because Louis xvi was weak willed and feeble minded. This made him to listen to bad
advice from his wife, Marie Antoinette. Thus Louis xvi’s weak character placed him at the mercy
of his cunning and political incompetent wife, Marie Antoinette. His wife influenced him to kill
[forestall] all projects of reform and to dismiss able ministers like Turgot, Necker, Calonne and
DeBrienne who could have helped to improve the situation.
-His weak character also made him to fail to address the grievances of the third estate when the
estates general meeting was called.
-Louis xvi lacked wisdom. This made him to dismiss Louis xv’s ministers, Terray and Mampeou
whose advice could have helped to improve the situation.
-He also lacked the personal ability to impose himself effectively. This made him to make some
adverse decisions, which haunted him all the way to the guillotine. A classic example is that
Louis xvi withdrew his support from ministers [like Necker, Turgot and Calonne] at critical
moments and even dismissed them. The appointment of such ministers like Necker and Turgot
was not followed by support from the king for their policies.
-Louis xvi was frivolous and extravagant. His frivolity and extravagance made him to worsen the
financial crisis through failing to reduce expenditure at the royal court and through taking part
in the American war of independence.
Other causes of the French revolution
-Financial crisis
-Poor harvests.
-Grievances of the army
[1] Examine the nature and extent of the opposition in 1789 to the policies of Louis xvi.
Louis xvi faced opposition from the third estate, that is, from the peasants and from the
bourgeoisie. The peasants wanted the removal of the burden of taxation and acquisition of
more land. The bourgeoisie resented the dismissal of the popular Necker and they took the lead
in organising the cahiers when the estates general meeting was called. Failure of the king to
address the grievances of the third estate led to the declaration of the National Assembly and
establishment of a constitutional monarchy. Louis xvi also faced opposition from the first two
estates who too wanted change but had been slowed down by division. The agreement to join
the third estate also reflects opposition to Louis xvi.
*Louis xvi faced opposition from the third estate, that is, from the peasants and the
bourgeoisie. The peasants’ main focus was the removal of the burdens of taxation.
-The peasants also wanted acquisition of more land.

*The bourgeoisie also opposed Louis xvi. It was the bourgeoisie which led in the demands for
political and financial reform.
-The bourgeoisie were frustrated when ministers like Necker were dismissed.
-The bourgeoisie took the lead in organising cahiers when the estates general meeting was
called for.
-Frustration at the lack of real progress led to the declaration of the National Assembly [the first
revolutionary government] and eventually the establishment of a constitutional monarchy.
-Opposition in 1789 was moderate and not radical.
* Louis xvi also faced opposition from the first two estates where Parish priests and the nobility
held key positions in the parliament.
-They too wanted change but had been slowed down by division.
-The agreement to join the third estate by some members of the first and second estates
reflects opposition to Louis xvi.
* Opposition was also reflected in literature, that is, the writings of the philosophers who, as
the educated elite, questioned the existing system.
- Opposition also became militant with the aftermath of the American war of independence.
- People of Paris became active with storming of Bastille to further the cause of the revolution.
-Concessions could have prevented this but the weaknesses of Louis xvi did not act in his favour
[1] Why, and with what results by 1790, was the Estates General meeting called?
The estates general meeting was called in 1789 by Louis xvi. It must be noted that the estates
general meeting had last met in 1614. The convening of the estates general meeting after over
120 years was not a voluntary move on the part of Louis xvi. Events had forced him to do so.
The long standing problems in France facing Franc had reached unacceptable proportions. Most
of them such as the financial crisis dated back to the reigns of Louis xiv and Louis xv. Thus the
problems needed a national rather than an individual solution. It must be noted that the
summoning of the estates general meeting resulted in the formation of the National Assembly,
storming of the Bastille, Declaration of the rights of men, just to mention a few.
Reasons for summoning the estates general meeting
-The estates general meeting was called due to various reasons. For instance, discontent
against the nature of government demanded reform in the social, political and economic arena.
-The majority of the French, especially peasants and the bourgeoisie wanted social redress on
the privileges enjoyed by the nobility and the clergy who were widely perceived as the buttress
of royal power.
-Pressure on Louis xvi mounted with the new ideas from the philosophers and soldiers
returning from the American war of independence.
-The financial bankruptcy and the effects of poor harvests were critical.
-The estates general meeting was an attempt to respond to the grievances of the people in
general and to save the monarchy.
-The problems in France needed a national rather than an individual solution.
-The problems in France were all compounded by a great scarcity of food, especially bread, in
the 1780s. Since bread was the major source of nutrition for the poor peasants, this led to
starvation. This led to bread riots in the provinces. Although there had been little bloodshed in
the May riots of 1788, the situation in the provinces had clearly gone out of hand. These riots
put pressure on the king, Louis xvi to convene the estates general meeting.

Results of the estates general meeting
-At the estates general meeting, the nobility not only influenced Louis xvi to dismiss his minister
Necker but also resisted reform. He handled the estates general meeting in an absolute
manner.This resulted in the formation of the National Assembly and the Tennis Court Oath.
Thus the revolution broke out as a compromise was not reached.
-The dismissal of the popular Necker also led to the Storming of Bastille
-Freedoms were introduced through the Declaration of rights of men.
-Privileges were attacked as decrees were passed to end feudalism.
-The estates general meeting was also followed by the march of women.
[1] Assess the contribution of philosophers to the outbreak of the 1789 revolution in France.
Pupils need to assess the negative and positive contribution of philosophers to the outbreak of
the French Revolution.
-Contribution of philosophers
-The philosophers like Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire provided enlightenment, especially
to the middle class because the largest part of the French was illiterate.
-They helped to create the revolutionary spirit [a spirit of resistance to the old order]. The old
order entailed royal absolutism, dominance of Roman Catholic Church, serfdom and feudalism.
-The philosophers denounced the absolutism of the ancien regime and called for separation of
powers [legislative, judicial and executive]. This was meant to limit the powers of the monarchy
-They exposed the social structure, the church and the government.
-The philosophers condemned the abuses of the ancient regime. They called for trial by jury,
civil liberties, equality of all citizens and religious tolerance.
-The bourgeoisie welcomed the political and fiscal reforms preached by the philosophers. It was
the bourgeoisie who in turn relayed the contents of the philosophers’ writings to their illiterate
counterparts through rallies.
-The philosophers supplied much of the theory which underlay the French revolution even
though all philosophers mentioned above were dead before the revolution broke out.
However, it must be noted that the philosophers were not responsible for the revolutionary
situation in France. The problems in France were so open that they did not need philosophers.
-The connection between their ideas and the outbreak of the revolution is somewhat remote
and indirect.
-It should also be noted that philosophers did not preach revolution and the philosophers were
ready enough to support any absolute monarch who was prepared to patronise them and
adopt their teachings. No philosopher was seen politicising the people in France.
-By the time the revolution broke out, all these philosophers had died.
-A majority of the French, especially peasants were illiterate and most of them did not know the
philosophers’ views. Their teachings were mainly received by middle class who were literate.
-Most of the readers of their writings were not inspired to work for the revolution.
-The doctrines of philosophers came to be used later own during the course of the revolution.
[1] How far were enlightenment ideas responsible for the outbreak of the French revolution?
[1] To what extent did the ideas of philosophers cause the French revolution of 1789?
Enlightenment should be seen as a long term cause of the revolution. However, other factors
also contributed.
-The most famous of these philosophers were Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu.

-Philosophers condemned the abuses of the ancien regime.
-The social structure, the church and government in France were exposed.
-As the largest part of the French population was illiterate, the philosophers directed their ideas
[writings] at the educated bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie welcomed the political and fiscal
reforms which the philosophers championed. It was these bourgeoisie leaders who in turn
relayed the contents of the philosophers’ writings to their illiterate counterparts through rallies.
-The Encyclopedists especially Denis Diderot advocated the abolition of all taxation.
-Philosophers supplied much of the theory which underlay this revolution even though all the
mentioned philosophers were dead before the revolution broke out.
Other factors
-The financial crisis
-American war of independence
-Poor harvests
[1] How far was the nobility in France responsible for the failure of moderate reform to 1793?
The nobility in France was largely responsible for the failure of moderate reform up 1793.They
enjoyed some privileges as allies and buttresses of the royal power. They had reactionary
tendencies and ambitions.They insisted on a privileged position. The reforms such as reduction
of church power, abolition of parliament, introduction of free trade and reforms on taxation
were vehemently resisted by the nobility. However, there were also other factors which led to
the failure of moderate reform policies, for instance, role of the king, who was incompetent and
the role of Marie Antoinette.
Role of the nobility
-The nobility in France were largely responsible for the failure of moderate reform up to 1793;
this was because they had reactionary tendencies and ambitions.
-They enjoyed some privileges as allies and buttresses of royal power.
The nobility was free from taxation and further resisted attempts by Calonne and Necker to
introduce reforms that would spread taxation to all classes in France.
-The nobility resisted reform which led to the French revolution. They became reactionary
whenever reforms were introduced by French controller generals.
-Not only did the nobility resisted reforms but they also influenced Louis xvi to dismiss Calonne,
Necker and Turgot, yet their reforms could have redeemed France and averted a revolution.
-The nobility insisted on a privileged position in the estates general meeting precipitating the
Tennis Court Oath and the setting up of the National Assembly.
-The nobility wanted more political power and control, hence were dangerous to the royal
family and ultimately the throne, for instance, they revolted in 1787-1788.
Other factors
-Louis xvi also led failure of moderate reform policies as he failed to reform unfair taxation.
-Marie Antoinette also led to the failure of moderate reform policy in France. She influenced
the king not to make decisions. She also influenced him to dismiss able ministers like Necker
and Calonne. She was strong wiled while the king was weak willed.
-France’s destiny rested with a king who was too weak minded to be stable and a queen who
was too strong minded to be sensible.
The king was advised to be firm at precisely wrong times.

[1] How far was Louis xvi responsible for the failure of moderate reform policies in France
from 1789 to 1793?
Louis xvi was largely responsible for the failure of moderate reform policies in France from 1789
to 1793. For instance, he dismissed Louis xv’s ministers who could have changed the situation,
he failed to support competent ministers like Turgot and Necker. He failed to suppress the
revolt by the nobles in 1787-8 who wanted to preserve their interests in the army and he also
failed to address the grievances of the third estate when the estates general meeting was
called. However, some of his problems were deep rooted, for instance, the financial crisis
Contribution of Louis xvi
-Louis xvi was largely responsible for the failure of moderate reform policies in France, for
example, he dismissed Louis xv’s ministers, Terray and Mampeou who could have changed the
situation.
-He failed to support competent ministers such as Necker and Turgot.
-He lacked a strong will that could have strengthened his monarchy.
-He failed to suppress the revolt of the nobles in 1787-88 who wanted to preserve their
interests in the army [privileges].
-He failed to address grievances of the third estate at the estates general meeting.
*However, it must be noted that some of his problems were deep rooted, for example, the
financial crisis which was worsened by Louis xv’s wars and Louis xvi’s involvement in the
American war of independence. France’s financial and economic development lagged far
behind that of Britain.
-The third estate for a long time was plagued by a multitude of problems and the plight was
made more intolerable by the insensitivity of the king.
-The agitations of the third estate were exacerbated by the influence of philosophers
COURSE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
[2] How significant was storming of the Bastille in the collapse of Royal absolutism in France?
The storming of Bastille contributed greatly to the collapse of Royal absolutism. For instance,
pillars of royal absolutism were shaken, it set in motion a chain of events which eventually led
to the collapse of royal absolutism, the attacks forced the nobles to surrender and it paved way
for the Declaration of Rights of Men and the citizen. However, there were other factors which
also led to the collapse of royal absolutism, for instance, the estates general meeting.
Contribution of the storming of Bastille
-The storming of Bastille was very significant in laying the foundation for the collapse of royal
absolutism in France. It marked the beginning of the downfall of absolutism in France.
-The pillars of royal absolutism were shaken. The Bastille represented the epitome of the king’s
authority because it is where political prisoners were incarcerated.
-The commoners were for the first time victorious over the king.
-The storming of Bastille set in motion a chain reaction of events which eventually led to the
collapse of royal absolutism. In fact, flames of revolt went leaping skyward as similar
disturbances took place in other provincial cities. Other prisons were stormed elsewhere.
-In rural areas, some peasants burnt records of dues and houses belonging to nobles and also
refused to pay dues.These attacks forced the nobles to surrender their privileges on the 4
August 1789. It was also on this day that the old taxes were abolished.
-It paved way for the Declaration of the Rights of Men.

Other factors
-The estates general meeting was also important in the collapse of royal absolutism. It was for
the first time that the commoners challenged the monarch when they demanded a change in
the voting system, system of conducting business and representation. This paved way to the
formation of the National Assembly which took the initiative to reform France.
[2] ‘The storming of the Bastille was the most significant event of the revolution in France’.
How accurate is this assertion?
The storming of Bastille was the most significant event of the revolution in France. For instance
it gave courage to the revolutionaries and unnerved the king into capitalization, the availability
of arms gave rise to the formation of a revolutionary army and it also opened the flood gates of
other mob controlled events such as the march of women and the fourth August session.
However, there were other factors which were also significant in revolutionary France, for
instance, the declaration of the rights of men, the reign of terror and the march of women.
Significance of the storming of Bastille
-The storming of Bastille was the most significant event of the revolution in France. Bastille
served two purposes. It was a prison and an armoury place. As a prison of victims of letres de
catchet, it symbolised the tyranny of the monarch. Therefore when it fell, that also signaled the
fall of autocracy in France.
-The fall of Bastille gave courage to the revolutionaries and unnerved the king into
capitalisation.
-The availability of arms gave rise to the formation of a revolutionary army, the National Guard
under Lafayette.
-Furthermore, the storming of Bastille opened a flood gate of other mob controlled events such
as the march of women and the fourth of August session [where the nobles surrendered their
privileges].
-In rural areas, peasants in cue with the storming of Bastille, burnt feudal records and refused
to pay feudal dues.
Other factors
-Declaration of the Rights of Men
-The Reign of Terror
-The March of Women
[2] Why did the relations between Louis xvi and the revolutionaries progressively deteriorate
between 1789 and 1793?
The relations between the king and the revolutionaries worsened largely due to the king’s
reluctance to embrace change and his suspicion against the revolution. For instance, Louis xvi
was reluctant to sign the Declaration of the rights of Men, he was reluctant to sign and approve
various decrees, like the civil constitution of the clergy, he insisted on voting by Estates and he
also attempted to flee to Varennes. However, there were other factors which also worsened
the relations between the king and the revolutionaries, for example, the development of the
Reign of Terror which finally led to the execution of the king, the declaration of Pillnitz by
Austria and Prussia and short lived governments which lacked experience and gave way to the
influence of the mobs.
Contribution of the king

-The relations between the king and the revolutionaries progressively deteriorated largely due
to Louis xvi’s actions. For instance, Louis xvi insistence on voting by Estates made the relations
between the king and the revolutionaries to deteriorate.
-The king’s reluctance to sign the Declaration of the Rights of Men worsened the relations
between the king and the revolutionaries.
-The king’s reluctance to sign and approve various decrees, like the civil constitution of the
Clergy made the relations between the king and the revolutionaries to deteriorate.
-The king’s attempted flight to Varennes also worsened the relations between the
revolutionaries and the king.
Other factors
-The declaration of Pillnitz by Austria and Prussia [which wanted to restore Louis xvi to his
former self] made revolutionaries to label Louis xvi as a traitor.
-Short lived governments which lacked experience gave way to the influence of the mobs.
-The development of the Reign of Terror finally influenced the execution of the king.
[2] How and with what reaction from Louis xvi did the National Assembly deal with the
challenges facing revolutionary France in the period between 1789 and 1791?
Pupils need to assess the methods used by the National Assembly to address the challenges
facing France and the responses of Louis xvi to these methods.
-Peasants uprisings and storming of the Bastille stampeded the National Assembly into action.
-The Assembly framed the Declaration of the rights of Man, abolished tithes and feudal rights.
-The Assembly also ended the tax privileges of the nobles and clergy and banished most of the
religious orders.
-The Assembly also completely reorganised the church through the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy. Many bishops and priests refused to accept it. The Pope condemned it.
-The National Assembly also revolutionised local government by discarding the old units of the
royal administration [including the historic provinces of Normandy, Britain and the rest] and the
old royal officials. It also organised France into 83 departments. All this local reorganisation was
a great work in itself and most of it was to survive all the changes of government in France
-In September 1791 the Assembly completed a new constitution but unfortunately the
constitution was far from perfect.
*These reforms met the opposition from Louis xvi. Uncertain and hesitant Louis did not want to
accept the reforms of the National Assembly.
-Louis xvi being a Catholic accepted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy with utmost reluctance.
-Louis xvi resolved to halt the revolution by seeking aid from abroad.
-One night in June 1791, Louis xvi attempted to escape. The attempted escape failed.
[2] ‘The main aim of the revolutionaries in 1789 was to change an unfair system, not to
depose the king’. Why then was Louis xvi executed in 1793?
None of the demands presented to the Estates General in 1789 included one on the deposition
of the Monarchy. In fact, the king was given suspensory veto powers in the new government.
Louis xvi Louis xvi’s own actions were therefore largely responsible for his own execution, for
example, he insisted on voting by estates, he misused his veto power and he attempted to
escape to Varennes. However, there were other factors which led to the execution of Louis xvi,
for instance, the increase in republicanism and the declaration of Pillnitz by Austria and Prussia.
Contribution of Louis xvi to his own execution

-Louis xvi’s own actions were largely responsible for his execution, for instance, he insisted on
voting by estates instead of voting by head.
-Louis xvi misused his veto power, for example, he vetoed the Declaration of the rights of men,
the civil constitution of the Clergy, the 1791 constitution and the ultimatums against the
émigrés and the non-juring priests.
-His attempted flight to Varennes also led to his execution.
-The discovery of Louis xvi’s secret correspondence with the enemies of France in the so called
‘iron chest’.
-Louis xvi was therefore charged with treason, which carried a death sentence.
Other factor
-The increase in republicanism also led to his execution.
-The Declaration of Pillnitz by Austria and Prussia also endangered Louis xvi’s life.
[2] Why and with what results to 1794, was Louis xvi eventually overthrown?
In 1789 the revolutionaries were not radical. They wanted the king to rule with the help of the
National Assembly and later with the Legislative Assembly. Yet by 1793 the king had been sent
to the guillotine. A plethora of reasons explain why Louis xvi was overthrown. These included
the actions of the monarch, breakdown in revolutionary consensus, the religious issue and the
threats of insecurity caused by the émigrés and their allies also worsened the situation. The
results of the overthrow of Louis xvi were that war seen as a solution to the problems did not
bring the expected outcome, religious division split the country and France became a republic.
Why Louis xvi was overthrown
-The actions of the monarch contributed greatly to the overthrow of Louis xvi. The king for
instance had been reluctant to accept the decision of July 1789 therefore people were
suspicious and there was distrust.
-Louis xvi’s attempted escape also led to his overthrow.
-Voting of decrees against émigrés and the non juring priests deepened distrust and hardened
the attitudes of the revolutionaries while giving heart to those who opposed the revolution.
-The king’s indecisiveness contributed to the breakdown of the revolutionary consensus.
-Threats of insecurity caused by the émigrés and their allies also worsened the situation.
-Inflation, hunger and renewed economic crisis played a part in causing the overthrow of Louis.
-The religious issue in France also contributed.
Results of the overthrow of Louis xvi
-War seen as a solution to the problems did not bring the expected outcome.
-Religious division split the country with increased fear of counter revolution.
-There was no national unity; instead, there was a crisis which plunged France into the terror.
-France became a republic and war intensified against the allies.
[2] ‘A turning point in the history of the revolution’. Discuss this view of the consequences for
France Louis xvi’s flight to Varennes.
-The revolutionaries had wanted moderate reforms, not the overthrow of the monarch. The
king had been reluctant to concede to the demands of the people of France in constitutional
articles, the August decrees and Declaration of Rights of Man. Then came the Civil Constitution
of the Clergy which prompted the king’s flight to Varennes and his subsequent arrest.
# The results of the Louis xvi’s flight to Varennes were
-Revolutionaries lost trust in Louis xvi.

-The constitutional monarch idea was under threat.
-Radicalism and republicanism grew and this in turn divided the Assembly.
-Violence grew in Paris with the calls for the deposition of the king.
-Jacobin influence grew and by the time of the September massacres no one could save the
king who had refused the help of Lafayette.
-The attempted flight revealed Louis xvi’s attitude towards the revolution. It became clear Louis
xvi was an unwilling collaborator in the matter of reforms.
-It brought republicanism to the force. In the National Assembly a number of republicans
demanded the king to be dethroned, but the majority was still in favour of a monarchical
government [a constitutional one].
-European monarchies of Austria and Prussia realised afresh that they would have to show
solidarity in opposing the new revolutionary order in France.
[2] Why and with what results did the French Revolutionaries became progressively radical
At the beginning of the French Revolution, the revolutionaries wanted moderate reforms such
as a constitutional monarchy. But the position changed at the Estates general meeting. By 1794,
France had moved to become a republic and had experienced terror. The reasons for radicalism
include the following, failure of Louis xvi to compromise at the estates general meeting,
establishment of radical groups, flight to Varennes and the alliance between the émigrés and
allies. The results of radicalism were that France went to war and it led to the revolutionaries
failing to know boundaries as the revolution ended up devouring its own children.
Reasons for radicalism in France
-The failure of Louis xvi to compromise at the Estates General meeting made the French
revolutionaries to become progressively radical.
-The establishment of radical groups that took the Tennis Court Oath and the setting up of the
National Assembly made the French more radical.
-The revolutionaries became radical because of these frustrations. They were frustrated by the
Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
-They were also frustrated by Louis’ attempted flight, leading to the king being labeled a traitor.
-The revolutionaries were also frustrated by the alliance between the émigrés and allies which
made the revolutionaries more radical as they sought to protect the fatherland.
Results of radicalism in France
-Radicalism included rivalries and competition to control government between moderates and
radicals and within the radicals themselves, for example, the fight between Danton and
Robespierre.
-Radicalism also resulted in France going to war and leaders using extreme methods to protect
the fatherland such as the terror.
-Radicalism also led to the revolutionaries failing to know boundaries as the revolution ended
up eating [devouring] its own sons. By which time new leaders emerged calling for moderacy
with the coming of the Directory.
[2] How far was the 1791 constitution responsible for making the French more radical by
1793?
The weaknesses of the 1791 constitution were largely responsible for making the French more
radical.This was because the revolutionaries before 1791 were moderate in their demands.They

had demanded reforms in various aspects in France. Their demands became more radical after
the introduction of the 1791 constitution. They felt that the constitution was middle class in
nature and had done nothing to address the grievances of the majority. It must however, be
noted that radicalism was also a result of other factors such as determination of European
monarchs to restore the powers of the king and Louis xvi’s reactionary and failure by the
Legislative Assembly to address problems in France.
Contribution of the 1791 constitution in making the French more radical by 1793
-The weaknesses of the 1791 constitution made the French more radical in their demands.
-The revolutionaries before 1791 were moderate in their demands.
-They had demanded the end ofthe privilege system, freedom of expression, association,
movement and many other freedoms enshrined in the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen.
-They had demanded reduction of king’s powers by making France a constitutional monarchy.
*Their demands, however, became more radical after the introduction of the 1791 constitution.
-They felt that the constitution was middle class in nature and had not done enough to address
the grievances of the majority.
-The constitution was silent on freedom of economic enterprises for the peasants.
-It failed to give the ordinary people the right to vote.
-It was silent on the right to education.
-The constitution also gave the king suspensive veto powers which he used to suspend and
delay the implementation of reforms.
-The constitution also divided people along religious lines by its civil constitution of the clergy.
Those who supported the civil constitution of the clergy were determined to eradicate all
powers of the church whereas those opposed to it became radical in their determination to
restore church powers and privileges.
-The constitution created a legislative body which had people with divergent views and as such
the demands of the revolutionaries in particular became more radical. They were now
determined to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and establish a republican government.
*However, radicalism was also a result of other factors such as
-Determination of European monarchs to restorethe powers of the king.
-Louis’ reactionary attitude and failure by Legislative Assembly to address problems in France.
[2] How important was the part played by the Third Estate in the FrenchRevolution to 1793?
The Third Estate played a very significant role in Revolutionary France to 1793. For instance, it
declared itself to be the National Assembly, it took the Tennis Court Oath, it captured Bastille
and it drew the constitution for France in 1791. However, the third estate also had some
negative contributions in revolutionary France, for instance, it dissolved itself and it plunged
France into the reign of terror.
Positive role played by the Third Estate
-The third estate declared itself to be the National Assembly in 1789 which was the first
revolutionary government. The third estate comprised of everybody else who was not part of
the clergy and nobility. They had limited voting power. It was the quarrel over the vote that led
to the declaration of the National Assembly. This happened when Louis xvi failed to address the
grievances of third estate when the estates general meeting was called.
-The members of the third estate took an oath in the Tennis Court building. In this way the third
estate challenged the authority of the king.

-The capture of Bastille was the most significant event in which the third estate, especially the
people of Paris participated.
-The third estate proceeded with the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
-There was also the March of Women to force the price of bread down.
Negative contribution of the third estate
-In 1791 the Constituent Assembly dissolved itself and allowed for men with experience to be
voted power.
-The third estate allowed itself to be divided into moderates and radicals such as the Jacobins,
the Feuillants and the Cordeliers.
-In 1792 the Paris Commune became the ruling force in Paris and was ruled by those who
supported Robespierre and stood against those who supported the constitutional monarchy.
-In July 1793 Louis xvi was executed [guillotined] despite efforts by the Girondins to stop his
execution.
-The situation in France deteriorated into extremism.
-The Third Estate plunged France into the reign of terror. The Reign of Terror compromised
unity in the state and led to the death of many innocent people. Robespierre also intensified
the terror after it had accomplished its task thus this was an indication that Robespierre had
earned the revolution beyond the point he could rally support. The reign of terror was a sign of
the third estate getting out of hand.
[2] Examine the role of the Paris Mob in the French Revolution.
The Paris Mob played a very significant role in revolutionary France. However, it must be noted
that the Paris Mob also had some negative contributions.
-The critical role of the Paris Mob at the start of the revolution was the storming of Bastille and
the adoption of the tricolor flag which represented the ideas of the revolution, that is, equality,
liberty and fraternity.
-By July 1789 the mob and the Assembly were working together to stop a counter revolution.
-Pressure from the Assembly and the Paris Mob forced Louis xvi back to Versailles and accept
the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
-The March of Women was also a result of the pressure whereby they demanded a lower price
for bread.
-From October 1789 the Paris Mob dominated the revolution, especially as the mob could sit on
the gallery of the Assembly-where they would follow proceedings.
-They were incensed by the attempted flight to Varennes in 1791. The flight also made France
more republican [as it no longer had a king for the first time in history of the ancient regime].
-The Paris Mob allied with Jacobins and the Paris Commune and pushed for extreme democracy
*They were later controlled and commanded by Jacobins and France was plunged into the reign
of terror which ended in 1794 with the death of Robespierre and establishment of the directory
-The Mob was responsible for the action that led to the execution of Louis xvi. His attempt to
flee to Varennes proved to be costly as he was intercepted by the Paris Mob, which captured
him and labeled him a counter revolutionary. As a result, they activelypressured for the
execution of the king.
-On 10 August 1792, the enraged Parisian men and women besieged Louis xvi’s palace and
killed several hundreds of Swiss Guards. The result of this move was the radicalisation of the
revolution. The king and his wife were left with no option but to flee the Tuileries and take

refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The royal family was placed under house arrest and lived
rather comfortably but the king could not perform any of his political functions. The
revolutionaries had been critical in the drafting of the constitution but with the arrest of Louis
xvi there was no monarch that was left.
[2] To what extent and why did the aims of the revolutionaries in France change during
theperiod from 1789 to 1793?
Why the aims of the revolutionaries changed from 1789 to 1793
-The moderate groups were less effective than radicals such as Jacobins.
-Continued resistance from reactionary and counter revolutionary forces, within and outside
France.
-The revolutionaries turned violent along the way.
-There are notable incidences like
-The failure of the estates general meeting
-The storming of Bastille
-The execution of Louis xvi
- The reign of terror
-The violence was being justified in the name of protecting the revolution.
-The primary aim of the revolutionaries of 1789 was economic and social reforms, especially in
the fiscal system. The revolutionaries saw the king as their ally. This can even be supported by
the fact that they never intended to harm Louis xvi in 1789. His execution was only occasioned
by the fact that he appeared to be a counter revolutionary when he attempted to flee to
Varennes.
-The target of the revolutionaries changed in subsequent years and this became manifest in the
following respect.
-Criticism of the church became more extreme and the revolutionaries were intolerant of those
who opposed them, such as émigrés and royalist provinces. This also saw the regulation of the
church through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
-Louis xvi’s suspected dealings with the foreign powers and fear of defeat in the war led to his
rejection. This called for action in order to protect France from external forces that
Revolutionaries feared would partner with internal forces that were counter revolutionary.
-The rise of the Jacobins and their victory over more moderate groups, including the king’s
attempt to flee to Varennes, led to his execution.
[2] Why, and with what consequences, did the rest of Europe react to the developments in
France between 1789 and 1794?
The rest of Europe reacted to the developments in France due to a plethora of reasons, for
instance, the revolution threatenedthe monarchs of other powers, the influx of émigrés into
Austria, the declaration of the Edict of Fraternity, the flight to Varennes and the declaration of
River Scheldt. The results were that Europe went to war following the declaration of Pillnitz,
between 1792 and 1793 the war extended and saw the formation of the First Coalition and they
also armed the émigrés.
Why the rest of Europe react to developments in France.
-The revolution threatened the monarchs of other powers like Prussia, Austria and Russia.
-The role of Marie Antoinette, the sister of Leopold II of Austria led Austria to react. Marie
Antoinette appealed to her brother Leopold II to intervene in France and reinstate her husband.

-The edict of fraternity made Europe to react to developments in France between 1789 and
1794. By this edict, the Convention declared that all nations who wished to rebel against their
rulers would be offeredassistance. This was a challenge to all monarchs of Europe.
-The declaration of River Scheldt also made Europe to react. Shortly after the Edict of
Fraternity, the Convention declared that the River Scheldt was open to the shipping of all
nations. This was a challenge to the Dutch, who since the peace of Westphalia in 1648 had held
the sole navigation rights over the river as well as their British protectors. France was exporting
the revolution to other nations.
-The flight to Varennes also highlighted the insecurities of the monarchy.
-The execution of Louis xvi brought matters to a head. This sent shock waves across Europe,
especially among the monarchs. The monarchs of Europe felt the revolutionary ideas had to be
stopped before they affected their own people.
Results / Consequences
-Europe went to war following the declaration of Pillnitz by Prussia and Austria and the
Brunswick Manifesto.
-Between 1792 and 1793 the war extended and saw the formation of the first coalition.
-They also armed the émigrés.
-The reaction of Europe radicalised politics and made the French defensive and to use terror.
Carnot made military reforms.
[2] ‘A tragedy for the French revolution’. Discuss this view of the impact of the 1792 war.
[2] How important was war to the progress of the French revolution between 1789 and 1794?
Pupils need to assess the positive and negative effects of war on revolutionary France.
Negative effects of war / War was a tragedy
-War divided the Legislative Assembly which was already lacking in political experience. This
made the revolution more radical.
-The early France defeat and the Brunswick Manifesto led to the risings of August, the setting
up of a republic and the September Massacre.
-The monarchy was overthrown as Prussian forces advanced.
-Defeat and counter revolution at home justified the Terror. Thus war made it necessary for
strong central authority to run the war leading to committee government, recentralisation far
more stringent than the Old Bourbon system, spies, informers, secret police, summary justice
and the guillotine. In short, war produced all the machinery of the terror in contradiction to the
original ideals and aspirations of the early revolutionaries.
-The defeats of 1793 led to the removal of the Girondins and laid the way open for Jacobin
extremists. Thus proponents of war [Girondins] became victims as victory turned into defeat.
-Preoccupation with war prevented the government from dealing properly with the teething
troubles resulting from the original reforms while the war itself made these problems infinitely
worse – local government became moribund, the judicial reforms, the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy, control of royalism, taxation, the assignats and the sale of church land.
-French defeats, especially by the British led to the loss of vital colonies, the virtual
immobilisation of the navy and near strangulation of trade due to the naval blockade.
-The war necessitating a unified command and use of force inadvertently resulted in the
Directory government’s reliance on the army to annul the outcome of unwelcome elections,
leading to the eventual emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte as head of state.

Positive effects / war was the best thing that could have happened to the revolution
-However, the war was responsible for pulling together the nation for defense of France.
-The levee en masse and the career open to talent produced a staggering outburst of military
talent. Levee en masse led to victory.
-War produced Napoleon I, a ruler of unsurpassed energy who carried out reforms of staggering
thoroughness and lasting permanence in nearly every sector of government and society.
-Victory at the battle of Valmy led to the Edict of Fraternity leading to the export of the
revolution abroad. Thus war resulted in the spreading of the ideas of the revolution all over
Europe far more effective than any other method could have done.
-Victory at Fleurus in June 1794 led to calls for moderation. The rationale for the terror also
disappeared leading to the overthrow and death of Robespierre who intensified the terror after
it had accomplished its task.
[3]Why and with what success did France engage inwar with Europe between 1792 and 1795?
-War with Europe was partly triggered by the Declaration of Pillnitz in 1791.
-The king’s flight to Varennes made him and the émigrés to be considered as traitors, so war
against Austria and Prussia was considered a national duty to defend the fatherland.
-War, for France was in line with the Edict of Fraternity in which France offered help to those
abroad wishing to gain freedom by overthrowing their kings.
-War was welcome in France by the Girondins who wanted to discredit the king for supporting
the enemies of the state.
-The rightists represented by the Feuillants had supported war in the hope that the position of
the king will be strengthened.
#The war which came with the Brunswick Manifesto ended with the treaty of Basle in July 1795.
-Under the direction of the Girondin ministry the Frenchwere initially successful against
Prussian and Austrian forces but were affected partly by death of Leopold II and lack of supplies
-Dissension between Austria and Prussia over strategy also workedto the advantage of France.
-French forces led by Dumouriez were successful in November 1792 at Jamappes.
-Reacting to the Edict of Fraternity, the first coalition was formed by February 1793.
-France was able to hold on again as the allies were torn by discord.
-Fortune turned against France with the defeat and desertion of Dumouriez to the Austrians in
March 1793 and further defeat by Prussians.
-Between March and October 1793, success and defeat alternated for the French.
-Allied victory in July led to the guillotining of Austrine.
-The contributions of Jourdan and Carnot who became leader of the Committee of Public Safety
led to more success in Nice, Savoy, Spain and Toulon.
-By April 1795 France had re-established her natural boundaries and was willing to make peace
with her enemies leading to the dissolution of the first coalition.
-Between 1794 and 1795 the French conquered Belgium and went into the Rhine.
-Treaties were signed with Prussia, Holland and Spain.
[2] Assess the effects of the ‘Reign of Terror’ on Revolutionary France.
[2] ‘A blessing and a curse at the same time’. Discuss this view of the Reign of Terror on
Revolutionary France.
[2]Assess the contribution of the Reign of Terror in saving the Revolution from forces of
reaction both inside and outside France.

The Reign of Terror was largelyunbeneficial on Revolutionary France. The non benefits of the
Reign of Terror are that the coming of the Jacobins saw the coming of dictatorship of a political
party; the terror resulted in the death of many innocent people, religious terror compromised
unity of the state and the terror was intensified after it had accomplished its task. However it
must be noted that the reign of terror also had some positive effects. The positive effects are
that, military terror enabled France to deal with external threats, price control made public life
easy and internal revolts were suppressed.
Negative Effects
-The coming of the Jacobins saw the coming of dictatorship of a political party through its
Committees; the Committee of General Security, the Committee of Public Safety as well as the
Revolutionary Tribunal. This act negated the democratic principles of the revolution.
-The terror claimed thousands of lives and it was not just against recalcitrant nobility and clergy
but also treacherous mass of ordinary French women and men who unfortunately fell victims to
the twists and turns of party strife. 70 % of its victims were peasants and laboring classes whom
the revolution was supposed to protect.
-It resulted in death [arbitrary execution] of many innocent people through the law of suspects.
-Religious terror [the dechristianising activities of the Herbertists] compromised the unity of the
state as Roman Catholic Church was the majority religion in France. It led to a rift [gap]
between the church and the state.
-The intensification ofthe terror by Robespierre [Robespierre’s extremism] after it had
accomplished its purpose was totally unjustified. This was due to personal selfish ambition
-The gains were at a cost of liberty and equality.
Positive Effects
-On a positive note, 40000 of the terror’s victims were those killed in La Vendee and Lyons
districts where there was open rebellion against the Convention.
-Military terror enabled France to deal with external threats [first coalition]. The first coalition
of Austria, Prussia and German and Italian states was repulsed. They wanted to stop the
revolution. Thus the terror enabled France to defend its revolutionary gains.
-Economic terror had some benefits, for instance, due to economic terror inflation was
contained. More so, price controls made public life easy.
-Internal [royalist] revolts in places like La Vendee, Lyons and Marseilles were suppressed.
[2] Did the Reign of Terror do more to assist orto threaten the survival of French revolution?
Religious and political terror largely threatened the survival of the French Revolution though to
a lesser extent they assisted. Economic and military terror largely assisted the survival of the
French Revolution though to a lesser extent they threatened its survival.
# Religious terror largely threatened the survival of the French revolution. It reversed one of
the guiding principles of the French revolution, that is, fraternity, as there was no more
religious toleration. The Christian religion was banned and replaced by the worship of the
goddess of reason and not God. Thus there was dechristianisation in France. Property of the
clergy was seized and the clergy were persecuted.
-The Christian calendar was changed to republican calendar.
*It must be noted that there is nothing positive, if any, about the religious terror, hence it
largely threatened the survival of the French Revolution.

#Economic terror largely assisted the survival of the French Revolution. It promoted social
egalitarianism as there was equal access to basic commodities due to the law of maximum and
food rationing [especially bread].
-More so, hoarding which was made punishable by death made commodities to be available for
everyone.
-Inflation was reduced in France. This was because the Convention instituted stringent financial
measures to ward off the fiscal crisis, for instance, a compulsory levy of 1000000 francs was
imposed on the rich.
*Although economic terror largely assisted the survival of the French Revolution, to a lesser
extent it threatened the survival of the French Revolution, for instance, using death as a
punishment for hoarding was unrevolutionary. Farmers were forced to supply grain to the
government at low prices hence they were not at liberty with their produce.
# Military terror largely assisted the survival of the French Revolution. This was because France
managed to defeat the enemies of the revolution, both internal and external. Internally, they
managed to suppress revolts in some departments like La Vendee and Lyons. Externally, it
managed to defeat the first coalition which wanted to reverse the revolutionary gains. All this
was because of Carnot who created a powerful army for France. There was levee en masse
[conscription] which enabled France to create a very powerful army.
-More so, promotion in the army was based on talent [equality of promotion]. This was a
principle of the revolution which was being fulfilled.
*However, to a lesser extent, military terror threatened the survival of revolutionary France.
People were being forced to join the army [no freedom]. Some were even being guillotined for
refusing to join the army or being unsuccessful.
# Political terror largely threatened the survival of the French revolution. This was because
some innocent souls were guillotined. This was because according to the law of suspects, all
those suspected of lacking enthusiasm of the revolution were guillotined. There was no trial by
jury. Thus the revolution devoured its own children. All those people who appeared before the
Revolutionary Tribunal were guillotined because there was no need for witnesses. One had no
right to appeal to the Tribunal. Thus the principles of liberty and equality were violated.
-Due to the Law of Suspects, people in France did not have freedom and lived in fear and they
could no longer trust their neighbours. There was fear of a knock on the door. Thus people
were being forced to support the revolution. They were terrorised into submission.
*However, to a lesser extent, political terror assisted the survival of the French Revolution. For
instance, it enabled France to contain counter-revolutionary elements like the royalists, Louis
xvi and Marie Antoinette who wanted to reverse the revolutionary gains.
[3] ‘Its achievements far outweighed its failures’. Examine this assessment of the directory
from 1795 to 1799.
[3] ‘The Directory had nothing to offer France’. Do you agree?
[3] How far was the Directory a counter-productive government in France?
The directory had both failures and achievements.
Failures / Counter productive
-The directors were corrupt, self seeking and always quarrelling, for example, Barras [one of the
directors] remained in office till 1799 through corrupt means [bribes].

-The directory failed to stop the raging revolutionary wars after initial gains courtesy of
Napoleon. In fact, there was danger of the reversal of gains until Napoleon’s coup in 1799.
-The directory failed to save its people from starvation after the bad harvests of 1795.
-The directory also negated the very principles of the revolution by the series of coups, for
example, the coup d’état of Fructidor and the coup d’état of Floreal. It was surviving on coups.
The coups were meant to stop the ascendancy of the Jacobins and Royalists to power.
-Economic hardships remained, for example, unemployment was rampant and prices of basic
commodities were sky rocketing.
-Hospitals and charitable institutions were neglected.
-The directory was weak and relied on Napoleon for success.
-It failed to stop the coup d’état of 18 Brummaire.
-Brigandage also continued.
Achievements / Successes of the directory
-The directory drafted a new constitution for France which was moderate and fairly
progressive. This constitution gave power to men of property and this ended mob approach. By
this constitution of 1795 the one man dictatorship of Robespierre was also put to an end.
-Glory [La Gloire] and prestige was brought through foreign exploits of Napoleon in Italy and
Egypt and France enjoyed territorial gains like Mantua, Milan and Cisalpine Republic in Italy.
-The directory reorganised the National Guard.
-Ramel managed to balance the French finances [budget] for the first time. He reformed the
taxation system, on the way broadening the revenue base of France.
-Domestic violence was quenched with the help of Napoleon, for example, the Babeuf and
Pichegru conspiracies. Thus peace and order were maintained in France
-It reunited France by allowing the émigrés back to France and giving the Girondins amnesty,
allowing them some political posts.
-The directory was still able to prevent the relapse of France back to the ancien regime.
[3] How successfully did the Directory deal with the internal and external problems of France
Some internal problems in France included persistent inflation, an inherited financial crisis,
increased poverty, high bread prices, poor harvests in 1795, corruption of the directors and
internal revolts like the Babeuf plot. Externally, war continued, first with the first coalition and
later with the second coalition from February 1798. One must realise that the directory was
greatly successful in dealing with these problems. For instance, the directory helped to stabilise
the economic situation andpeace and order were maintained through the use of Napoleon.
However, the directory also had some failures, for instance, the drought of 1795 went on
unmitigated as some people died and corruption remained a perennial problem.
Successes of the Directory
-The directory helped to stabilise the economic situation, with Ramel balancing the budget for
the first time in Revolutionary France.
-The directory scored successes through Napoleon Bonaparte, for example, France was
victorious over Austria, leading to French gains through the treaty of Campo Formio of 1799.
-The directory struggled to maintain internal political stability as shown by its handling of the
Royalist and Jacobin threats in 1797 and 1798 respectively.

-Peace and order were maintained through the use of Napoleon, for example, during the
Babeuf plot and Pichegru Royalist rising.
Failures
-The 1795 drought went unmitigated as some peasants in the country side [rural areas] starved
to death. For instance, in the department of Seine, 1000 people died in 1795.
-Corruption remained a perennial problem.
-The directory failed to stop raging revolutionary wars.
[3] Why by 1799 had the directory failed to sustain the moderate government which had
come to power in 1795?
With the end of the terror a new government [the directory] was installed through a new
constitution. The government was supposed to be moderate and ensure peace and stability yet
by 1799 it had been overtaken by the coup d’état effected by Napoleon Bonaparte. Coming out
of the reign of terror moderates sought to contain threats from both the right and the left. This
was difficult due to a plethora of reasons below;
-Uprisings from the royalists were common and so brigandage. Peace was elusive.
-France was also in a state of war with foreign powers.
-The burdens of war abroad and unrest at home led the government to increasingly involve the
army in politics to crush disorder and purge the newly elected assemblies.
-Efforts to revive the economy did not quite succeed, so people remained discontented.
-In the eyes of the people, the government was weak.
-It was made worse by the fact that some members of the directory were corrupt and
inefficient.
-This gave way to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.
-Napoleon seized opportunities to promote his own interests, one of which was the ambitions
of his brother Lucien and those of Ducos and Sieyes resulting in the coup d’état of Brummaire.
[3] Which was the more successful revolutionary government in France; the National
Assemblyor the Convention?
Pupils need to compare the achievements of the two revolutionary governments.
Achievements of the National Assembly
-It abolished feudalism
-There was declaration of the Rights of Man
-It crafted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy
-The National Assembly crafted a constitution for France in 1791 and drew up the local
government framework.
Achievements of the National Convention
-On the other hand, the National Convention crushed internal counter-revolutionaries like Louis
xvi who was executed and royalist uprising in La Vendee which was crushed.
-Foreign governments which wanted to destroy the revolution like the British who had invaded
Toulon were driven out. France had created a strong army due to Carnot’s military reforms.
-It also stabilised the French economy and started the metric system.
Weaknesses of the National Assembly
-Leadership of the National Assembly was too moderate in approach and protective of the king.
-Leaders lacked experience and retired in 1791, thinking that by 1791 the revolution was over.
Weaknesses of the National Convention

-On the other hand, the Convention had leaders who were too radical in approach as they
adopted the terror campaign.
The Convention was also beset by internal power struggles between people like Danton,
Herbert and Robespierre.
[3] Which did more to preserve the ideas of the Revolution; the Jacobins or the Directory?
[3] Which did more to ensure the survival of the French Revolution; the Jacobin regime or the
Directory?
-The Directory [1795-1799] lasted longer than the Jacobins.
-The Directory helped to retrieve a perilous economic situation.
-It gained the first significant victories for the revolution in France, symbolised by the treaty of
Campo Formio [1799] that saw important gains from Austria.
*However, its conservatism alienated those who saw it as corrupt with the Directors being self-
seeking.
# The Jacobins’ extremism [1793-4] may have saved the revolution from internal and external
opposition.
-Its radicalism prevented an early return of monarchy but it divided France and discredited the
revolution abroad.
-The Jacobins created a dictatorship of a political party.
-Its reign of terror claimed thousands of lives the French revolution sought to protect.
-On the battle field they only managed to hold Austrian and Prussian advance.
*There is no accepted line here.
-The Jacobins put to an end the turmoil and lawlessness in France.
-It contained a wave of émigrés-revolutionary forces.
-The Jacobins defeated the first coalition thus securing the revolution from collapse.
*The excessive use or terror was counter-revolutionary and in this vein the Directory redeemed
France from a precarious position.
[3]How different and how similar were policies of the Constituent Assembly and the Directory
-The Constituent Assembly [National Assembly] was effected in July 1789 with the
Declarationof the rights of Man followed by the introduction of a new constitution.
-The Directory was effected in 1794 following the death of Robespierre and the end of the
Reign of Terror.
# Under the National Assembly [Constituent Assembly], the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was
passed. Special privileges of the nobility and feudalism were abolished.
-Church lands were expropriated and assignats provided the government with finance.
-Lands could be sold to peasants at low prices.
-Local government was decentralised
-A unicameral legislature was provided for in the constitution and it allowed for a limited
monarchy.
-The vote was given to tax payers.
# Under the Directory, a new constitution was drawn up for France.
-It upheld Republicanism and Republican form of government but reduced the influence of the
French populace.
-Universal suffrage was abandoned.
-The vote was also confined to tax payers.

-France was to be governed by two bodies.
-Day to day affairs were to be in the hands of the Directory.
-This system was adopted to check power and to prevent recent experiences of dictatorship.
-To prevent royalists gaining substantial support in the elections the Convention declared that
two thirds of Council of Elders and Council of 500 were to be drawn by the Convention itself.
[3] Why were the successive governments of France between 1789 and 1799 so short-lived?
A plethora of reasons explain why the Revolutionary governments of France were short-lived.
-Some revolutionary governments never commanded a majority in parliament.
-Other governments were detached from the wishes of the general population, for instance,
the National Convention.
-Other governments were too ambitious and dominated by demagogues [Jacobins] like
Robespierre.
-The Directory was too weak and corrupt.
[3] Why in spite of the many setbacks was France able to survive Allied intervention between
1792 and 1799?
In spite of the many setbacks encountered by France, she managed to survive allied
intervention due to a myriad of factors.
# France had declared war, only to realise that they did not have a revolutionary army.
-The alliance of the émigrés and foreign powers such as Austria.
-A revolt in La Vendee
-Economic problems
-The desertion of Dumouriez after the battle of Neerwinden
# Defeat of the enemies by France and success is explained by the Reign of Terror which led to
levee en masse.Opposition was ruthlessly put down, for example, Castine was guillotined.Laws
were put in place to instill fear and gain maximum cooperation. For instance, the Law of
Suspects, the Law of the Maximum and the Law of Prairial were put in place.The result was
security at home and success abroad.
-Success was also due to good leadership of Carnot and centralised organisation unlike the
Allied forces.
-Allies also had incompetent generals like the Duke of York.
-Victory for France ends with the treaty of Campo Formio.
-Divergent interest of the powers cost them in the face of Napoleon Bonaparte whose ability
and strategies could not be easily matched.
[3] Which groups benefited and which ones suffered from the changes in the social structure
of France during the years 1789-1799?
-The Tennis Court Oath saw the third estate gaining political power whilst the first and second
estate lost the privilege of separate deliberations.
-The abolition of feudal dues and privileges on the forth of August 1799 gave the peasants all
they wanted but deprived the nobility and the clergy of former privileges.
-The Civil Constitution of the Clergy saw the church and clergy lose their wealth and influence.
-Louis xvi’s flight to Varennes resulted in him losing more political power and eventually his life.
-The Cordeliers, Girondins and the Jacobins were in control of France’s destiny.
-Military reverses resulted in the Girondins losing political power to the Jacobins.

-The reign of terror of the Jacobins resulted in the loss of life of people from various classes
especially peasants.
-Political power was transferred from the nobles and the clergy to the bourgeoisie.
-Under the directory the upper middle class was the one empowered whilst the other classes
were excluded.
[3] Assess the contribution of the revolutionary clubs and societies to the French revolution
inthe period 1789 to 1794.
Revolutionary clubs and societies include the Jacobins, Girondins, Parisian Mobs and Sans-
Culottes. Their activities had both positive and negative results to the revolution.
# Positively, cubs and societies radicalised people to protect the revolution. Whenever France
was under serious threat or under siege from anti revolutionary elements within and outside
France, they acted as protectors of the revolution by identifying enemies of the revolution.
-They also participated in revolutionary wars between 1792 and 1794.
-The Sans-Culottes in connivance with the Jacobins eliminated prisoners who could have
conspired with the enemy.
-The Parisian Mobs, Commoners, Jacobins and Sans-Culottes worked together to eliminate
enemies of the revolution during the reign of terror.
-They promotedthe Republican laws such as the Law of Suspects, Law of Maximum and
Compulsory Conscription.
-They also contributed in making France a republic, a movement to democratise France.
-The Girondins should be credited for leading the revolution in the period 1791-1792 and for
returning France to moderation in the period 1792 to 1794.
# On the negative side, the Jacobins, Sans-Culottes, Parisian Mobs and the Commune
radicalised France to levels of anarchy, fear, bloodshed and uncertainty.
-This is evidenced by the September Massacres, execution of the king and the reign of terror.
-The Girondists, though returning France to moderation, introduced laws that contradicted
revolutionary ideas.
[3] Examine the contribution of the Sans-Culottes in the French Revolution.
-The Sans-Culottes were patriotic and active citizens of the lower middle class. They formed the
bulk of the crowds involved in popular demonstrations at critical points of the revolution.
-They were there at the Storming of the Bastille, the attack of the Tuileries in 1791, the
overthrow of the king, September Massacres and the expulsion of the Girondins in June 1793.
-They compelled the National Convention to adopt the Law of the Maximum.
-They took the terror to the country side.
-They were very influential in bothParis and the provinces.
-Though not a political party they looked up to leaders like Marat, Danton and Herbert.
-From 1792 no government could rule without them.
-Robespierre allied with them to overthrow the Girondins.
-They were influential in the dechristianising programme of 1793.
-Their influence was at the peak during the terror but short lived.
-In December 1793 the government re-established central control.
-Herbertists were purged.
-Radical clubs were closed down, therefore ending their effective influence.

[3] ‘Counter-productive’. How far do you agree with this view of the Thermidorians’
contribution to the French Revolution?
The Thermidorians who were a group of professionals came at the right time as the revolution
was under threat from extreme radicals like Robespierre. They played a very significant role in
revolutionary France, for instance, they brought the terror to an end, re-instituted Roman
Catholic religion, called for a general amnesty and created the Directory which was a good
move towards democratisation. However, the Thermidorians also had some negative
contribution in revolutionary France, for instance, they cut ties with the Parisian Mob who were
an icon of the revolution, the abolishment of the virtues of the republic like the national attire
removed the spirit of oneness and it instituted a weak constitution and executive.
Positive contribution of the Thermidorians
-Robespierre had conducted a vicious reign of terror such that some of the revolutionaries
became victims leading to many abandoning the revolution and seeking refuge outside France.
-The Thermidorians should be credited for ending the reign of terror through the white terror
campaign, re-institutionalization of the Roman Catholic religion which had been replaced by
Robespierre’s worship of reason, calling of a general amnesty, closure of the Jacobin Club,
drafting a New Year III which created a legislative assembly with two houses, the Council of
Elders and the Council of Ancients.
-Above all, the creation of the Directory was a good move towards democratisation of France.
Negative contribution of the Thermidorians
*However, the Thermidorians’ work was also negative in some respects.
-The legislative assembly, which it created was dominated by Girondins who were opposed to
the views of the other political groups especially those of the Jacobins.
-They also cut ties with the Parisian Mob who were an icon of the revolution.
-Abolition of the virtues of the republic like the national attire removed the spirit of oneness.
-Prostitution thrived again in the cities of France.
-It also instituted a weak constitution and executive.
[3] ‘The fear that France wanted to export its revolution was unjustified’ Discuss this view of
French Foreign policy from 1789 to 1799.
Pupils need to assess the nature of French foreign policy from 1789 to 1799, showing whether
or not France was keen to export the revolution. The motives of each government from 1789-
99 should be stressed. The aggressor should be established in this context
-Foreign monarchs were afraid that France would spread the revolution to their countries.
-The Declaration of Rights of Men, liberty, property and resistance was seen as an incitement to
disorder elsewhere.
-Louis xvi and his wife Marie Antoinette were in contact with fellow rulers.
-The influence of the émigrés was very strong.
-France was at war, first with Austria and Prussia and then with the first coalition.
-Napoleon became eminent in the Italian campaign.
# Radicals in some countries were interested but they were small minorities.
-There was change under the Directory, but the expansionist motive was still limited.
-Declaration of Pillnitz [1791]
-The French Assembly’s request on Leopold II of Austria
-France’s confiscation of property of the émigrés

-War aims openly started during the war, for example, at Coblenz, the Duke of Brunswick, the
Austro-Prussian commander, declared that he would suppress anarchy and restore the king’s
lawful authority in France.
-The revolutionary leaders announced that they would carry social and political principles into
any territory they occupied.
[3] How far, and by what means, were the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity achieved in
Revolutionary France in the years to 1799?
Pupils must assess the achievements of the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity in
Revolutionary France between 1789 and 1799. Pupils should be able to distinguish between the
stages of the revolution, especially the National Assembly [1789-91], the Constitutional
monarchy [1791-92], Republicanism [1792-95]and the Directory [1795-99].
-Declaration of Rights of Man [1789]and the citizen were ideas fulfilled.
-The Reign of Terror demonstrated the violation of these ideas .There was no fraternity due to
religious terror. However, there was egalitarianism due to the law of Maximum.
-During the time of the Directory there were attempts to restore order.
NAPOLEONIC FRANCE / NAPOLEONIC ERA / THE AGE OF NAPOLEON [1799-1815]
Reasons for the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte
[4] ‘The weaknesses of the Directory were solely responsible for the rise of Napoleon
Bonaparte’. Discuss.
[4] Which did more to bring about the fall of the Directory in 1799, its own failures or the
strengths of Napoleon?
The weaknesses of the Directory provided the much needed environment for thefall of the
directory and the rise of Napoleon. Napoleon capitalised on these weaknesses and succeeded
in overthrowing the Directory. However one must also not forget the role of other factors.
Weaknesses of the Directory
-To start with, the weaknesses of the directory contributed greatly to the rise of Napoleon, for
instance, the directory was very unpopular. It failed to deal with internal instability and was
surviving on coups such as the coup d’état of Fructidor in 1797. It had lost elections to the
royalists and constitutional monarchists in 1797 as the electorate was obviously protesting
against the directory’s inability to solve problems in France. The electorate was even
determined to revoke the ancient regime. To maintain their hold on power, the directory
appealed to Napoleon for military support. This made Napoleon to gain popularity. The
directory staged another coup d’état in 1798 [the coup d’état ofFloreal]. When the April 1798
saw a Jacobin majority in the legislative chambers, the directory declared the election results
null and void. Thus the directory had become increasingly unpopular as it was surviving on
coups and was over relying on the army. Hence Napoleon’s rise was a matter of time.
-In addition, rampant corruption of the directors was another factor which led to the rise of
Napoleon. Corruption was a perennial problem among the directors. Barras, for example,
retained his position throughout the life time of the directory through bribes [corrupt
means].Of all the five directors, only one [Carnot] was competent. The directors were
disreputable and self seeking politicians of little ability. This made them very unpopular in
France and laid the ground for Napoleon, who was the right hand man of the directory. Hence
the collapse of the directory was inevitable as people wanted an inefficient administration.

-More so, the directory’s failure to solve social problems in France led to the rise of Napoleon.
For instance, it failed to combat widespread poverty, especially in the rural areas. Furthermore,
the directory also did very little, if any, to normalise the relations between the church and the
state which had been antagonised by the Herbertists during the reign of terror. This problem
was solved later on by Napoleon through the 1801 Concordat with the Pope. The fall of the
directory was therefore imminent as the French wanted a competent leader who was none
other than Napoleon.
-Furthermore, the failure of the directory to address economic problems in France led
Napoleon’s rise to power. For instance, it failed to contain inflation. It also failed to curtail
unemployment in France. It must be noted that unemployment was rife when the cost of living
was rocketing. Bread prices were continuously increasing. This made it difficult for people to
survive. It must be noted that instead of ending economic problems, the directory worsened
them through corruption. Hence this paved way for the rise of Napoleon.
-The directory’s failure to stop raging revolutionary wars led to the rise of Napoleon. Thus there
was thus growing dissatisfaction with the directory by the French. This was because the
directory was under suspicion of repeating war for its own interest. In the contrary, the French
were weary with war. As such, they wanted a leader who could transfer the external war into
an honourable peace. This leader was none other than Napoleon whom people saw as a hero.
-Its constitution [1795], which was based on property qualification, causing it to be described as
a ‘Bourgeoisie Republic’ led to its collapse.
*However, there were other factors which also led to the rise of Napoleon; for instance, there
was a general desire for a strong government in France. Such a government could restore
internal peace, consolidate the gains of the revolution and restore prestige abroad. Many
people were convinced that Napoleon was the only one who could form such a government.
Hence they were prepared to support him.
-To add on, the situation on the war front led to the rise of Napoleon. In 1799, France was
under threat due to the formation of the second coalition which scored victories in France.
These problems were blamed on the directory. This made the French to accept any leader with
qualities of a strong leader. In times such as these, the French needed a hero. This person was
none other than Napoleon who had proven to be a hero in various campaigns like the Italian
and Egyptian campaigns.
-The character of Napoleon was also an important factor in his rise to power. He was forceful
and had the ambition to take power. He could make sound decisions and quick solutions to
problems. This was seen when he was commander in chief of the French army. More so, he was
ruthless to anyone who opposed him. He could use any means to achieve his aims. This implies
that Napoleon was a replica of Nicollo Machiavelli of Italy. Hence his rise was imminent.
-Napoleon was a charismatic and disciplined soldier who distinguished himself throughout the
French Revolution. He succeeded in fighting internal forces that were rising against the French
Revolution. He also saw France winning war against the Austria, leading to the treaty of Campo
Formio which was a significant achievement for France. The treaty was entered by Napoleon
and Austria without the involvement of the directory. Napoleon also made France a force to
reckon with through the Egyptian and Italian campaigns.
-Napoleon’s reputation as a military genius earned him popularity which led to his rise. His
effectiveness as a general was seen when he dealt directory’s enemies, that is, the royalists and

constitutional monarchists as well as the Jacobins. The Egyptian and Italian campaigns also
earned him popularity as France gained prestige and gained territories like Austrian
Netherlands [Belgium]. These successful military ventures made Napoleon the French people’s
only hope and were prepared to support him.
-Naturally the French saw Napoleon as a hero. He was always ready to rescue the directory in
time of trouble. This was the case in 1795, 1797 and 1799. In 1795 Napoleon saved the
directory from a revolt and went on to undertake the successful Italian campaign in 1796 which
made him a hero. Napoleon was also a shrewd politician. He could manipulate people to his
advantage. This is how he managed to use the directory to advance his own political agenda.
Napoleon came into power in 1799 courtesy of Abbe Sieyes and his brother Lucien. This clearly
demonstrated the importance of his character and ability.
-The coup d’état of Brummaire [18-19 November] in 1799 finally led to the rise of Napoleon. It
were the weaknesses of the directory which allowed Abbe Sieyes to plot with Napoleon the
coup d’état of Brummaire in 1799. Napoleon was helped by Abbe Sieyes and his brother Lucien
to overthrow the directory. This coup d’état was successful because of Napoleon’s popularity.
More so, Napoleon had the support of the army hence his rise to power was imminent. The
failure of the directory to stop its own overthrow was clearly indicative of how weak it was.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s Domestic Policy
[4] How valid is the assertion that Napoleon I’s domestic policy consolidated the gains of the
revolution?
[4] How valid is it to describe Napoleon I as the heir to the French Revolution?
[4] How far did Napoleon Bonaparte consolidate the gains of the revolution within France?
Napoleon largely consolidated the gains [fulfilled the aspirations and principles] of the
revolution. Thus he was largely the heir to the French revolution. However, it must be noted
that Napoleon to a lesser extent departed from [reversed] the ideas of the revolution.
-In central government Napoleon fulfilled the aspirations and principles of the revolution. For
instance, there were separate arms of the state which the revolutionaries wanted. More so, he
made use of plebiscites to make decisions thereby giving people a say.Central government
officials and local government officials were also chosen considering talent which promoted
efficiency.
*Though he fulfilled the revolutionary gains, he also reversed the principle of liberty as he was a
dictator. Both the Consulate and the Imperial constitutions reflected the absolutism of the
Ancient Regime. Power was centralised in his own hands. His principle was power from above
and confidence from below. He appointed and dismissed ministers and other government
officials at will and could override decisions of the council of stateFreedom of expression and
association was curtailed. Strict censorship was enforced and a police state operated after 1807
with arbitrary arrest. He reintroduced the letres de catchet. It must be noted that dictatorship
was a denial of revolutionary ideals.
-In local government Napoleon also consolidated the gains of the revolution. He inherited the
revolutionary system of local government. France was divided into departments led by prefects.
Departments were divided into arrondisements under sub prefects. Arrondisements were
divided into communes under mayors. This resembled the 1791 constitution.
*However, there was reversal of the revolutionary principle of liberty as revolutionaries had
called for decentralisation of political power. Napoleon also proved dictatorial as he directly

appointed prefects and sub-prefects. He also directly appointed mayors. More so, the people
were denied to vote for local government officials. Hence the principle of liberty was reversed.
-In the field of education Napoleon I fulfilled the aspirations of the revolutionaries like
improved education. Education in Francebecame the best in Europe.
*However, in the field of education there was however reversal of the principle of equality.
Girls were denied access to education. The march of women which had elevated the status of
women to that of men was rendered useless. More so, he banned the study of history and
philosophy which promoted critical thinking hence the principle of liberty was violated.
-In the Code Napoleon, Napoleon fulfilled the principle of fraternity as he guaranteed religious
tolerance. He also upheld the principle of liberty as the Code Napoleon guaranteed equality
before the law, trial by jury, freedom of speech and press.
*However, as time went on,opposition to Napoleon grew and he reintroduced censorship. Thus
though his policies were populist, but later they were repressive as demonstrated by the use of
the police force under Fouche. There was also revival of the letres de catchet. It should be
noted that his ruthlessness became counter-productive.In the code there was also inequality
between the husband and the wife. Property belonged to the husband. Property was also
inherited by the eldest son and not by all children.
-Through the Legion of Honour Napoleon introduced career open to talent. He upheld the
principle of equality which the revolutionaries resolutely wanted.
*However, through the Legion of Honour, Napoleon created a hierarchy of ranks which the
revolution had resolutely abolished.
-Napoleon I consolidated the revolutionary gains through the Concordat with the Pope. He
guaranteed religious tolerance which the revolutionaries had fought for; hence the principle of
fraternity was upheld. More so, he guaranteed ownership of land taken by the peasants during
the revolution.
*However, the church was brought under state control. This proved to be dictatorial.
[4] To what extent did the domestic policy of Napoleon I maintain the ideals of the revolution
in France?
[4] How justified is the claim that Napoleon I constructed a new order by borrowing from
both the Ancien Regime and the Revolution?
There are traces of the Ancien regime in Napoleon I’s administration. However, it must be
noted that there are also some revolutionary ideas in his domestic policy. Though this was the
case, it must be noted that Napoleon was not simply a borrower, but an innovator as well.
Traces of the Ancien Regime in Napoleon’s domestic policy / unrevolutionary ideals
-Napoleon’s rule was dictatorial. He centralised power in his own hands.
-Use of a police force
-The letres de catchet was a feature o the ancien regime
-Censorship was another feature of the ancien regime.
-Another feature of the Ancien Regime was the absence in the constitution of the declaration or
guarantee of rights of man.
-However Napoleon had promised that these would be upheld, though not enshrined in his
constitution of Year viii.
Revolutionary ideals upheld in Napoleon’s domestic policy
-universal suffrage

-equality before the law
-equal taxation
-the maintenance of departments in local government
-representation in parliament
-better administration
-removal of corruption
-confirmation of the peasants’ possession of land gained during the revolution
-fraternity was maintained through the Concordat with the Pope
*It should also be noted that Napoleon I was not simply a borrower, but an innovator as well.
[4] To what extent should Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule in France from 1799-1814 be called
‘ruthless and dictatorial’?
Napoleon’ rule was ruthless and also there are some elements of dictatorship in his rule.
-The manner in which Napoleon gained power, overcoming the directory, becoming consul for
life [1802] and then emperor [1804] shows that he was ruthless.
-The purpose of the code Napoleon also shows his ruthless as well as his dictatorial tendencies.
-However, through this he provided order and stability that was welcome afteryears of the
revolution and the directory.
-The use of the police force under Joseph Fouche shows that Napoleon was ruthless and
dictatorial.
-The style and the mechanisms of Napoleon’s government show that Napoleon was ruthless
and dictatorial.
-Every level of administration camedirectly or indirectly under Napoleon’s control.
-Roman Catholic Church’s relations with the government of Napoleon
[4] ‘Progressive yet dictatorial’. How valid is this view of Napoleon I’s domestic policy?
[4] How far can Napoleon’s domestic policies be described as ‘authoritarian but beneficial’?
Napoleon’s domestic policies were largely authoritarian [dictatorial]. Authoritarian reforms are
those which showed a desire to centralise power in his hands. However it must be noted that
his domestic policy was also beneficial [progressive]. Thus one can safely conclude that
Napoleon’s domestic policies can largely be described as authoritarian and beneficial.
Authoritarian / dictatorial / autocratic policies
-In local government election was replaced by appointment, for example, prefects, sub-prefects
and mayors were appointed in the consulate. The majority played little or no part.
-In central government, Napoleon proved dictatorial. Both as first consul and as emperor,
Napoleon had ultimate power. All power of government was centred on Napoleon.
-In the code Napoleon the authority of the father tended to be dictatorial and the role of
women in society was undermined.
-Napoleon proved to be dictatorial in the field of education. Certain subjects like history and
philosophy were banned. Girls were also denied access to education.
-In the Concordat, freedom of religion was allowed yet the church was subordinate to the state.
-After 1808, press censorship and control of theatre proved dictatorial.
-The letres de catchet was reintroduced.
-Other political parties were outlawed.
Beneficial reforms / progressive reforms

-However, some very useful and beneficial reforms were passed, for example, the Concordat
guaranteed land ownership to those who had bought it during the revolution. More so, it
guaranteed freedom of religion.
-The 1802 Legion of Honour had the progressive career open to talent.
-Taxation was made uniform and its collection more efficient.
-There were financial reforms which benefited the French.
-Napoleon created a good transport system which pleased many French.
-Important changes were made in industry though trade unions were not allowed.
-Beautification of Paris was beneficial.
-Between 1802 and 1808, there were changes in education which made the French education
system the best in Europe.
[4] To what extent was Napoleon’s rule dictatorial in France to 1814?
Napoleon I’s rule in France was largely dictatorial. However, he was also paternalistic,
democratic and enlightened.
Dictatorial
-Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule in France was greatly dictatorial. For instance, subjects like history
and philosophy were banned as they would promote political dissent.
-The letresde catchet was reintroduced.
-In his administrative reforms, democratic institutions such as Tribune and Legislature were
only preserved as revolutionary sop and a democratic façade.
-The secret police under Fouche took a strict surveillance of all aspects in the society.
-Napoleon made all critical appointments in government with all appointees complying to his
whims. This implies that elections were banned.
-Censorship was reintroduced.
-Napoleon banned all political parties and trade unions.
*However, Napoleon was paternalistic, democratic and enlightened.
-Equality before the law was achieved through the Code Napoleon.
-Public works ensured employment for many.
-Plebiscites were used to enforce popular approval of reforms.
-Taxation was made uniform.
-There was freedom of religion, though it was under state control.
[4] How valid accurate isthe assertion that Napoleon I’s domestic achievements had
enormous popular appeal?
Napoleon I’s domestic achievements were largely populist. His reforms appealed todifferent
groups like the Catholics, peasants, soldiers, his relatives, men of business and property,
couples, men of talent and members of other churches outside the Catholic Church.However,
some of Napoleon’s reforms caused resentment from other sectors of the French socio-political
and economic life. Those who resented Napoleon’s reforms included women, royalists,
Jacobins, Catholics and those who were liberal minded.
Achievements which were populist
-There was career open to talent.
-The Code Napoleon.
-The Concordat with the Pope
-Introduction of public works

-Reforms in education
-Reforms in local government
-The use of plebiscites was populist.
*However, the reforms made by Napoleon had some elements in them which caused
resentment from other groups in France, for instance, his autocracy caused opposition.
-The use of secret police under Joseph Fouche caused resentment.
-Napoleon grossly abused human rights in areas like education where some subjects like history
and philosophy were not permitted and also where women were deprived of the right to
education. This again caused resentment.
[4] ‘I closed the gulf of anarchy and brought order out of chaos’. How far does Napoleon I’s
domestic policy support this view?
Napoleon Bonaparte inherited the chaotic situation in France. However Napoleon eradicated
this chaotic situation in various ways. Thus Napoleon’s domestic policy brought order and
ended anarchy which had engulfed France since 1789.
-Napoleon’s rule was established amidst chaos and anarchy.
-There were revolts in some departments in France.
-There were also some attempted coups by the royalists.
-The directory had failed to eradicate chaos, confusion and anarchy.
-There was a rift between the church and the state.
-The education system was still in shambles.
-Laws had not been unified.
-The economy was in a state of decay.
-Inflation, corruption and unemployment were the order of the day.
*It was against this chaotic situation that Napoleon decided to overthrow the directory and
implement policies aimed at eradicating chaos.
-He successfully crashed revolts and silenced opponents by unleashing a deadly secret police.
-He introduced a strict censorship of the press.
-Education was strictly monitored and became the best in Europe. It pacified students and
created docile and obedient citizens.
-He centralised power in his own hands by creating political structures which were to rubber
stamp his policies.
-Codification of laws was completed and this brought sanity in the social, economic and political
spheres.
-The Code Napoleon was Napoleon’s greatest achievement as it was appreciated and
implemented by other European nations.
-He also ended the conflict between the church and the state through his Concordat with the
Pope.
[4] How far did Napoleon Bonaparte achieve his aims in domestic policy?
In his domestic policy, Napoleon aimed at accumulating personal power, continue with reforms
of the revolution, making legal reforms, making religious reforms and he also wanted to reform
the taxation system. However, it must be noted that Napoleon was greatly successful in
achieving his aims.
-Napoleon sought to accumulate personal power. This was successfully achieved from 1799,
with the consulate. Only Napoleon had real power. Napoleon centralised power in his own

hands-the other consuls were rubber stamps. In this regard, he had made a major breakthrough
in laying the foundations for his future aspirations.
-He sought to continue with the reforms of the revolution. There was career open to talent-
promotion by merit.
-However, political opponents were treated harshly by the police under Fouche.
-He can also be credited with several achievements in France under his educational
-Financial reforms
-Reforms in administration,
-legal reforms
-Religious reforms.
-He stabilised the economy.
-Napoleon reformed the taxation system.
-There was also codification of laws in France by Napoleon. The Code Napoleon had even
become the foundation of many legal jurisdictions in Europe and in Africa.
[4] To what extent and for what reasons did Napoleon Bonaparte enjoy support within
France from 1799 to 1815?
# Napoleon’s populist measures
-The Code Napoleon
-The Concordat with the Pope
-Beautification of Paris
# The dictatorial stance which included
-A police state under Joseph Fouche
-Return to the letres de catchet
-Press censorship
# The reasons included
-His administrative genius
-Development of the French economy
-Education
# Reasons for opposition stemmed from his autocracy
[4] How significant was the opposition to Napoleon in France to 1815?
[4] How effective was Napoleon Bonaparte able to deal with internal opposition to his regime
The coup d’état by Napoleon created a sense of insecurity and led to opposition from the
royalists, republicans and moderates. However, Napoleon employed a plethora of methods to
deal with this opposition and was greatly successful.
-Generally opposition was killed through benevolent despotism.
-He gave power with one hand and took it away with the other, that is, through the plebiscites,
the Concordat and in local government.
-Amnesty was granted to the émigrés.
-The royalists tried to rise, resulting in the killing of the Duc of Enhiene. Thus force was used.
-Repression of the opposition depended on the efficiency and effectiveness of local
government.
-The secret police under Fouche hunted down any serious opposition from within.
-Opposition newspapers criticised Napoleon but were censored heavily.

-Jacobins were executed.
-There were limitationsto the freedom of the press.
-Propaganda and spies were used.
-The letres de catchet were returned thus creating the notion of a police state.
-Stability in the economy also led to support from men of property.
-The volatile regions of Brittany and La Vendee rose once more during this time. They were
easily crashed
[4] ‘A great servant of France’. Discuss this view of Napoleon I’s contribution to Franceto 1814
Napoleon rendered great service to France [in both domestic and foreign policy]. However, it
must be noted that Napoleon also did some harm to France.
Service offered to France by Napoleon
-His victories before 1799 saved France from her enemies.
-At home he saved France from a civil war, for example, in 1795.
-The coup d’état of 1799saved France from anarchy.
-This was followed by a sound internal policy;
-Good laws
-Education
-Active machines to promote trade and industry
-Napoleon bridged the gap between the church and the state.
-Napoleon also compelled other nations to support French armies.
*However, Napoleon also did harm to France.
-Under his government, France became a mere despotism.
-Private interest, civil and political rights were subordinated to the interests of the emperor.
-In foreign policy, at the beginning he promoted the best interests of France but later especially
after Tilsit his policies were not advantageous to France.
-His determination to humble Britain combined with the desire for mastery of Europe led him
into schemes of conquest which drained the resources of France and greatly injured her
commerce without conferring corresponding benefits.
-After Austerlitz none of the wars were approved by France.
[4] ‘A soldier who hated disorder’. To what extent is this reflected in NapoleonI’s domestic
policy?
France before Napoleon was in a state of chaos economically, socially and politically. However,
Napoleon brought order through his reorganisation of all these sectors.
-In education emphasis was on military education so as to produce loyal citizens.
-The study of social sciences [history and philosophy] was forbidden as it would equip students
with analytical minds thereby leading to criticism of the government.
-Education was made open to all classes to appease peasants.
-Books were strictly censored and so were newspapers.
-His religious reforms were designed to avert lawlessness and discontent.
-The church was brought under the state so as to control its activities.
-Bishops and Parish priests were paid by the government.
-Roman Catholicism was recognised as the majority religion to appease the church which had
lost its powers.
-Freedom of worship was introduced.

-The church lands that had been bought confiscated during the revolution had to remain in the
hands of the peasants.
-Taxes were centralised, standardised and rationalised.
-Napoleon’s codification of laws also brought order.
-Napoleon’s policies were an attempt to end chaos and lawlessness.
-He used spies on opponents of the Empire.
-He restricted the franchise.
-He re-introduced arbitrary arrests in 1810.
-He appointed effective government officials.
[4] ‘For all of Napoleon’s strategic and tactical genius, his military triumphs were based
squarely on the special and political successes of the revolution’. Discuss.
Pupils need to assess the impact of the revolutionary ideas on Napoleon’s military success. They
must take a clear stand whether or not Napoleon’s successes were due to strategies and his
tactical genius or credit can be given to the successes of the revolution.
-From the revolution there was created centralised government geared to the needs of the war,
a state where careers were open to talent, a professional army with promotion on merit and
least tangible but nonetheless important the idea that ideas of 1789 were worth fighting for.
-At St Helena, Napoleon posed as the champion of nationality, a protector of the Pope above all
man who defended Europe from British war mongering. This kind of belief added to his success,
whatever he did was in self-defense especially as he felt permanently threatened by the British
naval supremacy.
-He had to gain breathing space hence treaties like that at Amiens. When fighting broke out
troops had to be poured in.
-The creation of independent republics as satellite states was important as his army lived on
conquered states. In the face of the Third Coalition Napoleon did not feel threatened. He
planned the siege of the English Channel and introduced the continental system.
-The defeat Austria at Austerlitz and treaties like Tilsit with Russia seemed to have completed
the blockade of British but the policy of ‘France first’ was considered more burdensome than
British commercial and naval supremacy and saw the Grand Empire at its zenith in 1810.
-There after it suffered reverses.
[4] ‘His accomplishments as an administrator were more effective than his military exploits’.
Examine the validity of this assertion of Napoleon I’s contribution to France.
Napoleon gave France a great service. He was a great leader both as a military man and also as
an administrator. His achievements as an administrator were much more lasting.
-Napoleon restored economic prosperity.
-He controlled prices.
-He encouraged new industry.
-He built roads and canals.
-He set up a system of public schools under strict government control to ensure well trained
officials and military officials.
-He also made peace with the Catholic Church through the Concordat.
-The Concordat of 1801 remained in force until 1905.
-The Concordat kept the Church under state control.

-Napoleon also opened jobs to all based on talent, a popular policy among those who
remembered the old aristocratic monopoly of power.
-Among Napoleon’s more lasting reforms was a new code of law, popularly called the
Napoleonic Code or Code Napoleon. It embodied enlightenment principles such as equality of
all citizens before the law, religious tolerationand abolition of feudalism.
-But the Napoleonic Code undid some reforms of the French Revolution. Women for example,
lost most of their newly gained rights and could not exercise the right of citizenship.
# On the military front, at the beginning he;
-Promoted the best interests of France but later especially after Tilsit his policies were not
advantageous to France.
-His determination to humble Britain with the desire for mastery of Europe led him into
schemes of conquest which drained the resources of France and greatly depleted the resources
of France and reduced commerce without conferring corresponding benefits.
-He failed to make Europe into a French Empire; instead he sparked nationalist feelings across
Europe.
[4] How far did Napoleon I’s rule of France change after he became emperor in 1804?
Pupils need to show the distinct features of the Consulate and the Empire. They may argue that
his rule was characterised by dictatorship though he was mindful of fulfilling the principles of
the revolution or pretended to be eary through the wishes of the people.
-Under the consulate Napoleon had effective political power rendered legitimate through
plebiscites.
-Constitutional channels were often ignored.
-In local governmenteffective decision making was in the hands of Napoleon.
-To 1804 there were many achievements seen, for example, the code Napoleon, the Concordat,
educational reforms, financial reforms and so on.
-In this period there were also illiberal measures as Napoleon was obsessed with security.
-There was the Jacobin as well as the Royalist threat.
*However, after 1804, during the time of the Empire, Napoleon felt fairly secure. He tightened
his grip over France. There was no need to hide behind the ideas of the revolution.
-His rule became more authoritarian.
-The Career open to Talent and the Legion of Honour were attempts to build an elite around
himself.
-The policy of repression and containment was tighter with the ministry ofpolice under Fouche.
-Restrictions of freedom increased.
-There was censorship and rule by decree after 1807.
-After 1807 there was imprisonment without trial and harsh penalties through the penal codes.
[4] How far true is the view that Napoleon I’s domestic policy was a blend of despotism and
principles of the revolution?
Napoleon I’s domestic policy was largely despotic. However, it must be noted that his domestic
policy also upheld some revolutionary principles. Hence the assertion that Napoleon I’s
domestic policy was a blend of despotism and principles of the revolution is greatly valid.
-In as far as central government was concerned, Napoleon centralised power in his own hands.
The majority played little or no part. Executive authority was vested in the Consulate, but actual
authority rested with the first consul, that is, Napoleon Bonaparte. Although he could consult

the second and third consuls if he wanted, his decisionwas final. As first consul Napoleon
personally appointed ministers and all high government officials including military personnel.
Napoleon thus replaced voting by appointment.He also had the power to dismiss them.
More so, Napoleon demanded regular ministerial reports from his ten ministers. There was a
department of internal affairs which served as a central bureau to the various ministries and
also transmitted Napoleon’s instructions to them. This implies that Napoleon relegated his
ministers to the status of ordinary clerks.
*However, Napoleon also fulfilled some revolutionary principles as there were separate arms of
state [liberty].
-In local government, elections that were also associated with the revolution disappeared and
were replaced by appointment. Thus Napoleon personally appointed prefects and sub-prefects
as well as mayors. Only judges and leaders of the local councils which were politically weak
were elected into positions. Hence one cannot doubt that Napoleon was an autocratic ruler.
*However, Napoleon adopted [inherited] the revolutionary system of local government. France
was divided into departments. Departments were divided into arrondisements. Arrondisements
were divided into communes. This resembled the 1791 constitution.
-Napoleon also proved despotic in the field of education. Education was denied to the girls. He
paid little attention to education for girls. For him their mothers were their best educators. He
also said that their role was at home, not in public life. He however, approved a school for the
girls where they were given some education. Most of their time was devoted to religious
instruction, good manners and practical subjects like needle work. Thus Napoleon was a male
chauvinist. Thus the march of women which had elevated the status of women nearer to that of
men was rendered useless. Still in the field of education, Napoleon proved to be dictatorial by
banning the study of moral and political sciences like history and philosophy. These subjects
were prohibited because they encouraged independent thinking and a critical questioning
mind. As a result, sciences and mathematics became important subjects.
*However, Napoleon also fulfilled the aspirations of the revolutionaries like improved
education. Education was open to all classes. Hence the principle of equality was upheld.
-The Code Napoleon also had some despotic elements. For instance the authority of the
husband proved to be dictatorial. The wife’s position was made inferior to that of their
husband. It allowed few legal rights to women. This was totally against the revolution which
had raised women in all matters much nearer to equality with men. The march of women was
again rendered superfluous and redundant. The wife was not allowed to divorce but the
husband was allowed to. Property belonged to the husband. Property was also inherited by the
eldest son only and not by all sons.
*However, Napoleon also fulfilled the revolutionary principles, for instance, the Code Napoleon
guaranteed trial by jury as well as freedom of speech and press hence the principle of liberty
was upheld. In the Code there was also equality of all people before the law; hence the
principle of equality was respected. The principle of fraternity was also upheld in the code as
there was freedom of religion [religious toleration].
-The Concordat with the Pope had some despotic elements. This was because the Roman
Catholic Church was put under state control.
*However, it must be noted that through the Concordat Napoleon upheld some principles of
the revolution, for instance, the principle of liberty through guaranteeing religious tolerance.

He also upheld the principle of fraternity through bridging the gap between the church and the
state. The relations between the church and the state had been antagonised by the
revolutionaries through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and by the Herbertists during the
Reign of Terror.
-Napoleon fulfilled the aspirations of the revolutionaries through the Legion of Honour. For
instance, the principle of equality was upheld through career open to talent. He rewarded merit
to all people who excelled in the civil service, politics, local government, arts and the military
sphere regardless of class. Promotion in the army was open to men from all classes irrespective
of birth.
*However, through the Legion of Honour Napoleon created a hierarchy of ranks which the
revolutionaries had resolutely abolished.
-The re-introduction of the letres de catchet is enough testimony to demonstrate that
Napoleon was a despotic ruler. In 1810 Napoleon created state prisons and allowed
imprisonment without trial. The ministry of police under Joseph Fouche and after 1810 under
Savary was important to Napoleon. Its task was to keep a close watch on all forms of
subversion. It did this through the use spies and informers. Fouche reported daily to Napoleon,
who also had his own spies who acted as a check on Fouche’s reports. This effective police
operation prevented opposition from becoming open, ensured strict censorship and denied
critics any room for publicity.
-In later years Napoleon’s rule was marked by strict censorship. Thus the French did not have
freedom to air out their views. This was clearly a violation of the declaration of the rights of
man. Napoleon closed a number of newspapers. Not only newspapers were censored but also
plays, books and arts as well. He employed the police to enforce censorship regulations.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s Foreign Policy
[5] Why, in spite of his abilities as a general, was Napoleon I not able to achieve his vision of
dominating Europe?
Napoleon failed to achieve his vision of dominating Europe due to a plethora of factors. His
failure was largely to due to his own contribution. However, there were other factors which
were also responsible for his failure to achieve his vision of dominating Europe.
-As a general, Napoleon had great leadership skills. He won the devotion of his soldiers and
displayed great skill against such generals as Blucher and Schwarzenberg in 1814.
-His policy of striking hard and swiftly was decisive against the second and third coalitions
whose focus lacked cohesion, for example, at Ulm and Austerlitz.
-His policy of living on the resources of a defeated country gave advantage except in Spain and
Russia.
# Yet with all these strengths Napoleon was ultimately defeated.
-He did not appreciate the strengths of nationalism and successful resistance in Spain, Prussia
and Russia.
-Success in one inspired the others.
-The continental system by which he hoped to ruin Britain failed.
-His tyrannical approach in the Russian campaign impaired his prestige. The campaign lost him
over 500000 men.
-Napoleon’s treatment of the Pope, Pius vii caused resentment among the Catholics.

-Napoleon’s overestimation of his power and ability led to his failure to dominate Europe. For
instance, in his attempt to control the whole coastline of Europe, Napoleon attacked both Spain
and Portugal in the Peninsula which in the end resulted in his defeat.
-Finally by 1814, France was weary of war.
-His generals criticised him.Some of his generals deserted him.
-By 1814, Europe stood solidly against him.
[5] By what means and with what success did Napoleon attempt to control Europe to 1815?
[5] How and with what success was Napoleon able to exercise dominance over Europe in the
period 1800 to 1814?
[5] How and with what effect did Napoleon Bonaparte control other European states during
theyears 1802-1812?
[5] To what extent did war determine the outcome of Napoleon Bonaparte’s foreign policy
after 1802?
Pupils need to assess the methods used and the extent to which Napoleon I controlled Europe.
Napoleon used a number of methods in his foreign policy. Courtesy of these methods by 1807
the whole of Europe except Britain was under Napoleon’s feet. However, although this was the
case, it must be noted that war seemed to be the major weapon used by Napoleon in his
foreign policy. There were also other methods which Napoleon used in foreign policy, for
instance, the alliance system, economic war fare and installing family members and friends to
the thrones of defeated territories.
-The major method Napoleon used to control other European states was military conquests
[warfare]. This was not surprising since he was a soldier and a military genius. Apart from the
battle of Trafalgar [1805] with Britain, the Moscow campaign [1812] against Russia and the
Battle of the Nations [1813], Napoleon had been mostly successful in war. He won battle after
battle, for instance, he defeated the Austrians at Ulm and Austerlitz in 1805 resulting in the
treaty of Pressburg which saw the dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire. Napoleon also
defeated Prussia at Jena in 1806 whilst the Russians were defeated at Friedland [1807] and
forced to recognise Napoleon’s arrangements on the continent including the Confederation of
the Rhine. It must be noted that Napoleon’s early successes in foreign policy was largely due to
war. Through war Napoleon was able to dominate Europe up to around 1810, after which his
empire began to crumble. Continued use of military conquests backfired, for example, in the
peninsula and Moscow campaign leading to his downfall.
-Dominance of other European states was also achieved through alliances [treaties] which were
determined by Napoleon, for example, the treaty of Amiens which was signed after the
realisation by Napoleon that he could never defeat Britain militarily. A truce was entered into
by Britain and France although it was broken in 1803 with the resumption of war between the
two countries which saw Napoleon being defeated by the British at Trafalgar. Napoleon also
used treaties as a way of buying time or to give himself time to regroup. Napoleon also signed
the treaty of Pressburg with Austria and Tilsit with Russia. The other countries which were
Napoleon’s allies were Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
-Napoleon also made use of marriage alliances to control other European states. Napoleon
married the Austrian princess, Marie Louis, a daughter of the Austrian Emperor. When
Metternich became chancellor in 1809 he supported this marriage. Napoleon hoped this

marriage would secure him against another Austrian attack. This marriage alliance was however
brokered by the joining of Austria into the fourth coalition in 1813.
-The other method that was used by Napoleon was economic warfare [the continental system]
which by the Berlin and Milan Decrees forbade France or any of her allies or subject territory
from accepting British goods. Through the continental system, Napoleon had a temporary hold
on Europe. Napoleon was largely unsuccessful with the continental system as it aroused the
feeling of nationalism in affected areas like Spain and Portugal. Portugalwas the first country to
rebel followed by Spain following Napoleon’s enforced abdication of the royal family.
Napoleon’s unceasing exactions in the continental system was resented by countries like Russia
which decided to withdraw, thus in 1811, Tsar Alexander I of Russia rebelled against the
continental system culminating in the Moscow campaign which cost Napoleon Bonaparte
heavily. Otherwise, elsewhere the system remained intact.
-The other method used by Napoleon to control other European states was [the dynastic policy]
installing members of his royal family and friends as kings of defeated territories. For instance,
his brother Joseph was made king of Naples, another brother Louis was made king of Holland,
the third brother Jerome was made king of Westphalia. Bernadotte, a friend was made king of
Sweden. By 1810, Napoleon’s empire had reached its peak through his dynastic policy.
However, Napoleon’s dynastic policy also met with mixed success as he was deserted by
Bernadotte whom he had made king of Sweden.
[5] Why were Napoleon’s efforts to control Europe initially successful but ultimately a failure?
Napoleon’s efforts to control Europe were initially successful because of his strengths though
the weaknesses of his opponents also contributed [up to 1810 when his expansionist policies
were checked]. Napoleon was ultimately a failure largely due to his own weaknesses though
the strengths of his opponents also contributed.
Napoleon’s strengths which led to his initial success
# Napoleon’s strengths greatly led to his initial success, for instance, Napoleon was a military
genius and so were his armies.
-Napoleon’s army was still hungry for success in the early years and were well looked after and
trained.
-Napoleon had seasoned fighters [soldiers].
-Napoleon also used effective strategies which ensured success for him, for example, the use of
human and material resources from conquered territories for further campaigns.
*However, the weaknesses of the allies also led to Napoleon’s initial success; for example,
there was disorganised and weak opposition in the form of the third coalition. There was the
absence of Prussia, which did not join the coalition until 1813.
# After 1810, Napoleon’s campaigns were no longer sustainable. They ultimately failed due to
Napoleon’s weaknesses, for instance, his army had became war weary.
-Most of his experienced generals had died in the battle and were replaced by inexperienced
ones.
-Napoleon himself had lost his earlier military genius and was making ill-informed decisions and
ignoring the advice from his generals, whom he no longer trusted.
-His continental system was foiled by the economic strength of Britain and it backfired.

* However, there were other factors which also led to his ultimate failure, for instance, Prussian
military reforms and her subsequent joining of the allies to form the fourth coalition also led to
Napoleon’s downfall.
-The disastrous Moscow campaign of 1812 also led to Napoleon’s ultimate failure.
-The rise of Nationalism in Spain against him and his armies also worked to weaken his
campaigns.
[5] How effective were Napoleon I’s strategies in crippling his enemies in Europe?
-Napoleon concentrated too much power on himself such that his generals could not lead
effectively as was the case in the Peninsula war.
-As a statesman he failed to make lasting treaties.
-He not only wanted to destroy his enemies at the war front but also on the table, for example,
Austria faced humiliation ay Luneville [1801], at Pressburg [1805] and again in 1809.
-The continental system became a far greater burden to the countries under Napoleon’s control
than to Britain whose natural resources enabled her wealth and power to increase.
-From 1807 Napoleon’s judgment declined, for example, his belief that Moscow was the heart
of Russia and that to capture it would lead to Russian defeat and the very poor opinion he had
of Wellington as a soldier right up to the battle of Waterloo itself.
-Napoleon’s disastrous Moscow campaign of 1812 had its origins in the Tsar Alexander’ refusal
to continue his support of the continental system.
-In his attempt to control the whole coastline of Europe, Napoleon attacked both Spain and
Portugal.
-He underestimated the national resistance to him in both of these countries.
-He also made a grave miscalculation after British forces had entered Portugal under Wellesley
in 1808.
-These strategies include military strategies and his position as a general, diplomacy and
dynastic policy and marriage alliances as well as the continental system.
[5] ‘Up to 1807, Napoleon’s military successes rested on the relative weaknesses of his
enemies'. Do you agree?
Napoleon’s military successes to 1807 were largely due to the weaknesses of his enemies.
However, the strengths of Napoleon also contributed to his initial success.
Weaknesses of Napoleon’s enemies
-In 1799 France was saved by the breakup of the Second Coalition.
-Napoleon’s enemies fought as weak coalitions.
-His enemies were divided and often willing to make separate treaties with France.
-Austria pulled out of the coalition after Pressburg and Russia after Friedland leaving Britain to
fight alone.
-Enemies of Napoleon suffered from lack of reform and transformation in their armies.
-Napoleon’s enemies lacked the ability to plan and organise. This cost Austria and Russia victory
at Austerlitz.
-Napoleon’s opponents had poor generals, for example, Archduke Charles, Kustov and Blutcher.
*However, Napoleon’s strengths also led to his military successes to 1807, for instance,
Napoleon played on Prussia’s desire to annex Hanover to keep it out of the third coalition.
-Napoleon also succeeded because of his abilities as a general.

-Napoleon was a military genius, effective in strategy and benefited from the timely support of
generals, for example, Desaux at Marengo and Murata at Austerlitz yet the opposition had poor
generals, with the likes of Archduke Charles, Kustov and Blutcher.
[5] ‘Napoleon Bonaparte’s foreign policy after 1802 was more defensive than aggressive’.
Discuss this claim.
Pupils need to look at the defensive and aggressive measures taken by Napoleon in his foreign
policy. There is need to look at the following events;
-The Battle of Trafalgar with Britain in 1805.
-The continental system of 1806.
-The Treaty of Tilsit [1807].
-The Peninsula War [1808-1813].
-The Moscow Campaign.
-The Battle of Waterloo.
[5] ‘Provocative and aggressive’. Is this a fair comment on Napoleon I’s foreign policy
Napoleon I’s foreign policy was largely aggressive. However, it must be noted that his foreign
policy was also provocative in some form. Thus the assertion that Napoleon’s foreign policy was
provocative and aggressive is greatly valid.
Aggressive measures instigated by Napoleon
-The military conquests in which Austrians were defeated at Ulm and Austerlitz were aggressive
measures.
-Another aggressive measure by Napoleon was the defeat of Prussians at Jena.
-The defeat of Russians at Friedland was also an aggressive measure.
-The invasion of Russia [the Moscow campaign of 1812] was a clear case of aggression.
-The Peninsula war in Spain and Portugal was another clear case of aggression.
Provocative policies
-The breaking of the peace of Amiens [1802] leading to the battle of Trafalgar with Britain was a
provocative measure.
-The continental system against Britain was a provocative measure.
-Installing relatives and friends on the thrones of conquered states was a provocative measure.
For instance, his brother Joseph was made king of Naples, another brother Louis was made king
of Holland, a third brother Jerome became king of Westphalia, while his friend Bernadotte was
made king of Sweden.
[5] ‘His foreign policy had nothing to offer France’. How far do you agree with this view of
Napoleon Bonaparte’s foreign policy to 1815?
To argue that Napoleon’s foreign policy had nothing to offer France is a distortion of history.
Rather, the truth is that Napoleon’s foreign policy had more non benefits to the French. It must
also be noted that his foreign policy also had some benefits to the French.
Non-benefits
-Napoleon Bonaparte’s foreign policy was indicative of personal glory. He achieved this on the
diplomatic scene through the signing of treaties like Amiens.He also made himself more
powerful by the dynastic policy.The marriage alliance was also too personal.
-His foreign policy was also too wasteful in material and human resources. There were many
casualties. The French economy sponsored the wars as soldiers needed clothing and food.

-Although he was hero-worshipped by the people of France through the continental system
when people saw him as a strategist, the French economy was badly weakened.
- From the Moscow campaign, France suffered defeat and prestige was lost.
-Napoleon also faced resistance and desertion by some of his generals, for example, Fouche
and Bernadotte, weakening his position.
Benefits
-Napoleon’s foreign policy won prestige for France.
-France got colonies since the 1796 Italian campaign.
-By 1807, Napoleon had created a vast empire for France. The empire provided him with the
needed raw materials. France also got soldiers to beef up his army.
-From Italy, he got works of art which he fed into the French museums, boosting the French
economy through tourism.
[5] How influential were the French revolutionary ideas to Napoleon I’s conduct of foreign
policy?
The revolutionary ideas impacted heavily on Napoleon’s conduct on foreign policy. His
diplomatic and militaristic adventures were among other reasons aimed at preserving and
spreading revolutionary ideals. However, Napoleon’s foreign policy was also influenced by an
insatiable desire to conquer and control Europe and create an empire.
-The French revolution was under siege when Napoleon I took office in 1799.
-Foreign detractors like Austria, Prussia, Russia, Holland, Spain and Britain had fought
revolutionary France in a bid to restore the ancient regime in France.
-Napoleon I then continued resisting and even took the war to these foreign detractors.
-In the states he conquered, Napoleon introduced revolutionary ideals such as equality and
fraternity, constitutions, code Napoleon, efficient and effective administrative structures,
education, science, literature and the arts.
-He also abolished feudalism.
-Thus to this end Napoleon’s conduct of foreign policy was influenced by revolutionary ideals.
*However, Napoleon’s foreign policy was also influenced by an insatiable desire to conquer and
control Europe and create an empire for himself and his relatives. This is evidenced by his
relentless wars on Europe, the extra-ordinary domain, the looting of resources and artifacts,
the dynastic ties all in contradiction with revolutionaryideals.
-Napoleon’s foreign policy was also aimed at achieving military glory for the emperor and
French people as evidenced by the continental system and the Moscow campaign.
[5] Critically examine why Napoleon I was defeated by the Fourth Coalition in 1814?
Napoleon I was defeated by the fourth coalition due to long term and short term causes.
Long term causes of the defeat of Napoleon I
-The effects of the continental system and Britain’s naval and financial power.
-The size of the empire, which had become too large to be kept intact also led to his defeat.
-The rise of nationalism especially in the Peninsula war involving Spain and Portugal.
-The military reforms in Prussia which added the strength of the allies.
Short term causes of the defeat of Napoleon I
-Thedisastrous Moscow campaign of 1812 led to the defeat of Napoleon.
-The formation of the fourth coalition in 1813, comprising of Russia, Austria, Prussia and Britain
led to the fall of Napoleon.

[5] Assess the relative importance of Austrian, Russian and British contributions in bringing
about the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte.
-According to Irene Collins, Britain and Russia played the most crucial roles in bringing down
Napoleon I, with Britain arguably having an edge over Russia.
-Britain was instrumental in resisting Napoleon in 1815.
-It was Wellington [Wellesley] who led to the final defeat of Napoleon.
-Britain also neutralised the continental system.
-Russia on the other hand contributed through the Moscow campaign of 1812 and also in the
fourth coalition which defeated Napoleon at Leipzig [1813].
-Austria played a secondary role and so did Prussia.
-Although she appeared in all the four coalitions, Austria had always been vulnerable.
-Austria was defeated by France at Ulm [1805] and Austerlitz the same year.
-Prussia’s military reforms added the strength of the allies.
[5] What contributed more to the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte; his ceaseless search for
glory or intense nationalist resistance in Europe?
-Napoleon had an unending desire to destroy British naval power and its economy.
-After Amiens, Napoleon could not rest until Britain was defeated. Hence the continental
system was introduced.
-A well trained army and effective military strategies were employed.
-Defeat of Austria and Russia took Napoleon to Tilsit.
-He failed to recognise the peak of his power hence the Moscow campaign, the Peninsula war
and the war with the fourth coalition.
*On balance nationalism can also be demonstrated by the efforts of Napoleon’s enemies.
-The British were resilient.
-The Russians rallied together in the Moscow campaign.
-Prussia which had been neutral joined the fourth coalition.
-Austria’s humiliation at Pressburg must be considered.
-Resistance from Spain and Portugal in the Peninsula war also led to the fall of Napoleon.
[5] ‘Napoleon Bonaparte’s downfall was inevitable’. How far do you agree with this view?
Pupils need to assess the conditions leading to the fall of Napoleon. They must also present a
balanced argument in which they see both the good and negative prospects for Napoleon. They
must note that by and large the qualities which brought him success were those that
guaranteed his eventual failure.
-Napoleon’s ambition, egoism, sense of destiny and single minded determination helped him to
achieve remarkable success both at home and on the battlefield.
-His military success led to self belief that in turn made him to ignore advice.
-He concentrated too much power on himself such that his generals could not lead effectively
as was the case in the Peninsula war.
-As a statesman he failed to make lasting treaties.
-He not only wanted to destroyhis enemies at the war front but also on the peace table, for
example, Austria faced humiliation at the treaty of Luneville [1801], at Pressburg [1805] and
again in 1809.
-In seeking their revenge, the Austrians had played a crucial role in the Battle of the Nations and
to them Vienna was a sense of victory.

-As long as Napoleon was still on the throne, peace was impossible.
-Napoleon refused offers in 1813.
-Nationalism also became a force that was too powerful for Napoleon to resist.
-Prussia rallied behind Russia which had resisted Napoleon’s Moscow campaign.
-Defeat for Napoleon was inevitable because right from the start Britain was a constant
opponent whose material resources enabled her to fight and subsidise the allies.
-Napoleon had no chance at sea as the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo demonstrated.
-The continental system also demonstrated the naval supremacy of Britain.
*Candidates must be consistently analytical, presenting a balanced argument in which they
explore the character of Napoleon, the manner in which he handled issues related to the war
and at the same time the response of the allies in the period 1802-1815.
SECTION B
VIENNA SETTLEMENT / THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA [1814-1815]
[6] Which of the following best explains the Vienna Settlement of 1815; fear compromise or
greed?
-Prevention of French future aggressions was out of fear. Fear of France made the peacemakers
to establish buffer states [buffer zones]. These buffer zones were created around France to
deter French future aggression. Belgium and Holland were joined to prevent future French
aggression in the North Eastern frontiers of France. Austria got Lombardy and Venetia in
Northern Italy. The presence of Austria, a great power in Italy would prevent future French
aggression in Northern Italy. Prussia was to safeguard the Rhineland. Austria had withdrawn
from the Rhineland. The withdrawal of Austria created a vacuum which needed to be filled. It
must be noted that the buffer states were meant to increase the resisting power of countries
surrounding France. Hence fear was the most characteristic feature of Vienna Settlement in the
context of prevention of future French aggression.
-On the principle of national self-interest and compensation greed was the most dominant
feature. The great powers were selfish in the way they shared spoils, destroyed the spirit of
nationalism and liberalism and restored monarchs in other countries. Britain, Austria, Prussia
and Russia contributed most to towards the defeat of Napoleon. As a result they wanted to be
rewarded in form of territories. Great powers gained at the expense of small states. They
ignored the principle of nationalism. No power wanted to leave Vienna without territorial gains.
However, there is also compromise as they all agreed. Though this was the case it must be
noted that greed was the most dominant feature in as far as the principle of national self-
interest and compensation was concerned.
-On the principle of legitimacy, fear was the dominant feature. The framers of Vienna
Settlement feared the spread of French revolutionary ideas of liberalism, nationalism and
democracy. They therefore restored despots, for instance, Ferdinand I of Naples and Ferdinand
vii of Spain. These despots would be relied upon to suppress revolutions in their countries.
-In as far as the restoration of balance of power was concerned; compromise was the most
dominant feature. There was threat during negotiations from Russia and Prussia because Russia
wanted the whole of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. Prussia wanted the whole of Saxony. They
made extravagant claims which were a threat to balance of power. Britain and Austria
threatened to fight the two if they proceeded. It must be noted that a compromise was reached
at Vienna Settlement which created balance of power. Russia did not get everything she

wanted. She got the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, Finland and Bessarabia. Prussia got two fifths of
Saxony [yet she wanted the hole of it], she also got the Duchy of Westphalia and Pomerania.
Prussia also retained some of the territories it possessed before, for example, Posen and Danzig
[Polish territories]. Austria gained Lombardy and Venetia for losing Austrian Netherlands
[Belgium]. Austria also retained Salzburg and Tyrol. Most of the territories gained by Britain
were outside Europe. She gained Malta and Ionian Island [in the Mediterranean Sea]. Britain
also gained Cape Colony [in Africa]. In the Indian Ocean she gained Mauritius, Seychelles,
Ceylon and Srilanka. In the Americas she gained Trinidad Tobago, Guiana and St Lucia. All the
four powers left Vienna satisfied and there was no fighting so they reached a compromise. Also
they did not weaken France as she maintained her boundaries. It must be noted that there was
also greed, for example, Britain wanted territorial gains along her trade routes to promote
industry and commerce. Thus she followed herself interests. Compromise was the most
dominant feature though there was is also greed to a lesser extent.
[6] ‘The settlement reached at the Congress of Vienna was dominated by the fear of French
future aggression’. Do you agree?
-The great powers were aimed at containing France and stopping future French aggression
through creation of buffer zones.
-They were also careful to preserve national self-interest but these could be sacrificed
especially in those states that had supported Napoleon.
-The framers of Vienna Settlement also emphasised the maintenance of balance of power. They
did not want to see any one country dominating Europe as this had caused havoc in Europe.
They did not want other states becoming too strong. This was important for Metternich of
Austria who pushed for the status quo.
-The architects of Vienna Settlement also wanted to restore legitimate rulers. This issue of
legitimacy was raised by Talleyrand o France.
-The framers of Vienna Settlement also wanted to maintain peace. Britain was for a moderate
peace to ensure her trade and maritime rights.
[6] ‘The Vienna Settlement was more concerned with the restoration of European balance of
power.’ Discuss.
-Collectively, the architects of Vienna Settlement were not prepared to see any one country
becoming over powerful [dominating others], but in practice this usually meant in one region
rather than in Europe overall, for example, Prussia in Germany or Russia in Eastern Europe.
They feared that France would be able once more to disrupt the peace of Europe.
-More so, after a generation of turmoil threatening their own states, the framers of Vienna
Settlement were anxious to establish political stability between nations and that peace was
inevitably part of this.
-There was also to be territorial changes in Europe.
-The framers of Vienna Settlement also wanted to stop future French aggressions.
-They also wanted to preserve national self-interest though they could be sacrificed, especially
for those countries that had supported Napoleon.
-The framers of Vienna Settlement wanted to guarantee freedom of navigation on international
rivers and waterways.
[6] In what ways and to what extent did the Vienna Settlement preserve peace in continental
Europe in the period to 1830?

The Settlement played a significant role in maintaining peace. However, not the entire
settlement contributed in maintaining peace.
-Containment of France [through creation of buffer states] helped to maintain peace. The
creation of Netherlands [through joining Belgium and Holland] strengthened the North-Eastern
border of France. Piedmont was also strengthened as she got the two French provinces of
Savoy and Nice so that France would not expand towards the east, south-east and north east.
-The principle of balance of power also helped to maintain peace. The belief was that if states
were at equilibrium no power would dare start wars. This was achieved by taking all land
conquered by Napoleon I and distributing them accordingly.
*However, the Vienna Settlement alone would not have succeeded in preserving peace since
some of the principles contained provisions that suppressed smaller states.
-The settlement ignored the principle of nationalism and liberalism leading to future troubles in
some of the smaller states.
-The Congress System should also be credited for preserving peace.
-The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, for example, removed the dangerof France wanting to
reassert her authority again. It did this by removing the army of occupation and admitting her
into the concert of Europe.
-Other congresses also helped to preserve peace in continental Europe.
-Alliances such as Quadruple Alliance and Holy Alliance also contributed in preserving peace.
[6] ‘A triumph over forces of reaction’. Comment on this verdict on the Vienna Settlement.
[6] How far was the outcome of Vienna Congress shaped by the forces of reaction and
conservatism?
The aims and results of Vienna Settlement were largely shaped by forces of reaction and
conservatism on one hand and by the desire to achieve peace on the other [progressive].
-Reactionary and conservative delegates such as Metternich, Alexander I and Hardenberg, were
aimed at preserving their positions against the forces of liberalism and nationalism. They gave
no concessions to the new forces of liberalism and nationalism. As such, principles were
formulated to achieve their goals.
-These were the principle of balance of power, barriers around France, compensation and
national interest as well as legitimacy. In the principle of legitimacy they restored some of the
discredited dynasties.
-These principles thwarted any attempts to recognise the forces of liberalism and nationalism.
-It was because of their reactionary and conservative attitude that states such as Belgium,
Luxemburg, Holland, Savoy and Nice did not get their independence. Some of them were joined
to form buffer states whilst others were put under foreign rule.
-The smaller states were sacrificed to serve the reactionaryand conservative aspirations of
great powers who wanted to see Europe remain a monarchical system. These smaller states
were excluded from decision making.
-Metternich hated liberalism and nationalism for it was a threat to the Austrian empire which
was a hotch potch of different nationals.
*However, the settlement was also a progressive force as the framers of Vienna Settlement
were also aimed to achieve peace and maintain it by whatever means necessary. Barriers
around France were meant to maintain peace through containing future French aggressions.

-The result was that small nations had to be sacrificed on how the principles were formulated
to preserve peace.Forces of nationalism and liberalism if acknowledged would be a threat to
peace.
-The framers of Vienna despised national feeling in Belgium, Italy and Germany because they
wanted to maintain balance of power.
-The settlement was progressive and more successful in its less conspicuous work of
guaranteeing the independence of the 22 Swiss cantons, free navigation of international rivers
and waterways, rights of minorities like Jews, concern over slave trade and the two treaties-
Holy Alliance and Quadruple Alliance giving birth to the concert of international diplomacy.
[6] How accurate is the claim that the Congress of Vienna deliberately ignored the principles
of nationality and liberalism?
Pupils need to assess the extent to which the congress of Vienna addressed the issues of
nationality and liberalism. Nationality was basically the desire by people of the same origins,
language and culture to rule themselves. Liberalism on the other hand was the right to
property, freedom of speech, of the press, of worship and political assembly. These twin
principles often worked together.
-Cases where nationality and liberalism were compromised by the Congress of Vienna included;
-The incorporation of Belgium into Holland to prevent the former [Belgium] from being overrun
by France. It can be argued that this was not deliberately against nationalism as few Belgians
were then very concerned on conscious about it.
-The handing over of most of Italy to foreign rule except Piedmont and Papal states was a clear
frustration of nationality and liberalism.
-The transfer of Norway from Denmark to Sweden showed the Congress’ arbitrary treatment of
various peoples but Norway had no national tradition.
-The bringing of Poland under Russian influence was the congress’ greatest frustration of
nationality and liberalism.
*Though the congress did often flout the ideas of nationality and liberalism, this was hardly a
conscious and deliberate decision.
-There were other principles of concern to the great powers, namely legitimacy and balance of
power.
[6] To what extent did the great powers use the Vienna Settlement as an instrument to
suppress the interests of the smaller states?
The great powers, namely Austria, Britain, Russia and Prussia had been instrumental in
defeating Napoleon I therefore they dominated the Congress of Vienna. The great powers
largely used Vienna Settlement as an instrument to suppress the interests of smaller states. The
terms of Vienna Settlement largely benefited the great powers. However, the settlement also
benefited the smaller states though to a lesser extent.
-The creation of the German Confederation did attempt to bring stability in central Europe.
However, it must be noted that this arrangement benefited Austria and Prussia.
-The Austrian position in Italy also fulfilled Austria’s ambitions.
-The restoration of legitimate rulers served the interests of the great powers.
-The containment of France to stop future French aggressions also served the interests of the
great powers.
-Balance of power was done for self-interest not principle.

-Negligence of liberalism and nationalism served the interests of Austria more than anyone
else.
*However, the settlement could be defended. It provided both stability and defense from the
French attack.
-The territorial arrangements were made in the search for peace.
-Peace was restored for 20 years.
[6] ‘A shameful example of self-interest’. How justified is this description of the Vienna
Settlement of 1815?
[6] ‘A senseless settlement reflecting the interests of the bigoted statesmen’. How accurate is
this statement on the Vienna Settlement of 1815?
The framers of Vienna settlement largely promoted their own interests in various ways.
However, some of the terms of Vienna Settlement were noble [sensible or beneficial] to the
whole of Europe.
-The architects of Vienna Settlement served the interests of the great powers as they ignored
[neglected] the forces of nationalism and liberalism. This was evident in the binding together of
people of different nationalities, for example, Belgium and Holland were joined to form a buffer
zone, namely Netherlands. The two were different in history, language, religion and so on.
More so, the clarion call for self-determination by the Poles was ignored as Poland was shared
among Russia, Austria and Prussia. They thought nationalist feeling was unimportant and even
dangerous to them. They distributed territories irrespective of their nationality. They ceded the
Adriatic coast to Austria so as to monitor Russian activities. Metternich of Austria hated
nationalism for it was a threat to the Austrian empire which was a hotch potch of different
nationalities. It should be noted that the architects of Vienna Settlement suppressed
nationalism because to make concessions would have undermined the position of the great
powers whose interests were dominant in the settlement.
*However, one must realise that the principles of nationalism and liberalism should not be
interpreted in the context of today. By 1815 these ideas were still vague and novel in the minds
of people of the day. More so, buffer zones were created so as to strengthen the resisting
power of territories surrounding France. They feared for a possible French comeback. Buffer
zones were created against any French aggression were noble in that they served to preserve
the nationalities of small states rather than decimation. By joining Belgium and Holland, they
wanted to prevent Belgium from being overrun by France and to strengthen Holland’s border
against France.
-The principle of legitimacy [restoration of legitimate rulers] served the interests of great
powers. They restored the hated Bourbon monarchs. This shows that the major powers were
self-seeking and bigoted. Austria’s hegemony [dominance] in Italy was rekindled while the
Bourbons were handed back their thrones in France [Louis xviii], Spain [Ferdinand vii] and
Naples [Ferdinand I]. Austria, for instance, was an advocate of this principle because it was
made up of different nationalities. The Hapsburg rulers were restored in Italy in the three
Duchies of Parma, Tuscany and Modena. This served the interests of Austria well because they
were connected by family ties with the Austrian imperial family. The framers of Vienna
Settlement made no attempt to consider people when determining who their leaders were to
be. Thus they restored pre-revolutionary rulers of their choice. In most cases, unpopular
absolute monarch were restored, for instance, the two Ferdinands. More so, it should be noted

that the principle of legitimacy was not applied automatically or consistently. For example,
many defunct German and Italian states were not revived.
*The principle of restoration was not ordinary; there was innovation as shown in the restored
Bourbons in France who were given a charter to check against absolutism. The 1814 charter for
France was recognition of revolutionary change as it contained some basic liberties.
-The architects of Vienna Settlement redrew the map of Europe for their own benefit. For
instance, Britain took territories that would promote her trade, for example, West Indies, Cape
Colony and so on. It should be noted that the framers of Vienna Settlement furthered their own
interests because they were responsible for the defeat of Napoleon who had caused havoc in
Europe. It must be noted that Venice had been a free republic in the 18 th C and had no affinity
whatever with Austria, yet she was ceded to Austria. This was out of greed. Moreover, the
creation of the German Confederation did attempt to bring stability in Central Europe but it
benefited Austria and Prussia.
*However, it must also be noted that the great powers redrew the map of Europe so as to
create balance of power which was a noble idea. This was an attempt to create a state of
equilibrium in terms of political power, territory, population and resources. Collectively, they
tried to prevent any one of them from becoming too dominant. This was because Napoleon I
had caused havoc in Europe because he had dominated the whole of Europe. Thus the desire
for balance of power was a question of fear that France could revenge and disturb peace in
Europe. They wanted to create a stable Europe unlikely to suffer further great upheavals. Thus
the framers of Vienna Settlement should be credited for maintaining peace for forty years. They
managed to prevent the major outbreak of hostilities until the Crimean war [1854]. This was
beneficial to the whole of Europe and did not only serve the interests of great powers.
-The architects of Vienna Settlement promoted their own interests through paying disrespect to
the views of smaller states. This was the more serious criticism of the Vienna Settlement. The
Settlement was dominated by four great powers, that is, Russia, Austria, Prussia and Britain,
who made all the major decisions. This implies that the fate of smaller states was determined
for them by the great powers. The smaller states were treated as pawns. This was not
surprising since it were the great powers who had fought hard to defeat Napoleon I. Though
the settlement was supposed to be in favour of the old order and existing rights, the small
states were ruthlessly sacrificed for the benefit of the larger powers. Hence the settlement
served the interests of the larger powers.
-Guaranteeing freedom of navigation on major rivers like Rhine and Meuse as well as on water
ways was a noble idea. International rivers are those rivers which run through many countries.
Such rivers should be open to all commerce with no further increase of duties then in force.
This was important for economic development of all nations.
[6] How far were the statesmen at Vienna swayed by the principles of liberalism and
nationalism in 1815?
Pupils need to assess the guiding principles at Vienna and their aims.
-Nationalism was followed in the German states where the reduced states by Napoleon were
maintained.
-French nationalism was also respected as no territory was taken from France. She maintained
her proper boundaries.

-Liberalism was recognised in France where the restored Bourbons were to rule with a charter
that was more liberal than before.
*However, the principles of liberalism and nationalism were ignored in some states;
-These principles were not yet a force to reckon with.
-Belgians were merged with the Dutch [Holland].
-There was the restoration of legitimate rulers in Austria, Spain [Ferdinand vii], Italy [Ferdinand
I of Naples, an Italian state and Hapsburg rulers were restored in the three Duchies of Parma,
Tuscany and Modena] and France.
-The major aim of the framers of Vienna Settlement was the preservation of peace.
THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
[6] What does the ‘Congress System’ revel about the aims and problems of the major
European powers between 1815 and 1822?
The question demands one to assess the aim and problems facing the major powers in the
Congress System.
-The idea of a Congress system was conceived in the Quadruple Alliance of November 1815This
is not a question on whether or not there was a Congress System, but the idea can be referred
to in passing. Reference to the Vienna Settlement is acceptable.
-The idea of a concert of Europe was Castlereagh’s brainchild. In this system the great powers
namely Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia pledged themselves to meet in congresses to
promote their common interests and discuss any important matters affecting Europe.
-The system had a brief life because it soon became clear that the powers had few, if any,
common interests.
-As the danger of the resurgence of another Napoleon I receded, divisions began to surface
among them. The common fear of Napoleon I had been a unifying factor.
-The powers had conflicting aims and motives in the Congress System.
-They also had a problem of mistrust and suspicion of each other’s intentions.
-Britain through its statesmen, Castlereagh and Canning differed from the Holy Alliance powers
[Russia, Prussia and Austria] over the purpose of the congress system. Metternich and
Alexander I wanted to use it to combat revolutions anywhere in Europe.
-The major congresses were that of Aix-la-Chapelle [1818], Troppau [1820], Laibach [1821] and
Verona [1822]. All these congresses reflected a growing rift between Britain and her allies.
-At Aix-la-Chapelle, they agreed to withdraw the allied forces from France.
-However, divisions arose on the issues of the Barbary Pirates and slave trade.
-Alexander I was opposed by Castlereagh on his suggestion that an international fleet be
stationed in the Mediterranean to stamp out piracy.
-Castlereagh was also opposed by the other powers on his proposal that a naval force be
formed to search ships for slaves.
-Britain differed from the Holy Allies on the policy of intervention in Spain, Naples and Greece.
-Castlereagh’s state paper on May 1820 spelt out Britain’s policy of non intervention in the
domestic affairs of other countries.
-Hence due to conflicting aims and intentions, the Congress System became short lived.
[6] Whose interests were best served by the Congress System in the period 1815-1825?
-All the states benefited because there was peace in Europe for forty years [up to the outbreak
of the Crimean war of 1854].

-Suppression of liberal and nationalist movements benefited particularly Russia and Austria.
-France benefited as she was readmitted into the great power circle [Britain, Austria, Russia,
Prussia and France].
-Britain was often at odds with the conservative autocracies and the Congress System did not
benefit her except the peace for all.
-The abortive meeting at St Petersburg [1825] may be considered.
-The answers should deal with the major meetings at Aix-la-Chapelle, Troppau, Laibach and
Verona.
[6]Examine Britain’s role in the collapse of the Congress System.
Britain was greatly responsible for the collapse of the Congress System. However, it must be
noted that other major powers like Austria, Russia and Prussia were also to blame.
Britain’s role
-Britain like other nations from the time of Vienna Settlement wanted peace but because she
was driven by self interest, she contributed to the failure of the Congress System.
-Britain’s cooperation with others was evident at Vienna Settlement and at Aix-la-Chapelle and
the drift from others was evident from the time of the Congress of Troppau and worsened with
Canning’s belief in ‘one man for himself and God for us all’.
-During the revolts of 1820’s, Britain destroyed the Congress out of her desire to promote
constitutional liberty and to avoid unnecessary continental obligations which threatened British
interests especially in the former Spanish colonies.
Other countries
-There was suspicion and distrust among them.
-They differed on the methods of promoting peace.
-They differed over the policy of intervention in the domestic affairs of other states
[6] Why did the ‘Congress System’ last no more than ten years?
After the overthrow of Napoleon I who had caused havoc in Europe, European powers settled
for the so called ‘Congress System’. This was an attempt to maintain peace, balance of power
and to resolve disputes in a peaceful manner. It must be noted that there was never a
‘Congress System’ but there was a series of congresses. However, this sequence of congresses
did not last longer because of various reasons like the diminishing Napoleonic threat, the death
of Castlereagh and the coming of Canning as well as the growing disagreements among the
great powers among others.
-It must be noted that there was no ‘Congress System but a series of congresses that is,
Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, Congress of Troppau, Congress of Laibach, Congress of Verona and
Congress of St Petersburg. L.C.B Seamen propounded that there was nothing systematic about
these congresses. The ‘Congress System’ as it operated between 1815 and 1825 had no system
to follow. Meetings were called when there was an emergency or when the thrones of
legitimate rulers were threatened. The great powers were supposed to meet and discuss
common elements but from 1815 the so called ‘Congress System’ was characterised by
personal distinct rather than common elements.
-This sequence of congresses was short lived because of the diminishing Napoleonic threat. As
the prospect of a Napoleonic resurgence was fast diminishing, the only reason which had kept
the four great powers united was also disappearing. The implication is that the common fear of
Napoleon I had served as a unifying factor among the great powers. When the common fear of

Napoleon ceased to be an issue, divisions began to surface among the great powers. Hence the
collapse of the so called ‘Congress System’ was imminent.
-The death of Castlereagh and the coming of Canning made the collapse of the so called
congress system more and more imminent. Although Castlereagh had become increasingly
aloof from his former colleagues, he still had many things in common with them, especially
their combined efforts against Napoleon I. Canning however, did not know of these monarchs
personally. The monarchs were Hardenberg of Prussia, Tsar Alexander I of Russia and
Metternich of Austria. More so, Canning had nothing to bind him to them. Besides, Canning was
against the so called ‘Congress System’ because he had not been part of its formation. So
Canning was one of the major causes of the collapse of the so called Congress System.
-The series of congresses was short lived because it never captured the sympathy of European
public opinion. This was partly because it did not represent small powers because of the views
and characters of men like Alexander I of Russia. After 1820, Alexander made the alliance to
appear something like a league of despots for the suppression of liberty constantly urging
intervention to put down popular movements. The rights of smaller states were overridden.
The smaller powers who did not share in it at all were naturally opposed to it. The congresses
were characterised by absolutism. This implies that the great powers had forgotten the very
factors which led to the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte. Hence it failed to survive for more than ten
years.
-The so called congress system last no more than ten years because the great powers differed
over its purpose. Metternich and Tsar Alexander wanted to use it as a license or an instrument
to intervene in domestic affairs of other nations. They wanted to use it to stop revolutions
anywhere in Europe. Castlereagh and Canning of Britain were opposed to this because Britain
itself was a product of a revolution. Britain saw the so called congress system as an instrument
to guarantee the territorial the territorial arrangements made in 1815. Differences in the
interpretation of the purpose of the congresses were seen when revolutionary movements
broke out in Naples, Spain and Piedmont. Hence considering these differences, one can argue
that the collapse of the so called congress system was inevitable.
-The series of congresses was short lived because it was characterised by personal distinct
interests. This implies that the big four, that is, Castlereagh, Metternich, Tsar Alexander and
Hardenberg had few if any common interests. They were supposed to meet and discuss
common elements as they had agreed but they however came to pursue their personal
ambitions. For instance, Russia wanted intervention in domestic affairs of other nations but
Britain was opposed to this. France also invaded Spain on her own responsibility in April 1823,
restored King Ferdinand vii and abolished the Spanish constitution. Thus since the self interests
dominated the congresses, the collapse of the so called congress system was unavoidable.
-The constitutional differences among the great powers caused them to disagree on matters of
policy, hence leading to the collapse of the so called congress system. The Holy allies, that is,
Austria, Russia and Prussia were absolute monarchs while Britain was a constitutional one. This
explains why the great powers clashed [disagreed] over the revolts in Spain, Piedmont and
Naples as well as in Greece. The Holy allies wanted intervention because they feared that
revolutions in other countries would affect their own empires where absolute and repressive
rule was common. It should be noted that these disagreements due to constitutional

differences also made them to postpone problems and never solve them, for example, the
Greek revolt.
-The so called congress system was doomed from the start because there was increasing
distrust and suspicion among the great powers of each other’s intentions. The distrust and
suspicion was clearly between Russia and Britain. For example, Britain was opposed by Russia
and the Holy allies on her proposal that a naval force be formed to search ships for slaves. In
the contrary, Castlereagh also vehemently opposed Alexander’s request that Russian ships be
allowed to patrol the Mediterranean Sea to put down Barbary Piracy there. These two cases
demonstrated that there wasinherent lack of trust among them which did not augur well for
the future of the so called congress system. Thus its collapse was a matter of time.
-The series of congresses had a short life span because the great powers had conflicting aims
and motives. This explains why only Russia, Prussia and Austria met at St Petersberg in 1825.
Canning of Britain refused to send a delegate. The meeting also exposed deep differences
between Russia and Austria. It should be noted that these three Holy allies who met at St
Petersberg parted in May 1825 without having taken any decisions. The congress demonstrated
that cooperation among the great powers was something of the past. Canning summarised the
European situation as “every nation for itself and God for us all”. The Congress of St Petersberg
marked the end of the so called Congress System.
[6]How divergent were the aims of the major powers in Europe in the period 1815 to 1825?
Pupils need to assess the various aims of the great powers from the time of the Vienna
Settlement to 1825.
-Collectively, the great powers did not want to see any one country being dominant thus they
opted to maintain balance of power by allowing France into the congresses. The balance of
power was reiterated at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.
-Collectively, the framers of peace, that is, Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria stood for
prevention of future French aggression.
-Collectively, the great powers wanted to maintain peace in Europe.
*However, the great powers were divided by the issues of liberalism and nationalism.
-Metternich wanted the suppression of liberalism and nationalism which were a threat to
Austria which was a hotch potch of different nationalities.
-The great powers differed over the policy of intervention in domestic affairs of other countries.
Russia, Austria and Prussia wanted the policy of intervention. Britain which was also a product
of a revolution was opposed to this.
-Differences that arose out of the conflicts in Spain, Portugal and Italy drove the big powers
apart and created alliances which had divided Europe by 1825.
[6] ‘A period of change and reaction’. How valid is this description of the period 1815-1848 in
Europe?
Pupils need to assess the developments in the period1815 to 1848. There is need to understand
the period before 1815 and bring in comparisons where possible.
-The French revolution and the Napoleonic wars had a great impact on post 1815 Europe. The
end of the Napoleonic wars and the Vienna Settlement heralded a new era. It was an era that
was influenced by the ideas of freedom and equality. It was a period that saw the demands for
constitutions.
-It was period that challenged autocracy and absolute rule.

-Liberal and nationalist ideas spread. This was demonstrated by events in the different
European states.
-Besides political change there was also social and economic change.
-Industrialisation brought with it the factory system and the evils related to it.
-More so, there was the growth of a powerful middle class which demanded more at the
expense of a poor working class.
-Governments reacted to these changes, both at the national and international level to reverse
the changes that threatened the system or those in power.
-Revolutions were put down throughout the 1820s, 1830s and even in 1848.
-The reactionary tendencies of Metternich were quite evident.
-Reaction was sometimes too harsh and it forced people into extreme ideas.
-Socialist ideas grew in France and by 1848 Karl Marx and Engels had produced the socialist
Manifesto.
[6] To what extent did Europe experience political and economic change in the period 1815 to
1848?
Pupils need to examine the political and economic changes which occurred in Europe from
1815 to 1848. Pupils at the same time need to acknowledge that there was continuity.
-Politically, there were forces of change related to liberalism, democracy, nationalism and
socialism.
-Monarchical power and issues of legitimacy still dominated politics at Vienna in the different
states, for example, France, Austria, Italy and Germany.
-Metternich was a reactionary and conservative. This was evident in the Metternich system.
-The Holy allies wanted to maintain the status quo.
-Politically, Europe was beset by revolution in the 1820s and 1830s culminating in the 1848
revolutions.
-On the economic side, Europe was industrialising, for example, in France and Britain.
-Prussia came up with the Zollverein.
-However, there were countries that were still feudal and lagging behind in economic change
like Austria and Russia.
[6] How significant were the threats to international peace during the period from the defeat
of Napoleon I in 1815 to 1830?
-In 1815 the biggest threat was the possibility of revival of and aggression from France. To this
the big powers came up, at Vienna Settlement, with the policy of containment of France.
-Powers were also afraid that the balance of power could be upset. Again through Vienna
Settlement no power was allowed to come out of the settlement too powerful.
-Measures to watch each other were drawn up at the Quadruple Alliance and later when France
was admitted, at the Quintuple Alliance.
-Threats to peace were also to do with the new forces of nationalism and liberalism. They were
not adequately addressed at Vienna Settlement with the result that there were revolts in the
1820s in Naples, Piedmont and Sicily. Then in 1830 another spate of revolts erupted in Italy,
Belgium and France. Action to curb these new forces was through the congress system with
Metternich of Austria taking a leading role.
[6] How liberal was continental Europe in the period 1815 to 1848?

Pupils need to assess the spread and practice of liberalism in Europe. Coming out of the French
revolution [1789-1799], the Spanish constitution of 1812 and the American war of
independence [1776-1783], liberal ideas were born.
-They embodied constitutional terms, equality, freedom and property rights.
-Constitutions would have granted popular sovereignty up to 1848.
-Few countries could boast of this as equality meant attacks on privilege.
-Meritocracy was the ultimate but this was not yet achieved even in France.
-The charter gave partial individual freedoms in France.
-In Germany the Carlsbad decrees attacked basic freedoms.
-Metternich used his system to cut these short.
-Liberalism was about getting political concessions yet at times revolution was used to achieve
this as the revolts of the 1820s, 1830s and even 1848 show.
-The middle class wanted reforms to limit the power of the monarchy.
-In all this, giving power to the middle class was difficult to achieve.
-In France Louis Philippe stopped at the upper middle class with the philosophy enriches-vous.
-Liberalism was limited by fear of the mob; hence the demand for a property based franchise
rather than universal suffrage and democracy.
-Ideally, liberals wanted a constitutional monarchy. Europe did not have many of these by 1848.
-Revolution attempted to dissolve the monarchs in 1848 but failed.
THE RESTORED BOURBONS [BOURBON MONARCHS] IN FRANCE [1815 TO 1830]
[7] Why Louis xviii was successful than Charles x in retaining his throne in France?
Louis xviii was restored in 1814 by the architects of Vienna Settlement. After his death Louis
xviii was succeeded by his brother Charles x. Louis xviii was successful in retaining his throne
than Charles x because of various reasons. Louis xvii upheld the principles and ideals of the
revolution which the majority wanted, he ruled according to the constitutional charter of 1814,
he followed the middle of the road policy and this explains why his reign ended peacefully. On
the contrary, Charles x’s determination to revoke the ancien regime, his refusal to rule
according to the 1814 charter among other reasons led to a revolution which brought about his
downfall. Charles x’s reign ended unceremoniously, when he was removed through a revolution
while Louis xviii’s reign was cut short by ill-health. In other words, he left the throne peacefully
unlike the violence that characterised the end of Charles x’s reign. Thus Louis xviii’s reign did
not end in revolution.
-Louis xviii was successful than Charles x in retaining his throne because he ruled according to
the constitutional charter of 1814 which the majority wanted. Thus he ruled not as an absolute
ruler like previous bourbon but as a constitutional monarchy. This charter guaranteed freedom
of the individual, of thought, of speech and expression. It also guaranteed religious toleration,
though Roman Catholic Church wasdeclared the state religion. Louis xviii’s charter confirmed
equality of all people before the law and guaranteed eligibility of all classes for civil and military
service. It guaranteed an end to arbitrary rule. This meant that Louis xviii had learnt something
from the 1789-1799 revolution. This made him to be successful than Charles x in retaining his
throne. In the contrary, Charles x’s reign was short lived because he refused to rule according to
the 1814 charter which contained some basic liberties. He claimed that he would rather chop
wood than to rule through the constitution like the king of England. He longed to restore the
French monarch to all its ancient powers and despised constitutional kingship. This implies that

Charles x was a believer in the divine right of kings which the revolutionaries had resolutely
abolished. This created resentment among the French hence his fall was inevitable.
-Louis xviii was successful than Charles x in retaining his throne because he appointed the
minister responsible for education. Hence there was secularisation of the education system
which the majority wanted. In the contrary, during Charles x’s reign, education was under
control of the church. Bishop Father Frayssinous who was in 1822 made the Grand Master of
the University was in 1824 appointed the Minister of Education and Ecclesiastical Affairs.
Charles x was very much determined to restore the church to its pre-1789 position. This
recapture of education by the clergy went on at a pace that in 1827, 66 out of 80 philosophy
teachers in colleges were priests. This was too much for the people of France hence a general
rising broke out in 1830 consequently leading to the abdication of Charles.
-Louis xviii successfully retained his throne than Charles x because land bought by the peasants
during the revolution remained with the peasants. Thus Louis xviii consolidated the gains of the
revolution which pleased the majority. He did not reverse the revolutionary gains. In the
contrary, Charles x sympathised with the émigrés whom he compensated. This did not augur
well with the French people and this prompted them to revolt.
-Louis xviii’s appointment of moderate ministers played a key role in the successful retention of
his throne. In the contrary Charles x was let down by his choice of ministers. Charles x
appointed extreme ministers like Polignac who was an Ultra of Ultras. The minister he
appointed were very unpopular who like him wanted to turn the clock back to 1789.
-Louis xviii successfully retained his throne than his brother Charles x because he followed the
middle of the road policy [the fence sitting policy] which was conciliatory to other political
parties. This earned his support from various groups in France. On the contrary, Charles x
followed a vindictive and vengeful policy of the Ultra Royalists. This caused resentment within
France consequently leading to the 1830 revolt which led to his downfall.
[7] Who did more to preserve the Bourbons between 1815 and 1830; Louis xviii or Charles x?
[7] ‘They had forgotten nothing and learned nothing’. Is this a fair comment on the rule of the
restored Bourbons in France between 1815 and 1830?
Louis xviii had learnedsomething from the 1789-1799 revolution in France. However, on the
contrary, Charles x learned nothing from the revolutionary and this explain why he was
reactionary.
-Louis xviii agreed to rule with the charter granted at Vienna Settlement by the allies. In the
charter were enshrined some liberties that had accrued during the revolution and the
Napoleonic era. Louis xviii had learned that the revolution and Napoleon had ushered in the
principles of liberty and equality which were indispensable in the society of the day.
-There was secularization during Louis xviii’s reign.
-Louis xviii’s ministers were liberal.
-Louis xviii maintained free press.
-However, he increasingly failed to control the restive Ultra Royalists led by his brother Comte d
Artois, resulting in the White Terror of 1817.
-Towards the end of Louis xviii’s reign, geriatric fatigue was now affecting his administration of
France, thus slowly relapsing back to conservatism. Though this was the case, Louis xviii should
be credited for managing to ensure the removal of an army of occupation from France in 1818
through the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.

*However, Charles x was had not forgotten any of the ancient regime.
-Charles x was an Ultra Royalist who wanted to reverse the clock back to the pre-revolutionary
era.
-He was a believer in the divine right of kings which the revolutionaries did not want.
-He sympathised with the émigrés whom he compensated and allowed them back to France.
-The church’s power [authority] was rekindled.
-Press censorship was limiting the democratic space during Charles x’s reign.
-Charles x did not follow the 1814 charter which contained some basic liberties which the
revolutionaries wanted.
-By the St Cloud Decrees, he officially broke ranks with the 1815 charter. These Ordinances of St
Cloud sealed the fate of the Bourbons as they resulted in their ouster in 1830.
-The net effect was the discontinuation of the Bourbon reign in 1830. Charles x was removed
through a revolution as the French had realised that the 1789 revolution had counted to naught
[7] How far was the alienation of the middle class to blame for the downfall of Charles x?
Pupils need to examine the reasons for the downfall of Charles x
-The immediate cause of the downfall of Charles x was the issue of the Ordinances of St Cloud.
These provoked violence from workers which Charles x was not able to contain. The workers
had both economic and political complaints.
-Prosperity of the early 1820s was gone in face of poor harvests and economic slump.
-Journalists and anti-clerical liberals found ready audience.
-Employers, victims of the depression also sympathised with the workers.
-Businessmen were marginalized from politics as most posts were given to the royalists.
-There was loss of confidence in the regime, especially as the ordinances denied them the right
to vote.
-Charles x made no commitment to the 1814 charter thus the liberal middle class felt
threatened.
-Freedom of press was violated.
-As electoral law was changed there was fear of the return of absolutism.
-The middle class was incensed by the alliance between the church and the state.
-They were also against the sympathy shown by Charles x himself to the émigrés yet much of
the blame for the fall goes to Charles x.
-He sided with the Ultras and made no effort to make the constitutional system work.
-He lacked political skill and believed in the rights of the nobility in a France where a new
generation based on meritocracy had been born.
-Also to note is that the fall of Charles x was a result of the heritage of the revolution which was
quick to find an alternative.
[7] Why and how was the restored Bourbon Monarchy in France unable to maintain itself in
power from 1814-1830?
The fall of the Bourbon Monarchy in France was largely due to the policies of Charles x.
-Unlike Louis xviii, Charles x was burnt on returning France to the days of the ancient regime.
Policies such as the Ordinances of St Cloud provoked violence from workers which Charles was
not able to contain.
-The workers had both economic and political complaints.
-The prosperity of the early 1820s was gone in the face of poor harvests and economic slump.

-The situation created an audience for journalists and anti-clericals.
-Employers, victims of the depression also sympathised with workers.
-Businessmen were marginalised from politics as most were given to the royalists.
-People lost confidence in the regime.
-Charles x made no commitment to the charter thus the liberal middle class felt threatened.
-Freedom of press was violated.
-Electoral laws were changed and people feared the return of absolutism.
-The alliance between the church and the state incensed the middle class as well as the
compensation of the émigrés.
-Charles x sided the Ultras and made no effort to make the constitutional system work.
-He lacked political skill and believed in the rights of the nobility in a France where a new
generation based on meritocracy had been born.
[7] How far were the Ultra-Royalists responsible for undoing what Louis xviii had achieved?
The Ultra-Royalists were greatly responsible for undoing what Louis xviii had achieved.
-Louis xviii had ruled between 1815 and 1824.
-He followed a middle of the road policy which was conciliatory towards other political parties.
-His first government of 1815 was dissolved because of the dominance of the Ultras and was
replaced in 1816 by a conciliatory one.
-Louis xviii ruled according to the charter of 1814 which contained some basic liberties.
-He chose moderate ministers such as Decazes.
-Louis xviii avoided turning the clock back to the Ancient regime.
-He recognised the gains of the revolution much to his credit.
* When Charles x and the Ultras took over in 1824, the exact opposite of what Louis xviii had
done was instituted.
-The ancien regime was restored as evidenced by
-Charles x’s coronation in the ancien religious form
-Charles x’s refusal to rule according to the charter
-He gave back control of education to the church
-He compensated the émigrés for losing land during the revolution
-He chose ministers who were extremists, for instance, Polignac, an Ultra of Ultras.
[7] Why was the fall of the Bourbon Monarchy in 1830 followed by the establishment of
another monarchy?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for the rise of the July Monarch.
-Republicans under Lafayette played an important part I the revolution but a republic was not
set up. The reasons for this were clear.
-Firstly, there was no immediate alternative to the monarchy.
-Republicanism was not the most powerful influence throughout France. It was only in major
cities like Paris and Marseilles.
-The commercial middle class feared that republicanism would lead o attack on the rights of
private property.
-One of the reasons was the belief that the great powers [Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria]
did not tolerate a republic in France and France would be isolated and open to attack [they
were monarchical governments].

-The middle class wanted a peaceful policy and good relations with other powers especially
England.
-More so, the middle class were satisfied that the old aristocracy and the church had both been
decisively defeated and that the days of Ultra-Royalists were over and that now they
themselves were at last to gain control of political affairs.
[7] Why did the 1830revolution in France result in the downfall of the reactionaries and
failure of the radicals?
Pupils need to examine reasons for the fall of the Bourbons in 1830 and the failure of radicals.
-The reactionaries, represented by Charles x and his chief ministers attempted to restore the
ancien regime, epitomised by the Ordinances of St Cloud [1829].
-The radicals on the other hand failed because they would not get the support and funding o
the middle class who went on to lend their support to the ‘Citizen king’, Louis Philippe.
-Their policies were too extreme and France feared the return to the Jacobin era,
nationalisation of private property and another wave of ‘White Terror’.
THE ORLEANIST MONARCHY / THE ORLEANS MONARCHY / THE JULY MONARCHY / LOUIS
PHILIPPE’S REIGN / THE CITIZEN KING [1830-1848]
[8] ‘A government of many virtues’. Justify this assessment of the reign of the Orleanist
monarchy in France.
The establishment of the Orleans Monarchy was a resounding welcome and he proved to be a
man of the people-a citizen king. However, though the government of was highly applauded at
the beginning, Louis Philippe soon bored the people as he did not go too far with the virtues.
Virtues
-Louis Philippe’s government was reforming. It reformed the franchise.
-It restored the tri-colour flag.
-It had liberal foundations as it relaxed the press censorship.
-It attempted to industrialise France.
-It also revived the National Guard.
Other side
*However, though the government was highly applauded at the beginning, Louis Philippe soon
bored the people. He did not go too far with the virtues.
-His reforms were incomplete, for instance, in education.
-Political reforms in voting did not go too far. This made him to get opposition from the broad
spectrum of French political life. The socialists, workers, legitimists, liberals, Bonapartists and
republicans opposed him.
-His pacific foreign policy, although it made him to be internationally recognised, caused
opposition from the followers of the adventurous Napoleon Bonaparte [Bonapartists].
-His inability to be firm with ministers like Guizot resulted in revolt.
[8] Which contributed more to the fall of the Orleanist Monarchy in 1848, an insensitive
home policy or a weak foreign policy?
[8] ‘Domestic,not foreign issues were the cause of the fall of the Orleanist Monarchy in
1848’.Do you agree?
Domestic issues were largely responsible for the fall of Louis Philippe. However, it must be
noted that foreign issues also led to the fall of Louis Philippe.
Domestic issues which led to the fall of Louis Philippe

-When Louis Philippe rose to power, he was widely hailed as king of France yet by 1848 France
was bored.
-At home Louis Philippe faced opposition from the Republicans, Bonapartists, Legitimists and
Socialists.
-He was a source of ridicule.
-Liberals demanded a full blown republic.
-The French had hoped for a more effective application of the constitution.
-The majority of the French were politically marginalised.
-The vote was given to the upper middle class.
-These dissenting voices were championed by Thiers.
-The role of Guizot in fostering corruption, bribery and speculation over the Paris Stock Market
also contributed.
-Failure of social changes, that is, labour reform was not accommodated.
-Socially, the majority continued to suffer.
-Poverty, squalor and unemployment lived side by side.
-Industrialisation led to strikes and demonstrations.
-Strikes paralysed main cities like Lyons but these were harshly put down but the causes were
not addressed.
-Nothing much was done to improve conditions.
-Discontent was the order of the day.
-The Factory Act of 1839 fell short of addressing workers’ demands.
-The church was once again given control.
-Calls for reform were ignored leading to the Reform Banquets which precipitated the 1848
revolution.
Foreign issues which led to the fall of Louis Philippe
-Abroad, Louis Philippe’s policies appeared weak as he failed to meet the minimum demands of
the Bonapartists, namely, the need for an aggressive foreign policy reminiscent of the days of
Napoleon I. This infuriated the Bonapartists who were keen to see glory achieved for France.
-Louis Philippe bowed down to the interests of the British.
-He had a chance to intervene in Belgium [1830], Poland [1830] but he did not.
-The Spanish marriage crisis of 1846 turned out to be a disaster.
-Although some success was encountered in Algeria, it was nothing to make up for the loss.
[[8] ‘France is bored’. How far true is this statement with regards to the rule of Louis Philippe
of France to 1848?
The French were largely bored by Louis Philippe’s reign. However, he had some achievements
which pleased some French.
-The statement above was uttered by Lamartine. Liberal Louis was middle class in nature but he
disappointed the.
-There was limited political participation.
-The franchise was narrow.
-Employment remained a pie in the sky for many Frenchmen.
-The banning of reform banquets alienated him further from his people.
-In addition, his foreign policy was unenterprising.
-He was always diplomatically manoeuvred by Britain.

-To the Bonapartists, he lacked La Gloire.
*However, he had modest achievements.
-There was railway construction in France during his era.
-His ministers were liberal.
-In foreign policy he conquered Algeria and brought back the bones of Napoleon I.
[8] Discuss the contribution of the French revolutionary tradition in causing the outbreak of
the 1848 revolution in France.
The French revolutionary tradition contributed greatly to the outbreak of the 1848 revolution in
France. However, there were other factors which also caused the 1848 revolution.
-While the 1848 revolution in France was a reaction to the policies of Louis Philippe, it had
become a tradition to take to the streets their grievances since the eruption of the 1789
revolution.
-The violence of the outburst in the streets caught the ‘bored’ professional classes off the guard
and they found themselves landed with a revolution they did not want but which they were
powerless to resist until they had themselves captured.
-The disorders were started by the proletariat who were angry and those who took the cue
from them, acted not just because of their discontent but because of their revolutionary
tradition.
-It had thus become a tradition for the French people to express their discontent through
revolutions.
* However, it was also Louis Philippe’s failures that forced people to rise in 1848.
-Louis Philippe’s foreign policy was inglorious.
-Calls for reform were ignored by Louis Philippe leading to the Reform Banquets which
precipitated the 1848 evolution.
-Nothing much was done by Louis Philippe to improve conditions.
[8] How accurate is the claim that ‘boredom’ was the chief cause for the downfall of the July
monarchy?
Pupils need to assess the role of boredom as well as other factors in causing the revolution.
-Lamartine’s remark in 1839 that France was bored can be proven by the king’s uninspiring
character-the ordinary man. Louis Philippe could not measure up to the pageant of French
traditions. His simplicity, unprepossessing figure and odd shaped face made him a favourite of
caricatures.
-There was also a sense of disappointment and frustration with the regime which didn’t
represent an empire, a republic or a monarchy.
-Boredom also stemmed from the unrepresentative nature of government and parliament.
There was a limited franchise and corruption of the electoral machinery.
-The regime did not have a good record in its conduct of foreign affairs. Boredom and
frustration increased with an uninspiring foreign policy aimed at keeping France on good terms
with other European powers. This did not satisfy the public’s demands for glory.
*However, boredom alone is not sufficient in explaining the fall of Louis Philippe. There were
also economic difficulties and an immobile social policy whereby government failed to
intervene in times of severe economic hardships like the crisis of 1845-6.

-The government failed to institute social legislation except the labour law of 1841. This
cultivated room for reformed groups which were radical in nature like socialists and
republicans.
-Laws restricting political gatherings led opponents of the regime to form the Banquet
movement. The banning of one such Banquet meeting precipitated the revolution which was a
result of a complex interaction of different factors.
-It must also be noted that it was a tradition of the French to take to the streets their
grievances. They rose in 1789, 1830 and now in 1848.
[8]How similar and how different were the causes of the 1830 and 1848 revolutions in France
[8] Why did France experience revolutions in both 1830 and 1848?
Some of the causes of the 1830 and 1848 revolutions are similar yet others are different.
-Both revolutions were largely caused by domestic policies of Charles x and Louis Philippe
whose policies were repressive and elitist.
-Both limited the freedoms of the people, for instance, both censored the press. The July
Ordinances authorised a severe censorship of the press as well as the dissolution of the
Chamber of Deputies in Charles x’s reign. As for Louis Philippe, he refused to liberalise the
constitution and censored the press heavily.
-The middle class wanted the franchise to be extended. Charles x precipitated the revolt by the
Ordinances of St Cloud. Louis Philippe refused to extend the franchise after giving limited
concessions.
-The workers were affected by industrialisation and their situation worsened with the economic
crisis of 1848.
-Both monarchies were let down by the choice of their ministers. In Polignac, Charles x had a
man who wanted to resuscitate the ancien regime with an influential clergy and a powerful
aristocracy surrounded with privileges. Guizot on the other hand did everything possible to
promote business enterprises and the interests of wealthy whilst doing very little to ease the
plight of the working class and the peasants.
-The kings through their alliances with ministers, failed to take action that was appropriate for
the time.
-Both revolutions were sparked by the elitist nature of the governments. Charles x’s
government represented the interests of the Ultra-Royalists whilst Louis Philippe represented
the interests of the upper bourgeoisie, that is, bankers, property owners, industrialists,
landholders and professional men.
-Both revolutions were not caused by economic reasons because in both cases they enjoyed
great prosperity. During Charles x’s reign finances were stable and the transportation system
experienced great improvements. Under Louis Philippe cotton and textile industries grew
considerably, railway building forged ahead whilst cities like Paris, Lyons and Raibax expanded.
*Differences in causes of the revolution are mostly seen in the motives of the monarchs.
-Charles x was a believer in the divine right of kings and as a result wanted to resuscitate the
ancien regime. Louis Philippe wanted to rule as a citizen king who adhered to the constitution.
-Louis Philippe did not respond to the demands for reform until it was too late.
-Charles x was late in withdrawing the Ordinances.
-Both had narrow franchise but Charles x changed the electoral law reducing the electorate to
75000 from 100000 whilst Louis Philippe extended the franchise from 25000 to 200000.

-In foreign policy Charles x pursued a more adventurous foreign policy that he thought
mistakenly would quell opposition at home whilst Philippe pursued a more cautious foreign
policy that evoked more dissatisfaction amongst the French people who wanted military glory.
[8] ‘Economic and not political’. Is this an accurate assessment of the causes of the 1848
revolution in France?
Both economic and political factors caused the outbreak of the 1848 revolution in France.
-Economically, France was advancing due to the advent of industrialisation yet the ordinary
citizens did not enjoy the fruits of this industrial revolution.
-In fact, the industrial revolution impacted negatively on the lives of the French majority.
-It was only the upper middle class that benefited as policies were discriminatory.
-The government became a joint stock organisation for the profit of its selected few.
-The government failed to deal with problems associated with the industrialisation such as long
working hours, child labour, poor working conditions and shortage of accommodation, poor
sanitary facilities and so forth.
*However, the revolution should also be explained in political terms.
-Political problems such as corruption by governmentofficials as well as nepotism.
-There was also limited franchise and censorship of the press.
-There was suppression of political parties and organisations.
-Louis Philippe’s foreign policy also contributed to the outbreak of the 1848 revolution.
*Social factors such as starvation and poverty.
-There were poor living conditions which also contributed.
-It must also be noted that revolution in France was a tradition. The French had revolted in
1789. In 1839, the French had revolted not because they were in the worst circumstances than
their neighbours but because it had become a tradition.
THE METTERNICH SYSTEM [1815-48] / THE METTERNICH ERA [1815-48]
[8] What was the Metternich system and how effective was it during the years 1815 to 1848?
Pupils need to evaluate the Metternich System. They also need to explain the meaning of the
Metternich system, explain the strengths and evaluate the weaknesses of the system.
-The Metternich system referred to the network of secret police, uniformed police, spies, army,
and government legislation such as the ‘Carlsbad decrees’ [1819] used to forestall or crush
revolts in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German States as well as Italy
[8] How did Metternich fulfill his mandate of keeping the Austrian Empire intact and with
what success to 1848?
Metternich employed various methods in attempt to keep the Austrian Empire intact. However,
these methods had varying degrees of success, but the failures tend to outweigh the successes.
-Metternich used his leverage at the negotiating table at Vienna Settlement to secure the
leadership of Austria over the German Confederation.
-The principle of restoration ensured that Austria regained her Italian territories.
-The Congress System was also another method used by Metternich to preserve the ramshackle
and tottering empire.
-The various congresses, like Verona and Laibach were used to suppress revolutions not only in
the Austrian Empire but in Europe as a whole.
-Metternich also used the divide and rule tactic.
-Metternich used the Carlsbad Decrees to keep the Austrian Empire intact.

-He also used police state mechanisms, like spy system, secret policy and opening letters.
*However, these methods had varying degrees of success.
-The principles of liberalism and nationalism continued to flourish in the Empire. In Hungary,
Kossuth remained a leading light of Hungarian nationalism.
-The empire was too vast for effective secret police infiltration.
-Although the Buscheschafens were banned, University student activism continued to be a
menace.
-Eventually, the system failed to plague the holes from which the 1848 revolutions erupted.
*Nevertheless, the Metternich system managed to preserve peace in Europe for some time.
-Violence and revolutions were successfully kept at bay.
-No liberal reform concessions were given, for example, the King of Prussia was persuaded to
rescind his earlier decision of granting people a liberal constitution.
[8] ‘Metternich was largely unsuccessful in his methods to maintain the Austrian Empire’.
How apt is this statement to the Metternich system?
Metternich managed to put together the ramshackle Austrian empire through a series of
methods that included the use of the Congress System, mechanisms of a police state, divide
and rule approach, discouraging liberal reforms within the empire, control of education
especially in universities, press censorship and many other methods. Metternich was largely
successful in his methods to maintain the Austrian Empire. However, he also had some failures
though to a lesser extent.
-Metternich was successful in that the empire survived to 1848 without any major revolution.
-University student associations were successfully banned in Germany.
-The Congress System suppressed the revolutions successfully in Italy and Spain.
*However, the empire was too vast such that the spy system and police could not wholly work.
-Liberal ideas continued to be smuggled into universities/
-In Hungary, Kossuth remained a well known proponent of Hungarian nationalism.
[8] ‘Success only in the short term’. To what extent is this true of Metternich’s policies in the
Habsburg Empire?
[8] Examine the effectiveness of Metternich’s policies in the Hapsburg Empire between 1815
and 1848?
In the work of the spread of liberal and nationalist ideas, Metternich turned to repression and
divide and rule tactic to preserve Habsburg hegemony in order to control them from spreading
in his empire.Metternich’s policies in the Hapsburg Empire were successful in the short term.
However, in the longer term they increased resentment and opposition.
-The environment in which he worked had several constraints yet before 1840 his system
seemed to work.
-Among the constraints he had to deal with was lack of total support for reform from Francis I,
competition at the court from count Kolowrat, an inefficient administration system and
resentment within the empire on the use of German as a national language.
-Nationalism and liberalism were given no chance to thrive through military action which was
supportive of the rulers in Naples, Sicily and Piedmont in the 1820s.
-In 1830 revolutions, the revolutionaries were given no chance.
-Repression was extended through decrees such as the Carlsbad decrees.

-Before 1840, Metternich used all means associated with a police state, for example, spies,
secret police, informers, strict censorship, restricting freedom of movement and imprisonment,
for example, Kossuth in the 1830s.
-He used the divide and rule tactic to turn nationalists against each other, for instance, Czechs
against Germans, Magyars and Croats, especially on the military front.
-Regional differences were encouraged and there was revival of local traditions in the hope of
promoting loyalty to the empire.
*In the short term, the policies were successful since there were no major threats to the empire
-The major threats were the 1848 revolutions which led to his downfall but which the Hapsburg
survived by relying on the Metternich system.
*In the longer term, the methods of Metternich increased resentment and opposition.
-His local assemblies while promoting cultural nationalism became the centre where national
grievances could be discussed.
-The Hungarians grew stronger in their demands after 1840.
-Their success became a source of inspiration for others.
[8] How far does Metternich’s role in the internal affairs of Austria from 1815 deserve more
praise than criticism?
-Conservative policy was probably an attempt at stability. He is to be criticised because he
failed to avoid the 1848 revolution.
-He was able to prevent disruptive forces for some time.
-He was also less reactionary than others in the Austrian government including the Emperor
Ferdinand, for example, while seeking to preserve the authority of the Hapsburgs by dividing its
opponents he was willing to allow a certain degree of autonomy.
-He was not in complete control of domestic affairs and he was dealing with problems that
arose before he became chancellor.
[8] ‘It deliberately attacked the forces of liberalism and nationalism’. How accurate is this
judgment of the aims and methods of the Metternich system?
-Metternich wanted to uphold absolute monarchy not because he thought it was perfect but it
was the traditional system of government in almost all European countries.
-Monarchical government provided order, stability and authority.
-Austria was especially against nationalism and liberalism to protect her heterogeneous empire.
-In this regard Metternich used the Metternich system in which nationalism and liberalism were
deliberately repressed through press censorship, repression by the army and denial of reform
*However, although Metternich was considered repressive, he was fairly progressive as he
attempted reforms within theHapsburg Empire which were not well supported by the emperor
-This system lasted until the 1848 revolutions when people not only in Austria revolted against
their own rulers.
-In Austria the Empire was under threat because it was composed of numerous nationals such
as the Magyars, Serbs, Croats and Slovaks.
[8] By what means and with what success did Metternich maintain the stability and authority
of the Hapsburgs during the years 1815 and 1848?
Metternich employed various methods in an attempt to maintain stability and authority of the
Habsburgs between 1815 and 1848. These methods however, had varying degrees of success.

-In 1815, Metternich upheld the legitimacy of the Hapsburgs. Therefore, he stood conservative
in the face of the spread of revolutionary ideas.
-The privileged position of the monarchy and aristocracy had to be protected both at home and
abroad through the Metternich system.
-The policy of divide and rule was widely used.
-Subject people were played off against each other.
-This was evident throughout and the effectiveness of the system was used even after the
downfall of Metternich during the 1848-49 revolutions.
-Strict censorship was used to stop the spread of liberal ideas.
-Foreign opinions were not allowed.
-Education was controlled by the state.
-Revolts were crushed in the Austrian Empire.
-The system of intervention as in the Troppau Protocol enabled Austria to maintain a powerful
image abroad.
-The policies followed brought partial success.
*However, Hungary succeeded in getting its own Diet in 1840 and to use Magyar as an official
language.
-In Italy the revolts that threatened the Habsburgs only came in 1848.
-This however, was not s much because of Metternich but the many territorial divisions which
safeguarded against a national rising.
-In Germany, the Metternich system of suppression was very successful through the Carlsbad
Decrees.
-Constitutional liberties were thus postponed for many years.
-Authority of the Habsburgs and Austria was therefore made secure in the Federal DIET.
[8] How far, between 1815 and 1848 was Metternich’s policy in European affairs justified?
Pupils need to assess Metternich’s foreign policy in Europe [aims, practice and effects.
-After Napoleonic wars, Metternich like his counterparts was guided by the search for peace.
-There was need to secure a balance of power which in turn guarded the Austrian Habsburgs
against the forces of nationalism, liberalism and constitutionalism.
-These must be discussed in light of the legacy of Vienna Settlement, Quadruple Alliance and
Quintuple Alliance.
-The operation of the Concert of Europe must be considered.
-Pupils also need to discuss the Congress System and cite relevant examples.
-Even after the breakup of the Congress System intervention continued in Italy in 1830s.
[8] How successful was Metternich in restoring and preserving the old order in Europe?
Metternich was greatly successful in restoring and preserving the old order in Europe.
-Metternich made huge successes given that when he came to power the Austrian Empire was
at its lowest point.
-Its fortunes had declined, she had been forced off from Italy, lost her Netherlands, her territory
in Poland and dominance of Germany had been removed by the Napoleonic wars.
-It was through the Metternich system that the Austrian fortunes were revitalised.
-In Europe, Metternich successfully restored the ancient regime through his influence at the
Congress of Vienna. Ancient monarchs were restored in France, Spain and Westphalia.

-Metternich successfully thwarted forces of liberalism and nationalism in small states like
Belgium, Luxemberg and Italy at Vienna Settlement.
-He again reasserted his authority over the Confederation of the Rhine.
-It was through his influence in the Congresses held after 1815 that the old order was preserved
in Austria and Continental Europe.
*Though Metternich succeeded in preserving the old order, he could not prevent nationalistic
and liberal sentiments particularly in Austria and Italy.
-There were revolts in Spain, Nice, Savoy, Greece, Belgium and Austria in 1830 and 1848.
-The 1848 revolutions successfully removed Metternich from office.
[8] Why inspite of their early successes did the 1848 revolutions in Austria and Hungary end
in failure?
-There was initial success as kings were overthrown, feudalism and the robot were abolished
and liberal constitutions granted in Vienna and Budapest. Metternich fled in March 1848 but
the fortunes of the revolutionaries changed such that by the end of 1848 the Hapsburgs were
back in power.
*The revolutionaries failed because they underestimated the resilience of the old regime which
continued to command the loyalty of the imperial army.
*There were also divisions among the ranks of the revolutionaries on issues like the fate of the
German provinces.The revolutionaries had no unity of leadership or a common strategy.
*The bewildering speed with which initial success had been achieved led to fatal errors and
omissions.
*There was a paralysis of resolution especially with the delegates meeting at Kremsier drafting
a constitution.
*Most decisive was the military force used to crush the Viennese uprising in October 1848.
*The revolutionaries were also overtaken the realism of count Schwarzenberg who thwarted
the Kremsier constitution by granting an imperial constitution giving concessions such as
universal manhood suffrage.
*The Viennese government also adopted a divide and rule approach by supporting minorities
alienated by Louis Kosuth’s March Laws to crush the Hungarian revolt.
*The Hungarian revolt was crushed by the military forces of the Crodian General Jellacic,
Windischgratz and Russian forces. The Hapsburgs were therefore saved by the mercenary
support of Russia.
[8] Explain the aims and failures of the revolutionaries who rebelled against Austrian rule in
1848-49.
Pupils need to assess the aims and reasons for the failure of the revolution against Austria.
The revolution was against Austrian rule itself and the empire
-Within Austria, revolutionaries wanted a liberal constitution and government, an end to
inefficient bureaucracy, an end of censorship and overhaul to the taxation system.
-In the empire the drivers were liberalism and nationalism.
-There was demand for independence by the subjects of Austria.
-When the revolution started the emperor conceded concessions and Metternich was forced to
resign.
-Success did not last forever.
Reasons for failure include

-There were divisions among the revolutionaries.
-The Metternich system of divide and rule prevailed.
-Revolutionaries lacked military strength.
-After initial paralysis the emperor recovered the loyalty of the army and got assistance from
Russia.
-The peasants did not stand behind the liberals.
NAPOLEON III / LOUIS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
[9] ‘Louis Napoleon had nothing to offer France’. Why then did he rise to power and to what
extent had he been able to consolidate his position by 1852?
A plethora of factors led to the rise of Napoleon III. However, it must be noted that Napoleon III
employed various strategies in consolidating his position and was successful to 1852.
Reasons for the rise of Napoleon III
-Napoleon III achieved power because of the weaknesses of the Orleanist Monarchy
-Also important was the effect of the Napoleonic tradition
-The French vision of order and glory also led to the rise of Louis Napoleon.
-The constitution of the republic also contributed.
-The weaknesses of the government of the Second Republic created loopholes for the rise of
Napoleon and setting up of the Second Empire.
How Napoleon consolidated his position
-Opposition was deliberately attacked and opponents were arrested.
-Meanwhile, there were tours throughout the countryside, to campaign for the extension of the
term of office.
-Then came the Coup d’état of December 1851. His ability to effect a coup d’état led to the
establishment of an empire.
-The coup was followed by a constitution and a plebiscite.
[9]’He promised much but achieved little’. Discuss this view of Napoleon III in France.
-At home, Napoleon III promised to create a modern industrial economy, employment
opportunities, improved welfare of workers, development of unused land, creation of a strong
army, revival of French prestige, liberty and progress, social development and maintenance of
order on the political front following the anarchy of 1848, the constitution had given Napoleon
absolute power for ten years therefore setting up the autocratic empire.
*However, even absolute power was difficult to hold as seen in the establishment of the liberal
empire [1869-1870]. He had to make concessions in the face of growing opposition from the
Catholics, liberals and legitimists.
-France was most prosperous [1852-1870].
-Napoleon III brought about effective communication systems such as railway development.
-Order was restored, but at the expense of people’s liberty.
-Land was put to good use but many Frenchmen were not employed.
-The Paris exhibition benefited French industry and trade.
-Economically and politically the empire was at its peak in 1860.
-Commercial treaties were signed with Britain, Italy and the Zollverein.
-By the Crimean war, Napoleon revived French prestige but from 1862, prestige was lost due to
inconsistencies, blunders or losses in battle.
-There were also some social developments.

-Napoleon III introduced a number of public works which benefited the French in various ways.
-Napoleon III made some significant improvements in Paris.
-Despite the introduction of the liberal empire decline could not be stopped.
-Napoleon III failed to achieve his aims as demonstrated by increased opposition after 1862 and
the ultimate defeat of France in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war.
[9] To what extent did Napoleon III fulfill the French people’s Bonapartist expectations?
Pupils need to assess Napoleon III’s domestic and foreign policies. Bonapartism was known for
its efficiency, effectiveness, order and glory abroad. Napoleon III was supposed to live up to
these expectations.
-At home Napoleon III brought order by his autocratic principles between 1850 and 1859. For
instance, the press was heavily censored to ensure limited opposition. Federations of political
associations were banned.
*However, the principles brought a lot of discontent.
-Just like his uncle, Napoleon I, he brought economic prosperity.
-Industries boomed and state banks were established.
-Communication networks were greatly improved.
-The government provided employment for millions of people.
-His foreign policy started off well with the Crimean war [1854] and other areas of success in
Africa, Asia and Europe.
*However, his foreign policy became a fiasco [failure] and to this end he failed to live up to the
expectations of the Bonapartists.
-He failed in Mexico, Austro-Piedmontese war, Austro-Prussian war and Franco-Prussian war.
[9] To what extent was Napoleon III a success at home and a failure abroad?
Napoleon III was largely successful at home and had some limited successes abroad.
-Domestically, Napoleon III scored notable success.
-There was greater economic prosperity and improved social conditions, for example, he
introduced public works such as building of roads, which crated employment.
-Railways were expanded.
-He encouraged trade as seen in the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty of 1860.
-Interests rates remained low.
-Heavy industries grew.
-Banks were founded.
-Investment increased.
*However, there were some dictatorial tendencies as he controlled his ministers and the
parliament was powerless.
-This however changed after 1860 when the so called ‘Liberal Empire’ was introduced.
*His foreign policy was generally a failure.
-Apart from the Crimean war, the Italian adventure [Austro-Piedmontese war] was a failure.
-The Mexican adventure was also a fiasco.
-The Austro-Prussian war was also a blow to Napoleon III.
-The Franco Prussian war also a bitter pill to swallow for Napoleon III.
-By 1870, Napoleon III was completely isolated and this led to his downfall.
[9] Why was Napoleon III unable to retain the lasting support of the French people?

Initially Napoleon III had support but by 1870 the picture was completely different. The French
people withdrew their support from Napoleon III for various reasons both within and outside
France. It must be noted that both domestic and foreign issues made people to withdraw their
support from him.
-In the 1848 elections, Napoleon III won the Presidency.
-In 1851 he effected the coup d’état.
-In the following plebiscite, Napoleon III got overwhelming support.
-Thereafter, people voted him again and again.
-He ensured that the Napoleonic dynasty offered great prosperity and success while
maintaining order and security.
-He argued that the government at home should be for the poor.
-There were developments in the banking system, railway and the beautification of Paris.
-There were elements of state control in education and censorship.
-His country tours kept him in touch with the people.
*However, the 1860s brought dissent right up to his downfall in 1871.
-Withdrawal of support marked the beginning of the liberal empire.
-The move to free trade with the signing of the Cobden-Chevalier treaty was followed by
economic downturn.
-Catholics and businessmen resented it.
-The crushing of the credit Mobilier together with accusations of corruption increased
opposition.
-Opposition was within the Legislative body as more opposition deputies were elected.
-The onset of the liberal empire also explains the withdrawal of support by the people.
-With restrictions of people’s freedoms gone, the French could experiment with other ideas.
-The election of 1869 was a disaster for the government.
-To some extent the French deserted Napoleon III because of his grasshopper policies,
especially in foreign policy.
-This affected people back home.
-Up to 1859 he had got the support of the Catholics who turned against him during the Austro-
Italian war [Austro-Piedmontese war of 1859.
-Bonapartists ho constituted the war party were not impressed by lack of military contribution
in the Austro-Prussian war.
-The Mexican campaign did not bring glory, so did the Franco-Prussian war.
-Initially, Napoleon IIIhad support but by 1870 the picture was completely different due to a
myriad of reasons both within and outside France.
[9] ‘He offered order and security against unrest’. Examine this view of Louis Napoleon III as
ruler of both the Second Republic and Second Empire.
Napoleon III’s domestic policies maintained order and security in France. However, one must
not forget the costs that had to be borne by the French.
-Insecurity arose with the fall of the Orleanist Monarchy.
-The provisional government faced a power struggle between the lower and middle classes
shown in the June Days.
-Conservatives won the day leading to Bonapartism.

# Order and security in the republic was reflected in efficient organisation and Napoleon’s
ability to enlist support from all classes by such promises as religious toleration, free press,
social reform, industrial progress and protection of property.
-Napoleon III also used the Napoleonic legend.
-Popularity led to the establishment of the second empire confirmed through plebiscites.
-The second empire was autocratic.
-There was prosperity between 1852 and 1870 as shown by financial policies, improvements in
Paris, communications and so on.
*It must be noted that freedoms were limited hence growth of liberal opposition.
-Also of note was Louis Napoleon’s inability to reconcile the interests of clericals and liberals.
-The liberal Empire of 1860-70 led to concessions but the Parliamentary democracy did not
ensure security.
-Mistakes abroad also led to opposition.
[9] How and to what extent was Napoleon III able to secure support within France up to 1870
[9] How successfully did Louis Napoleon III attempt to secure support within France for his
rule between 1848 and 1870?
Pupils need to assess the methods used by Napoleon III to gain support for his rule in France.
They must also assess the degrees of success or failure of Napoleon’sattempts to gain support
within France.
-These measures include the occupation of Rome in 1848.
-The coup d’état of 1851.
-Autocratic constitution of 1851.
-By 1852 Napoleon was using propaganda effectively.
-Return to populist measures through permitting exiles to return home.
-He broadened the franchise. There was universal suffrage.
-There is also evidence of harsher methods to suppress opposition.
-Trade union legislation
-Plebiscites
-The general election of 1848 which culminated in the establishment of a republic.
-The shift from the autocratic to the liberal empire particularly in relation to the different
political groupings is important.
-As emperor, he concealed authoritarianism under liberal and parliamentary façade.
-Foreign policy earned him support of the liberals and Bonapartists.
-He appealed to the liberals by supporting Cavour.
-The Mexican adventure and Polish question showed his inconsistency.
-Napoleon III fought Germany [Prussia] in 1870-71 due to public pressure.
[9] Which contributed more to the demise of Napoleon III; an adventurous foreign policy or a
liberalised empire?
-The 1860s brought dissent which grew up to Napoleon III’s downfall in 1871.
-In 1860 Napoleon III made a commercial treaty with Britain by which English coal, iron,
machinery and textiles, entered France with reduced import duties and in turn England reduced
duties on French wines and spirits. This caused him to lose the support of the leading
merchants and manufacturers of France.

-In order to make up for the loss of support from manufacturers and Catholics he began to
allow more political freedom in France with the purpose of gaining support of the liberals.
-He issued out decrees which allowed the publication in full of all parliamentary debates and
allowed the Senate and Legislature to criticise the government.
-All this led to an increase in the strength of his opponents and in the 1863 elections, 17
republicans were returned.
-As the foreign difficulties of the emperor increased he was forced to make further concessions
to liberty.
-The government lost its right to suppress newspapers and public meetings were again allowed.
-This led to the increasing influence of Republican newspapers as Socialists and Republicans had
agreed upon an alliance against the empire.
-In the 1869 elections the opponents gained 3355500 votes against 4438000 for the
government.
-Up to 1859 he had the support of the Catholics who turned against him during the Austro-
Piedmontese war of 1859.
-Bonapartists who constituted the war party were not impressed by the lack of military
contribution in the Austro-Prussian war.
-The Mexican adventure did not bring glory.
-The Franco-Prussian war [1870-71] led to his fall.
[9] ‘Tough choices and wrong decisions characterised Napoleon III’s foreign policy’. How far
do you agree with this statement?
-For Napoleon III, the empire meant peace, yet ironically he fought eight campaigns.
-Only in the Austro-Piedmontese war in 1859 did he plan war.
-He hoped success abroad would increase support at home from the Catholics, liberals and
other groups.
-In the Crimean war [1854], Napoleon III followed the British.
-There was prestige at Paris but the war was costly.
-The Orsini incident was a minor incident with considerable international consequences.
-Victory at Magenta and Solferino was not followed through.
- Napoleon was afraid of possible intervention so peace was made at a price.
-In 1863 there was a possible French intervention in the Polish Question.
-A tough choice which was not practicalwas the Mexican campaign.
-The episode meant continual criticism for Napoleon throughout the 1860s.
-In Italy the choice between Nationalists and Catholics continued to vex Napoleon.
-The Pope did not recognise the new Italian state.
-Napoleon III allowed Piedmont to keep part of the Papal States and troops in Rome. This upset
Catholics.
-After 1864 tough choices had to be made in relation to the German Question.
-Decisions here ultimately led to the fall of Franc in 1871.
HISTORY OF RUSSIA
Tsar Alexander I [1801-1825]
[9] How and to what extent did Alexander I of Russia implement liberal reform?
-Though living in a period where conservatism was influential, Alexander I favoured liberal ideas
-He had been greatly influenced by the works of Rousseau and Voltaire.

-He appointed a special committee sympathetic to liberal ideas.
-Political prisoners were released.
-Exiles returned to Russia.
-New universities were built and so were elementary schools.
-He approved a law enabling landowners to liberate serfs thus recognising that serfdom was
degrading.
*He however, did not make freeing of serfs mandatory.
-Flogging of serfs was outlawed.
*Reforms were unfortunately not welcomed by landowners.
*His policies were genuine but his unstable personality led to reverses.
*His liberalism was inconsistent and he became reactionary between 1819 and 1825.
*Those that were in contact with the west were disappointed.
*There was no parliamentary system and no constitution.
*After the murder of Kortzbu, Metternich convinced Alexander I that reform movements were
against monarchs.
*He thus returned to control of education and the spread of western ideas was stopped.
Tsar Nicholas I [1825-1855]
[9] Discuss the view that the reign of Nicholas I [1825-55] was devoted to the promotion of
‘order’ within Russia.
-Nicholas I believed in autocracy.
-As a Slavophile, his approach was defensive.
-He wanted to keep Russia pure and uncorrupt.
-He provided Russia with a philosophy of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.
-Coming out of the Decembrist revolt and the 1830 revolt in Poland, he took major decisions
into his own hands and concluded that western ideas of liberalism and nationalism had to be
curbed
-To 1833 order was established through censorship, limiting education and going abroad.
-Following the Polish revolt, Poland lost its constitution and was integrated to be part of Russia.
-Besides repression there was attempt at reform on the position of serfs.
*Reforms in face of revolts had little effect.
-Autocracy worked well for Nicholas.
-There was relative stability.
-Most European states [France, Austria, Germany and Italy] were affected by the 1848
revolutionsbut not Russia.
-His policies were largely brutal and repressive and failed to prepare Russia for future
challenges.
[9] How and with what success was Nicholas I able to deal with threats to his rule between
1825 and 1855?
Pupils need to assess the methods used and achievements of Nicholas I’s domestic policy.
Pupils must show a clear understanding of problems faced by Nicholas’ response and results.
-Nicholas came to power following the Decembrist revolt.
-Reform was rejected so were liberal ideas.
-Nicholas I was deeply conservative.
-To 1848 there was relative stability.

-Threat came with the revolt in Austria so troops were mobilised.
-At home there was censorship of news and travel abroad.
-Criticism of the regime was followed by persecution.
-Threats were also from the revolts of the serfs.
-Attempts were made at reform for state peasants to no avail.
-Serfdom was an economic necessity for the nobility.
-Success was limited by the fears of Nicholas I.
-He lacked political conviction.
-Also the fear of the landless peasants real or imagined.
-Inability to industrialise was reflected by lack of technology which led to defeat in the Crimean
war [1854].
9] Examine the policies and achievements of Nicholas I from 1825-1855.
Pupils need to assess the rule of Nicholas I in Russia taking note of the successes and failures.
-Nicholas inherited the throne in Russia after the death of Alexander I.
-The state was feudal with the majority being state peasants and serfs.
-Not all the people were Russian; there were minorities like Slavs and Poles.
-His accession to power followed the Decembrist revolt.
-The revolt impacted on his rule as the authority of the Tsar had been challenged.
-He made attempts to conserve autocracy, Tsar’s authority and to minimise challenges to the
state.
*The negative side of Nicholas sees a narrow minded repressive autocrat who prevented
necessary change and thus made Russia’s problems worse.
*The positive side sees him as a man of fixed principles who did not deliberately cause misery.
Some of the faults blamed on him were not necessarily his.
-Between 1825 and 1833 he worked to establish order by discouraging liberalism and
westernism.
-There was censorship and control of education.
-Under Sergei Uvarov as minister of education, three key principles underpinned Russia in
government namely, orthodox, autocracy and nationality as creating a shared identity for its
people. This was challenged by the Poles.
-Nicholas considered reforms such as those related to serfdom and the codification of the law.
-He however, had to be too cautious.
-The years 1834-1848 were uneventful.
-There was a slow development in education, literature and the economy.
-Opposition increased as the number of revolts increased although they were crushed.
-Relative peace and stability strengthened Nicholas I’s belief in the wisdom of his policies, yet
Russia lagged behind technologically.
-Railways were not enough and there was no industry compared to the rest of Europe.
-Between 1848 and 1855 Nicholas I worked to contain disorder and this was a reaction to the
1848 revolts.
-A series of measures were taken, for example, censorship and limits to freedom of movement.
-The idea of reform was forgotten and abroad Russia was isolated.
As a Slavophile, he kept Russia pure and uncorrupted.
-Liberalism and western ideas meant little in Russia up to 1855.

-While opposition was there not much was achieved.
-Radicalism became real.
Tsar Alexander II [1855-1881]
[9] To what extent were the Russian people ‘liberated’ by Alexander’s reforms?
[9] How far was Alexander II a liberal Tsar?
[9] How liberal was Tsar Alexander II’s rule of Russia?
When Tsar Nicholas I died, it was widely hoped that Alexander II would be more enlightened
than his father. Alexander II was interested in protecting Tsarism. Alexander II recognised the
need for change but wished to preserve autocracy – a difficult partnership of aims. Alexander II
introduced a number of liberal reforms. However, some of his reforms were half hearted and
the reforming period was comparatively short.
-Emancipation of serfs [1861] was the major reform. Serfs were liberated. They were given land
of their own. They could now move freely and choose employment of their own.This was seen
as necessary to improve the economy and relieve social tensions. When Tsar Alexander II
passed important reforms to free serfs and improve the efficiency of the various branches of
the government, the liberals hailed him as ‘the Tsar Liberator’. They were encouraged to
believe that he might pass further reforms to give people a share in the government by
establishing an elected legislature. When Alexander II refused to do this, the liberals were
bitterly disappointed. They accused him of having started out a liberal and then having become
a reactionary. In fact Alexander II never believed in political liberalism. He was prepared to
introduce economic and administrative reforms for the benefit of his subjects but he was not
prepared to allow them to allow them to interfere in the running of the government.
Government, he believed was the task of the Tsar alone.
*However, this evoked more anger and frustrations from the freed serfs as this reform failed to
improve the economic lot of a hard pressed peasants. The peasants resented paying for the
land. More so, land was not enough such that some were better off as serfs than as liberated.
-Although the emancipation of serfs did not create a prosperous peasantry, these reforms were
important achievements.
-Nevertheless, the emancipation of serfs led to a concatenation of other reforms, for example,
-Reforms in the army
-There were also reforms in education. However, educational reforms were too cosmetic and
simply whetted the appetite for more reforms.
-Legal reforms were introduced and censorship was eased but only temporarily.
-reforms in judiciary
-There were also some moves towards representative democracy [Zemstvos].
*However, the Zemstvos which were locally elected councils did not represent any measure of
democracy.
-The tragedy was however, that some reforms were piece meal and half hearted, they invited
more opposition leading to formation of groups like the ‘People’s Will, Nihilists and Anarchists.
-The Tsar became more reactionary after several attempts at his life and Polish revolt. This led
to the reversal of earlier gains from early reforms.
[9] ‘His reforms were half-hearted and inconclusive’. Assess this view of Tsar Alexander II of
Russia.
Tsar Alexander II’s reforms had some short comings but they were well meaning.

-Russia was lagging behind in industrialisation. Thus abolition of serfdom [emancipation of
serfs] by Alexander II was ideal to quicken industrialisation. It must be noted that agricultural
reforms bore fruit towards the end of the century and credit must be given to Alexander II’s
reforms [1861]. The reform of emancipation opened a floodgate of other reforms.
*However, the emancipation of serfs left many glaring gaps. Land given was not always enough
and productive. Some peasants were better off before the reforms than after. The issue of
paying for the land was also unpalatable to most peasants. Thus there was more opposition for
the Tsar, who resorted to strict autocracy so as to contain groups such as Nihilists.
-The Russian army had been humiliated during the Crimean war of 1854-56. Thus military
reforms by Alexander II were important to modernise the Russian army.
*However, military reforms were not exhaustive as Russia was defeated in the Russo-Japanese
war of 1904. More so, all people over 20 years were involuntarily forced to join the army
though irrespective of class.
-Well-meaning reforms were also made in the sphere of education.
*However, educational reforms were too cosmetic and simply whetted the appetite for more
reforms.
-Well-meaning reforms were also made in local government.
*However, the Zemstvos which were locally elected councils did not represent any measure of
democracy. More so, there was segregation of voters.
-Alexander introduced judicial reforms [1864]. He introduced the judiciary independent of the
government. Judges were required to have professional qualifications. There was also
introduction of trial by jury. He also made courts open to the public.
*However, the system did not extend to the peasants as they were tried by separate courts. It
did little to protect the individual from the arbitrary power of the state.
[9] ‘Relevant but ineffective’. Is this fairassessment of Alexander II’s reforms?
Tsar Alexander II’s reforms were timely and relevant considering the nature of problems Russia
was experiencing at that time. Russia had military, administrative and economic problems.
-Serfdom was a serious social and economic problem in Russia. Also Russia was lagging behind
in Industrialisation. Hence the emancipation of serfs [through the Edict of Emancipation of
1861] was necessary.
*It must be realised that the emancipation of serfs did not improve the lot of the hard pressed
peasants. Peasants after 1861 had even greater financial obligations than before
-There was administrative inefficiency in Russia which was seen in autocratic rule. Hence
administrative reforms were relevant.
*However, it must be noted that the Zemstvos did not represent any measure of democracy.
-The defeat of Russia in the Crimean war of 1854-56 exposed Russia’s military incompetence.
Hence the military reforms were important.
*However, it must be noted that military were not exhaustive as seen in Russia’s defeat by
Japan in 1904.
-Russia was lagging behind in terms of education. Thus educational reforms were significant.
*However, educational reforms whetted the appetite of the liberal middle classes, but much
was reversed later.
[9] How far and in what ways did Alexander II’s reforms benefit Russia?

-Alexander II emancipated serfs through the Edict of Emancipation.Peasants couldnow buy land
and pay redemption fees over a period of 49 years
*Though serfs were freed from serfdom the benefits were not fully realised. The emancipation
of serfs delayed modernisation of the Russian economy. A collective based method of
agriculture made the introduction of new methods of farming very difficult. Peasants after 1861
had even greater financial obligations than before. On the other hand, the land owners
received additional finance much of which was used to pay off debts, little being invested in
Russian industry. Social stability was achieved but at the expense of more rapid economic
growth.
-Reforms in the army also benefited Russia. The military reforms led to the creation of a large,
better trained and better organised army than it had been in 1855.
*However, some people were recruited unwillingly through conscription.
-The judicial reforms benefited the Russians. Trial by jury was introduced in the administration
of laws.
*However, the system did not extend to peasants as they were tried by separate courts. It did
very little to protect the individual from the arbitrary power of the state.
-The financial status of Russia improved between 1858 and 1877. Better accounting procedures
were introduced and the granting to other bodies of the right to collect taxes for the state was
replaced by a state run tax on goods.
-There was growth of railways which benefited the Russians.
-There was growth of commercial banks which benefited the people of Russia.
[9] How far did the reforms of Alexander II change the fundamental economic and social
structure of Russia?
[9] How effective were the problems facing Russia solved by Alexander II’s domestic reforms?
[9] ‘Alexander II’s reforms were a solution to the problemsfaced by Russia’. Do you agree?
Russia was facing a number of problems, that is, military, administrative and economic. There
was serfdom which was a social as well as an economic problem. Russia’s economy was agro-
based, but yields remained low. In the economy, problems related to the primitive agricultural
system characterised by low productivity and lack of industrial development. The Russian
government was autocratic. In the whole, Russia could be considered backward by western
standards. Alexander II attempted to solve these problems but the reforms which he instituted
were not exhaustive, they were half-hearted and failed to satisfy the wishes of his supporters.
They only satisfied the appetites of those for whom they were intended.
-Russia was lagging behind in industrialisation. Alexander II abolished serfdom so as to quicken
industrialisation.
*However, the emancipation of serfs had many glaring gaps. Land given was not always enough
and productive. Some peasants were better off before the reforms than after. The peasants
expected more reforms which led to the emergence of opposition.
-The Russian army was weak. This was evident in the defeat of Russia in the Crimean war of
1854-56 which exposed Russia’s military incompetence. Alexander tried to improve the Russian
army through introducing military reforms. He created a large, better trained and better
organised army.
*However, the military reforms were not exhaustive as seen by Russia’s defeat by Japan in the
1904-05 Russo-Japanese war.

-Russia was lagging behind in terms of education. Alexander attempted to improve this by
introducing educational reforms which were well meaning.
*However, educational reforms were too cosmetic and simply whetted the appetite for more
reforms.
-Russia had a problem of administrative inefficiency. Alexander attempted to solve this by
introducing administrative reforms, for instance, he reformed the local government.
*However, though the Zemstvos were locally elected councils they did not represent any
measure of democracy.
-Alexander’s reforms set a platform for a bright Russian future.They laid basis for a
transformation of society.
*Alexander’s reforms did not offer immediate remedy to the problems in Russia. The
emergence of extremist and violent groups such as the Nihilists and the People’s Will
[Populists] is proof that the reforms were ineffective and inadequate.
*It must also be noted that Alexander became reactionary after 1866 leading to his
assassination in 1881.
THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY [1815-1871]
[10] Examine the factors that contributed to the unification of Germany by 1870.
-The role of the Zollverein
-Modernisation of Prussia
-The 1848 revolutions
-The strong Prussian Army
-Bismarck’s scheming
-Exclusion of Austria from German affairs
-The 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war
[10] How significant was the Zollverein in the political unification of Germany?
The Zollverein played a very significant role in the political unification of Germany. However, it
must be noted that there are other factors which also led to the unification of Germany.
-The Zollverein unified all German states and this in turn pushed Prussia to the fore and became
the key state in the foundation of political unity.
-The result of Austria’s failure to join the Zollverein was to lesson her influence in the German
Confederation and to increase the importance of Prussia.
-The German princes were at first reluctant to join any form of customs union for fear that it
would weaken their position as independent rulers. But in the 1830s their attitude changed.
-The Zollverein was welcomed by businessmen, traders and merchants of all kinds because it
made the movements of goods quicker, easier and less expensive.
-Through the Zollverein Prussia rather than Austria was taking the lead in Germany.
-Economic unity formed basis for later political unity. It showed the German the value of
cooperation.
-It gave rise to a militant working class which was to be very active in the 1848 revolutions.
Other factors
-The outcome of Vienna Settlement
-The prime position given to Prussia then
-Effects of the Napoleonic era in stirring up nationalistic ideas

-The growth of liberal and nationalist ideas, leading to the greater Germany and smaller
Germany debates
-Military reforms in Prussia
-Bismarck’s wars [Danish war, Austro-Prussian war and Franco-Prussian war]
[10] ‘Wasted years’. How accurate is this description of German unification between 1815
and 1862?
Pupils need to assess the factors that hindered and those that promoted German unification in
the period 1815 to 1862. Bismarck who spearheaded the unification of Germany described the
period 1815-62 as wasted in the solution to the German unification.
-Opportunities were vast for German liberals to unify Germany yet they were wasted.
-The German states had been reduced to 39 by Napoleon I and the Vienna Settlement had
acknowledged these states as a loose confederation, thus the foundation had been laid.
-The 1830 and 1848 revolutions were opportunities for German liberals and nationalists to
unify Germany.
-The 1848 revolutions had removed Metternich from office resulting in the Frankfurt
Parliament. The liberals again squandered this opportunity.
-They wasted time debating on the fate of Austria and the form of unification until the forces of
reaction bounced back.
-Another opportunity was the Zollverein which had united Germany economically.
# On the contrary, the road to unification was never going to be smooth given a number of
obstacles.
-Unification proved difficult because of the existence of the Holy and Quadruple alliances. The
two alliances were determined to preserve the provision of the Vienna Settlement.
-Liberal and nationalistic revolts were ruthlessly suppressed.
-Unification before 1849 was difficult because of the Metternich system.
-The German liberals tried yet the German society was at loss on the advantage of unification
especially the rural folk.
-Unification appealed mainly to the urbanites.
[10] Critically examine the diplomatic skills displayed by Bismarck in pursuing his objectives
as chief minister of Prussia before 1871.
Pupils need to assess the methods used by Bismarck in his foreign policy. They must define
Bismarck’s objectives, making clear their limited nature at each stage; for instance, it was not a
master plan for the unification of Germany. He was more of an opportunist who profited on the
mistakes of others. The diplomatic skills displayed by Bismarck are;
-Mild treatment of victims, for example Austria after the Austro-Prussian war.
-Isolation of enemies
-He made enemies to appear as aggressors.
-He used a modernised Prussia to unify Germany.
-He made use of traps, for example, Austria after the Danish war.
[10] To what extent can Bismarck be credited for the unification of Germany?
Bismarck should be credited for the unification of Germany to a larger extent. This was because
he was the key figure who played a very significant role in the unification of Germany. For
instance, he manipulated the Ems telegram to make it more provocative, he isolated his
opponents from likely allies, he negotiated with the south Germany states, just to mention a

few. However, it should be noted that there were other factors which were also important in
the unification of Germany, for example, the role of von Roon and von Moltkeand the role of
Britain, Russia, Italy, Austria as well as the Zollverein.
-Bismarck should be greatly credited for the unification of Germany because he managed to
defeat Denmark in the Danish war of 1864, which also was a stumbling block to the unification
of Germany. As a skillful juggler, Bismarck agreed with Austria to help her fight against
Denmark, that he would acquire Schleswig and Holstein. Denmark was defeated and she lost
Schleswig and Holstein which were strong German states. Thus Bismarck can be credited for the
unification of Germany.
-In addition, Bismarck should becredited for the unification of Germany because he used his
diplomacy to isolate his enemies from likely allies. This was evident when he isolated Austria
[which was a stumbling block to Germany unity] from her allies, that is, Italy and France. France
agreed to be neutral in the case of war between Prussia and Austria. Italy also agreed to help
Prussia to fight against Austria. This made it easier for Prussia to defeat Austria in the Austro-
Prussian war of 1866. Austria was defeated within 7 weeks. Thus the unification of Germany
owed much to Bismarck since he was an intelligent minister.
-Further still, Bismarck managed to sign a treaty with Austria after her defeat in the Austro-
Prussian war of 1866. He signed the treaty of Prague where he gained many territories among
them was part of Hesse-Kassel and Holstein which he had given to Austria after the Danish war.
In other words, Bismarck was able to unite Northern Germany under Prussia through this
treaty. This implies that the unification of Germany owed much to Bismarck.
-Furthermore, Bismarck should be credited for unifying the South German States under Prussia.
The South German States had fought against Prussia in alliance with Austria in the 1866 Austro-
Prussian war. But defensive treaties were signed between Prussia and individual South German
States like Bavaria, Wurttemberg and Baden among others. In these treaties, Bismarck made
them willing to fight by revealing to them Napoleon III’s plans of expansion at their expense.
This threatened them. He also persuaded them to unite with the North German States through
the Zollverein. Thus one can argue that Bismarck can be greatly credited for the unification of
Germany.
-Bismarck should be credited for manipulating the Ems telegram to make it provocative.
Bismarck took advantage of the Spanish candidature in which he persuaded William’s relative
to stand as a candidate. France refused to accept a German on the Spanish throne because this
would mean encirclement of France. The French decided to seek an apology and an
undertaking from William that the Hohenzollern candidate would never in any circumstances
be renewed. Bismarck thought the chance was slipping from his hands and seized the
opportunity by editing the king’s decision from Ems to read more provocative. The Ems
telegram gave the impression of a blunt exchange of diplomatic insults. William’s refusal to
meet the second demand from the French, that of an assurance that the candidature will not
be renewed, left Napoleon III and his ministers with only two ways out of the situation which
they had created; either to climb down or to fight. Thus France decided to declare war on
Prussia yet she was in isolation. This explains why France was overwhelmingly defeated by
Prussia.
-More so, Bismarck used his diplomacy again in isolating France from likely allies in the Franco-
Prussian war [1870-71]. He isolated France so that he would complete the unification process.

This was because the unification of Germany was not over without defeating Napoleon III.
France was isolated from South German States, Britain, Italy, Austria and Russia which Bismarck
had helped in the Polish revolt. This made it easy for Bismarck to overwhelmingly defeat
France. This defeat marked the final unification of Germany. Hence the unification of Germany
owed a lot to Bismarck, the then Prussian chief minister.
*However, it would be unfair to ignore the contribution of other factors, for instance, the role
of von Roon and von Moltke in the unification process. The two, von Roon [War Minister] and
von Moltke [Chief of the General Staff] played key roles in modernising the Prussian army. They
were military strategists. They transformed the Prussian army by increasing the numbers from
500000 to750000. For this reason the Prussian parliament considerably increased taxation of
general funds. These reforms made Prussia dominant in Germany at the expense of Austria.
This army proved vital in the three wars [1864 against Denmark, 1866 against Austria and 1870
against France] which led to the unification of Germany. Hence von Roon and von Moltke
should also be credited for the unification of Germany.
-Apart from this, the Zollverein should also be credited for the unification of Germany. This
customs union united German states under Prussia since Austria was excluded. The Zollverein
tried much to do out with the enemy of unification which was Austria. This in turn pushed
Prussia to the fore and became the key state in the foundation of political unity. This economic
unity however, formed basis for later political unity. During the Bismarckian era, many German
states which were part of the Zollverein found it easier to choose Prussia instead of Austria as
the leader of the new German empire. Hence the Zollverein also played a role in as far as the
unification process was concerned.
-Moreover, the Vienna Settlement of 1815 also contributed to the unification of Germany since
it managed to reduce the German states from 300 to 39. Thus Vienna Settlement also played its
part in the unification of Germany.
-The Prussian king, William should also be credited for the unification of Germany. He was
aimed at greater political freedom and stronger national unity. He had the gift of choosing
strong able leaders like von Roon and von Moltke in 1859 all of whom were also anti-Austrian.
He also supported reforms in the army and modernisation of the economy which were very
significant in the unification process. Thus his role cannot go without being mentioned.
-The 1848 revolutions were also important in the unification of Germany. The brief existence of
the Frankfurt Parliament strengthened the desire for national unity in some form. The failure of
the FrankfurtParliament showed the weaknesses of liberalism in Germany and it became clear
that nationalist developments might now occur without parallel advances towards democracy.
The Germans learnt that in any future movement for Germany unification, Austria would have
to be excluded. In other words, the Kleindeutsch seemed more desirable to most Germans.
Constitutional means had failed hence force would have to be used to overcome the opposition
of Austria. Bismarck was to fulfill this. Prussia was to build the necessary force to carry out this
task of unifying Germany.
[10] How far did Bismarck react to events in the process leading to the unification of Germany
in the period from 1862 to 1871?
Pupils need to assess the role and contribution of Bismarck in the unification of Germany. Two
views of Bismarck’s role in the unification are widely held.
# The first is that Bismarck was a master planner who prioritised Prussian interests.

-He thus workedto expand Prussian power in Northern Germany.
-He continued to give priority to Prussian interests until the establishment of the German
empire in 1871.
-He also prepared for and even provoked events by his alliance system.
-He used propaganda as the case in the Ems telegram.
# The other view sees Bismarck as an opportunist who reacted to events and made good use of
them, ultimately unifying Germany in 1871.
-This view sees Bismarck as a man who seized opportunities.
-Pupils need to consider among others the military events relating to the three major wars
against Denmark [1864], against Austria [1866] and against France [1870-71].
-Other events include circumstances over the military budget that brought Bismarck to power
-The pressure within Prussia for a wider union after 1866.
-Napoleon III’s mishandling of his foreign policy to Prussia.
[10] How justified is the claim that between 1862 and 1870, Bismarck’s priority was the
promotion of Prussian interests?
[10] ‘Constantly preoccupied with Prussian interests’. How far does this comment explain
Bismarck’s policies up to 1870?
Pupils need to assess the policies of Bismarck up to 1870. They need to discuss the Bismarck
who deliberately planned to give Prussia the edge and at the same time the Bismarck who only
by coincident unified Germany.
-Bismarck became chief minister of Prussia in 1862 to solve a Prussian problem over the
budget.
-He was a conservative Junker not a radical nationalist.
-Bismarck saw expansion and unification as promoting the interests of Prussia.
-The support given by von Roon and von Moltke
-Focus on expanding the economy especially the railway system
-The great and small Germany debate was so advanced that the end of Austrian influence in the
German Confederation was considered an advantage to Prussia. It was seen as being in the
interest of Prussia which would become a major power in the confederation.
-Bismarck in the Schleswig-Holstein question and then the Austro-Prussian war sacrificed the
Germans in Austria for Prussian power.
-Focus should also be on the establishment of the Northern German Confederation and its
implications.
-There were pressures on the wider union after 1866 since there had been doubts about
bringing in the Southern States.
*The alternative view was that the German interests were secondary and that the final product
of Bismarck’s actions was accidental.
-The Ems telegram
-The Franco-Prussian war
[10] Analyse the claim that in 1871, Germany had been Prussianised and not unified.
Pupils need to assess Prussian influence [dominance] in the unification of Germany and forces
of nationalism after 1848 which drove direction of German unification.
-The German empire of 1871 was triumph of the Kleindeutsch idea or smaller Germany over
the Grossdeutsch idea or greater Germany, excluding Austria and other German peoples.

-Through Bismarck unification had been achieved on Prussian terms.
-Bismarck was a Prussian, was a conservative and believed in the relevance of force.
-He had been clear about the ousting of Austria from German affairs.
-By force Prussian militarism triumphed over the liberal strand of nationalism.
-In the 1866 Austro-Prussian war, most of South German states had fought on Austria’s side
against Prussia.
-The subsequent North German Confederation, whose constitution was later adopted for the
German empire is testimony to the Prussianisation of Germany.
-Prussia’s dominance had also been made certain through the Zollverein.
-In 1871 Prussian institutions were extended to represent the new German Empire. The Kaiser
and the chancellor were Prussian.
-Prussia had veto power in the Bundesrat.
*However, it must be noted that the unification of Germany was genuine.
-Germany had been transformedinto 39 states in 1815
-The linguistic element was strong and there had been a strong force of popular German
nationalism in 1848.
[10] Why had Prussia rather than Austria achieved dominance in Germany by 1870?
After the fall of Napoleon I, Austria had a prime position in Germany. However, by 1870, Austria
had been overshadowed by Prussia. This was largely due to the weaknesses of Austria.
However, the strengths of Prussia also led to her dominance in Germany.
-The weaknesses of Austria greatly led to Prussia’s dominance in Germany; for instance, poor
diplomacy by Austria made her to be overshadowed by Prussia. For example, her role in the
Crimean war was costly.
-The heterogeneous nature of the Austrian Empire made her to be overshadowed by Prussia.
-Austria’s government was also a problem. She did not have an efficient chancellor like Prussia
had. Austria’s survival to 1848 was due to Metternich, the Austrian chancellor from 1815-1848.
This implies that the fall of Metternich created a vacuum.
-Humiliation in the 1859 war [Austro-Piedmontese war] also led to the dominance of Prussia in
Germany. Austria was defeated by Piedmont and lost Lombardy to her.
-There was economic stagnation in Austria while Prussian economy grew particularly with the
effects of the Zollverein.
*However, the strengths of Prussia also led to Prussia’s dominance in Germany. For instance,
Prussia’s military reforms made her dominant in Germany.
-Unity of purpose between Bismarck and Kaiser William I was also important.
-Prussia had a strong economy in which coal and iron were important [Zollverein].
-Bismarckian diplomacy was also important in Prussia’s dominance.
-The use of the railway as an important new military technology was introduced.
THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY [1815-1870]
[10] What hindered and what assisted the movement for Italian unification between 1815
and 1861?
A plethora of reasons led to the slow progress of unification up to 1848. However, several
reasons also led to the partial achievement of unity by 1861.
-Unity to 1848 was difficult because of the legacy of Vienna Settlement of 1815.
-Foreign powers especially Austria worked to stop the growth of nationalism.

-Early leaders and groups failed to work together.
-Different ideologies on unification existed from Mazzini, the Pope, Victor Emmanueland
Gioberti [Vincenzo Gioberti was an exiled Piedmontesepriest and ex-Mazzinian. He dismissed
total unity as madness in his work ‘Of the moral and civil primacy of the Italians’ published in
1843. He rejected revolutionary methods. He saw no future for republicanism in Italy. He
instead placed his hope on the Pope, whom he envisaged as president of a federation of
existing Italian states.
-The first positive sign of unification, the Roman Republic of 1848 was reversed by France.
*After 1848, unification was possible as leaders complemented each other. These leaders were
Cavour, Mazzini and Victor Emmanuel.
-Piedmont and Cavour took a leading role.
-The assistance of France in the Austro-Piedmontese war of 1859 was crucial.
-By 1861 only Venetia and Rome were still out of Italy.
[10] Critically examine the methods used by the Italian nationalists to unify Italy between
1815 and 1870.
Before 1848 the nationalists used less successful methods. However, after 1848 more
successful methods were used.
-Before 1848, the guiding principle followed by Mazzini was that Italians would liberate
themselves from Austrian rule without foreign aid.
-Mazzini advocated the use of revolutionary methods such as popular uprisings and
insurrections in the 1820s and 1830s as well as in 1845-49.
-These failed due to lack of organised leadershipand separatist feelings of the nationalists.
-The lack of a standing army made it easy for the Austrian troops to suppress these efforts.
*The coming of Cavour saw the introduction of new and more effective methods such as the
need to modernise by introducing strategic reforms such as railway construction.
-There was use of more organised military means through the establishmentof a standing army
-There was use of foreign aid.
-There was use of carefully planned plebiscites to prevent popular uprisings.
[10] ‘Limited and unsteady’. How accurate is this description of the development of liberal
and nationalist ideas in Italy to 1848?
Pupils need to assess the development of liberal and nationalist ideas in Italy.
-After the Napoleonic wars Italy was divided among the great powers.
-Chief among them was Austria whose conservative rulers, directly or indirectly had influence in
Italy.
-Only Piedmont [Sardinia] was left independent.
-The desire for constitutional government, a result of the Napoleonic period, was strong.
-Before 1830 demands were more liberal than nationalistic.
-Demands were for constitutions to be granted.
-They appealed more to the educated middle class and those in towns.
-Nationalist demands to overthrow Austria were vague.
-The Carbonari in the 1820s and 1830s made separate and uncoordinated attempts for change.
-There was not much headway.
-They were put down by the Austrian army.
-Italy suffered from lack of agreement by the leaders on ideology.

-Also there wass lack of popular support.
-By 1830 the Carbonari had ceased to be an effective force.
-Steady developments, though limited, came after the 1830 revolts.
-Mazzini emphasised national rather than regional politics.
-He believed in Italia fara dese.
-Mazzini worked through the Young Italy movement but his ideas were not polished.
-The 1834 invasion of Piedmont failed and Republican ideas were discredited.
-Moderates were against mob rule.
-Though Mazzini failed, seeds of nationalism had been sown.
-Writers stimulated debate hence Gioberti came up with the idea of federalism.
-Expulsion of Austria was central.
-In the 1848 revolution there was action in Rome by Garibaldi. This too failed.
[10]How did events between 1815 and 1848 affect the later movement for Italian unification?
The revolutionary period [1815-1848] had great influence on events after 1848 which led to
Italian unification.
-The period 1815-48 can be described effectively as the first phase in the movement for Italian
unification.
-It was dominated by the revolutionary nationalists like Mazzini.
-The nationalists during this period used revolutionary methods to achieve their goal o uniting
Italians under one form of government, that is, a republic.
-It was a period of ‘Italia fara dese’, meaning Italy will unite itself without foreign aid.
*Though the efforts of these revolutionary nationalists are believed to have failed in the short
term, they did help the unification process in the long term.
-Those who later led the unification process such as, Cavour learnt a number of valuable lessons
from the failure of this phase.
-They learnt that thorough preparation was needed in order to achieve unification.
-They also learnt that national unity rather than particularism and splinter movements was vital
if unification was to be achieved.
-Experienced, focused and united leadership which was lacking in the first phase was to be put
in place.
-A lesson was learnt on the methods of achieving unification.
-Insurrections, like those in 1820 and 1830 led by the Carbonari and uncoordinated uprisings
had no chance of succeeding against the might of the Austrians. Therefore a standing army was
necessary to dislodge the Austrians, who were the main stumbling block to Italian unification.
-It was also learnt that the concept of ‘Italia fara dese’ had failed and henceforth, foreign aid
had to be sought to achieve unification.
[10] ‘Italy will unite herself’. Discuss this view of the movement for Italian unification.
The revolutionary period [1815-1848] influenced greatly the events after 1848 which led to the
Italian unification. 1815 to 1848 was the first phase in the movement for Italian unification
dominated by nationalists like Mazzini. These nationalists during this period used revolutionary
methods to achieve their goal of uniting all Italians under one form of government, that is, a
republic. It was a period of ‘Italia fara dese’ meaning Italy will unite herself without foreign aid.
This method failed but it gave lessons to those who later unified Italy, for example, Cavour
learnt that foreign aid was needed to unify Italy.

-The period 1815-48 was dominated by revolutionary nationalists like Mazzini. These
nationalists used revolutionary methods in trying to unify Italy. They believed that Italy would
unite herself without foreign aid. The Carbonari revolted in Naples[1820], Lombardy [1820] and
so on. The Italians also revolted in 1830, again under the influence of the Carbonari, in Parma
and Papal States. Mazzini as the leader of Young Italy movement was key to revolts of the
1830s as a source of inspiration. To his credit before 1848 Mazzini led to the birth of Italian
nationalism. In 1848, the Italians also revolted in Sicily, Lombardy, Milan, Naples, and Venice
*However, all these revolutions were unable to withstand the hand of Austria. They failed due
to various reasons like lack of sound leadership [lack of committed and experienced leaders] to
lead the national movement. Apart from Mazzini and Albert, the revolutionaries lacked
committed and visionary leaders who could lead the national cause. Austria was too powerful
and crushed the revolts. The revolutionaries were not united. The republicans led by Mazzini
had little in common with the monarchists who looked to Charles Albert.
*Though the efforts of these nationalists did not prove fruitful, they did help the unification
process in the long term. Those who later succeeded in the unification process like Cavour had
learnt a number of valuable lessons from the failure of the revolutionary phase. Thus the effort
of the nationalists failed in the short term but did help the unification in the long run.
-They learnt that thorough preparation was needed to achieve unification. They learnt that
ground had to be prepared first before any meaningful progress in unification was made.
-They also learnt that national unity was also vital in the process of unifying the nation. They
learnt that national unity rather than particularism and splinter movements was vital if
unification had to be achieved. Defeat in the revolutions revealed the divisions within Italy,
especially the monarchists versus the republicans. Thus different states of Italy needed to be
educated first on the importance of unity and commitment to the national cause.
-They learnt that experienced, focused and united leadership which lacked in the first phase
was to be put in place.
-They learnt that a standing army was necessary to dislodge the Austrians who were the main
stumbling blocks to Italian unification. The revolutions had shown the Italians that Austria was
their real enemy of unification.
-They learnt that Piedmont needed to be modernised as it became the focal point of Italian
unification. The Italians saw in Piedmont hope for the future. This is because the new king
Victor Emmanuel II refused to withdraw the liberal constitution granted by his father Charles
Albert.
-‘Italia fara dese’ had failed and hence it was necessary to secure foreign aid to achieve this
unification. It became apparent that foreign help was needed to bring about change. Cavour
saw this more clearly than anyone else and he sought foreign aid. The sympathy of Napoleon III
was well timed as he listened to the pleas of Cavour during the Paris Conference. Hence the
revolutionary period had a great influence on the events after 1848 which led to the unification
of Italy.
-A lesson was also learnt on the methods of achieving unification. Insurrections like those of
1820 and 1830 led by the Carbonari and uncoordinated uprisings had no chance of succeeding
against the might of Austrians. Therefore, a strong army was necessary to dislodge the
Austrians who were the main stumbling block to Italian unity.

-Cavour sought and solicited [got] Napoleon III’s help in the Austro-Piedmontese war [1859].
However, Napoleon III withdrew from the war with the job half done. Napoleon and Cavour had
only liberated Lombardy and left Venetia in the hands of Austria. This war sparked nationalist
revolts in Italy, followed by plebiscites in 1860. Actions of the Italians at this time included the
conquest of Naples and Sicily by Garibaldi thus he was complementing the work of Cavour.
-By 1861, Rome, Nice, Savoy and Venetia remained outside the united Italy. They were to be
brought in through international events such as the Austro-Prussian war [1866] and the Franco-
Prussian war [1870-71]. Thus diplomacy and foreign intervention was necessary to complete
what had been started as seeds of unity had been sown by 1848.
[10] Compare the means by which Bismarck and Cavour dealt with Austria in the unification
of their respective countries: Germany and Italy.
-Both used diplomacy
-Both were opportunists [they reacted to events]
-Both used warfare
*However, Bismarck further resorted to mild punishment of Austria as well as mutual
cooperation with her which Cavour did not do.
-Unlike Cavour, Bismarck also isolated Austria from likely allies.
[10] How much did the unification of Italy owe to planning and how much to chance?
Pupils need to show the importance of opportunism as opposed to planning. They can use the
following points.
-The realisation by Cavour [and to a certain extent by Victor Emmanuel II who were leaders of
Piedmont] of the need to use a stronger unified northern Italy to unify the southern states.
-The need for foreign assistance especially on expelling Austria.
-The fear of raising revolutionary forces elsewhere.
-The use of carefully designed plebiscites to prevent popular uprising.
-The role of Italy’s participation in the Crimean war.
-The Pact of Plombiers
-The 1859 Austro-Piedmontese war
-The Franco-Piedmontese agreement of 1860
-The Sicilian expedition
-The uprising in Palermo
-Garibaldi’s exploits in Naples leading to Cavour’s manipulation of the situation on the pretext
of restoring order in the Papal States.
[10] Why did the state of Piedmont and not the republicans unify Italy?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for the success of Piedmont and the failure of the republicans
in unification of Italy.
-Piedmont favoured an expansionist policy that would lead to a stronger Northern Italy.
-Its leaders especially Cavour supported a united Italy at a later date and had misgivings about
the wisdom of including the south and Rome.
-But Mazzini and Garibaldi were advocating the unification of all Italian states.
-Victor Emmanuel II and Cavour, who were leaders of Piedmont, saw success being achieved
through foreign aid. Piedmont was too weak and they did not wish to raise revolutionary forces
elsewhere.

-Intervention in the Crimean war is relevant here as is Cavour’s use of carefully planned
plebiscites to prevent popular uprisings.
-Mazzini believed that Italy could free itself through revolution.
-As a result most of the uprisings engineered by Mazzini in Savoy and Rome were abortive
because they were no match for the Austrian and French forces.
-Piedmont was also able to unify Italy because of the political and economic developments that
she underwent unlike Mazzini and Garibaldi’s poorly equipped armed followers.
-The other reason why Garibaldi and Mazzini failed was because they did not have the support
of Victor Emmanuel II who was patriotic.
-As for Charles Albert, whom Mazzini and Garibaldi approached, he was not prepared to take
up the leadership in the unification since he was more interested in the expansion of Piedmont
than unification.
[10] How did the influential leaders in Italy complement each other to create a united state
Pupils need to assess the role of influential leaders in the unification of Italy. In the story of
Italian unification, three names stand out, all of them subjects of the kingdom of Sardinia and
these are, Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi.
-The idea that Italy could unite herself was predominant before 1848. It was linked to the ideas
of the Carbonari under the leadership of Mazzini and Garibaldi.
-Mazzini as the leader of Young Italy movement was key to the revolts of the 1830s as a source
of inspiration.
-To his credit before 1848 Mazzini led to the birth of Italian nationalism.
-Although the revolution had failed, nationalist agitation had sown seeds for future harvests.
-When Charles Albert came into power he took the ideas of unity seriouslyas seen in the war
against Austria in the 1848 revolution.
-Defeat in the revolution revealed the divisions within Italy especially the monarchists against
the republicans. The revolutions had revealed the weaknesses of the nationalist cause. It
became apparent that help was needed to bring about change.
-In 1852 Camillo Cavour became Prime Minister. Cavour reformed Sardinia’s economy,
improved agriculture, roads were built were built and commerce encouraged.
-Cavour also pushed for foreign intervention.
-The sympathy from Napoleon III was well timed as he listened to the pleas of Cavour during
the Paris Conference.
-Cavour used diplomacy to advantage his Pact of Plombiers and later military tactics in the 1859
war with Austria. This war against Austria sparked nationalist revolts in Italy followed by
plebiscites in 1860.
-Actions of the Italians at this time included the conquest of Naples and Sicily by Garibaldi thus
complementing the work of Cavour.
-By 1861 Rome, nice and Savoy as well as Venetia remained outside the united Italy.
-Venetia and Rome were to be brought in through international events such as the Austro-
Prussian war and Franco-Prussian war.
-Candidates need o demonstrate Mazzini as the main idealist, Cavour as the diplomat and
Garibaldi as the soldier.
SECTION C
THE BISMARCKIAN ERA [1871-1890]
Bismarck’s Domestic Policy [1871-1890]
[11] How effective were the methods used by Bismarck to deal with the domestic problems
of Germany after 1871?
[11] How successfully did Bismarck solve the internal problems facing Germany between
1871 and 1890?
[11] What internal problems did Germany face between 1870 and 1890 and how successfully
were they solved?
Pupils need to assess the challenges of Bismarck’s domestic policy and the extent to which they
were successfully solved.
-There was a threat to disunity that existed in 1871. Thuson coming to power Bismarck had to
consolidate unity in the new German empire therefore he tried to achieve political stability by
balancing various political interests within Germany through the new constitution which
however was top sided and not able to effectively look after the minorities. Measures were
taken to address separatism.
-Bismarck’s problems also were related to the minorities in Germany, for example, the French
provinces of Alsace-Lorraine and the Polish question.
-Bismarck had to deal with various problems like the nationalists, Catholics and socialists whose
main problem was industrialisation.
-He tried reconciliation but when it was difficult he attacked the groups, for example, the
Catholics in the Kulturkampf.
-Many laws were passed against the Catholics but the Catholic Centre Party grew in the
Reichstag with the result that he made a tactical withdrawal and allied with the Catholics to
promote protection which the National liberals were against.
-Catholics felt isolated because of the constitution and there was cause for concern about Papal
States.
-Through the Catholic Centre Party, Catholics wanted power but in this period [1871-1879],
Bismarck denied them the opportunity by working with the liberals.
-Catholic policy was counter-productive, Bismarck had to change course and made peace.
-To 1878, Bismarck worked with the National Liberals and the period was characterised by
Kulturkampf.
-The liberals were abandoned because of conflicts and were a problem likely to undermine the
empire.
-Bismarck used repression and anti-socialist laws to 1881.
-When they did not succeed he turned to state welfare.
-Economically there was a boom to 1873 but a downturn led to protection.
-There were also financial problems.
-In the 1880s Bismarck found it difficult to get his own way.
-He was manipulative but also radically innovative.
-Industrialisation was also growing leading to the rise of socialism.
-To curb Socialism oppressive measures were passed but did not achieve the desired results. At
the end Bismarck turned to state socialism for which Bismarck earned credit as workers became
subservient to 1914.

-In 1880s, there was alliance with the Socialists who Bismarck had failed to kill as SDP won more
and more seats in the Reichstag.
-1887 was successful for Bismarck as Social Democratic Party Deputies fell.
-Anti-Socialist laws were working but Bismarck did not last beyond 1890.
-Bismarck was not totally successful in dealing with these problems as he abandoned his allies
along the way, for example, the Liberals were abandoned in 1879 as the Kulturkampf came to
an end.
-Between 1879 and 1887, he worked with the Catholics and the Nationalists who wanted
economic growth through protection and growth of the empire.
-Up to 1890, the problem of the minorities remained peripheral.
-Some success can be noted in the unification of Germany through the constitution of 1871
which was in favour of Prussia but also recognised the bigger states of Germany such as
Bavaria.
[11] How successful wasBismarck in his capacity as Chancellor in governing Germany?
[11] How far was Bismarck in control of German affairs during the period 1871-1890?
Pupils need to assess the successes of Bismarck in his domestic policy. They must discuss
Bismarck’s relations with the Liberals, Roman Catholic Church and Socialists as well as well as
the policies to the minority racial groups in Germany.
-The liberals were Bismarck’s allies in 1871 because they supported the creation of a unified
Germany empire.
*He however, moved away from them in 1879 when he favoured protectionism and Junker
agricultural interests. This showed some inconsistency on his part.
-The Kulturkampf [the struggle between the Roman Catholic Church and the state] was the
result of Bismarck’s fears that the Roman Catholic Church was diverting its followers from their
allegiance to the state.
-Jesuits were expelled because of their links with the Papacy.
-The May laws [1873] subordinated the church to the state.
*Due to failure of his policies opposition grew and the election of a new Pope persuaded him to
negotiate and the outcome of the Kulturkampf, although represented as a compromise, was
mostly a defeat for the Kulturkampf and Bismarck.
-In the 1880s he feared the growth of socialism and he tried to weaken it directly by the
prosecution of the leading socialists and indirectly by introducing measures that can be
described as state socialism.
*This failed to stop the growth of the movement [socialism].
-There was also the problem related to the minorities in Germany, for example, the French
provinces of Alsace-Lorraine and the Polish question.
*However, up to 1890, the problem of minorities remained peripheral.
[11] Examine the effectiveness of Bismarck’s methods in dealing with opposition to his
policies within Germany between 1871 and 1890?
Pupils need to assess the methods used by Bismarck to deal with opposition to his policies
within Germany between 1871 and 1890.
-Bismarck applied ruthless methods to deal with his opponents.
-He targeted two groups, the Catholic Church and the Socialists.
-In his view both posed as a threat to the new German state.

# In response to what he saw as the Catholic threat, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf as a
battle for civilisation which lasted from 1871 to 1878.
-Bismarck passed laws that gave the state the right to supervise Catholic education, approve
the appointment of priests, expelled Jesuits from Prussia and made it compulsory for couples to
be married by civil authority.
*Bismarck’s policy against the Catholic Church backfired. He faithfully rallied behind the Church
and Catholic Centre Party, which gained strength in the Reichstag.
# To the socialists, Bismarck had laws passed that dissolved Socialist groups, shut down their
newspapers and banned their meetings.
*Once again, repression backfired. Workers were unified in support of the socialist cause.
-Bismarck then changed course. He set out to woo many workers from socialism by sponsoring
laws to protect them. By the 1890s Germans had health and accident insurance to provide
retirement benefits.
-Althoughworkers benefited from Bismarck’s plan they did not abandon socialism.
-In fact the Social Democratic Party continued to grow in strength.
[11] ‘Productive yet repressive’. Comment with reference to Bismarck’s domestic policy after
1871.
The assertion that Bismarck’s domestic policy was productive and repressive is greatly valid.
Progressive
-Substantial progress was made in the organisation of the empire such as creation of a banking
system.
-Common currency and postal system for the whole empire with the exception of Bavaria.
-There was industrial growth
-Trade flourished
-Welfare policies were also introduced between 1883 and 1889. These included compulsory
insurance against sickness by all industrial workers, accident insurance schemes and pension
schemes in old age or incapacity.
Repressive
-Though productive, Bismarck’s domestic policy was repressive.
-The domestic policy was aimed at silencing different political groups particularly the socialists.
Bismarck had no liking for socialism. He waged a vicious campaign against the Social Democratic
Partywith the aim of crushing it. Socialist meetings had to be licensed in advance and some
leaders were banished.
-Another group for consideration was the Catholic Centre Party and the use of Kulturkampf by
Bismarck. Repression was not consistent.
-He moved from one group to another.
-Even the national liberals were spared.
-Repression can also be discussed in relation to minorities in the new empire, for example, the
French, Polish and the Danes.
Bismarck’s Foreign Policy
[11] ‘The arbiter of European politics’. Discuss this view of Bismarck as foreign minister
between 1871and 1890.

Pupils need to assess Bismarck’s diplomatic ability in foreign policy after 1871. They also need
to discuss his aims in foreign policy; his methods and successes or failures as well as other
conditions outside his diplomacy which made peace prevail and France remain isolated.
-Bismarck wanted France to be isolatedby ensuring that all the great powers except France
needed German support and were prevented as far as possible from forming coalitions against
Germany by virtue of their relations o each other.
-He manipulated the balance of power to ensure it remained favourable to Germany.
-The other powers were to be left in mutual suspicion or in armed conflict.
-To preserveGerman security he pursued the alliance system and so signed the Dreikaiserbund
Treaty, the Dual Alliance, the Triple Alliance and the Reinsurance Treaty as the major treaties of
the period.
-These should be used to illustrate his strengths as arbiter or his shortcomings.
-Through the alliances Bismarck wanted to be always one in three in a world dominated by five
great powers and so be at advantage all the time.
-He was afraid of a coalition between France, Russia and Austria-Hungary therefore he wanted
to be in good books with both Russia and Austria-Hungary.
-This was successful though the two nearly came to blows over the declining Turkish Empire.
-Bismarck was skillful and successful but not as before 1871.
-He did dominate European politics but he failed to solve Austro-Hungarian rivalry.
-He worsened after the Berlin Congress of 1878. This was because Bismarck was not a genuine
arbitrator; he had chosen Austria over Russia.
Peace and isolation of France can also be explained by the policy of isolation that Britain
continued to follow until 1890.
[11] How consistent was Bismarck in the implementation of his foreign policy in the period
1871 to 1890?
Pupils need to assess Bismarck’s foreign policy.
-After the Franco-Prussian war [1870-71] Bismarck was most concerned with defending the
newly created German empire.
-He aimed at keeping France isolated to stop revenge and possible reassertion of power.
Bismarck had taken Alsace-Lorraine from France.
-To achieve this, Bismarck focused on peaceful diplomatic means rather than military
confrontation, hence the alliance system starting with the Dreikaiserbund Treaty, Dual Alliance,
Triple Alliance and Reinsurance Treaty.
-Diplomacy was also used at the Congress of Berlin [1878].
-Where peace, isolation and diplomacy were used, Bismarck remained consistent.
-Pupils can depict departure when the Dreikaiserbund was destroyed.
-Rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans made Germany to sign the Dual
Alliance [1879].
-Russia was further sacrificed through the Triple Alliance of Italy, Austria-Hungary and Germany.
-Abroad in the colonies Bismarck had initially been against participating but pressure from
home forced him to change his position.
GERMANY [1890-1914
[12] ‘German foreign policy from 1890 to 1914 was unpredictable and dangerous to the great
powers of Europe’. Comment on this verdict.

Pupils need to assess the nature ofGerman foreign policy
-1890 marked the year in which Kaiser William II took control of German foreign policy. He was
the statesman active in this period.
-Germany challenged British sea power.
-Germany threatened British interests in South Africa. The Kaiser sent a telegram congratulating
Paul Kruger after the Jameson raid fiasco [failure].
-Germany intervened in the Middle East with a visit to Turkey and the scheme for a railway to
Baghdad.
-The relationship with Austria
-After the Sarajevo incident Germany gave Austria-Hungary an open cheque to attack Serbia.
-Policy was unpredictable because;
-Germany was avoided in new and different areas.
-The German Kaiser followed policies that would clearly alienate Britain while still proclaiming
his wishes for closer relations.
-19th Century system of resolving differences were ignored.
-Kaiser William’s character-he was fundamentally unstable; he had ungovernabletempers and
was impulsive.
-Kaiser William II embarked on a world policy expressed as ‘Weltipolitik’ which was a sudden
shift from Bismarck’s policy.
[12] ‘Unfriendly and provocative’. How accurate is this comment on Germany’s policies
towards the European powers between 1890 and 1914?
-Bismarck’s foreign policy before 1890 was limited and circumscribed which contrasted with
Kaiser William II’s new course and world policy.
-The Kaiser sought Germany’s recognition as a world power with colonies and large navy.
-Though justified, German imperial ambitions reached their height when there was little
territory for annexation.
-Germany’s demands were accompanied by swash buckling and irresponsible statements and
propaganda. Cases of the Kaiser’s Telegram to Paul Kruger and Morocco are notable.
-Other powers saw such acts as reckless and threatening.
-Russian suspicions were raised by German activities in the Near East, so was British
apprehension by the Kaiser’s declaration as friend of the Moslems in Turkey and role of German
advisors in the Turkish army.
-The misfortune of Germany was that she could not expand without destroying existing order
-Her position forced her to appear consistently unfriendly.
-The Kaiser’s demands and interventions ended as diplomatic catastrophes, wrecking the
possibility of an alliance with Britain especially over naval issues.
-The German naval programme was a direct threat and provocation of British security. In the
end Britain had to abandon her splendid isolation and drew closer to France and Russia.
*But her world policy had genuine grounds.
-The empire in Africa needed a navy to defend it while Germany’s nationalist, industrial and
financial energies required outlets.
[12] Examine Germany’s policies towards other European powers between 1890 and 1914.

Pupils need to assess the nature of German foreign policy between 1890 and 1914. They must
discuss Germany’s motives and intentions in foreign policy. They must show the differences
between German foreign policy under Bismarck and under William II and his ministers.
-Kaiser William II embarked on a world policy expressed as ‘Weltipolitik’ which was a sudden
shift from Bismarck’s policy.
-Germany had imperial ambitions especially in Morocco.
-She had rivalry with Britain particularly naval race. She challenged British sea power.
- The seizure of Alsace-Lorraine from France soured Franco-German relations.
-The Moroccan issues also intensified bad relations between France and Germany.
-Germany’s claim to influence in the Near East aroused strong Russian apprehensions.
[12] Compare and contrast German foreign policy before and after 1890.
Pupils need to focus on the similarities and differences between Bismarck’s foreign policy and
that of Kaiser William II.
-Before 1890 Bismarck was the key figure, while after 1890 Kaiser William took over.
-The major difference between Bismarck’s foreign policy and that of Kaiser William II was in the
methods of conducting foreign affairs.
-Diplomacy was used to protect German interests before 1890 hence a series of complicated
alliances like Dreikaiserbund Treaty, Dual Alliance, Triple Alliance and Reinsurance Treaty.
-Before 1890, German foreign policy was more defensive while after 1890, it became
‘unfriendly’ and provocative’.
-Bismarck has been described as the ‘arbiter of European politics’, emphasizing his diplomatic
ability.
-Foreign policy before 1890 was essentially peaceful in character.
-There was no sympathy for Pan-German ambitions and there was no enthusiasm for colonies
before 1890.
-After 1890, Germany aspired for a ‘place in the sun’ of world politics.
-With ‘Weltipolitik’, aggressive measures were undertaken such as the Kruger telegram [1896],
involvement in Morocco [1905 and 1911] and the naval race with Britain.
THE SCRAMBLE AND PARTITION OF AFRICA
[13] Why did European countries engage in a scramble for Africa in the late 19th C?
The scramble for Africa was caused by economic, political and social factors.
Economic factors
-The industrial revolution led to the search for raw materials.
-The need for markets
-The need for areas of investment
-Trading areas became areas of intense competition necessitating protection from mother
countries.
Political factors
-The political factors related to German, Italian, British and French position in Europe and Africa
also contributed.
-The rise of new nations especially Germany and Italy and the defeat of France also led to the
scramble for Africa.
-The French position also contributed. This must be linked to the crisis in Egypt.
Social factors

-Cultural, racial and demographic factors also contributed.
-Humanitarian zeal [factors] also contributed.
*NB-British participation in the colonisation process must only be given weight when it helps to
explain the situation of continental powers. Britain is not a continental power.
[13] To what extent was the acquisition of colonies in Africa caused by racial considerations?
Pupils need to assess the factors that encouraged European powers to acquire colonies in
Africa. They must show the contribution of racial considerations and the role of other factors.
-Africa was erroneously regarded as a ‘dark’ continent inhabited by ‘uncivilised’, Godless and
backward people yet Europe was the epitome of civilisation, Christianity and industrialisation.
-It is this erroneous view by some of the European prominent figures that encouraged some
European governments to acquire African territories.
-The civilising mission and anti-slavery theory provided both an ideology and moral justification
for political invasion.
-Lenin’s theory should take precedence over the humanitarian factor.
-Indeed imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism.
-European capitalism had come to a head and needed expansion to avert a huge war.
-Industrialisation led to the search for raw materials, markets and places of investing surplus
capital.
-Political developments in Europe such as the unification of Germany and Italy aroused
nationalistic feelings.
-Militarism by European army generals
[13] How important were humanitarian considerations in the colonisation of Africa?
Pupils need to assess the importance of humanitarian factors in the colonisation of Africa and
weigh them against the other factors.
Humanitarian zeal
-There was need to spread Christianity in Africa.
-The also wanted to spread commerce. They wanted to replace slave trade with legitimate
trade.
-The Europeans also wanted to spread western civilisation in Africa. Colonialism was thus
demanded as a moral obligation of European civilisation.
-The Europeans wanted to spread western education in Africa.
Other factors
-The need for markets
-The need for raw materials
-The need for areas of investment
-Diplomatic factors
-Prestige reasons
-Strategic reasons
[13] Examine the view that the scramble for Africa in the second half of the 19 th C was a result
of economic factors.
[13] ‘A stampede to promote and protect economic interests’. How far do you agree with this
comment on the scramble for and partition of Africa?
[13] How far were economic factors crucial in the expansion of European powers into Africa?

Pupils need to assess the European motives in the colonisation of Africa. They must appreciate
the role of economic as well as socio-political factors.
Economic theories
-Economic motives included the need for raw materials.
-They wanted to establish a ready market for their finished goods.
-There was also need to invest surplus capital.
-In this regard the industrial revolution had begun.
-By 1884, informal trading empires had been set up in Africa, for instance, Niger, Gold Coast
and the Cape.
-By the same time, Germany had made great strides in industrialisation and competed with
Britain.
-Also on the economic side, the Egyptian occupation was because of its strategic importance.
-The discovery of and the need to exploit minerals such as diamonds and gold brought about a
rush into the interior of South Africa and promoted large scale investment in the region.
-There was need to obtain agricultural land to supply both local and international market with
agricultural commodities.
-There was also need for cheap labour for greater profits.
Political theories
-Diplomatic reasons
-Prestige reasons
-Strategic reasons
-The Berlin Conference of 1884-5 caused the scramble for Africa.
-There was competition for dominance among the various European powers, especially the
British, Germans, Boers and Portuguese
Social reasons
-Humanitarian reasons, especially the need to spread Christianity, civilisation and commerce
-There was also a racist factor, involving the whites who considered themselves as a superior
race; hence they wanted to dominate blacks.
-Social problems in Europe
-Population pressure in Europe also caused the scramble.
[13] Examine the claim that the most important reasons for European imperialism in the late
19th C were economic rather than political.
[13] ‘Non-economic factors were of little importance in bringing about the scramble for
Africa’. Discuss.
Pupils need to assess the factors leading to the scramble for Africa.
Economic factors
-There was need for investment of surplus capital. At this time most of the investment from
Britain went to America, Australia and India as trade in Africa did not bring high profits.
-Trading areas became areas of intense competition necessitating protection from mother
countries.
-There was need for raw material especially for Germany and France which were industrialising.
They protected their trade to force Britain out. This created intense competition especially in
West Africa.
Political factors

-The Berlin Conference of 1884-5 caused the scramble for Africa. Up to 1870, great power
rivalries were in the Near East and Europe. By the time of the Berlin Conference there was
transfer to Africa. At Berlin the ground rule for the scramble and partition were set up. This was
followed by a stampede as powers competed for territory to forestall their rivalry.
-There was also the need for prestige. The more territory acquired the more powerful the state
became. French acquisition of Tunisia was a sign that she was recovering her position as a great
power. Rivalry in the Congo was also for prestige. The conflict between France and Britain in
Egypt was for prestige. A Franco-German alliance was set up as Britain was accused of wanting
to shut others out. This alliance challenged the British paramountcy in West Africa and Congo.
-Diplomatic reasons also contributed. Germany seemed to use Africa to further her diplomatic
interests in Europe. In Africa she could conciliate France.
[13] ‘The motives for the partition of Africa were diplomatic rather than economic’. Discuss.
Pupils need to assess the reasons for the partition of Africa. They must support either the
diplomatic or economic view with enough evidence, giving examples.
Diplomatic reasons
-After the unification of Germany and Italy there was little room for manoeuvre in Europe. The
result was that Europe turned to Africa.
-Italy and Germany wanted to prove their new power in the colonies [after their unification].
-Political rivalry and the new balance of power made powers to look at each other in envy.
-The defeated France in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war wanted to compensate her loss in
empire building.
-Politically for Britain, her trading interests had to be protected through the strategic
acquisition of Egypt; finally the unstable political conditions of Africa demanded the use of force
and colonial conquest to ensure peaceful trading conditions.
Economic reasons
-Industrialisation in Europe has been put forward as the major cause underlying the
colonisation of Africa. There were new inventions and new technology, which made it easier for
Europe to go into Africa. Industrialisation was first in Britain.
-There was also need for raw materials due to industrialisation.
-Africa was also seen as a place for future economic investment though not much had
happened by 1914.
-There was also need for markets due to industrialisation.
[13] To what extent did the industrial revolution in Europe lead to the colonisation?
[13] ‘Colonial policy was the offspring of industrial policy’. How valid is this explanation of
European imperialism in the period from 1870 to 1914 in Africa or the Far East?
Pupils need to examine the urge of imperialism. They needed to demonstrate the contribution
of industrialisation as well as the role of other factors like political and social factors.
Contribution of industrial developments in Europe
-The IndustrialRevolution which started in Britain led to competition for raw materials in
Europe. Now that by 1870s almost the whole of Europe was industrialising, the need for raw
materials grew as they were now scarce in Europe. Africa provided the solution and for Europe
to freely exploit these resources, colonisation of African territories had to take place.

-It was also due to the industrial revolution in Europe that European governments were forced
to search for market outlets for the finished products. European markets had now shrunk
because of competition and under consumption of goods.
-There was also need to invest surplus capital acquired from the benefits of industrialisation.
However, not much had been done by 1914.
-Due to industrialisation there were new inventions and new technology which made it easier
for Europe to venture into Africa.
*However, it must be noted that industrial development took place way before 1880 [1850 in
the case of Britain] and yet there was no scramble for territories.
Political factors
-The shift in balance of power in Europe caused the scramble.
-The influence of public opinion, for example, in Germany.
-The rise of nationalism in European states such as Germany.
-Diplomatic factors also contributed.
-Prestige reasons also played a role.
-Strategic reasons were also responsible. The strategic factors were related to the German,
Italian, British and French position in Europe and Africa.
Social factors
-Racial considerations
-The need to spread Christianity
-Social Darwinism
-Humanitarian motives
-Demographic factors [Population pressure]
[13] Consider the view that European colonial policy on Africa between 1870 and 1914 was
determined more by economic self-interest than by a moral obligation of Western
civilisation.
The question requires a comparative assessment of European colonial activity in Africa.They
can argue that the view is valid.
-The desire to ‘civilise’ Africa was only an excuse or a way of justifying economic imperialism.
-Describing Africa as a ‘dark continent’ was a western strategy to justify colonial activity.
-In this case, ‘civilisation’ was being measured by Western standards which considered Africans
as backward and primitive.
*However, the central motive behind European colonial policy was economic.
-The industrialisation process taking place in Europe gave the impetus to a number of
requirements.
-These included the need for markets for their finished products.
-There was need for raw materials for their industries.
-The need for overseas investment was also a major determinant.
-The need for trade was also important.
*These economic reasons far outweighed any other motives such as;
-The desire to spread Christianity
-The need to educate Africans
-A healthy living

[13] Why, in spite of the prevailing tensions, did the Europeans’ scramble for African colonies
not generate into a war?
Pupils need to explain the reasons for colonial rivalries in Africa and why they did not
degenerate into war.
-There was persistent tension and rivalry between great powers over colonial territories in
Africa.
-Disputes arose among great powers and some were settled amicably while others caused
serious quarrels and threatened to lead to war.
-Serious quarrels arose between Britain and France in Sudan leading to the Fashoda incident of
1898.
-There was a serious clash between Britain and Germany in South Africa. The German Kiser
William II had congratulated Paul Kruger after the Jameson Raid failure [fiasco].
-The most serious of all the colonial disputes before 1914 was the quarrel between Germany
and France over Morocco in 1905-6 and in 1911.
-Most of the colonial rivalries were settled before 1914 and no major war came out of the
quarrels.
-The alliance system settled disputes between Britain and France and it also stopped the
Germans from being aggressive towards France.
-In other areas, the long standing friendshipbetween Britain and the Portuguese ked to
agreements which stopped war from taking place.
-Although German military strength was increasing the British industrial and naval power
continued to be a threat, so German ambitions were not allowed to go overboard.
-Conflicts in Africa were remote as opposed to those in Europe.
[13] To what extent did imperial expansion of continental European countries in the late 19 th
and 20th C benefit their states?
[13] Examine the consequences for continental European countries in their participation in
imperial expansion in the later 19th and 20th C.
Pupils need to assess the consequences of imperialism. They should note that the question
focuses on continental Europe; as a result British examples should not flood the answer. Britain
was not a continental power. Consequences should be both positive and negative [benefits and
costs]. Examples should be drawn from Far East and Africa or both regions.
Benefits
-There were economic possibilities associated with trade links. [In trade there were some
economic benefits to the states]. Trade expanded with Asia and Africa though Africa was seen
as a source of raw materials.
-Socially, new settlements were opened up for excess population.
-Politically, there was the power and prestige of the new empires.
Negative
-There were imperial rivalries in Europe and this led to increasing tension in Europe.
-European powers also experienced financial costs of protecting traders and the men on the
spot militarily.
[13] Evaluate the successes of the methods used by European powers in their colonial
expansion in Africa.

In their colonial expansion in Africa European powers employed various methods. These
methods varied from place to place and from time to time. These methods included warfare,
treaties, collaboration, trickery and bribery. It should be noted that these methods had varying
degrees of success.
-European powers used warfare [military conquests] in colonising African territories. This
method was largely successful, for example, the British used it in colonising Zimbabwe. The
British fought two wars, the 1893-4 war of dispossession and the First Chimurenga in 1896-7
which eventually led to the occupation of Zimbabwe by the British. The French also used
warfare successfully in West Africa.
*However, it must be noted that military conquests were not always successful, for instance,
Italians were not successful in Ethiopia where they were defeated by Ethiopians at the battle of
Adowa in 1896.
-More so, in colonising Africans, Europeansused the method of signing treaties and agreements
with African rulers. This method was largely successful. For instance, the British signed the
Moffat treaty [February 1888] and the Rudd Concession [October 1888] which eventually led to
the occupation of Zimbabwe.
*However, it must be noted that this method likewise was not always successful. For instance,
the Gobbler treaty [1887] signed between Lobengula and the Boers of Paul Kruger counted to
nothing because Lobengula later repudiated it.
-Trickery was another method used by the Europeans to establish colonial expansion in Africa.
For example, the Rudd Concession which led to the eventual occupation of Zimbabwe was
signed using tricks. In the signing of this concession Rhodes tricked Lobengula by making use of
acquaintances like J S Moffat and C Helm who were well known to Lobengula. Lobengula
trusted these missionaries not knowing that they were used as agents of imperialism by Rhodes
and wanted to see the destruction of the Ndebele state. Lobengula was also tricked in the
sense that the concession was signed using specialised legal language which he could not
understand.
-Bribery was another method used by Europeans in establishing colonial rule in Africa. This is
evidenced by Lotshe, one of Lobengula’s most trusted indunas who was bribed by Francis
Thompson to influence Lobengula to sign the Rudd Concession. Lobengula was not willing to
sign the Rudd Concession but he did so due to influence from Lotshe who was promised 300
gold sovereigns. Cecil John Rhodes also bribed Charles Helm to persuade Lobengula to sign the
Rudd Concession. It was this treaty which led to the eventual occupation of Zimbabwe.
-Collaboration with African rulers and offering them protection was another method employed
by Europeans in dislodging Africans of their independence. This method was successful in
Botswana and Zambia which became British colonies. In Botswana the British collaborated with
Khama [of Bechuanaland] while in Zambia the British collaborated with Lewanika [of
Barotseland]. The British also collaborated with the Sotho of Basutoland and the Swazi who
wanted British protection.
-Granting of Charter was another method used by Europeans in colonial expansion in Africa.
This method was successful in Zimbabwe. When Rhodes signed the Rudd Concession, he was
granted the royal charterby the British Queen which gave him the permission to occupy the
whole of Zimbabwe.

-The European powers embarked on the use of missionaries’ influence to establish colonies in
Africa. These missionaries paved way for the colonisation of Africa by preaching the message of
love and brotherhood which convinced Africans that it was a sin to fight the Europeans.
-European powers used the divide and rule tactic to establish colonial rule in Africa. They at
times supported one group of Africans against another. For instance, in Zimbabwe they
supported the Shona against the Ndebele. This explains why some Shona fought against the
Ndebele in the 1893-4 and 1896-7 wars. More so, they introduced different religions such as
Catholics, Protestants and Moslems. This created disunity amongst Africans [against the enemy]
which made them vulnerable to defeat as they could not unite against the common enemy.
[13] Analyse the various responses of Africans to European conquest during the scramble for
colonies in Africa.
Pupils need to assess the methods used by Africans in their response to the conquest of Africa.
-They used armed resistance. Examples of thesewars are Anglo-Ndebele war, First Chimurenga,
Nama-Herero uprising, Maji-Maji rising and many others.
*However most of these wars failed and colonial rule continued.
-They also resorted to peaceful co-existence. They used this method because they realised that
confrontation with the whites was dangerous.
-They also collaborated with the whites. They used this method after realising that war and
negotiations could bring no positive results, for example, Khama, the Swazi and the Nama
collaborated with the whites.
-Africans also used diplomacy and playing the interests of one white group against another. This
method was used by Lobengula of the Ndebele, Khama of the Ngwato, Monthsiwa of the
Rolong, Moshoeshoe of the Sotho and many others.
-Africans also abandoned the field to the intruder.
WORLD WAR ONE / THE FIRST WORLD WAR [1914-1918]
[14]Why was there a general war in 1914?
A general war became inevitable in 1914 due to long term and short term causes.
Long term causes
-The alliance system
-The growth of nationalism in Europe
-Colonial rivalry
-Arm race
-Naval race
-Kaiser’s utterances
Short term causes
-The Bosnian crisis of 1908
-First and Second Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913
-The Sarajevo assassination sparked the war in 1914 mainly because of the friction between
Austria-Hungary and Serbia over Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[14] How far can it be argued that the system of alliances and ententes was mainly
responsible for the outbreak of World War One?
Pupils need to assess the role of the system of alliances and ententes in causing world war one
as well as other factors.
Role of Alliances and Ententes

-The system of alliances and ententes by 1914 led to the division of Europe into two camps, the
Triple Alliance of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente of Russia, France
and Britain.
-The Sarajevo Assassination of June 1914 set in motion a series of events, which culminated in
the outbreak of a general war by the middle of August.
-It can be argued that although the system of alliances and ententes was not directly
responsible for the outbreak of the 1914 war this was more the responsibility of individual
states; it had done much to shape the international situation and to prepare the way for war.
-Instead of safeguarding peace and promoting defense, their original purpose, the alliances
gave countries the confidence that would enable them to go to war.
-The alliance and ententes also helped to convert a local quarrel into a general.This explains
why one after another the European powers were dragged into a general war honouring
commitments in treaties and ententes.
Other causes
-Arms race
-Naval race
-The Kaiser’s utterances or tactless public statements by the Kaiser
-The Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
-International crises such as those in Africa, for example, those between France and Germany
over Morocco in 1905 and in 1911 are important as they drew Britain and France together.
[14] To what extent did the rivalries of the different nationalities in the Balkans threaten
international stability during the period 1878 and 1914?
Rivalries of the different nationalities in the Balkans greatly threatened international stability
during the period 1878 and 1914. However, there were other factors which also threatened
international stability.
-Threats to stability can be seen through the involvement of Turkey and Austria-Hungary in the
Balkans.
-Both were heterogeneous empires and so felt threatened by the Pan-Slav movement which
agitated for the breakaways and achievements of independence.
-The great powers wanted to maintain the status quo.
-Serbia, the champion of Slav nationalism did not accept Austria’s continued domination
especially after the Bosnian crisis of 1908.
-Rivalry in the Balkans spread to other parts of Europe through the alliance system.
-Militarily, Austria looked up to Germany.
-Russia supported Serbia thus widening the conflict.
-Tension worsened with the Balkan wars as Austria was dragged in.
-The Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 left Serbia confident and antagonistic towards Austria-
Hungary, hence the Sarajevo incident which became the spark of the war. The Sarajevo incident
brought in all the major powers, that is, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France and Germany,
making it difficult to localise war.
Other factors which threatened international stability between 1878 and 1914
-Germany Weltipolitik
-Kaiser’s provocative alliances.
-Disputes in Africa

-Arms race
-Naval race
[14] To what extent was instability in the Balkans responsible for the outbreak of the First
World War?
The instability in the Balkans was greatly responsible for the outbreak of the 1914 war.
However, there were other factors which were also responsible.
Contribution of instability in the Balkans
-In the Balkans, the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908 deeply
angered Serbia and ensured that Russia would not dare back down in the event of another
Austro-Hungarian threat to Serbia.
-The First and Second Balkan wars also led to the outbreak of the 1914 war.
-Instability resulting from the Austro-Serbian rivalry climaxed into the First World War with the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Role of other factors
-The crisis between France and Germany over Morocco helped to draw Britain and France
together and made it more probable that Germany would be unlikely to back down on a future
occasion.
-The ramshackle structure of Austria-Hungary can be contrasted with the growing industrial and
military might of the GermanEmpire which was threatening to upset the international balance
of power in Central Europe.
-The alliance system also contributed.
-Arms race aroused warlike public feelings and heightened tension in times of crisis.
[14] To what extent did the First World War result from the championing of Pan-Slavism by
Serbia?
Serbia played a very significant role in causing the First World War. However, there were other
factors which were also responsible.
Role of Serbia’s championing of Pan-Slavism in causing the 1914 war
-Serbia’s actions had a long history of antagonism towards Austria-Hungary which was keen to
maintain its heterogeneous empire intact.
-Doing so would have meant the Slavs in Turkey and Austria-Hungary would have remained
perpetual subjects.
-To achieve freedom for Slavs, Serbia had allied with Russia.
-Serbia was disappointed with the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908 by Austria-
Hungary.
-Serbia’s determination to free the Slavs led to gains in the First and Second Balkan Wars which
reduced the power of Turkey and threatened Austria-Hungary’s survival as an empire.
-Serbia’s links with the Black Hand, made Serbia to be blamed for the murder of Archduke
Francis Ferdinand after which events moved so fast that war was underway by August.
Other factors
-Although Serbia’s actions were to blame, there were other factors which were also
responsible, for instance, Austria-Hungary. Her alliance, with Germany made her push for war.
-Germany also contributed as Generals thought time was ripe for war given the naval and
military preparedness of the Germans.

-The British using the alliance system supported the French as the war proceeded. The question
of Belgian neutrality was their excuse.
[14] How valid is the view that Europe descended into war in 1914 primarily to defend
military policy?
Pupils need to assess the causes of World War One.
-The German generals influenced events, for example, contributions of Moltke and Schlieffen.
-There was rivalry at sea where the position of Britain as mistress of the sea was threatened.
-Russians and French also had their own plans hence increasing the speed of the arms race.
-Checks and balances spilled into the alliance system.
-By 1914 the generals were arguing that time was ripe for war.
Other factors
-Colonial clashes also caused the war.
-The Balkans continued to be a hot spot.
-Commitment and confidence in the military sphere made Europe to take a gamble in the hope
that war was going to be short.
-The aggressive acts ofKaiser William II also contributed.
-The Sarajevo incident was the match stick
[14] Discuss the view that the outbreak of the First World War was caused largely by the
mistakes and miscalculations of those in leadership.
Pupils need to explain the causes of World War One.
Contribution of mistakes and miscalculations of those in leadership
-Generally, European statesmen and even army generals were expecting a localised and not a
world war.
-The Austrians miscalculated by declaring war on Serbia thinking that Serbia would not get help
from Russia.
-The German leaders made serious mistakes by promising to support Austria with no conditions
attacked [open cheque or blank cheque], thereby risking a major war.
-General von Moltke of Germany miscalculated by sticking to the Schlieffen plan believing that
this would bring a quick and decisive victory.
-The Germans miscalculated that Russian mobilisation would be slow.
-The Germans also hoped that Britain would remain neutral if Germany refrained from
attacking France.
Other side
-However, it must be noted that the foundation for a major war had already been laid down by
factors such as;
-Colonial rivalry
-The alliance system
-Balkan nationalism
-Arms race
-Naval race should also be considered as the foundation
[14] ‘The Kaiser’s war’. How far true is this verdict of the outbreak of the First World War?
The Kaiser was greatly responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. However, there
were other factors which were also to blame

-The German Kaiser’s pursued an aggressive and expansionist policy which was a departure
from the policy intention pursued by Bismarck.
-The Kaiser ignored the initial aims of the alliance system to keep France isolated.
-He ignored Russia hence the Franco-Russian alliance of 1893.
-The British were unnecessarily humiliated following the Jameson raid and attempts for alliance
were turned down.
-An anti-Russian stance was taken in the Bosnian crisis and even on the eve of war in July 1914.
-German militarism was important as the navy increased and challenged Britain.
-The shift of German attention into the Balkans also had its effects. In Germany the Kaiser was
to blame but so were his generals, von Schlieffen, von Moltke and Admiral Tirpitz.
-The strategies of von Schlieffen were also important.
Other factors
-France was obsessed with Alsace-Lorraine.
-Britain felt threatened at sea.
-Austro-Russian rivalry combined with Serbia’s Pan-Slavism created the spark for the war.
[14] ‘Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War in 1914’ How
justified is this view?
Germany was largely responsible for the outbreak of the 1914 war. However, there were other
countries which were also to blame.
Role of Germany
-Germany’s military race with Britain caused her to construct the Kiel Canal
-Fear gripped Britain who left the isolation policy and formed alliances with other powers as she
widened her naval base.
-Many war plans followed Germany’s Schlieffen plan.
-Germany had started the alliance system which caused France to panic and formed counter
combinations.
-Germany’s imperial greed also contributed. She clashed with France over Morocco.
-Germany gave Austria-Hungary an open cheque to attack Serbia.
-The Kaiser was very provocative and aggressive towards Britain following defeat in the Anglo-
Boer war and the same provocations can be found in the naval competition.
Other side
-However, there were other countries which were also to blame; for instance; Serbia’s unholy
nationalism was also responsible. She wanted to create Yugoslavia in the South.
-Austrian foreign policy also contributed, for example, she annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina.
-France’s determination to gain prestige also contributed. This was in line with her spirit of
revenge following the defeat by Prussia in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war as well as the
humiliating treaty of Frankfurt.
-Russia was also to blame for the outbreak of the First World War, for instance, she gave Serbia
unrestricted support.
[14] Why did an international war break out because of the crisis in the Balkans in 1914
rather than because of disputes in North Africa from 1905 to 1911?
The question needs a comparative assessment of the relative importance of the Balkan crisis
[Sarajevo incident] of 1914 and the Moroccan crisis of 1905 and 1911.

-The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 drew up all the major powers, that is,
Russia, Britain, France, Austria-Hungary and Germany.
-Arms race too was by 1914 at its peak.
-By 1914 Europe had been divided into two hostile camps.
-Whilst the Balkan crisis had steadily worsened this EasternQuestion even further the
deteriorating situation in 1914 or immediately before it need special focus, for example, ‘Blank
cheque’ development and Russia’s support for Serbia.
-Violation of Belgian neutrality is also important.
*The disputes in North Africa in 1905 and 1911 were not as complex as the crisis of 1914.
*Those of 1905 and 1911 [Moroccan crisis] were solved by international arbitration.
[14] Which did more to bring about the First World War; events in the Balkans from 1900 to
1914 or disputes in North Africa from 1905 to 1911?
Events in the Balkans did more to bring about war in 1914.
Contribution of events in the Balkans
-A series of events occurred in the Balkans which culminated into the Sarajevo incident which
sparked the war in 1914.
-Some of the events to consider include the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in 1908 which angered Serbia and ensured that Russia would not back down in the
event of another Austrian threat to Serbia.
-The First and Second Balkan wars also increased tension in Europe.
-Therefore, it can be argued that the 1908 crisis contributed greatly to the mad sequence of
events in July 1914.
-The Balkan region was more volatile and unstable and involved more great powers than North
Africa.
Contribution of events in North Africa
*On the other hand, the disputes between France and Germany over Moroccoin 1905 and 1911
were also important because they drew Britain and France together.
-This made it more probable that Germany would be unlikely to back down on a future
occasion.
[14] To what extent was the relationship of the great powers in Europe in the period 1870 to
1914 affected by events in Africa?
Pupils need to assess the effects of events in Africa to the relationship of the great powers as
well as the effects of other factors.
Effects of events in Africa to the relationship of great powers in Europe
-After 1870, Britain, France and Germany increased their trading activities.
-The occupation of Egypt [1882] and the failure of Britain of withdraw made France angry thus
she was to support German occupation of Cameroon and German East and West Africa.
-Colonial interest also forced Italy to join the Dual alliance powers to form the Triple alliance in
1882. Thus the support of Germany became important in North Africa.
-Britain’s policy of isolation came to an end with the Fashoda incident.
-Britain’s position became vulnerable therefore she turned to Russia for an alliance, Dual
alliance of 1893, which the French joined to form the Triple entente of 1907. This made Britain
more committed to helping France. This also convinced Germany of the British position.

-The Moroccan crisis of 1905 and 1911 also worsened relations between Britain and France on
one hand and Germany on the other.
Effects of events in Europe
*However, events in Europe itself were also important, for instance,
-The Berlin Congress of 1878 and the humiliation of Russia were to make her look for allies
other than Germany and Austria-Hungary.
-Balkan nationalism also affected the relations of the great powers.
-The Bosnian crisis of 1908 increased enmity between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, Austria-
Hungary and Russia, Germany and Russia.
-The Balkan wars increased enmity between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.
-The Sarajevo assassination was the match stick which brought the whole world into a war.
[14] Why was there persistent instability in the Balkans between 1878 and 1914?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for continued instability in the Balkans.
-The Ottoman rule remained as oppressive as ever despite its promises of reform in the 1856
Treaty of Paris.
-There was continued unrest among the Christian population, which provoked concern and
threats of intervention from the European powers.
-The divergent designs of the powers in the Balkans can be seen in the Berlin Congress of 1878,
which reversed most of the terms of the Russian imposed San Stefano Treaty of March 1878.
-The Big Bulgaria considered advantageous to Bulgaria was dismantled. Britain obtained Cyprus
as a counter weight to Russian advances and Bosnia and Herzegovina were to be administered
by Austria. This was a cause of future instability because in 1908 Austria incorporated the two
autonomous provinces [Bosnia and Herzegovina] into the Habsburg Empire, in the process,
provoking Serbian anger.
-The instability resulting from Austro-Serbian rivalry climaxed into the First World War.
-The Sultan had promised reforms in the Berlin Congress, but these had largely not materialised
as evidenced by the ruthless suppression of the Young Turks in 1908.
-The First Balkan War of 1912 in which the Balkan states combined against Turkey and the
Second Balkan War of 1913, when the Balkan states quarreled amongst themselves, all
contributed to instability.
-It was deep rivalry between Austria and Serbia that provided the spark that caused the First
World War.
[14]How far did the violation of Belgian neutrality cause a general war in Europe?
Violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany was largely responsible for the general war in 1914.
Contribution of violation of Belgian neutrality in causing a general war
-The violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany widened the scope of what could have been a
localised war.
-By 1 August only four countries had declared war on each other. These were Austria-Hungary
and Serbia as well as Germany and Russia.
-The involvement of Belgium after this date brought in more players into the conflict, hence
increasing the possibility of a European war.
-Germany was the major culprit in the violation of Belgian neutrality.
-When Belgium failed to give a passage to Germany, on 3 August 1914, Germany invaded
Belgium and also declared war on France.

-This was a violation of the treaty ofLondon [1838] which had guaranteed Belgian neutrality.
This brought in Britain in the war. On 4 August 1914, Britain declared war on Germany as it
valued the Belgian neutrality.
Other factors which caused the general war of 1914
-The alliance system also helped to convert a local quarrel into a general war. The alliance
system made it difficult for European powers to localise war.
-Arms race also forced many countries into the war.
-Naval race also contributed
-Balkan problems also dragged in the great powers making a world war inevitable.
[14] Why did diplomacy not solve the political crisis of 1914?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for the outbreak of World War One and the failure of
diplomacy to solve the political crisis of 1914.
-There was an attempt at diplomacy by the British who suggested an international conference.
-Also the initial reaction to the Sarajevo assassination by Austria-Hungary had been for a
peaceful solution.
-A crisis had been created because of Germany’s blank cheque to Austria-Hungary leading to
the ultimatum.
-Talks between Austria-Hungary and Russia were underway before 28 July.
-These ceased with the outbreak of Austro-Serbian war.
-But even with the outbreak of war there had been Anglo-German pressure on Austria-Hungary
not to escalate the war.
-Despite this a local war developed into a general war.
-One reason was that the diplomats of the time were not of high caliber, for example,
Bethmann Hollweg. Grey of Britain did not see the possibility of a major war at that time.
-Where the diplomats failed, the military staff took over.
-A tense environment was precipitated as countries announced full mobilisation measures.
[14] Why in spite of its military preparedness was Germany defeated in the First World War?
[14] ‘Germany in 1918 was defeated more by its own weaknesses than by the strengths of the
allied powers’. How valid is this argument?
The weaknesses of Germany contributed greatly to her defeat. However, the strengths of allied
powers also contributed.
Weaknesses of Germany
-Germany was strong at the beginning of the war with the use of the Schlieffen plan and
resilient as the war was prolonged.
-German generals had predicted short sharp war.
-Germany supported all its allies, that is, Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary.
-Germany had weak allies, that is, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria.
-Germany was weak at sea.
-Economic and political problems made sustaining the war difficult.
-By the beginning of 1918 Germany was fighting alone [because her allies had been defeated by
1918] with the result that discord arose among its soldiers and sailors leading to a revolution in
Germany which made it impossible to continue with the war hence the armistice.
Strengths of allied powers
-Britain had a strong navy.

-The British expeditionary forces saved France.
-Russian speedy mobilisation led to the failure of the Schlieffen plan making Germany to fight
on many fronts.
-The entry of USA led to the defeat of Germany.
-The allied powers outnumbered the central powers.
RESULTS OF WORLD WAR ONE
[15] How costly was the First World War on Europe?
Pupils need to assess the negative and positive effects of the 1914-18 war.
-The human costs of the war were staggering.
-Millions of soldiers died and even more were wounded.
-Economically, only USA the creditor of the belligerents emerged from the war in a reasonably
sound economic state.
-Germany and other central powers were financially shattered and defeated.
-The peace terms aggravated their bankruptcy.
-All allied powers were in a devastated economic position.
-Under the stress of war government had collapsed in Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and
the Ottoman Empire.
-Political radicals wanted to make extreme changes and dreamt of building a new social order
from the chaos.
-Conservatives warned against the spread of Bolshevism or Communism and Radicalism.
-Socially women began to do jobs that were previously the preserve of men and were treated
as equals. They began to wear trousers.
-In battle zones from France to Russia, homes, farms, factories and churches were destroyed.
-Shaken and disillusioned people everywhere felt bitter about the war.
-During the war, propaganda was used to urge all subjects of a notion to commit themselves
entirely to the achievement of victory and to denigrate every aspect of the legacy.
-The propaganda thus left the legacy of hatred and bitterness which have remained potent
factors in world diplomacy.
-Technological advancement
-Self determination of some minorities
-Democratic governments, for example, in Germany
[15] How accurate is the view that the First World War had a major impact on the society’s
attitudes towards women and their place in society?
Pupils need to assess the social, political and economic gains of women as well as the negatives
-Before 1914, women did not vote and were considered by many men to be second class
citizens, whose role was to look after their home and bring up children.
-As more men joined the war it was vital that their places were filled by women.
-Women began to work in factories and steel mills driving buses, building ships or working in
agriculture.
-Some women went to the war zones to help out and did valuable work.
-For a large number of women, employment meant it was during the war that they had
received their own wages and also the first time they had been financially independent from
their husbands.
-Many of them gained a much greater sense at their place in society.

-The government too, recognised the role that women had played in the war.
-Women gained the vote as long as they were aged 30 or more.
*Although many of the women lost jobs when men returned from the war, things were never
the same again.
-In Britain, women were advanced but in Russia, Italy and Germany, women were disrespected.
[15] Examine the economic and political consequences of World War One on Europe.
-European economies suffered badly as they had borrowed from USA. These countries included
Britain, Italy and France.
-There was hyper inflation in countries like Germany and Italy.
-Unemployment was rife.
-There was also destruction of properties in countries like France and Belgium.
-There was a negative balance of payment in many countries.
*Politically, there were peace treaties signed with the defeated powers, for example, treaty of
Versailles, Neuilly, Sevres, St Germain, Trianon, and Lausane.
-The League of Nations was born out of the war.
-Old empires disappeared, for example, Turkish and Austro-Hungarian empires.
-New ideologies emerged; these are communism, socialism and fascism.
SECTION D
POST WORLD WAR ONE ERA
[16] How justified is the view that the framers of the treaty of Versailles of 1919 were driven
by the spirit of revenge?
Pupils need to assess the aims of the framers of Versailles Treaty.
-Versailles treaty was crafted by the victorious powers that were largely bent on revenge and
on punishing Germany. The allied powers believed that Germany was largely responsible for
the outbreak of the 1914 war and should be severely punished. The great powers were
represented by their leaders, Lloyd George [Britain], Georges Clemenceau [France] and
Woodrow Wilson [USA].
-It was Clemenceau who really wanted to punish Germany.
-Most of the fighting had been in France.
-Many French towns and villages had been destroyed.
-Many had left their homes.
-At Versailles the Germans were not allowed to defend themselves but they were only allowed
to bring points. The treaty was a dictat settlement.
-Germany was heavily disarmed and she was also made to pay reparations. The reparations
were unrealistic as they were beyond the capacity of Germany to pay.
-Disarmament and reparations were meant to weaken German economy and capacity to wage
another war.
-Germany lost her German and non-German territories and members of the allied powers
benefited by acquiring these territories.
*However, it must be noted that the framers of Versailles treaty also had peace in mind.
-Woodrow Wilson of USA wanted the settlement to create peace.
-The allied powers were mindful of the fact that if Germany was not totally weakened war
would soon erupt.
-They wanted to guarantee the security of countries like France and Belgium.

[16] ‘Vindictive and full of revenge’. How accurate is this view of Versailles Treaty of 1919?
[16] ‘An unwarranted punishment imposed for revenge’. Is this an accurate view of the
treatyof Versailles?
Vindictive indicates a desire to punish and inflict pain.
-The spirit of revenge was obsessed in some of the terms imposed on Germany by the French.
-The three leading principals in the settlement [George, Clemenceau and Wilson] had different
views as to how Germany was to be punished.
*However, above all the views of the big three, Clemenceau seemed to have won his side and
wanted to settle his old sores with Germany.
-An analysis of the spirit in which the Treaty was passed and signed supports the accuracy of
the above view.
-Thus the idea of revenging for the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 resurfaced,
while the military clauses, the reparations and the war guilty clause became a heavy
punishment to Germany.
-The terms of the treaty both territorial and non-territorial reflected a desire to punish.
-The German army, for instance, was restricted to 100000 men, the general staff was
disbanded, naval defenses and fortifications were demolished.
-There were territorial losses which saw Germany losing about 6000000 people and some of
the most vital areas of economic importance such as the Ruhr Valley.
-This weakened Germany economically and militarily.
*Germans deserved to be dealt with for their role in causing and carrying out World War One.
-The punishment seemed to be too harsh to Germany but Germany was certainly to blame for
this war and its effects, that is, the destruction that took place during the war.
-Germany wanted to dominate Europe hence incited Austria-Hungary to quarrel with Serbia.
[16] Discuss the view that the Treaty of Versailles was an unsatisfactory compromise
between hopes for reconciliation and demands for revenge.
Pupils need to assess the outcome and effects of Versailles treaty on various nations and
nationalities.
-The treaty led to Germany’s alienation from the international community, the rise of Hitler and
the outbreak of World War Two.
-The war guilty clause, the disbandment of Germany forces, the huge war reparation figure and
territorial losses, for example, the Polish Corridor, weakened Germany.
*However, the treatment Germany gave to Russia in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was just as
harsh so it was fair.
-Germany deserved this and that the treaty was justified in 1919 and that France wanted to go
further.
-As to the huge war indemnity, Germany had the ability to pay it off but was being encouraged
by nationalists like Hitler to stop paying the war indemnity. Besides, most of the money came
from USA and Britain.
[16] How and with what success did French statesmen attempt to weaken Germany and
strengthen the position of France in Europe in the inter war years?
-Coming out of World War One there was need for peace.

-At Versailles Clemenceau wanted a settlement that would weaken Germany both militarily and
economically by imposing harsh reparations, severe restrictions on the army and a territorial
settlement that would cripple trade, take away resources and labour.
-Later, through various treaties, France went on to secure its position at the expense of
Germany through a system of alliance with Poland [1921], as well as Locarno [1925] and Stressa
Front [1935].
*Success was limited. Germany was only contained under Weimar republic as in 1939 France
was once again under siege.
-France also used its military muscle in the Ruhr [1923] and the building of the Maginot line.
-With appeasement in 1930s France failed to stand up to aggression from Germany.
-The Rhineland was reoccupied in 1936.
-By 1935, Hitler had started rearmament programmes.
[16] ‘A flawed peace’. Discuss this view of the peace settlement following World War One.
Pupils need to look at the nature and outcome of the peace settlement. They must look at the
treaties [Versailles, Neuilly, Trianon, Sevres, Lausane and St Germain.
-The injustices of Versailles must come out and at the same time the justification of the great
powers of their action.
-The shortcomings of the peace can also be discussed in relation to the rest of the central
powers. Peace was accompanied by the formation of the League of Nations, an organisation
which found its mandate to deal with Germany initially difficult.
-The League could not separate itself from the Paris Peace Settlement.
-It lost respect and shouldered some of the blame leading to the outbreak of World War Two.
16] How far and why did the peace treaties which ended the First World War depart from
Wilson’s ideals?
Wilson’s hopes were modified or completely overridden by other considerations.Chief among
Wilson’s hopes had been a peace without victory, open diplomacy, self-determination of
subject nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires and all round reduction of
armaments.
-The outcome of the treaties was a compromise ofand mixture of Wilson’s idealism and the
extreme demands by the French for reparations and a guarantee of security as well as the
British position.
-The wanton destruction of property by German forces on their retreat from France and
Belgium, German imposition of the harsh treaty of Brest Litovsk on Russia and the demands of
Clemenceau and Lloyd George all combined to alter the initial idealism of Wilson.
-Open diplomacy was negated by denying Germany participation in the negotiations. French
demands had prevailed.
-Disarmament was only applied to Germany and her allies [Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary and
Turkey].
-The noble idea of self-determination gave rise to independent nations but due to the intricate
and complex nature of the nationalities could not be applied impartially. The principle was
ignored in the case of Germany [the Anschuluss was forbidden].Germans in Sudetenland and
Poland were under foreign rule. In Bulgaria it was the principle was partially applied as was the
case of Smyrna. German colonies were further transferred to the victors.

-On reparations and war guilty clause, the treaties lived up to Wilson’s hopes. After Germany
had rejected the 14 points and the German treatment of Russia, Wilson had acceded to the
need for reparations from Germany.
-On the whole the treaty reflected Wilson’s idealism, a compromise and mixture of British and
French views.
[16] ‘Years of achievement, full of hope for the future’. Discuss this view of international
relations during the decade 1919 to 1929.
-The decade starts off with the prospects of peace at the Peace settlement in 1919.
-Embodied in this were not only the treaties but also establishment of the League of Nations.
-War had ended and peace prevailed yet underlying the peace treaties was the anger of the
defeated powers against the victorious.
-The Germans wanted to rise again.
-Later Germany was brought into the League of Nations in a gesture of peace.
-The work of the League was particularly impressive.
-Besides there were various agreements which were signed to support the peace process, for
example, the Locarno pact and Briand-Kellogg Pact. Russia was absent from these treaties.
-Although Russia made its own agreements such as those with Poland, there was too much on
the front to be a threat to peace.
-In the ten years following the war, most conflicts were minor and many were solved.
-The major threat to peace came with the arrival of the Great Depression.
-Fear and insecurity were revived.
-Selfish interests were promoted, steadily descending Europe into chaos and eventually war.
[16] Why was the peace settlement promised to Europe in the post-World War one period
shattered by 1939?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for collapse of peace in Europe by 1939.
-By 1929, the Hague Conference reached an agreement on the evacuation of allied troops from
the Rhineland leading to the belief that conciliation was succeeding between Germany and her
former enemies.
-Before 1929 the Locarno Pact had been signed in 1925 by Germany, France, Britain, Italy and
Belgium. The pact confirmed the inviolability of the Franco-German and Belgo-German
frontiers. Locarno offered a temporary illusion of a lasting peace and stability.
*However, Locarno had some shortcomings. It did not answer the problem of the revival of
German power.
-Germany’s entry in to the League of Nations also gave an impression of stability in Europe.
-In 1928, the Briand-Kellogg Pact was signed formally renouncing war as an instrument of
national policy.
-These developments together with the consultative spirit of the League of Nations created
peace and stability in Europe.
*However, this peace was illusory.
-Firstly, Locarno meant different things to different statesmen.
-To Gustav Stresemann of Germany, it was the first step towards a revision of treaties.
-Locarno was therefore doomed to failure.
-The rise of Hitler was arguably the most important factor leading to the shattering of any
hopes for peace. His aim of revising the Versailles treaty was certainly going to create conflict

with the allied powers. Some of his dangerous moves included the following; his withdrawal
from the Disarmament Conference in 1933, withdrawing from the League of Nations and the
invasion of Austria, Czechoslovakia and finally Poland.
-The failure of decisive great power cooperation especially Britain and France against Germany
encouraged Hitler to go further with his acts of aggression.
-Japanese and Italian aggressions also contributed.
-The Great Depression of 1929 to 1939 is another factor.
-The Spanish Civil War also contributed.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[16] How far by 1936 had the League of Nations achieved its aims?
[16]How successful had the League of Nations fulfilled its aims by 1936?
By 1936 the league was largely successful in fulfilling its aims.
-The league was largely aimed at promoting peace and international cooperation.
-It also aimed to improve the welfare of refugees and workers.
-It also intended to recognise minorities in their countries and to protect their rights.
Areas of achievement
-It settled a dispute between Sweden and Finland
-It settled a dispute between Turkey and Iraq
-Health organisation
-International Labour Organisation under Albert Thomas
-Refugee and Mandates commission.
Failures
-It failed to deal decisively with Mussolini for invading the Greek Island of Corfu in 1923.
-It was not successful in the Manchurian crisis of 1931.
-It was not successful in the Abyssinian crisis of 1935.
[16] How far is it justified to dismiss the League of Nations as a complete failure?
The League of Nations was largely a failure. However, it had some limited successes.
Failures of the League of Nations
-It failed to force Japan to abandon its aggressive policy in China where it had invaded and
conquered Manchuria resulting in the creation of a puppet state in 1931.
-In 1933 it failed to stop Germany from withdrawing from the Disarmament Conference and
from the League of Nations over the issue of being denied equity of arms.
-It was not the league that forced Hitler to abandon annexing Austria in 1934, but it was
Mussolini who wanted at that time to preserve Austrian independence.
-In Abyssinia Italian aggression was not checked as evidenced by the full conquest of Abyssinia
in May 1936. The half-hearted sanctions imposed on Italy simply drove Mussolini into an
alliance with Hitler [Rome-Berlin Axis of 1936] making World War Two inevitable.
-Taking advantage of the preoccupation of Britain and France with Italy, Hitler reoccupied the
Rhineland, another breach of the treaty of Versailles, which could have easily been stopped.
-By pursuing the policy of no- intervention in the Spanish Civil War the league allowed Hitler to
assist the Fascist leader General Francisco Franco to defeat the Republican government.
-The league failed to stop Hitler from annexing Austria in 1938 and completing the Anschuluss.
-It also failed to stop Hitler from getting back the Sudetenland in 1938.
Successes of the League of Nations

*However, it must be noted that the league was not a total failure. When states accepted its
mediatory functions it could and did reach notable settlements. For instance, it settled a
dispute between Sweden and Finland over the Aaland Islands in 1921.
-It settled a border dispute between Greece and Bulgaria in 1924.
-It settled a dispute between Hungary and Yugoslavia in 1924.
-Its international bodies such as the Health organisation and the Advisory Committee on Traffic
in Women and Children still function today as the World Health Organisation and UNICEF.
[16] ‘The League of Nations could not control the big powers. It was a league of small
powers’. How accurate is this assertion to the work of the League of Nations to 1935?
The league indeed solved, many disputes associated with small nations, for instance, between
Sweden and Finland, Greece and Bulgaria, Turkey and Iraq.
-It failed in disputes that involved big powers, for example, Japanese invasion of Manchuria,
Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, Hitler’s invasion of Austria,
Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
[16] Why did the League of Nation fail to accomplish Woodrow Wilson’s dreams?
Pupils need to explain the league’s failure to achieve Wilson’s expectations. The Paris Peace
Conference did offer a beacon of hope with the establishment of the League of Nations. More
than 40 nations joined the League. Wilson’s dreams had become a reality or so he thought.
-The USA Senate refused to ratify the treaty and USA did not join the league.
-The absence of USA weakened the league’s power.
-The other reason for its failure was lack of a standing army.
-Disagreements between France and Britain on the role of the league also led to its failure.
-The cynical and worldly wise Europeans did not share Wilson’s idealism and belief in
cooperation between powers.
-The league was further weakened when some main powers left the league in the 1930s, for
instance, Germany [1933], Italy [1935], Japan [1935] and Russia [1939].Japan began as a
permanent member of the council but left after the league had objected to its invasion of
Manchuria. Italy also began as a permanent member but withdrew when the league accused
Mussolini as the aggressor when he invaded Abyssinia.
-The league’s requirement for a unanimous vote in all council and assembly decisions made the
league ineffective in implementing decisions.
-From the start, the league shared many of the weaknesses of the treaties themselves. The
defeated powers were not consulted about the league and were not invited to join it.
[16] How far do you agree with the view that the League of Nations failed because the major
powers were more concerned with their own interests than in maintaining the ideals of
international cooperation?
The question demands a comparative analysis of the reasons for the league’s failure.
-In 1920s disputes were mainly between small powers and some success was achieved as there
was no direct threat to the interests of great powers.
-Difference came with the Italian invasion of Corfu in 1923. This was because Italy was a major
power.
-In the 1930s the Japanese attack on Manchuria went unchallenged.
-When the Italians invaded Abyssinia half hearted sanctions were imposed which and these
encouraged further aggressions by Italy which weakened the league.

-Germany left the Disarmament Conference and this was followed by the policy of
appeasement.
Other reasons for its failure
-The Great Depression
-Lack of a standing army
-Absence of great powers also led to its failure.
[16] Why was the Abyssinian crisis a death blow to the League of Nations yet the Manchurian
crisis was not?
-The Manchurian crisis was not a death blow to the league because most nations were inclined
to regard Manchuria as a Japanese sphere of interest and not keen to get involved.
-The Japanese had successfully sown confusion about the true circumstances of the Mukden
incident and insisted that they were just defending themselves from Chinese attacks.
-For most league members, East Asia seemed very distant.
-China’s internal turmoil was well known and many league members secretly sympathised with
Japan’s attempts to bring order to the region [Asia].
-With the onset of the Great Depression, the European nations and USA were occupied with full
scale economic crises at home.
-The league was unable to agree on any effective action and Japan went on to set up the
puppet state of Manchukuo in 1932.
*The Abyssinian crisis on the other hand, led to the death of the league because Italy and
Abyssinia were member states and both in theory accepted the league’s authority in settling
their disputes.
-Self interests among the nations prevented a united front against Mussolini.
-Action taken was ineffective. Half hearted sanctions were imposed on Italy.
-The blow was evident in the aftermath as Italy and Mussolini moved from cooperation of the
period leading to Stressa into aggression and active alliance with Hitler.
-Mussolini withdrew Italy from the league and continued with aggression which weakened the
authority of the league.
[16] Why did European diplomacy fail to effectively settle internal disputes between 1920
and 1939?
-Efforts were made by European statesmen after World War One to settle international
disputes by diplomatic means.
-Disputes involving smaller nations were effectively dealt with but those involving major
powers were not.
-Such disputes include the Manchurian crisis, Abyssinian crisis and other disputes involving
countries like Germany. One major reason for failure was the weaknesses of the international
organisation formed in 1920 [League of Nations]. The organisation’s major mandate was to
settledisputes and stop acts of aggression and thus it became a watchdog of world events. The
inherent weaknesses of the league should be traced to the peace settlement of 1919. Treaties
imposed on defeated powers contained provisions that angered the defeated powers
particularly Germany.
-Versailles treaty had caused a great deal of suffering such that future leaders sought to crush it
-Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement precipitated its failure.
DICTATORSHIP IN ITALY [1919-1939]

[17] To what extent did post war disillusionment in Italy contribute to the rise of Mussolini?
Post war disillusionment in Italy contributed greatly to the rise of Mussolini. However, there
were other factors which also led to his rise.
-Post war disillusionment assisted Mussolini to get support.
-Workers were disillusioned with the failure of strikes and unions to get them a better deal.
-Demobilised soldiers from junior offices to other ranks were disgruntled with the anti-climax of
peace and unemployment. Many were genuinely concerned about what was happening to Italy.
-Italians were disgruntled and disappointed with the Treaty of Versailles. The Italians got little
territory. They expected more.
*However, there were other factors which also assisted Mussolini’s rise to power, for instance,
the economic depression from 1920 which added to the bitterness among many sections of
industrial and urban society.
-Socially, there was poverty, starvation and suffering in the South. Demonstrations and street
fights were all common.
-Politically, there was no strong and stable government in Italy.
-There was fear of communism and socialism among the business and educated classes.
*NB All the problems that were inherent in Italy assisted Mussolini’s rise to power.
[17] In what ways and to what extent did the spread of communism lead to the rise of Benito
Mussolini?
The spread of communism contributed greatly to the rise of Mussolini. However, there were
other factors which also led to his rise to power.
-The aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution and the idea of a world communist revolution
resulted in the fast spread of communism in Europe. This contributed to the rise of Mussolini.
-There was growing fear among the capitalists, landowners, bankers, the church and the
monarchists that communism would gain prominence in Italy.
-The monarchists had no option but to support Mussolini’s fascism which seemed to be
palatable with some of the capitalist tendencies.
-Landowners, businessmen and bankers supported Mussolini because they feared that if
communists seize power, their property would be nationalised. This was because communism
emphasised communal ownership of property, land and business.
-Catholics were prepared to support Mussolini who was a strong hand to fight communists.
-Fear of communism also made the government to rely on Black shirts [Fascists] to suppress
communism thereby giving Mussolini popularity.
*However, Mussolini’s rise to power was also a result of other factors, for example;
-There was post war disillusionment in Italy, for example, Italy’s failure to get more territories
from the Versailles Settlement.
-There was political violence in Italy.
-Italy was being ruled by weak coalition governments.
-There were strikes and demonstrations in Italy.
-There was rampant unemployment.
-There was inflation in Italy.
-Italy had a huge war debt.
-Mussolini’s personal attributes also led to his rise, for example, he was an orator and a
propagandist.

[17] To what extent was Mussolini’s rise a result of the appeal of Fascism to the Italians?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for the rise of Mussolini to power in Italy.
-Post war Italy saw a challenge to the parliamentary system that had been recently established
and was seen to be not working well. There was rapid succession of governments between
1919 and 1922. Democracy was seen by the masses as a middle class affair concerned with
liberal freedoms rather than social betterment.
-The political structure was further fractured by a hostile church.
-Discontent with the political system was fuelled by a sense of injustice over the Versailles
treaty.
-General social disorder and threat to property, land seizures, factory occupations and the
communist threat led to government paralysis.
-The fascists who ironically did so much to create disorder appeared to many to promise the
restoration of law and order.
-Fascism won support of the armed forces and the royal family while the fear of Bolshevism led
the middle class and church to rally to Mussolini.
-The circumstances of Mussolini’s appointment were not primarily due tothe appeal of fascism.
Fascism was still a vague and little known ideology.
-The chief concerns were the restoration of law and order.
-Further the absence of a credible alternative left the king with no choice but to appoint
Mussolini. The possible military dictatorship or Bolshevism was as detestable as the discredited
parliamentary system.
-The march on Rome was a show of force which left the king with no option
[17] How justified is the description of Mussolini’s rule over Italy as an inefficient dictatorship
Efficient
-The Acerbo Law [1923] managed to maintain peace through the abolition of opposition
politics.
-The OVRA also managed to maintain peace through silencing enemies.
Inefficient
-There were blunders in economic planning, for instance, revaluing of the lira was too high.
-Agriculture never surfaced.
-Import continued to flood in Italy.
-Unemployment steadily rose.
[17] Critically examine Mussolini’s achievements within Italy between 1922 and 1943.
Mussolini’s domestic achievements
-He created a strong government.
-He established a dynamic economy.
-He gave Italians pride in and loyalty to their kingdom.
-He provided social cohesion. It was in ensuring social cohesion that Mussolini made his biggest
mark.
-He ended the communist threat which pleased many Italians.
-He ended the rift between the church and the state through the Lateran treaty of 1929,
gaining Catholic support.
Other side

*However, the price was paid in the loss of personal freedoms, for example, press, trade union
membership and the like.
-There was a vast bureaucracy which was inefficient and restrictive of personal freedoms, but
effective in developing the country’s interests.
-Much of the vaunted economic achievement was less impressive than it appeared.
-The Pontine Marshes had indeed been drained but the battle for self-sufficiency in grain was
only achieved at the expense of other crops.
-Agricultural productivity and investment remained lamentably low especially in the poorer
Southern regions.
-Mussolini did little to bridge the gap between the North and the South.
-Mussolini also made effective use of propaganda to restore national pride.
[17] ‘Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship corrupted his domestic achievements’. Do you agree?
-Mussolini’s achievements were apparent and not real as many of the benefits were
accompanied by costs.
-There was political stability at the expense of people’s freedom.
-Work was created at the cost of low wages.
-Murders, deportations, intimidations, censorship of press of press, control of education
system, use of spies, the OVRA, abolition of trade unions and the establishment of the
corporate state brought order at the expense of people’s liberties.
-Mussolini had a dynamic economy and a strong government.
-He also ensured unity, order and social cohesion by ending the socialist threat and ending the
rift between the church and the state. The Lateran treaty was a big achievement.
-Italy was developed into a modern, beautiful place.
-Pontine Marshes were drained and public works programmes introduced and this created jobs.
-The standard of living was improved and the lira was revalued.
[17] To what extent is it true that Mussolini’s achievements were more apparent than real?
There were some real achievements by the Fascist government. However, there were also
some superficial gains.
Real achievements
-Food security was improved.
-Unemployment was reduced.
-Industries were boosted and revived.
-A strong government was formed.
-For real, autocracy seemed to be on course.
*However, there were superficial gains which were achieved at the detriment of civil liberties.
-The battle of births caused more harm than good.
-The battle of wheat resulted in Italians buying more expensive wheat than imported wheat.
-His army was never strong as he claimed.
[17] How and to what extent were Fascists able to consolidate their position in Italy by 1929?
Pupils need to assess the methods used by fascists to consolidate their position and their
degree of success. Various reforms were passed to strengthen the fascists hold on power.
-The creation of a corporate state was key to consolidating his position. All citizens belonged to
syndicates of workers, employees or professionals. This strengthened the fascist hold on power.

-In economic policy, Mussolini made many concessions to big business interests but he rapidly
applied over revaluation of the lira in 1925, a clear mistake.
-Propaganda made the most of the developments in the railway, hydro-electricity, motorways
and above all the draining of the Pontine Marshes.
-The battles for grain and births, the drive for national self-sufficiency [autarky] and aimed at
strengthening fascism.
-Education was controlled especially what was taught.
-Politically, legal and illegal steps were taken to consolidate fascist rule.
-Deals with industrialists led to the takeover of key administrative posts by Fascists.
-The Acerbo law of 1923 enabled the fascists to nominate two thirds of the chamber.
-The ruthlessness of Mussolini, seen in the number of murdered rivals such as Matteotti and
the mistake of opposition walking out of parliament worked in the fascist favour.
-Dictatorial tendencies such as the banning of opposition parties, the closing of opposition
newspapers and the introduction censorship made Mussolini to consolidate his power.
-The 1928 electoral law reduced the electorate from 10 to 3 million.
-The use of secret policy eliminated opponents.
-Bridging of the gap between the church and state helped Mussolini to consolidate his position.
[17] How effective did fascist rule in Italy solve problems which brought Mussolini to power?
-The main problem of political instability which was evidenced by a quick succession of
governments was solved when the fascists became the largest party with 375 seats and
outlawed other political parties. This was also achieved when Mussolini secured the
establishment of a totalitarian government when he changed the electoral laws resulting in the
disenfranchisement of 7million people.
-Effectiveness in this regard has been highly questionable because the institutions of the state
had fascists institutions place alongside them as the philosophy of the corporate state was
applied in the 1930s. This tended to control many areas of national life and certainly to impede
the traditional freedoms of the Italians.
-Mussolini’s effectiveness in dealing with Italy’s problems had very limited success.
-Many of such vaunted economic achievements were less impressive than they appeared.
-Mussolini ended the communist threat which pleased many.
-The Pontine Marshes had indeed been drained but the battle for self-sufficiency in grain was
only achieved at the expense of other crops.
-Agricultural productivity and investment remained low especially in the poorer southern
regions.
-Mussolini did very little to bridge the gap between the North and South.
-Too much investment went into vast prestige projects such as sports stadia or the autostroda
whilst unglamorous investment in basic industries was neglected.
-In 1929 he reached an accord with the Pope at the price of granting many privileges to the
Catholic Church in Italy. This healed a serious division in Italy and ensured the fascist regime the
continuing acquiescence of faithful Catholics in its rule. This had been regarded as the most
important fascistcontribution to the Italian state. How directly it was one of the problems that
had brought Mussolini to power in 1922, is however, less clear.

-Unemployment was partially solved whilst military reforms failed to make Italy a formidable
force in Europe, a view that received ample confirmation in Greece and Libya when eventually
Italy entered the Second World War.
-He failed as a result to resuscitate the Holy Roman Empire of Julius Caesar.
-His aggressive policy brought a few benefits of revenging the defeat of Adowa by invading
Abyssinia and intervening in the Spanish Civil War.
[17]How far were Mussolini’s fascist policies retrogressive?
Mussolini’s fascist policies were largely retrogressive.
-Mussolini’s fascist policies at home was largely characterised by retrogressive tendencies such
as violent elimination and intimidation of opponents, totalitarianism, suppression of the press,
abolition of opposition political parties, suppression of women, for example, they had no equal
opportunity to employmentand education and the husband was given excessive authority over
his wife.
-Mussolini’s education policies were retrogressive, for example, teachers were forced to take
an oath of allegiance to him and university lecturerswere required to join the fascist party.
School children were taught to hate more and rejoice in being hated.
-He hated the bourgeoisie and planned to let loose a wave of violence against them.
*However, Mussolini’s policies were on the other hand progressive.
-There was general peace in Italy following the introduction of harsh policies.
-Social benefits such as free Sundays to workers and subsidised holidays.
[17] ‘Failure at home, disaster abroad’. How valid is this view of Mussolini’s policies?
-Mussolini’s reorganisation of the society had limited success and many of his achievements
were exaggerated by propaganda.
-Although he succeeded in imposing one party government, he never won overwhelming
popular support.
*However, the Lateran Treaty of 1929 achieved recognition with the Papacy.
-Invasion of Abyssinia in 1935 and intervention in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 added little to
Italy’s prestige.
-Mussolini became less important than Hitler as a fascist leader.
-During the Second World War, Italy’s weakness and Mussolini’s inadequate leadership led to
defeat and eventually to Mussolini’s death.
DICTATORSHIP IN GERMANY [1919-1945]
[18] Examine why the Weimar republic was able to resist anti-democratic forces in the 1920s
but not in the 1930s?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for the survival of the Weimar republic in the 1920s and then
failure in 1930s.
-The Weimar republic born out of Germany’s defeat in 1918 lasted to 1933 and several reasons
explain its survival,
-There was division between the right and left.
-Groups failed to mobilise popular support, for example, in the Kapp Putsch and Munich Putsch.
-Survival was also because of Stresemann’s policies both as chancellor and foreign minister.
-Though inflation was highest in 1923, debts were wiped out and there was economic revival.
-Foreign policy led to Locarno Pact, Briand-Kellogg Pact and entry into the League of Nations.
*However, confidence fizzled out with the arrival of the Great Depression.

-The economy was much worse than in the period 1919-1929.
-Democracy was in the hands of elements which were not supportive.
-Unemployment levels short up.
-Discontent was capitalised on by Hitler.
-Bruning’s policies failed to work and there was resort to state of emergency.
-Coalition governments failed to work.
-The improvements of Stresemann were eroded.
-As the Weimar republic displayed weaknesses, the parties of the right put up a united front.
-The Great Depression was a turning point.
[18] Why was the stability achieved by the Weimar republic between 1924 and 1929 soshort
lived?
Pupils need to assess the reasons for decline in the fortunes of the Weimar republic after 1929.
-Measures adopted by Stresemann to bring about economic prosperity and international
recognition had a bearing on the lives of the Germans so discontent decreased.
-The parties of the left declined in influence.
-Confidence in government was affected by the Great Depression.
-Loans from USA ceased.
-Government failed to deal with the crisis with the result that extreme politics returned with
the Nazis.
-Hitler capitalised and attacked the government.
-Fear of communism made it difficult for the Weimar republic to deal with the Nazi challenges.
-There was a leadership crisis with the death of Stresemann.
-Majority government ended in 1930 with resignation of Muller.
-Bruning and von Schleicher did not help the situation much.
-Self interest of political parties led to bickering in the Reichstag and so Hindenburg had no
option but to call Hitler.
-With his appointment, republicanismhad given way to dictatorship.
[18] How accurate is it to dismiss the Weimar republic as a complete flop to 1933?
-The Weimar republic was a symbol of humiliation in the eyes of Germans, therefore the
government always faced opposition especially from nationalists.
-It failed to arrest inflation in the early 1920s.
-There was widespread unemployment soon after World War One. Thos worsened after the
Great Depression.
-The Weimar coalition governments were always very weak leading to the invitation of Hitler to
become chancellor.
*However, Weimar republic also scored some significant success under Gustav Stresemann.
-It managed to pay off the reparations, enabling France to evacuate her troops from the Ruhr.
-Young and Dawes plans facilitated Germany to access loans from USA.
-Germany was reintegrated into the international scene when she joined the League[1926].
-The Weimar republic also managed to resist coups from the opposition, for example, Munich
Putsch and Kapp Putsch.
[18] ‘Haunted by the memory of Versailles’. How far does this comment explain the problems
faced by the Weimar republic?
-Reparations were a serious problem.

-The war guilty clause was regarded as unfair.
-The unpopularity of the ‘November criminals’
-Germany lost its territories.
*Some of the problems faced by the Weimar republic were of constitutional nature. Weimar
was a liberal democracy but it was weakened by the presence of many small parties.
-Governments were unstable.
-The results of the Wall Street Crash were severe but roots lay in the USA not Versailles.
-There was also fear of communism.
-Weimar had no support from important groups like military officers, ex-soldiers, big business
or traditional Junkers.
[18] ‘It was more of Hitler’s character than weaknesses of the Weimar republic that led to the
rise of Nazism in Germany’. How valid is this statement?
-Hitler’s oratory led to his rise. He was an electrifying speaker, a powerful orator and a political
demagogue of the highest level.
-Nazism offered an attractive programme.
-Hitler was also a propagandist
-He was ruthless to his enemies as seen by his use of intimidation, violence and other means.
*However, the Weimar republic was also very weak.
-It failed to contain inflation.
-Unemployment was also rampant
[18] Why and how was Hitler able to achieve power and establish the Third Reich by 1934?
[18] What conditions enabled Hitler and the Nazis to rise to power in Germany by 1933?
The weaknesses of the Weimar republic were responsible for the rise of Hitler. However, there
were other factors which also contributed.
-The Weimar constitution with its proportional representation facilitated the rise of Hitler. The
constitution led to the rise of Hitler as it led to the setting up of unstable coalition governments,
right wing disturbances and political assassinations.
-There were also too many political parties
-The French-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr caused the collapse of the mark and appalling
inflation [1923]. This affected the propertied class, for example, the middle class, who became
potential supporters of the Nazi.
-The effects of the great depression, for example, the Wall Street crash and the death of the
able Stresemann worsened the republic’s problems and increased support for the Nazi.
-Industrialists sympathised with the Nazi hoping to have their properties protected. They
sympathised with the Nazi programme, especially the revision of Versailles treaty.
-The grave unemployment worsened by demobilised soldiers added to the general poverty in
the country.
-Therefore, the general economic, social and political dislocation in Germany during the
Weimar republican rule aided to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.
Other factors
-Hitler’s powerful oratory
-Propaganda
-The Reichstag fire
-Weimar political suicide [mistake by Weimar politicians to appoint Hitler as Chancellor.

-Use of violence
-Use of elections
[18] To what extent was the rise of Hitler attributed to the economic collapse of the Weimar
republic?
-The economic collapse is seen in the background of the great depression. Debts to the allies
could not be paid. USA stopped giving loans. Banks crashed over night. There was no finance for
industries resulting in joblessness and unrest which Hitler took advantage of. Unrest was
associated with communism which Hitler used to attract support of the capitalists. The inability
of the Weimar to cope was taken advantage of. There was limited ability in leadership in
contrast to Stresemann who had meaningful contributions to the economy.
Other factors
-There was also the question of intense nationalism. The Jews were hated and blamed for
Versailles.
-Hitler himself was charismatic and ruthless in his approach.
-The inherent weaknesses of the Weimar government also contributed.
-There were problems of the constitution.
-The leaders like Hindenburg were first and foremost leaders of the Germany army than
political subscribers of the republic.
-There was general instability and inability to deal with the problems effectively.
[18] How far was Hitler’s Germany totalitarian?
Pupils need to assess totalitarian and anti-totalitarian elements in Hitler’s domestic policy.
-Totalitarianism included such features as control of the state machinery, destruction of
opposition policies, use of propaganda, subjugation of the judiciary system and so on.
-Totalitarianism was not only political but also social and economic.
-The Enabling Act was used to eliminate opposition to the government as rival parties were not
tolerated, trade unions were banned, Nazi officials headed institutions and independence of
local government sacrificed.
-There was creation of the cult of the personality.
-There was creation of the Hitler Youth Organisation.
-There was effective use of propaganda.
*However, in his own decision making process, Hitler was supportive of internal party and
bureaucratic rivalries.
-He played off one group against another.
-In his economic policies, Hitler to 1936, relied on the policies of previous governments and up
to 1936, Schacht acted independently.
-Parallel to the Russian model.
[18] To what extent did the people of Germany benefit from Hitler’s domestic policy?
*Negative effects
-There was totalitarianism in which many of the people’s rights were abolished.
-People did not have freedom to choose political leaders as opposition parties were banned.
-People no longer had the right to strike for better wages as trade unions were banned.
-There was no freedom of speech due to censorship, use of Gestapo and spies.
-Education, churches, the courts and local government and even youth clubs were controlled.
-Many minorities such as Jews were victimised in various ways.

Positive effects
However, it must be noted that although there were many negative traits in Hitler’s domestic
policy, there were also some benefits.
-The Third Reich [Germany from 1933 to 1939] unlike the Weimar republic was politically stable
-The economy grew
-Unemployment figures went down though at the expense of women and Jews.
[18]To what extent was territorial expansion the main goal of German foreign policy after
1933?
-Germany under Hitler thirsted for expansion to create enough living space for the Germans
[Aryan race] and drive back the Russians into Asia.
-It was against this background that Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939, partitioned Poland
in 1939 and undertook Operation Barbarossa in 1941.
*Besides expansionism, Germany’s foreign policy was also aimed at destroying the peace
treaties. Versailles treaty had robbed Germany of its German and non-German territories.
-To destroy the peace treaties, Hitler embarked on the following measures; rearmament,
reoccupation and remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschuluss [union of Germany and
Austria] and the incorporation of the Sudetenland.
-Germany foreign policy was also designed for defensive purposes. Hitler’s intervention in the
Spanish Civil War was partly directed towards establishing a state well disposed to Germany
frontiers to reduce the threat of France.
-The Rome-Berlin Axis, Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis and Nazi-Soviet Pact were to ensure that
Germany would not be faced with the possibility of fighting war on two fronts when she
attacked Poland.
[18] How far and with what justification did Hitler destroy the treaty of Versailles between
1933 and 1939?
Reasons
-The treaty forced Germany to assume full blame for causing the 1914 war.
-It also imposed huge reparations that burdened an already damaged economy. The
reparations covered not only the destruction caused by the war but also pensions for millions
of allied soldiers or their widows and families.
-The treaty also weakened Germany. It severely limited the size of the once feared German
military.
-It returned Alsace-Lorraine to France and removed hundreds of square miles of land.
-Germany was stripped of its overseas colonies.
How / Actions
-Between 1933 and 1936 Hitler destroyed Versailles treaty through the following actions;
-In 1933 he withdrew Germany from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of
Nations.
-In 1935 the people of the Saar voted to rejoin Germany
-In 1935 Hitler announced that Germany had a military air force and that he was introducing
conscription [compulsory military service].
-In 1936 he sent troops into the demilitarised region of the Rhineland bordering France.
[18] How and why was Germany able to regain its position as a great power between 1933
and 1939?

Pupils need to assess the reasons for Germany’s recovery as a great power and the methods
used to achieve this.
-By 1939, Germany was undoubtedly a force to reckon with. Through Hitler, Germany which
had in 1919, been reduced to no more than a second rate European power had reclaimed great
power status militarily, economically and diplomatically.
-The resurgence of Germany can be traced back to the post war settlement. The Versailles
treaty was objectionable to the Germans and Hitler as a revisionist sought to overthrow the
whole Versailles treaty which he called that horrible treaty
-German resurgence was born out of opposition to the defeat of 1918 and the humiliation of
the treaty of Versailles. Hitler’s role was vital. He wanted to see Germany great again. This was
achieved by various means, that is, the denunciation of the Versailles treaty, rearmament,
bilateral and diplomatic alliances and sheer duplicity. By a combination of promises of peaceful
intentions and flagrant breaches the Versailles treaty was no longer binding on Germany.
-The withdrawal of Germany from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of
Nations enabled Hitler to act without any obstruction to bring Germany to the same footing
with other powers.
-The introduction of conscription into the army and the building of the Luftwaffe reestablished
Germany as a military force to reckon with. This was enhanced by the Anglo-German Naval
Treaty of 1935.
-On the diplomatic front Hitler concluded bilateral treaties meant to divide his enemies and
break their alliances, for example, the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact of 1934, the Rome-
Berlin Axis of 1936.
-The policy of appeasement further strengthened Germany and gave Hitler license to act
aggressively in his process of lebensraum.
-At home, Hitler’s policies saw a heightened sense of German nationalism and pride through
revivedeconomy.
[18] To what extent can Hitler’s conduct of foreign policy be justified?
-The effects of Versailles treaty shaped and determined his conduct of foreign policy.
-Hitler felt that the Germans were treated very unfairly at Versailles. Indeed, the allies were
bent on crippling Germany forever.
-They treated Germany as if she alone was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War.
-Germany was made to pay atrocious war damages and to disarm. This greatly affected her
economy leading to social distress and political instability.
-Her territories beyond German frontiers were taken and Bismarck’s unification system had
been rendered useless by 1919.
-It was against this background that Hitler embarked on a programme to revitalise the German
economy, unity and position in Europe.
-Hitler felt he had every right to unify all Germans in Europe and this entailed the acquisition of
territories with German nationals, thus the occupation of Rhineland [1936], Austria [1938] and
Sudetenland [1938].
-Hitler also felt it was Germany’s privilege to possess territories just like other European
powers.
-So to this end, his actions were justified.
*However, his foreign policy was also influenced by selfish motives such as;

-The desire to create enough living space for Germans.
-Racism. He for example saw Czechs as sub-humans.
-Hatred of communism.
-The love for expansionism.
-To this end, his foreign policy was not justified.
WORLD WAR TWO [1939-1945]
[19] To what extent can it be argued that the Second World War was primarily the result of
Hitler’s aggressive policies?
[19]Discuss the view that Hitler alone was responsible for the outbreak of World War Two.
Pupils need to assess Hitler’s contribution to the outbreak of world war two and contribution of
other factors.
Hitler’s aggressive policies
-He rearmed Germany thereby violating the treaty of Versailles.
-He remilitarised the Rhineland which was again a breach of Versailles treaty.
-He invaded Austria and completed the Anschuluss which was a violation of the Versailles treaty
-He invaded Czechoslovakia.
-He invaded Poland marking the beginning of the Second World War.
Other factors
-The policy of appeasement also contributed.
-Acts of aggression by Mussolini also contributed
-Japanese acts of aggression caused the Second World War
-The collapse of the League of Nations was also responsible for the outbreak of this war.
[19] For what reasons and to what extent was the policy of appeasement worthwhile to the
great powers of Europe before 1939?
[19] Examine the implementation and effects of Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement in
Europe to 1939.
Pupils need to assess the reasons for appeasement and the results of this policy
-Britain justified appeasement as a correction of the wrongs suffered by Germany due to
Versailles treaty. She was also aware that countries like Italy were not happy with the peace
settlement.
-Germany had a right to be treated more fairly and to be accepted as a great power.
-Appeasement was considered as a way to guarantee peace in Europe.
-Germany’s aggressive acts meant war, so Britain and France wanted to avoid another war.
-The Great Depression also badly affected Europe and made peace imperative.
-Chamberlain was a man of peace and had to deal with British insecurity as the balance of
power shifted to USA.
-France also was anti-war.
-The spread of communism was another threat which was used to justify appeasement.
*The policy was evident as early as 1935 with the Anglo-German Naval Treaty and then the
occupation of Rhineland.
-The Abyssinian crisis [1935] was also part of appeasement.
-At its peak appeasement was displayed at Munich Conference after which Hitler went on to
get Sudetenland.
-The Italian invasion of Abyssinia was also part of appeasement.

-Hitler annexed Memel [1939].
-Hitler then went on to get Czechoslovakia
-Hitler also attacked Poland.
#German attack on Poland caused World War Two showing that appeasement could not be
justified. This invasion showed that Hitler’s territorial ambitions could not be satisfied.
-Britain and France had misjudged Hitler.
-He was ambitious and unscrupulous and interpreted any concessions as a sign of weakness.
-Appeasement had been morally wrong but Britain and France missed excellent chances to stop
Hitler.
-They allowed him to break international agreements until it was too late.
[19] Examine the contribution of appeasement as applied by Britain and France to the
outbreak of World War Two.
-Appeasement was a policy followed by both Britain and France when they complied with
demands of dictators in Europe.
-As it escalated’ Hitler continued to play with higher stakes leading to invasion of Poland in
1939 which was the immediate cause of World War Two.
Other factors
-Failure of the League of Nations.
-Failure of disarmament.
-Japanese acts of aggression
-Acts of aggression by Mussolini
[19] ‘Britain and France went to war to defend Poland’. Ho far is this assertion accurate?
Pupils need to assess the motives that made Britain and France to declare war. It was Britain
and France which declared war not Germany.
-The interests of Britain and France were under threat by Germany and that Poland offered the
best moment to try and restrain German expansionism. Germany’s infringement of Polish
sovereignty was the immediate motive.
-The policy of appeasement which Britain had adopted and France supported also contributed.
-It had been drawn to help maintain the status quo and security of British and French empires.
That appeasement did not bring the desired results hence Britain and France had to act.
-Munich had been a big miscalculation.
-Hitler saw his expansionist plans through Mittle uropa and lebensraum as achievable.
-He was more confident yet Britain and France saw themselves as guardians of Europe, even as
the main powers propping up the League of Nations.
-Somehow the league had to be defended and not allowed to fail.
[19] Why Germany was defeated in the Second World War?
Weaknesses of the Axis Powers
-Hitler’s disastrous leadership
-Miscalculations made by Germany
-The defeat of the Luftwaffe in the battle of Britain [Operation Sea Lion]
-Failure of Operation Barbarossa
-Germany had many countries to fight
-Hitler’s failure to listen to the advice of his generals whom he did not trust
Strengths of Allied powers

-Role of USA in reviving allied onslaught on the Western front
-Russian exploits in Eastern Europe and the Far East
-The bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by USA led to the surrender of Japan.

Essays - Euro Qstns Answers..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Essays - Euro Qstns Answers..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essays - Euro Qstns Answers..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN HISTORY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS [9155/1]ADVANCED

LEVEL COMPILED BY MR TASARA O [2017]

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 1

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 2

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 3

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 4

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 5

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 6

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 7

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 8

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 9

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 10

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 11

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 12

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 13

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 14

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 15

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 16

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 17

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 18

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 19

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 20

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 21

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 22

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 23

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 24

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 25

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 26

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 27

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 28

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 29

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 30

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 31

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 32

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 33

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 34

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 35

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 36

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 37

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 38

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 39

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 40

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 41

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 42

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 43

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 44

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 45

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 46

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 47

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 48

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 49

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 50

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 51

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 52

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 53

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 54

Mr O Tasara [BA History and Philosophy] 0773295116 Page 55