Lower 6 European History Notes (Masvodza)

International History Paper 2 Handout
HIGH ORDER SKILLS
THE INTRODUCTION
 The introduction must look at both sides of the question and must be give a judgement
through the use of words such as largely , more, immensely , lesser extent etc. The
conclusion must be balanced as well looking at both sides and making a
judgement.Do not cite scholars in your introduction.
 To be able to respond to a question, you need to understand its demands first e.g. the
question is on Napoleon 1, it is on either domestic or foreign policy or both. This will
help you against writing irrelevant information commonly known as off topic. Having
understood the question, you have to agree or disagree with the assertion, but also see
the other side to achieve a balance of usually 60/40.
 Just like the introduction, the body of the essay has to satisfy the triangle of analysis.
(1)…- make a claim or a line of

argument or hypothesis.
-Take a position
a.
(3)… Make a judgement in relation to the
Question or a comment in relation to the question
(2)… factual evidence, illustrations, prove the claim or the

burden of proof.
 The first sentence of the first paragraph after the introduction has to go back to
the question, taking a position, supporting that position by means of evidence.
In the second paragraph, make use of discourse markers .e.g. furthermore,
more to that, in addition to that, more so. You go back to the question and you
give the main idea or point or argument that need to be supported soon after
making use of the discourse markers. Give factual evidence in support eg
figures, scholarly views,explained quotations. If ‘possible show the other side
to the question .e.g. did the people of France benefit from Napoleon 1’s reign?
To a larger extent they benefited. Education was given to all male citizens.
The curriculum was widened by introducing many subjects’ .e.g. mathematics
and technical subjects. Technical subjects became important to industry and
commerce. However, the girl child was not allowed to go to school. Thus there
was no emancipation of women.
Gadze C Page 1
 Thus each paragraph is a small essay with full discussions of arguments in

their diverse. It has to show both sides to the question if you decide to use the
integrated approach as opposed to the block method. The paragraph ends up
by giving a judgement or conclusion in relation to the question. One can
make use of the following terms eg, from the above evidence it is clear that
…………………., given this, one can argue that ,in view of this , this being
the case, this proves that.
 Do not narrate or describe events but analyse or explain them. Narration is giving
everything stage by stage. This is story telling. Analysis or explanation .e.g. look at
the positive and negative effects, successes and failures, causes and effects, raising
historical controversies on the same issues. You can do this using the block method.
This is where you look at one side and then the other side later. One can make use of
integrated method where in the same paragraph you look at both sides of the question.
In analysis you do not need to tell how it happened .e.g. the flight of Vareness by
LouisXVI , give the effects, significance of the flight. Do not tell how it happened but
make comments on it.
 When you switch sides using either the block or integrated method , make use
of these terms , while it is true that , apart from , despite the fact that ,
however.
 Focus on the question on every paragraph so that the focus is not lost. What are
marked are the analysed points not names of scholars because they are not asked for.
The relevance of points is what is wanted. Thus the focus has to be on the question
not the topic. The quality of arguments is important.
 Where many controversies, debates, arguments are raised on the same issue, show
which school of thought you support. Give reasons why you say so. You can make
use of one of the views you consider to be more important. Use these views as your
own .e.g. it looks like,it seems
 Underline key words in your question; define them although there is no harm in not
doing so. It only helps in telling the candidate the areas to address in the answer.
 When writing first things first – there must be a logical sequence of events. It shows
the candidate is organised and is in control.
 An examination test a variety of skills
a. Knowledge –what the candidate knows.
b. Comprehension-what the candidate understands.
c. Application- appropriate use of ideas or arguments.
d. Evaluation- to be able to see the significance of the information given.
e. Clarity in language-the language has to be good, spellings, grammar,
punctuation.
 Remember the 7Cs of essay writing.
 Concise- straight to the point
 Coherent –flowing
 Convincing –make the examiner believe
Gadze C Page 2
Content- depth of factual knowledge

Critical understanding –ability to analyse the content .e.g. effects , significance
Cases- examples to support the argument
Conclusion –summing up the essay.It must be short,brief and straight to the
point. It must touch on the most important points discussed in the essay on
both sides of the argument to achieve a balance.Do not introduce new
arguements in your conclusion but rather the main arguments already given
but in different wording. You can use the following pointers when making a
conclusion eg , in a nutshell , to conclude , in conclusion, in summation.Do
not cite scholarly views in your conclusion.
 Common words found in questions
 Analyse –break the component down into parts, features in order to examine
their relationship.
 How far –It means its measurable,to a larger which is 60 percent or lesser
extent which is 40 percent. The other part is by other factors which are either
60or 40 percent.
 Assess – determine the importance of something; see the other side as
well, .e.g. Question: Assess the contribution of great powers to the unification
of Italy. (NB)-look at the positive and negative roles by the great powers.Then
if you have time to waste you can consider the role of other factors.
 Illustrate – give evidence of historical factual eg after Borodino it is clear
reference to the Moscow campaign, formation of the fourth Coalation , the
nature of Napoleon 1’s army , waterloo or battle of nations
Question: How far had the French revolutionaries abandoned the conservative
and autocratic principles of the ancient Resume by 1799
NB: look at successes and failures
The Why questions look for a diverse of reasons eg: Why was Napoleon 1
popular in France? (NB): look at the home and foreign policy.
Question: Why and with consequences did the French revolutionaries abandon
a constitutional monarchy in 1792 in favour of republicanism. (NB): address
the two aspects equally.
A comparative question
Aspects are compared and appear in the same paragraph in the integrated
approach. The one which contributed more occupies more space. The role of
the factor that contributed less is acknowledged but is given less space and is
discredited to prove it was minor or did not contributes more
Do not look at one aspect first and then the other one later in a block method
This becomes a sequential answer. It will attract 16 to 17 marks but In reality
13,14,15/25
Make use of the correct terms more or less, in as much as, while it is true that,
etc.
Side by side using wrong terms .e.g. larger or lesser extent immensely will
make the answer sequential.
Gadze C Page 3
Question: Who contributed more to the unification of Italy, the Republicans or the
Monarchists? Give the evidence by means of examples?
 Account for – give a diverse of reasons, pass a judgement on what you think
contributed most.
Question: Account for the rise of Hitler.
 Discus –present an investigation looking at both sides of the arguments
 Evaluate – determine the significance of something
 Outline –give the important features of the topic
 Why – it looks at a diverse of reasons and discuss them
 Alone – it is historically wrong to argue , alone
Question: Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of World War 1
NEW SHIFT IN QUESTIONING
 Questions no longer require you to fetch the answer from one place but from a given
historical period .e.g. 1789-1794. There are little of crammed answers. The test is on
the understanding of the historical period. Question : Why did Louis XVI summon the
Estates General meeting and with what effects to 1794.(NB)- The question is on the
causes of the French Revolution and the course of the revolution up to 1794
Question: “Napoleon 1 s downfall began at Borodino’ Do you agree? (NB)-The
question is on the reasons for the fall of Napoleon 1 before 1813 and after 1813
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
CLASSES IN FRANCE
LANDLORDS OR THE NOBILITY

 These were the most powerful class and represented 0.5 to 1.5% and could afford high
standards of life. They owned between 1/3 and 1/4 of the land in France. Although
some of them were not very rich but they enjoyed a high social standing and status in
France as the Second Estate. They did not pay taxes, no forced labour, enjoyed
government posts. The landlords also enjoyed these privileges, their wealth was
inherited by their children, they found jobs in church, there were legal
officials ,ministers of government, army officials
 The most powerful were the 4000 court nobility who took higher positions at the court
of Versailles. The noble de robe were also important legal and administrative nobles
 Noble offices were bought and the landlords used their incomes from land to buy
offices.
 Provincial nobles enjoyed fundal dues. 1200 inherited the nobility , 22000 bought it,
43 000 were granted nobility by the king
WORKERS AND PEASANTS
 They were a form of property which could be owned. The two classes wished to
share the privileges of the nobility. About ¼ of the peasants had no land. The
Gadze C Page 4
peasants were tried in courts with the landlords acting as judges. Rents were a
burden of the peasants and workers. Workers suffered long working hours
 Peasants were 90% of French population. They paid most of the state revenue.
They paid about 55% of what they earned for taxes. They paid tithes to the
church, feudal dues to the nobles, taxes to the state.
THE CLERGY
 There were about 130 000 clergymen and 60000 of them were members of the monks
and nuns, 70 000 were secular clergy working in the parishes. The children of the
clergy occupied important posts in the church and they enjoyed the vast wealth of the
church
 Many Bishops had higher salaries and had more than one assembly which they never
visited .It was this scandal which made the church unpopular. More so, the church
owned 10% of the land in France .They recieved 1/10 in tithes but in reality more
than that. The tithe was supposed to be used for relief to the poor but most of it went
into the pockets of Bishops .
 The church had privileges ,it was exempted from paying tax , catholic was a state
religion, it had the power of censorship , it supervised education , it acted as a registry
and kept birth , marriage and death certificates , acted as ministry of information
giving the government policy . They were these privileges that made the Catholic
Church unpopular. Thus , due to these privileges the church enjoyed from the state , it
supported the monarchy
BOURGEOSIE OR THE MIDDLE CLASS

 There were the lower, middle and the upper middle classes .They were part of the
property owning elite. They were the richest of the third estate yet they could not
exercise the political and social influence in France
THE BACKGROUND SITUATION BEFORE THE REVOLUTION OF 1789

THE ANCIENT REGIME AND THE OLD ORDER
 The conditions and institutions that existed before the French revolution of 1789 are
called the ancient regime .This was an old order or old rule that was established by the
Valois and Bourbon dynasties. It was characterised by despotism, disorder, chaos in
governance, letter de catchet that is imprisonment without trial, no freedom of
expression, laws would not be discussed as the Estates General had last met in 1614,
rule by the autocratic intendants who were under the control of his Majesty, no
uniform law, system of privileges making it chaotic in the name of keeping the status
quo, corruption in the justice delivery system.
 There was the royal absolutism that relied on the doctrine of the Divine Rights of
kings that is the will of God and not the consent of the people.It maintained that kings
were selected by God and were perpetually entitled to the throne.In the Ancient
Regime,power relied on the 3 pillars , the Monarchy,the Clergy , the Aristocracy. The
Gadze C Page 5
exisisting system of government lacked political representation and participation of

the people . All the powers rested in the office of one person ,the king who made
political appointments and had the final say in everything . This is confirmed by his
words that he was the state and that the thing became legal because he wished it to be
legal . Thus France became his personal property and it shows his absolute arrogance .
France did not have a Parliament . Of course there were the Estates Generals as a
platform for people to present their views and grievances to the king but they had last
met in 1614 . Thus all the decision making was left into the hands of the king and the
Royal Council . Thus France was left without checks and balances making Louis XVI
a dictator . The king was responsible to no one but God as he exercised unlimited
powers as a legislator , imposed taxes , spent money as seen fit , made war and
peace , denied freedom of speech , censored , imprisonment without trial .
 The Monarchy of France was characterised by extravagancy by the king and the
aristocratic family of France numbering to 18000 at the court of Versailles.
Versarllies represented the glory of the Ancient Regime and much pain to the Third
Estate, its costs were too much
 The life of luxuries at the Versailles made his majesty lose touch with his miserable
subjects when kings were living in mad and vicious rounds of pleasure with
mistresses and favourites. This came with heavy expenditure on the French treasury.
 In the political sphere, there was inefficient and corrupt administrative system.
Ministers were appointed on the basis of noble birth favouritism than ability. There
were no representative assembly , a written constitution to limit the authority of
administrators. All the justice in France came from the majesty. The legal system was
confused as there no inform law for the whole country. Different laws were in force in
different parts of the country. It is believed there were 400 different systems of laws
in the country.Some talk of 360 codes of laws in France . The laws were written in
Latin and therefore could not be understood by ordinary people. The laws were cruel
and unjust as small offences attracted heavy sentences. There was the letter de
catchet, imprisonment without trial, civic and political rights were denied the citizens
of France. The kings ruled without summoning the legislature known as the Estates
General which had last met in 1614. The courts in France were presided over by the
rich magistrates and these posts were hereditary.The government of Louis XVI
appointed local councils and meddled in the justice delivery system. Thus as a result ,
there was the selective application of law in favour of the nobility and the clergy .
There was a revolution in may 1789 because people wanted to collect the situation so
as to achieve political participation.
 On the social condition before the revolution, there was inequality of the three estates,
first estate which was the catholic church, the second estate which was the nobility,
the third estate who were the common people. As already noted, the church and the
nobility enjoyed many priviledges and favours. As for the commoners, there were the
middle class(bourgeoisie) who were the professionals, business people and artisans.
There were also the peasants. Many of the middle class were rich, educated and were
against the political and social order of France. The peasants suffered many burdens
as already seen and shall be seen later.
Gadze C Page 6
 More still, on the economic conditions, economic challenges were worsened by food
shortages in the 1780s leading to high prices, migrations to Paris by the unhappy
masses.
QEUSTIONS.
 Discus the conditions in France on the eve of the revolution of 1789.
 How far was the social and economic conditions experienced in France responsible
for the outbreak of the 1789 revolution.
THE CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS (ECONOMIC)
 The causes of the financial crisis can be summarised as costs of war, high ordinary
expenditure, insufficient revenue, poor financial administration, extravagance at the
court, the system of privileges. All these led to debts and the government had to
borrow money but had to pay interest leading to more expenditure and more debts
leading to the summoning of the Estates General Meeting which precipitated the
revolution
 Tax privileges on the nobility and clergy as already noted, insufficient and corruption
where money ended in pockets of officials worsened the situation. It meant unknown
little funds found its way into the national treasury hence the reason why income was
exceeded by expenditure. As noted above, vast privileges of the upper class made it
difficult for France to utilise its wealth to meet its financial obligations.
 The crisis was deepened by France’s involvement in the American war of
independence. The war damaged France’s finances. Money was raised from a loan.
This led to the increase of the French National debt and the war became the final
push to France’s finances. The war affected France’s trade with West Indies and the
American colonies. France could not get cotton for her textile industries. The
industries employed many peasants. The effect was that peasant income was affected
at a time when prices were rising. The war led to the increase of taxes. This further
burdened the Third Estate. As for the peasants, they were already paying 8 times their
fair share of taxes. This was resented by the Third Estate since the nobility, clergy,
office bearers, court officials were exempted from paying taxes. Prior to that, the
Austrian 7 years war had also left devastating effects on the French finances.
 Turgot had come up with well-meaning moderate reforms to remedy the situation. He
wanted to revamp the civil service in order to make it more efficient since it was too
big and duplicated duties. He wanted to check the power of the church. He wanted to
introduce a fairer system of taxation which was going to increase the financial base at
the same time producing equality. He wanted to facilitate the free movement of goods
to boost financial transactions.The free movement of goods especially the corn could
have helped alleviate the devastating effects of the poor harvests He wanted to abolish
useless offices to protect France’s finances. Had proposed for free labour movement.
Had proposed for controlled government spending since it had caused financial
deficit. Turgot wanted to check on the court spending which had become a bottomless
pit. Many of the reforms by Turgot had the potential to advance commercial
development, lower prices, allow workers their natural right to labour. The King
Gadze C Page 7
supported Turgot’s suggestions but faced opposition from guilds, court, the Queen.
Turgot was dismissed by Louis XVI for his interference with court luxuries. Thus the
non-interference with court leisure caused the French Revolution. Necker had more or
less suggestions and was fired. Turgot and Necker who were fired were the right men
for the job. Colonel a favourite of the queen also realised that the remedy of the
financial crisis was taxing the nobility. As usual, he faced opposition from the
Queen‘s entourage and the king let go of him. His programme had been rejected.The
dismissal of the Financial Ministers threw away an excellent opportunity to diffuse
tension among the peasants , the clergy and the nobility over taxation . The dismissals
also show that the financial Ministers or Economists were only tolerated by the
government as long as they did not poke their noses into the affairs of the nobility .
 The palace of Versailles had 18000 people, favoured guests and nobles, 1900 horses,
more than 200 carriages. Extravaganza was at least 20000.00 They never knew
boredom. They sought happiness in mad rounds of pleasure with the favourites and
the mistresses. The court extravaganza was corroborated with the expenditure of the
queen Marie Antonnete. She had 500 servants, bought 4 pairs of shoes every week,
and had 2000 horses. She was indeed madam deficit as observed by Dennis Richards.
She lacked in wisdom and judgement on the feelings of the French people at the time.
Her birth in a royal family made her fail to understand the point of view of the
unprivileged. She was proud. She was at the centre of greedy persons at Versailles.
She stood in the way of reforms. She was responsible for the problems that fell on
Louis XVI and his people.
 While the French peasants were starving and dying, the court at Versailles was having
festivies and banquets. The French government mishandled the national economy. It
had no financial account. It had no regular budget. Thus money was wasted without
any proper budget.
THE SYSTEM OF PREVILEDGES (Social and Economic)
 The nobility and the clergy were exempted from taxation.Taxation was a burden of
the Third Estate especially the peasants. They paid taille (land tax) , the gabelle (salt
tax) corvee (labour tax), the feudal dues. The sait tax collectors were called the
gabellous and were the most hated by the French people.
 There were two sets of laws in France, one for the most important and the other one
for the ordinary people who had to pay tax. The French peasants were not happy
about their condition and misery. They felt that feudal dues should be abolished, taxes
reduced.
 The church enjoyed many privileges. This caused jealousy and hatred from the
unprivileged classes. The church was responsible for the registration of births,
marriage and death certificates. It was responsible for relief. It was responsible for
education. It owned 1/5 of all the land. It got 10% tithe but in reality 13%. Their sons
enjoyed high church positions and wealth. There was no open talent to pastor ship.
The church was exempted from paying taxes. It had powers of censorship. The
enormous wealth of the church was admired by the peasants. These privileges diluted
justice and caused hatred and resentment by the disadvantaged.
Gadze C Page 8
 The landlords and nobles were the most powerful conservative forces of the
monarchy. Their Estates were inherited by their sons. There were the army
commanders. Commanders of the navy. They were appointed as the ambassadors.
They enjoyed the life of luxuries at their court of Versailles. They were exempted
from taxation, forced labour, military service. They enjoyed hunting and fishing
rights. They monopolised operations like grinding mills, wine making machines.
Peasants paid heavily for these services hence their disgruntlement. There was bitter
critism from the unprivileged classes.
 France lacked social equality. Privileges were medieval and backward as they put the
burden of taxation on the shoulders of the poor. The nobility had no duty to perform
and were therefore a burden to the community. The revolution came because the
monarchy was not able to solve the question of privileges and feudalism.
 A closer look at the privileges will make one certainly feel they were responsible for
the failure of moderate reforms. This also explains the revolt by the privileged classes
in 1788 against Brianne when he asked them to pay taxes. They resisted the
replacement of the salt tax with the land tax so as to tap the national wealth land
owners had into the national treasury.
 The privileged classes clung to privileges. Reform measures at the summoning of the
Estates General meeting were difficult because they refused to surrender their
priviledges, wanted to keep their double voting powers. The meeting was a chance
seized by both hands by the Third Estate. The peasants beefed up the efforts to get rid
of the old order.
AMBITIOUS NOBILITY (Economic, social, political)

 They inspired the revolution is a number of ways. They enjoyed privileges such as
exemption from paying taxes, they were tried in their own courts, monopolised high
offices in the state and church, military, diplomatic services as ambassadors, had
access to sporting activities such as hunting and fishing. This constituted grievances
among the unprivileged.
 In the economic and financial spheres, they were the ones who called for the dismissal
of the able financial Ministers such as Turgot and Necker. These had better chances of
bringing financial and economic remedies to the situation. This was because they
wanted to cling to privileges. This proved to be a disaster to the king. Their advice to
the king to call for the Estates General meeting started a chain of events that led to a
disaster to the king when the Third Estate declared itself the National Assembly. They
fled as immigrants from France to Germany. When the king associated himself with
them, he was hanged as an enemy of the revolution.
The position of the nobility in the France has prompted the historians to ask the extent to
which the nobility in France were responsible for the failure of moderate reforms up to 1793.
The nobility were ambitious; they were not satisfied with their privileges,wanted more
political power at local and central government. They still avoided taxation and this
eventually led to the 1789 revolution.
Gadze C Page 9
 Socially, the nobility were by Monarchical nature a privileged class. It was by the
right of the nobilities to be exempted from taxation as was the situation in the whole
of Europe
 In the economic areas, they were responsible for the failure of moderate reforms up to
1793. They poisoned the king’s mind, first against Turgot and later against Necker.
Their revolt of 1788 when they were asked to pay tax and surrender their priviledges
led to the French revolution
 In the political area, they refused a larger share of political representation. Later they
refused for Louis XVI to accept the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Before that, at
the Estates General Meeting they stood in the way of moderate reforms eg voting
double powers were maintained, debating separately instead of doing so as one
chamber. Their selfish interest cracked the politics of France at that meeting. The
Estates General were a very much needed reform socially, economically and
politically.Socially the nobility chose to cling to their privileges which gave them
economic and political benefits. They clung to exemption from taxation, clung to high
ranks among many benefits. These ambitions were at the expense of social equality of
classes and political liberty, freedom. The impact was the formation of the National
Assembly which was so determined to create these reforms as seen for example in the
Declaration of the Rights of Men and Citizen and Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
 The nobility stood in the way of moderate reforms. They worked with the clergy court
officials, the queen to kill moderate reforms up to 1793. There was no way Louis XVI
was going to ignore the nobilities his advisers. Louis XVI knew of the ministers who
will remedy the economic situation in France. Attempts at economic reforms by many
financial ministers proved futile. They suggested on the cutting of privileges,in the
economic and financial areas eg taxation to all, free trade, removal of guilds,
removing useless offices. All this was ignored and resisted by the nobility hence the
dismissal of Finance Ministers. The failure of moderate reforms made France more
and more bankrupt with textile industry was closing causing misery to workers. This
made the French populace to resent the king more and more. This led to the outbreak
of the French revolution.
 The nobility were a political reactionary force who wanted to keep the clock in the
medieval past where the king governed by the divine rights of kings. They also
contributed to the failure of the meeting of notables where they were supposed to
address the economic crisis but they kept at a distance. This left France without a
clear fiscal policy to remove herself from the financial burden. Whenever the nobles
felt their position was threatened, they withdrew their support from Louis Xvi. This
made reform measures difficult. They influenced the King against the signing of the
legal documents which they knew were a death certificate to the ancient Regime for
example the Declaration of the rights of men and citizen, the august decrees, the Civil
constitution of the clergy.
 The nobility took a counter revolutionary stance. They were the very group that was
responsible for the revolts in the LA vendee in 1789 and spear headed counter
revolutionary concept with 2/3 of the parish priest resisting the CCC as well as 130 of
the 134 bishops refusing to sign it. Such moves meant the failure of moderate reforms
Gadze C Page 10
that had brought with it religious freedom but the counter revolutionary nobility
blocked these worth reforms. This resulted in the internal threats against the
revolution. This led to the formation of the first Coalation in 1792 against the French
revolution.
 The creation of émigrés caused the failure of moderate reforms. By 1793, the French
revolutionaries had gained religious freedom, social equality, and equal taxation.
However, by migrating to Austria, Prussia, the nobles were delaying progress in
France. It is for this reason that moderate reforms were done away with and the
radical reforms were effected through the reign of terror. When the Declaration of
pillnitz took place, it meant France had to deal with external enemies and moderate
reforms could not have worked. Through the creation of the émigrés the nobility had
made revolutionary governments abandon moderate reforms, thus making them
failures.
 The reign of terror had to embark on the loveen en masse so as to acquire an army
against an enemy. The impact was that the revolution became too radical and as a
result Louis XVI was executed in 1793, thus proving to Europe that the revolution
was irreversible and also it also led to the defeat of the first Coalation.
 However, some historians argue that the revolution was unnecessary considering that
it was a privilege of the nobility to be well up. They say that the Monarchical
reputation of France was at state. The nobility could not just watch things happen.
France was going to be laughing stock of Europe.
 To fully blame the nobility for the failure of the moderate reforms is unfair. Louis Xvi
was weak and incompetent. He did not possess any political prowess. He refused to
sign the Declaration of the Rights of men and citizen, the CCC. He was therefore
blocking the progress of moderate reforms. He thus made the reforms a failure. He
lacked foresight as he failed to address the grievances presented to him at the Estate
General Meeting. He appointed financial ministers but failed to stand with them.
 Marie Antoinette’s scandalous conspiracy with the nobles also stands as an argument
against the blame on the nobles. She hardened the court officials against the reforms.
She was a bad influence to her husband. This count to clear blame on the nobility to
herself.
 The church through the clergy had a hand in the failure of moderate reforms. Church
lands that were vast were a major means of production yet the peasants were landless.
An attempt by the CCC to control the land in France even created divisions in the
Catholic Church and France. Reforms could not be achieved when resources, were
concentrated in the hands of the few.
 On the other hand, it must noted that the lesser nobility and the nobility of the Robes
did not enjoy the privileges of the Greater nobility, did not enjoy the life of luxuries
at Versaillies. The middle class and the peasants capitalised on this weakness. It is not
surprising that when the revolution started, they supported it.
 In retrospect to the above, it is clear that the nobility were more responsible for the
failure of moderate reforms up to 1793. However, the incompetent King, the
scandalous Queen, the clergy also contributed. It is important to note that the lesser
nobility and the poor clergy should be exonerated from the blame.
Gadze C Page 11
PEASANTS AND THEIR BURDENS (Economic and social)
 The peasants suffered more burdens because some types of taxes did not affect town
dwellers for example, they paid taxes using crops grown. As the financial crisis
suffered by the crown worsened under Louis XVI, the American war of independence
from 1776-1783 caused economic problems which were so unbearable since 1776-
1789. The financial bankruptcy forced the government to increase taxes upon the
peasants and the middle class to the point where they were unbearable. This was
worsened by the poor harvests between 1781 and 1787. It made the peasants poorer
and drove them into towns due to starvation. They formed the Paris mob which
became the revolutionary army.
 The peasants were the majority in France . They were about 20 million. Some were
wealth with land. The majority were poor labourers and living below the subsistence
level. In some areas peasants had no land at all yet the landlords and the church
enjoyed vast pieces. Peasants were not protected from the natural disasters.
Agricultural crisis would reduce peasants to destitutes yet the nobles were enjoying
the privileges.
 82%of the peasants’s earnings went towards taxation to the state and tithes to the
church. The peasants were not happy due to arbitrary arrest, discriminatory laws, lack
of education among many grievances
 The system of Feudalism disadvantaged peasants. Feudalism was a system existing
between the peasants and the landlords. The landlords owned the largest pieces of
land. They were the wealthiest class. They include absentee landlords who lived in
towns. On the other hand, surfs lived and worked on the land of the landlords. Some
were given small pieces of land but the main beneficiary was the landlord. There was
a system of share cropping whereby the bulky of the produce went to the landlords.
The serfs were sold by their landlords. They had no freedom to merry, to do business,
had to pay feudal dues for the use of the land lord’ s bakery, wine press. They
provided labour for the construction of roads and bridges, payment for the use of local
roads. There were feudal law courts where landlords were the chief Judges. This
provision of justice to the peasants was impossible. There was the compulsory
military service. One is therefore forced to ask what the serfs wanted when they
revolted. The peasants wanted an end to feudalism, feudal dues, privileges .The
peasants in France were better than those in other Europe countries such as Germany,
Spain, Italy, England yet they were the most dissatisfied. This was due to backward
methods of agriculture, famines, epidemics, heavy taxations which consumed most of
their incomes hence their willingness to participate in the revolution.
 Besides feudalism, peasants had other grievances eg various taxes such as the taille,
poll, gabelle, vingtieme, and corvee taxes. The taille tax was paid in accordance to
one‘s earning capacity on land. Prosperous peasants suffered yet the wealth classes
were exempted from paying. The poll tax was levied on homesteads and peasants paid
8 times more than the nobles and the government officials were not strict on the
nobles. The vingtieme was tax on property in one’s possession and the wealthier
Gadze C Page 12
classes were exempted. The above direct taxes thus deprived peasants chances to
accumulate wealth hence the revolution.
 Indirect taxes included the Gabelle tax (salt) where people above 8 years were forced
to buy 7 pounds of salt a year. Individuals were then taxed on the actual amount of
salt bought. Peasants were not allowed to use salt marshes. The punishment for
disobedience was high. Peasants had to pay the Corvee tax for infrastructural
development and maintenance. Peasants had to pay tax for the use of local roads,
bridges; peasants were taxed on inherited property. The church also demanded tithe,
usually it was more than 10 %
 It is important to note that taxes were collected by private individuals. They were
allowed to collect more than what the government wanted. The tax burden was carried
by poor peasants who were starving and dying. In contrast, the court of Versailles was
enjoying banquets.
THE BOURGEOISIE OR MIDDLE CLASS [POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC]
 The middle class represented 10% of the French population owned about 1/5 of the
land wealth. Their number rose as capitalism rose, trade, industry were rising in
Europe. This made them important in the national economy and was therefore
important to the national treasury. They therefore wanted the upward social nobility
and wanted the same privileges as the first and second Estates. They were opposed to
the monarchy and nobility who were against their social advancement. They wanted
economic, political, social, legal privileges of the nobility to be abolished. They were
influenced by the works of philosophers, economists which made them critical of the
system that excluded them. It is important to note that craft man, tailors, urban
labourers did not share in the wealth of the higher bourgeoisie. They were poor,
hunger stricken, unemployed. During the revolution, they played an active role as the
sans-culottes.
 Industrialist and merchants lived in towns because the feudal conditions had
prevented them from buying estates from the countryside. They owned much of the
non-agricultural wealth as bankers, money lenders. It is important to note that
opportunities for social advancement were limited hence the reason why they
supported the new ideas by philosophers on careers open to talent, equal rights ,
removal of priviledges. Those of the middle class who were not in business were
affected by the increase in prices. The middle class suffered tax burden as the
financial crisis worsened with France’s involvement in the American war of
independence. By 1789, the tax burden had become so unbearable. This shows that
the economic difficulties suffered by the bourgeoisie remained an area of concern.
Most the leaders of the revolution come from this class which include merchants,
traders, industrialists, doctors, lawyers, and teachers.
THE QUEEN MARIE ANTONETTE
 She was described as lazy, hard to teach. Her chief occupation at the court was
pleasure as she became the leader of fashion of the excessive luxury in dress.
Gadze C Page 13
 There was only one man around the king, the queen Marie. She was strong willed
while the king was weak willed. France’s future lied into the hands of a king who was
too weak minded to be stable and a queen who was too strong minded to be sensitive.
 Marie advised the king to be firm at the wrong time. She was in a scandalous working
together with the nobles against the moderate reforms. The influence she gave led to
the abandonment of moderate reforms. She did this by playing on the king’s weak
character.
 She had an uncontrolled desire for luxuries. She continued to dig deeper into the
shallow fiscus of France. She bought 4 pairs of shoes every week. She had 500
servants. She had more than 2000 horses. She had more than 1200 horse carriers. It
came as no surprise that Dennis Richards nicknamed her ‘’madam deficit’’,a term
that refers to her wastefulness. This was happening at a time when the peasants were
starving, dying.
 She failed to sympathise with new ideas of moderate reforms. It was no surprise that
she was unpopular with the public, an enemy of the people who was driving the ship
at the court Versailles on the rock. The French people denounced her as ‘’ that
Austrian Women’’. This was due to the fact that Austria, her country of origin had
come into war with France in1740-1748. The war costed France India and America.
She was a reminder of such bad memories. While her husband sympathised with new
ideas, the queen became a bad influence to the king.
 Marie lacked wisdom and had poor judgement. She failed to read the French mood
and the spirit of the time. Being born in a royal family, she could not understand the
point of view of the unprivileged. She was extravagant, proud. She was at the centre
of the greed persons who were opposed to all the reforms. She was responsible for all
the problems that were suffered by Louis XVI and his people.
THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDIPENDENCE (Political and Economic)
 It was the American war of independence fought in 1775 that costed France’s
financial position much. France joined the war in the hope for revenge against Britain
after the French defeat in the 7 years wars of 1756 to 1763. The American war
produced dual effects, financial and the political effects. Financially, money was
borrowed to support the war. This led to the increase of the national debt. Money
borrowed plus interest meant more debts. It created a vicious cycle which was
difficult to break. The American war of independence affected France’s trade with
West Indies and the American colonies. France could not get cotton for her textile
industry which employed many peasants. The effects were that many peasants lost
jobs at a time when the prices of goods were rising.They became more miserable.
More so, to support the war effort, the government raised taxes. It became a burden to
the peasants and the middle class. Taxes had reached a point where they became
unbearable. This was worsened by the poor harvests of between 1781-1787. This
made peasants poorer, faced by starvation, they hated the government more. It was
not their business to buy raw materials and food for the French soldiers in America
Gadze C Page 14
 The war also produced dangerous political effects. The American victory over Britain
was made possible by France’s help.It was a mere French army of volunteers under
the leadership of Lafayette. This French army of citizens had beaten the army of
England. The French soldiers tested freedom from this war. France was encouraged
by the American victory. America wrote a democratic constitution. The constitution
was influenced by the writing of the French philosophers Montesquieu, Rosseau. The
French talked of this freedom, dreampt about it, wrote about it but it was seen in
America with the help of France. The French wanted to see this happening back
home.
 The overthrowing of Britain in America was a victory of Republicanism against the
British monarch. Thus the French monarchy was next. After the American war of
independence, there was a revolutionary mentality in France. There was much
interest in the America Rights of men by the French citizens. This spirit affected not
only the middle class but other classes as well. The spirit affected the members of the
aristocracy who were army officers. The spirit affected the 18000 war veterans from
the war. They came back to France as followers of liberty and the critics of the
government that did not give liberty equality and fraternity. They saw in America how
a common man was free. This inspired the French revolution. The soldiers made
people aware of the oppression they were under. The American Declaration of
independence document inspired the French so much. It stated that man are born free
and remain free and equal in rights. These rights need to be protected. This famous
statement was made a preamble of the constitution of the French fourth Republic. The
philosophers and their followers were so enthusiastic about the American Declaration
of independence especially on the Rights of men. The rights of men were so attractive
to the middle class, leaders of the revolution, and war veterans of the American war.
Those areas in France where there was a geographical concentration of the war
veterans of the American war of independence were more radical during the French
revolution.
THE INCOMPETENT KING (POLITICAL)
 Louis XVI was an absolute monarchy. This was a personal monarchy. The decisions
the monarchy made or did not make shaped events. Louis XVI was lacking in many
areas. Instead of directing events, Louis XVI drifted with the tide. He was easily
influenced by his wife.
 He had the best chance to prevent the revolution when he summoned the Estate
General Meeting. The third Estate gave him mainly national grievances, end to the
lettere de cachet, career open to talent, equality before the law among many. Louis
XVI disappointed the hopes of the Third Estate by handling the Estate General
Meeting through absolute means. The Third Estate expected liberal and
constitutional reforms. His backward kind of government was undesirable. Louis
XVI had failed to be revolutionary.
 When Louis XVI came to power, he raised the hope for the liberal reforms. He
appointed competent financial ministers such as Turgot. He proposed to abolish trade
Gadze C Page 15
guilds, abolish useless offices, widen the tax base, and reduce expenditure. These
reforms were meant to improve the financial status of France. Louis XVI was
influenced by the queen and the court to fire finance ministers because their reforms
interfered with the court life of luxuries. It shows how weak he was in addressing
the economic situation of the country.
 It should be noted France was not different from other European countries. Fredric
the Great of Prussia had entered into a far worse situation than that of Louis XVI.
Fredrick showed how to get out of it through resolute and capacity. France wanted a
leader who was tough in advancing the interest of the country. Louis XVI had
demonstrated inability.
 If France had ever had the need for a great leader, it was in 1774. Louis XVI was
very slow to grasp issues. He led a corrupt government. He and the court were
swimming in privileges when the peasants were starving and dying. He was a weak
willed king. He allowed the revolution to come. When it came in a different shape to
what he expected, he betrayed it. This was treason hence his deposition,
imprisonment and the guillotine.
 The king ‘s incompetence is seen in that, instead of attending to state business , most
of the time he was busy hunting and doing personal businesses.
 The incompetence of Louis XVI has seen some historians asking whether it was the
absolute power of the French Monarchy or its weaknesses which caused the French
revolution of 1789. Absolutism was established in France by Louis XV who
concentrated power in himself and his personal advisors. Absolutism reached its
peak of chaos when it became tyranny. The system required competent monarchs but
Louis XV successors were not competent and they failed to use the power enshrined
into their offices .
 One weakness of absolutism was concentration of power of executive, legislative
and judiciary into the hands of his majesty. The king’s council was made up of the
nobility and excluded the middle class and the peasants from government.
 The other weakness was the use of the letter de cachet by which the critics of the
government could be arrested and imprisoned without trial .Thus there was the use of
force as people could not express themselves since there were no national or
provincial assemblies. The Estates General could not make laws or discuss
grievances brought by Deputies and it had last met in 1614. The provinces had no
direct dealing with the headquarters. They were ruled by intendants who were
directly responsible to the king who chose them and their rule was as absolute as the
king who chose them.
 There was no uniform law. Different laws applied two different areas.
 Absolutism was used by Louis XIV and Louis XV were powerful kings. They had
the will power and had arrested people to prevent a revolution. Louis XVI was an
absolute king in name only and did not make use of his absolute power. As a person,
he was very weak .He was influenced by his wife Marie against reforms. This is one
area where Louis XIV and Louis XV did very well. They used their absolute power
to put through reforms. Louis XVI could not stand his ground. At the Estates
General meeting , he wanted the votes to be conducted by head but the Third Estate
Gadze C Page 16
disobeyed and he gave way to their demands. This would not have happened under
Louis XIV and Louis XV
PHILOSOPHIES AND ENCYCLOPAEDISTS [POLITICAL]
 Their contribution to the French Revolution was remote and indirect. Philosophies did
not create the problems facing France nor did they made them worse. They did not
call for radicalism or mass democracy. Their ideas only had more impact during the
revolution than before. Philosophers were not revolutionaries or political leaders.
However, men who were revolutionary absorbed the ideas of the philosophers which
were dangerous to the old regime. They attacked the church, privileges, and tyranny.
Whether the philosophers wanted the revolution or not, their ideas provided
fortification for criticism of the old system and the need for change. These attacks on
the monarchy, the Queen, privileged classes undermined their respect. Philosophers
did not cause a revolution but provided a platform for opposition which destroyed the
old institutions during the revolution. It is clear that the abuses and defects of the old
government led to the revolution. They were so clear that no one needed to point them
e.g. Incompetent administration, a crushing financial system, a barbaric judicial
system, religious cruelty, economic waste and confusion. They criticised existing
institutions and the abuses of the ancient regime. They had confidence on the ability
of men to change things for the best .This exposed the government to harsh
critism.Their contribution was remote and indirect. Prominent among philosophers
were Voltaire , Montesquieu and Rousseau
VOLTAIRE
 He was convinced that parliaments whose aristocratic members confused their own
interests with those of the state were not a proper body to bring changes .He believed
change will be brought by a properly advised king by responsible ministers such as
Turgot .
 Voltaire was not concerned much with who governed but how they governed .He
supported the government that sought to abolish feudalism, limit the power of the
church ,provide education to all except the lower classes ,remove barbaric
punishments ,right to own property ,freedom before the law .He was from the middle
class and his ideas enlightened the middle class .
 He was the champion of the victims of intolerance and injustice. He was an
outspoken critic of religious intolerance and prosecution. He employed himself in
seeking justice for the victims of religious or political prosecution and in campaigning
against the practise of torture. He wanted a reformed monarch hence the reason why
he said he would rather be ruled by one lion than a 100 rats. A lion here refers to the
Monarchy kind of government while a 100 rats represent a Republican form of
government. His writings inspired the French people to question the political, social
and economic conditions that existed in France
MONTESQUIEU
Gadze C Page 17
 Montesquieu believed in the separation of powers. The executive, legislative and the
judicial power must be separated and exercised by different bodies. Each body of
government would limit the power of other bodies. This will help protect the
freedoms of the people.
 He saw power as corrupting and absolute power as corrupting absolutely. In his book
‘’ The Spirit of Laws’’, he attacked despotism of the monarchy, a government of one
man that was not controlled by law. He therefore believed in the rule of law because
to him monarchism did not mean despotism. The rule of law and the balance of power
were seen as weapons against despotism.
 He believed in the nobility as the political responsible group in France but they were
supposed to be in government on merit. He believed in the conservative monarchy but
supported the need for religious tolerance and an end to persecution. His writings
proved important in the American Declaration of independence document and the
French people in their revolution against their autocratic Regime.
ROUSSEAUR
 He has been seen as the father of the French revolution. He was from the middle class
but believed in freedom to all the classes and a benevolent society being benevolent to
all. He influenced republicans such as Diderot during the French revolution.in his
book the ‘’ Social Contract’’, he wrote that the king and the people enter into contract.
In that contract the kings rule with the consent of the people. If the king fail to fulfil
the contract, people can break it. His book was against tyranny. He argued that man is
born free but everywhere he is in chains. The Declaration of the rights of men and
citizen has the influence of his works and teachings. It states that people have a right
to rule, men are by nature equal, freedom of speech, writing, printing.
 In his other book ‘’The General will ‘’, he says that the will must come from all
people, apply to all people. People must feel involved in the political decision making.
While he supported the sovereignty of the state but the state must take its lead from
the “General will”, otherwise the state will lose its legality and people will change it.
 He believed in equality and justice instead of injustice, hardships, prieviledges. He
wanted a society where there was no deep poverty. The economic terror might have
borrowed his ideas where the government was against hoarding.
 He had augments against freedom of association. It was used by the Girondins and the
Jacobins to turn the church into a state department, to forbid unions of workers and
employers, to bann opposition parties during the reign of terror.
CONTRIBUTION BY ENCLOPAEDIA
 These were compilations on religious, political and economic issues of France. They
attacked the injustice by the church and the state. The encyclopaedia was used for
reference for the information on science, religion, new ideas. Contributors to the
encyclopaedia eg economists advocated for the abolishment of taxes. Turgot
borrowed much from these contributors on taxation. Mirabeau borrowed from these
contributors where they talk of the renewal of the age of Solomon
Gadze C Page 18
 Although literacy was wide spread in France, the influence of philosophies was not
that wide spread. Their writings circulated but there was no reading culture. Worse
still, some of their books where banned and therefore expensive. Thus the diffusion of
their ideas was not as wide spread as might be thought. The French revolution was not
philosophic or encyclopaedic. However, it was during the revolution that their
teachings were used. What made men revolutionary was the whole revolutionary
situation and philosophies played a less important role. It was remote and indirect
POOR HARVESTS (ECONOMIC)

 The mass hunger was caused by freak weather. In 1788 a massive hail storm
destroyed cornfields, vegetable plots, orchards, vineyards all over central France.
These were followed by drought so that the harvest of 1788 was very poor. The
drought was followed by the coldest winter in the living memory. Rivers froze over
stopping the grinding of flour. Blocked roads prevented food from reaching markets.
When the snow thawed in spring, the flood ruined large tracks of land. This led to
sharp increase in prices. The purchasing power was reduced. This was also hampered
trade. The unemployment was rife at a time when the cost of living was sky rocketing
 Many people migrated into towns to seek employment. They failed to find jobs and
became idle. They constituted the hungry Paris mob which was easily manipulated by
the revolutionary leaders. They readily became available for action during the French
revolution. They hated reports of extravagancy at the court of Versarllies. Most of
them were starving and nobody had solutions to their problems. It is important to note
that the government tried to import food but there was little help since the ports eg at
Marseille were frozen.The industrialists suffered the effects of competition from the
imports from Britain under the commercial treaty of 1786 . Thus, there was an
increase in unemployment . By the time Louis XVI called for the Estates General
Meeting in 1789,a revolutionary situation had been created in France . The mob that
was to play an instrumental role during the revolution was already in place
THE SUMMONING OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF 1789 (Immediate cause of the

revolution)
Causes or why the meeting was called
 The financial crisis caused by the wasteful monarch, privileges and aggressive foreign
policy.
 The nobility had refused to pay the land tax leading to the financial crisis.
 Louis XVI wanted to use the Estate General as a money granting assembly.
 Peasants and the middle class wanted the social redress on the privileges with the
nobility and the clergy enjoying.
 New ideas from the philosophers and the American war of independence were putting
pressure on Louis XVI to assemble the nation.
 The effects of the poor harvests.
 The Estate General needed to respond to the grievances and save the monarchy.
Gadze C Page 19
EVENTS AT THE MEETING
 Before the Estates General met the king asked for a list of grievances, cahiers from
the people. The grievances included, end to lettre decatchet, reform of taxation, limit
the power of the king, abolishing of feudalism, equality before the law, career opened
talent, the church was attacked, the cahiers were asking for a transformation from an
absolute to a constitutional monarchy, wanted to end France of the old which was a
status conscious society where money and ability mattered but birth mattered more. It
was unfair for the professional to be subjected to taxes which the nobility were
exempted from. It was unfair to exclude professionals from the posts they knew they
could fill in government.
 The commoners, Third Estate were under the influence of the American war of
independence and the ideas of the philosophers. They wanted the Estates General to
speak for the nation.
 The Estate General was made up of the three Estates or chambers. The first Estate, the
clergy, there were 300, the second Estate, nobility, there were 300, the third Estate,
the commoners, and they were 600.
 The summoning of the Estates General meeting ignited hopes of liberal and
constitutional reforms. As already noted, the demanded reforms were centred on the
constitutional monarchy not a Republic. What is significant is that people were not
happy with the status quo but there was no immediate call to end monarchism but its
absolute powers. The meeting was a chance which was taken by the middle class to
give the grievances in a calculated move.
 The king came into conflict with the Third Estate over the question of procedure on
the conduct of the meeting. The king with the support of the clergy and the nobility
wanted the old method where issues were debated separately and vote by Estate. The
Third Estate wanted the 3 Estates to debate together and vote per head. The first
method favoured the first and second Estates and the second procedure favoured the
Third Estate because of their superior numbers. The question of procedure led to a
stalemate.
Implication of the meeting or effects or how it precipitated the revolution
 The meeting aroused liberal reforms in the people. These hopes were not fulfilled
hence the revolution. The commoners felt undermined. The king had failed to satisfy
the people’s demands. He had no clear policy on reforms so the revolution was
inevitable.
 Once assembled at the Versailles, the Third Estate was subjected to mob psychology.
The Third Estate decision to revolt was very noble. The king failed to handle the
Estate General Meeting. The revolution was caused by this. He handled the meeting
through absolute means. By so doing, he betrayed the hopes for liberal and
constitutional reforms. He missed the opportunity to put through reforms because he
allowed himself to be influenced by the privileged classes
 There was the formation of the National Assembly at a famous meeting in the Tennis
Coat where they swore and made an oath never to separate until they had given
Gadze C Page 20
France a constitution. They agreed to defend the interests of the people. They felt they
had a right to speak and act for France. This was an open challenge to the monarchy
previously unchallenged and still honoured.
 The action by the National Assembly was a challenge to privileges, royalty and
tradition.
 The National Assembly was the foundation of the changes that followed up to the
exile of the king with France becoming a Republic in 1793. The formation of the
National Assembly was a diplomatic victory over the monarchy, old order by the
people’s representatives body.
 The constitution was written by a small body of competent men behind the closed
doors. The constitution reduced the powers of the monarchy. They wrote the
constitution protected by the National Guard, the army of the people.
 The formation of the National Assembly shows that the king had lost the initiative and
the Third Estate took over. The Third Estate took over spear heading events in the
unfolding drama. They were now the government in control.
EVENTS OR FEATURES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789
THE STORMING OF BASTILLE, 1789
 It was the king’s decision to mobilise the royal troops which precipitated much revolt
in the country resulting in the storming of Bastille, a fortress of the Ancient
Regime.The bastille was a notorious prison where all those people who opposed
Louis xvI were jailed. Its fall was a symbol of destruction of the very foundation of
the Ancient Regime. It marked the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment
of the new order where people were now free to express themselves without fear .
 The storming of Bastille marked the violent phase of the French revolution and the
economic, social and political dispossession of the king and the nobility in France.
 The Bastille was the symbol of Ancient Regime as it was used as the prison, torture
camp, killing centre. Thus its successful storming was indeed heroic.
 The storming of Bastille was a wide advertisement to the whole of France and the
smaller fortresses or Bastilles also fell. The tri-colour flag, red, blue, white, belonging
to the revolutionaries was hoisted on the ruins of Bastille. It marked the dawn of a
new era.
 A number of the members of the nobility and the court who feared for their lives left
the country into exile as the emigres. They were to be followed by more during the
course of the revolution. They were to team up with the enemies of France through
foreign war and domestic rebellion in order to reverse the gains of the revolution. In
future this will lead to the killing of Louis XVI in a terror against the sympathetic
forces to royalists.
 The events gave the National Assembly the much needed strength in its works. It was
the people’s government in charge in Paris. The other cities followed the example of
Paris. Paris was now into the hands of the revolutionaries. Louis XVI had no choice
but to accept the status quo.
Gadze C Page 21
 The storming of Bastille was a turning point in the French revolution. Real power had
passed from the king to elected representatives of the people. Louis XVI had to share
his power with the National Assembly because he was not in control.
 Louis XVI was forced to dismiss ministers, to recall Necker, to bless in public the
taking away of Bastille, to accept the revolutionary flag. Also prominent people like
Denton were released from prison.
 The National Assembly which had championed the storming of Bastille now directed
the revolution. It became a strong government.
 The people were determined for freedom knowing their blood will water the tree of
freedom.
 As for Europe, the storming of Bastille was a warning to the monarchy of Europe,
they were next. The king’s humiliation made foreign diplomats sympathise with him.
 However, the number of those who participated was exaggerated. Some suggest only
800 people took part than thousands, there is also little glory in attacking a garrison
whose guns were useless and had surrendered. It was not worth the lives of 2000
people among the mob who died. Fewer people were released than are usually said. It
was unnecessary to slaughter a garrison that had surrendered. It was a useless
shedding of blood.
ABOLUTION OF FEUDALISM BY THE AUGUST DECREES OF 1789
 The August 30 Decrees saw the privileged classes denounce their privileges under the
pressure from the Paris mob. There was also the removal of customary dues and
taxation. Privileges were denounced and abolished with cheers, no more sell of
government offices, equality in taxation, no more excessive hunting and fishing
rights. The old order crumbled away. No more serfdom.louis XVI was to rule with the
help of the Legislative Assembly , his veto powers were done away with . The king
refused to sign the August decrees, only doing so later under the pressure of the mob
after it was frustrated by his anti-revolutionary stance
THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND CITIZEN, 1789
 The document was inspired by the ideas of the philosophers and the American
Declaration of independence. The document was authored by the National Assembly.
It washed away autocracy, the lettered cachet which accompanied the system of the
government. People had the right to rule, resist oppression, were equal by nature,
there should be freedom of speech, no more arbitrary arrests, the rights to property,
freedom of the press. It gave the right to vote. There was career opened talent.
 It echoed the ideas of the revolution, the right to vote, jobs opened to talent, the right
to property. This benefited the middle class.
 The document was a war of feudalism, privileged nobilities. It forced the nobility to
be counter revolutionaries when they played the role of opposing it.
 The document was a death certificate to the old order. It levelled the political, social
and economic playing field. It weakened the foundation of Ancient Regime.
Gadze C Page 22
 It stated that sovereignty rested with the people in the General will. This was for the
benefit of human beings the world over since it was an attack on the old order in
Europe including Britain. It became a world guiding principle in the nineteenth
century.
 The document made France a spoke man of the human race. The world got a new
starting point for the reformers of Europe and the world over.
 The Declaration of the rights of man and citizen stand tall in the world’s history
where people‘s rights to life, liberty come from the French laws. A government of, by,
to and for the people.
 The Declaration redeemed mankind from the oppressive York of the old order hence
the reason why the people of France and the world were overwhelmed.
 However the Declaration of the rights of men and citizen has been criticised for its
man weaknesses. Property was not defined although it was a sacred right. Maybe
property was seen as a tool of man’s trade to earn a living.
 The document didn’t talk of the right to education, social security; maybe it was felt
the immediate threat was the old order.
 The exercise of natural rights was limited by the need to ensure the enjoyment of
these rights by others and might damage society. Freedom of opinion was limited in
that it should not trouble public order. The acquiring of property was only allowed if
it was of public necessity. All these measures were meant to protect the middle class,
the man in charge, authors of the document.
 The mentioning of the rights to vote was reduced to ability to pay taxes. The
distinction was created between the passive and the active citizens. The active were
those who paid taxes and vice versa. Those who paid tax to the value of three days
wages were given the right to vote. To be elected in a public office, one had to pay
more taxes. Thus the document was one for the elite, the middle class. Many peasants
could not vote, get into public office, government. The document served the interest
of the minority middle class against majority peasants. The middle class quickly
became the new nobility of the new order, lions in sheep’s clothing.
 The deputies in eloquent speeches had spoken of equality with oratory. They knew
that where men are equal in rights, they are not equal in status. The issue of the rights
to vote left the new leaders of the middle class in serious problem. All the citizens
will be protected but only the active citizens will vote. Thus the electoral law
according to Murat established an aristocracy of wealth.
 The statement that men are equal did not mean to remove differences between people
but to justify them. They wanted to remove the differences based on prievilladges. It
was therefore a middle class document.
 The document talks of careers open to talent. Thus where equality stops. It was a
middle class document. They had the education, skills needed in government and high
jobs.
 The distinction between active and passive citizens was meant to put power into the
hands of the men of property who became more equal than others. This was meant to
neutralise democracy for the middle class. It created an aristocracy of wealthy that
Gadze C Page 23
was legalised by the 1791 constitution. While men were equal in rights, they were not
equal in status.
 The right to resist oppression had been allowed to justify the storming of Bastille. The
same right was later taken away to allow the king to veto laws.
 The document was utopia and unrealistic. Many of its principles were impossible to
apply. The document was influenced by the over excitement of the period. Even
America which had advanced democracy, it had not gone that far.
 To be honest, the document belongs to the past rather than the future. Individual rights
such as right to property, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of religion, opinion
were always talked about before the Declaration of rights of man and citizen.
THE MARCH OF WOMEN
 The bread riots of 1789 were staged by woman who marched from Paris to the
Versailles. Women decided to be part of the revolution after they were frustrated by
Louis XVI”s refusal to sign the August decrees and the document on the Rights of
Man and Citizen.The price of bread had also risen . It is argued that they were not
woman but men dressed like woman who made the king and the first family the
prisoners of the mob. However, some women were also there.
 It was called the march of woman because it will make the march more appealing
and would get more sympathy. It will also make the march less of a threat.
 The reasons for the march were; the king’s refusal to sign the Declaration of the
rights of men and citizen. This precipitated the march. Bread shortages and the need
to lower the prices caused the march. The rumours that the king was organising an
army against the National Assembly. It was meant to take the king to Paris for him
to experience problems there. The march was meant to force the king to relocate
from versarllies to Paris which had become the centre of the revolution.
 The march of woman produced significant effects. Paris became the centre of
events. The king was forced to sign the Declaration of the rights of men and citizen
document. Weaknesses of the king were seen as he became the prisoner of
woman.Louis XVI together with his wife were forced to join the revolution.Louis
and his wife were housed in the temple court Woman also became important in the
revolution and their status was upheld. The bread riots prepared the way for a
general breakdown of discipline in the country. Houses were attacked, animals
hunted illegally.
 In Paris it became a tradition that the mob would attend debates cheering and
shouting.The most revolutionary speakers were cheered and moderate speakers
were jeered. As already noted, the king was forced to accept the August Decrees
and the Declaration on the rights of men and citizens although grudgingly and
feeling not bound by such forced acceptance. The king felt that he would not
cooperate and will not embrace the spirit of the revolution. Also, the king and the
National Assembly came under the scrutiny and intimidation as never before. More
to that, the bringing of the king to the Paris brought the king to the people and
brought the people into politics and the business of the National Assembly became
Gadze C Page 24
the business of men in the streets. The people attended meetings either as spectators
or as members. They cheered the most revolutionary and radical speakers and
jeered the moderate. People now lived with politics.
NATIONALISATION OF CHURCH LAND, 1789
 The abolution of feudalism created financial crises for the National

government. In order to solve this problem, the National Assembly took the
church land and property. These were sold to get money. The clergy were to
be paid by the government in order to be loyal. The land was bought by the
middle class and the rich peasants. With the poor peasants benefiting nothing.
This turned them against the revolution especially in the catholic areas. ThIs
forced the government to go for the land tax. The more land one had, the more
tax one paid. The existing currency was replaced by the paper money based on
land and not the gold standard. Although the paper money later lost value due
to inflation, it was an effective way used by the National Assembly to solve
the financial crises.
THE CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY (CCC), 1790
 This bill redefined the relationship between the church and the state. The
whole social and political structure of France was changed by the partaking of
the CCC. The influence of the church in the state affairs was removed through
the confiscation of the church lands and making the clericals state servants.
The land was acquired by the peasants and this increased their support for the
revolution.
 It was a belief by the revolutionaries that powerful bodies like the church
were dangerous to the society. The church as a body was so wealth, influential
and had a long history of intolerance
 Blow followed upon Blow, first the abolishing of the tithe without
compensation, then the confistication of all the property, the suppression of
the religious orders, the removal of monks and nuns from their vows, the
church lost land, the clergy became salarised, servants of a democratic state,
no more state church in France, Catholic bishops to be chosen by ordinary
people, the clergy to take an oath of loyalty to the state. The administration of
the church was coordinated by the government.
 The French clergy were winned and forbidden to recognise the authority of the
pope.
 The effects of the CCC were far reaching. The future of the Catholic Church
proved to be divisive and was to break the revolutionary consensus. The
clergy had formely joined the national assembly but will not support a
situation where the pope will become insignificant. The patriotic French
supported the CCC but the conservative saw it with alarm and saw it as the
attack on the catholic and the French opinion was polarised. The people
Gadze C Page 25
resented the church being made an arm of the government and this torn good
Catholics although the CCC seemed statesmen like and palatable.
 The pope who had not condemned the CCC in public now did so formerly and
every practising catholic in France was drawn into the struggle. France was
split into two, the church itself fell into two rival and irreconcilable factions.
The juring or constitutional priests supported the CCC and took an oath of
loyalty. The non-juring or non-constitutionalist priests did not accept the CCC.
There was a split between the constitutionalists and the dissidents. Since the
people had rejected the CCC, many people sided with the non-juring priests in
condemning the revolution.
 As already noted, some clergy cooperated with the CCC but others did not.
When they were asked to take an oath of loyalty to the government and the
revolution, it means that all Catholics were seemly being asked to show their
support for or against the revolution. The issue proved to be costly to the
revolution and a turning point as the French chose to support or go against the
revolution due to the CCC. The good Catholics followed the example of the
pope in opposing the revolution and the king was one of them hence the flight
to Vareness as he tried to seek support against the revolution from outside
Paris.
 The situation whereby the church depended too much on the state was not
accepted by the church and the church was not consulted. The pope refused to
recognise the constitutional clergy put into power by the government. In the
eyes of the Catholics this was vulgar and to the revolutionaries it was not
working either. The king as a good catholic himself also saw it as vulgar and
did not sign it hence the flight to Vareness.
 The king who had accepted the revolution with the hesitation was now
determined to oppose it because he was a good catholic and religion had
brought social cohesion. Resistance became wide and open.
 No other measure did the course of the revolution harm than the CCC. France
was torn apart and counter revolutionaries gained ground and support. This
caused violence and persecution on both sides. The Jacobin terror was meant
to force people to support the revolution but the CCC had alienated people
from it.
 Paris the centre of the revolution did not oppose the CCC and was in much
agreement that the church powers needed to be destroyed
 The CCC forced the royal family to fear for its monarchy hence the abortive
flight to Vareness. The king’s action led to him being labelled anti-
revolutionary and a traitor. This provoked a radical response which grew to
the point of the September 1792 massacres.
 Émigrés ,non-juring priests joined hands and their counter revolution was seen
in LaVande. Non-juring priests joined hands with the foreign allied powers
like Austria, Prussia to protect the monarchy in what is popularly known as the
Brunswick Manifesto. This was a threat to the revolution. The alliance of the
Gadze C Page 26
emigres, home enemies, and foreign powers was meant to reverse the gains of
the revolution.
 Thus up to the CCC, 1790, the revolution had wide spread support but after
the CCC, the support base shifted to the side of the counter revolutionaries.
This then explain the use of terror to gain back support
 The CCC also led to the monarchy losing support. His attempted flight to
Vareness marked the death of the monarchy. All that which was left was to
bury it. His action saw the revolutionaries getting the support of the Girondins
who were also against the power of the church. They were a political group
that was patriotic, radical, and believed the enemies of France were the
enemies of the revolution. Louis XVI had proved himself to be the enemy of
the revolution in his reaction to the CCC. The bourgeoisie who had been
political stagnated by privileges supported the CCC. The Jacobins supported
the CCC.
THE FLIGHT TO VARENESS, 1791
 The royal family resolved to escape from Paris before the king could be asked to put
his signature on the CCC.The first family wanted to flee to Austria but they were
caught and embarassed and brought back through condemning silence of the Paris
mob. The king now stayed in the Telluries.
 Before he left Paris the king drew up a Manifesto where he wanted to change the
constitution in a way which he wanted especially the CCC. The letters he left shows
he wanted to grant power to the nobility and if necessary he would appeal for the
support of the great powers of Europe.
 This act by the king was nothing short of treason. The failure by the king to escape
and the letters found in his official residents provided a major turning point. To the
radicals it proved that the king could not be trusted. It proved that the revolution could
not enjoy stability while the king was there.
 For the first time the idea of the Republic started to gather popular support. It meant
doing away with the constitutional monarchy. Moderates panicked since they
associated a Republic with the mob rule, chaos and attack on men of property.
 Louis XVI had signed the CCC with a heavy heart and the breaking away of the
church from Rome was highly inconstent with his religious convictions
 As already noted, the fugitives were turned back at Vareness. From that moment, the
monarchy was doomed. The king had come out as an open opponent of the
constitution. At heart, he was on emigré, a friend of the unsworn priests, a for mentor
of a civil war, an ally of the foreign counter revolutionary powers. Thus Louis XVI
lost popularity and people no longer trusted him.
 The king’s attitude shows that he was an unwilling collaborator in the matter of
reforms. His attempted flight to Vareness led to protests and massacres of July 1791.
 The radical cordiliers supported the removal of the king from power since he proved
to be a traitor. Lafayette and the National Guard used force to crush demonstrations
against the king and for the first time, revolutionaries clashed. Some members of the
Gadze C Page 27
Jacobins club under Robspierre supported the radical Cordeliers in calling for the
king to step down. The radicals called for the king to be put on trial for the treason
 As the news of the attempted flight to Vareness spread non constitutional priests were
killed.This radicalism was worsened by the fears of the possible Austrian invasion in
support of the king and the queen.
 In the National Assembly a number of republicans demanded that the king be
dethroned. Others feared this might unleash a revolution.
 The flight to Vareness was also a turning point in that European monarchs from
Austria, Prussia, realised they had to show solidarity in opposing the new
revolutionary order. Unfortunate for Louis XVI was the Declaration of Pillnitz and
the Brunswick Manifesto from Austria and Prussia respectively. France’s involvement
in the war with these countries finally sealed the fact for the king. This war radicalised
the revolution with demands for a Republic. The king became a victim of the Jacobins
in 1793.
 The flight to Vareness saw the revolutionaries gaining support from the Girondins
who were the radical disciples of Rousseau against the power of the church. Louis
XVI was seen as an enemy of the revolution.
 The actions and attitudes of the king were critical. They caused distrust. His attempted
flight Vareness in 1791 and his vetoing of the decrees against the émigrés and non-
juring priests worsened the situation and hardened the radicals. His action and those
of his wife and brothers were so counter revolutionary that it became a weapon for
those who wished for a Republic. His actions destroyed the revolutionary consensus.
Whilist divisions where there from the start, the flight to Vareness deepened divisions
and proved to radicals that the Republic solution was the only way forward. The
Jacobins were at the forefront campaigning for a Republic government. Republicans
wanted the king to be removed from power although the majority of the National
Assembly members favoured the monarch to avoid another revolution. They wanted
the king to be suspended until he signed or appended the constitution. It was at
Vareness that the monarchy died. All that which was left was for the revolutionaries
to bury it.
THE END OF A PEACEFUL REVOLUTION AND THE START OF A

REVOLUTIONARY WAR
THE Formation of A COALATION AGAINST France.
THE 1792 WAR BETWEEN FRANCE, FOREIGN POWERS AND COUNTER

REVOLUTIONARIES.
CAUSES OF THE 1792 WAR: WHO WAS TO BLAME?
ROLE BY THE REVOLUTIONARIES IN CAUSING THE WAR
 The rest of the Europe had the right to fear France wanting to export her revolution.
This was so because France was now into hands of the radicals who had no respect
for the Ancient Regime and foreign monarchs in Europe. Foreign monarchs were
Gadze C Page 28
afraid that French revolutionaries might encourage revolutions in their own countries.
The revolutionary hatred of monarchs also support this notion.
 The declarations by the revolutionaries that all governments were their enemies and
all people their friends and that they will help people who revolted against their
governments was enough evidence that they wanted to export their revolution. This
Edict of fraternity by the revolutionaries caused the 1792 war, the fear by Europe was
justified.
 The French revolutionaries totally disregarded an ultimatum sent to them by Austria
warning them not to harm Louis XVI and his family after he was caught fleeing at
Vareness in 1791.
 The revolutionaries had a passion and a willingness to die for their revolution. This
scared many monarchs. Thus the fear by European monarchs was justified. The
revolutionaries went on to execute Louis XVI and his wife for the treason against the
French revolution.
 France declared war on Italy, Austria, Prussia accusing them of habouring and
sympathising with the French emgres who wanted to derail the revolution. This alone
shows that the revolutionaries were intent on exporting their revolution and would
use force to do so if need be as evidenced by her aggression.
 The ill-treatment of Louis XVI as already noted did not only cause outcry in Prussia
and Austria but in Britain as well. Britain protested to the French ambassador. France
responded by cutting diplomatic ties through withdrawing their ambassador and
declaring war on Britain. This evidence shows that France and her people had no
plans to keep their revolution as a domestic affair.
 France annexed Holland, further evidence of her aggression. She took advantage of
the fact that the French revolution of 1789 inspired the people of Holland to stage
their own revolution. They were motivated by the promises of help from France in
the Edict of fraternity. True to their word, the French helped the Republicans in
Holland. They were also annexed Holland.
 The war clamour of the Girondins who wanted a revolution to discredit the king. If
there was to be failure in war, the king will be blamed and these will lead to his
overthrow. This will enable them to continue with the war. Luious XVII’s ministers
who were opposed to the war were forced to resign. The government fell into the
hands of the war greedy Girondins. They took advantage of the counter revolutionary
fear. In reality, the counter revolutionaries were not a much threat to warrant a war.
 The aggressive confidence of revolutionaries after scoring victories against the
monarchy in France persuaded them to do more. They wanted to overthrow the old
order in other European countries. This was a serious challenge to other countries.
Achievements due to the French revolution eg abolution of feudalism gave
revolutionaries Alsace and Lorraine. France wanted to show her strengths by military
conquests and territorial gains as a revolutionary virtue. There was redness for war
especially by extreme Jacobins, Danton, and Murat. This enthusiasm for war by the
revolutionaries even led to the collapse of talks between France and Austria. They
forced Louise XVI in 1793 to declare war on Austria. This ended the alliance
between Austria and France.
Gadze C Page 29
 France wanted war and was confident victory would make the people of Europe rise
against their tyrants, everywhere thrones would fall, the principles of liberty,
equality and fraternity would conquer the world. Britain was brought into the war by
the revolutionaries who had conquered Belgium, a key to British interests in terms of
security and a route to the east. France was also inciting British subjects in Ireland
and elsewere to rebel.
ROLE BY EUROPEAN POWERS IN THE 1792 WAR
 The Declaration of Pillnitz in August 1791 by Austria in support of the first family
and the emigres was a cause for the 1792 war.
The Declaration stated that the decline of order in France was a concern to all
European powers. The monarchy of France will get support to counter the
revolution. These governments also felt endangered since the revolution would
spread to their own countries. However, the declaration has been seen as useless.
The signatories to the declaration would only take action together as the powers of
Europe. This was not expected especially from Britain. It was not a serious threat
considering that it was issued in Augusts in 1791 and Louis XVI was restored in
September 1791. It ruled out any reason for intervention especially after Leopold
of Austria gave it a welcome to the restoration of Louis XVI. However, the
emigres misread it and saw it as a promise of help. The revolutionaries
deliberately chose to read it as a violent threat to the revolution. European powers
had differences in Poland, Turkey, so it was not a real threat.
 The Brunswick manifesto was from the commander of the invading Prussian
army. The allied armies were to suppress disorder and restore the king and the
National Guard according to the Manifesto. Whoever resisted in France was going
to be shot, homes destroyed, Paris destroyed. The king was going to be restored,
members of parliament were going to be killed. The Brunswick manifesto
increased the radicalism. The king was seen as an enemy that must be overthrown
in order to defend the revolution. The experiment of the constitutional monarchy
had failed hence the increase in radicalism due to the attitudes and actions of the
king, the religious issue, the émigrés threat, and economic crises broke down the
revolutionary consensus. The Brunswick manifesto united people of France and
increased the revolutionary fevor, cemented the unit of republicans, it embrassed
the man, it sought to protect and strengthened those it sought to frighten. The
manifesto became a bond by which France worked together against the enemy. It
shows that the king was collaborating with enemies. Therefore the king was
suspended from his post and France was to become a Republic. France had no
choice but to protect herself.
 The war clamour of royalists has been seen as a provocation to revolutionaries
since supporters of the monarchy wanted war so as to overthrow the revolution.
They believed that France would be defeated and this would discredit the National
Assembly and the Ancient Regime would be restored. Thus monarchists together
Gadze C Page 30
with the Girondins put pressure on the king to declare war but for the different
reasons.
 The death of Leopold, the king of Austria in March 1792 who was succeeded by
his son Francis II who had a government dominated by militants provoked
revolutionaries and the war militancy in Louis XVI government forced him to
reject the French ultimatum asking his government to expel the Émigrés. His
refusal of the French demand forced legislative assembly to declare war in rightful
defence of a free people against the un just aggression.
 Foreign powers were provocative to revolutionaries since the CCC by the National
Assembly had deprived the bishops of Cologne and Mainz tithes which they used
to receive from French citizens. They also lost Parishes and districts and this
meant loss of income yet Leopold had an obligation to protect the people of
Germany. However Leopold had not resorted to war but referred the issue to the
Germany Parliament for a solution
 Britain has been accused of provoking revolutionaries since she seemed at first
interested to renew her age long struggle with France but at the beginning of the
revolution some British citizens had sympathised with the French revolution and
this explains the reasons why they sympathised with Holland when she was
threatened by revolutionaries but this did not cause the war.
 The declaration of war against countries such Austria, Russia by the
revolutionaries was only in response to those countries’s acts of hostility. They
haboured the French Emigres allowing them to drum up support to crush the
revolution. The declaration of war by the French revolutionaries was in defence of
the revolution against the hostile neighbours who were meddling in the internal
affairs of France.
 The French revolutionaries sent a proclamation that they were going to help the
oppressed people of Europe in the Edict of fraternity only after Austria had
threatened France and intervened in her domestic issues. Thus the Edict of
fraternity was just a counter to hostilities by the French neighbours.
OTHER CAUSES OF THE 1792 WAR
 Old order and new order could not core exist. France had ended feudalism, royal
absolutism, had championed Liberty, equality and fraternity. However these destroyed
institutions in France were still found in her neighbours. The French revolution was
challenging all these institutions of the old order. Thus the old order could only ignore
these at its own peril. This explains the formation of the first coalition made up of
Austria, Russia, Britain, Spain and Netherlands.
THE WAR OF 1792
 The French army was under the control of the young middle class officers known as
the Girondins but had little experience in government.
The enemies of the revolution were the non juring priests, Austria, Russia. The
reasons for the war included the declaration of Pillnitz, the Brunswick manifesto
among others. Austria initially was not interested in the revolutionary violence against
Gadze C Page 31
Louis XVI turned Austria towards an armed interversion. Leopold of Austria was
pressed by the emigres, by the king of Spain and more importantly by Marie who
wanted the defence of her husband’s crown.
 Austria and Prussia leagued up against France whose army was disorganised. The war
led to the fall of the monarchy, the establishment of terror against counter
revolutionaries
 The ghost of Louis XVI returned to direct the counsels of the Jacobins. The Girondins
were drunk with the vain of the glory and the last of conquest. They wanted to rob
Austria of Belgium and bring the French boundaries to the Rhine.
 In the fighting, cowardice, indiscipline, failures of the revolutionary army were
exposed and the revolutionary enemies were blamed for it. The Prussian army was
marching on France and threatened Paris with destruction if the royal family was
injured. The threat led to the rise of Danton who organised the attack of the Tuileries.
In august 1792, the king and the queen were arrested, a Republican was proclaimed
by the convention. The birth of the Republic led to the 1792 getting of Savoy, Nice,
Rhine state, Austrian Netherlands by the French army. The Republican was a
government of conquest.
 Britain was brought into the war by the revolutionary conquest of Belgium and the
fact that the revolutionaries were inciting the Britain subjected in Ireland and
everywere to rebel. The British entrance into the war raised the scale of war against
the revolutionaries.
 The people of La Vendee inspired by the unsworn priests rose in rebellion against the
Republic. The royalists wished to restore the monarchy but this failed and the
revolution was put down.
THE REIGN OF TERROR 1793-1794
CAUSES OF THE REIGN OF TERROR
 Defeat in war and the need to organise and improve in a centralized command.
 Counter revolutionaries in La Vendee due to the CCC.
 Division between the radical Paris who were opposed by the Girondins, Paris
radicalised the revolution leading to trial and kIlling of Louis XVI which
divided the Girondins and the majority of them favoured the radicalism and
the revolution turned radical.
 A difficult economic condition due to plotting, hoarding, speculation against
the revolution leading to the revolutionary government responding with
radicalism against the economic criminals
 Large scale violence had to be dealt with by the government.
 The threats passed by the pillnitz and the Brunswick Manifesto to the
revolutionaries.
EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR
Gadze C Page 32
 The reign of terror produced political, economic, religious and military terrors with
both the negative and positive effects. Measured against the ideas and the ideals of the
revolution, liberty, equality and fraternity were suspended. Fraternity meant
brotherhood and a common purpose. Liberty meant freedom from control,
imprisonment, slavery, free act, the right to express oneself as one chooses. It meant
freedom from excessive government control. Whereas equality meant equal treatment
of people irrespective of the differences. It means having the same values. On the
other hand, ideas of the revolution included sovereignty of the people , freedom from
arbitrary arrest, good governance, equality , the right to choose, the right to vote , free
worship, access to education , improved economy, equality before the law among
many.
POLITICAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR
 The reign of terror was let loose by the committee of Public Safety, the first executive
that took over France after the fall of the monarchy. Terror started with the
revolutionary tribunal of March 1793 with the tribunals spreading from Paris to the
rural areas to arrest and condemn suspected anti-revolutionaries. The king, the queen
and later revolutionaries Danton, Robespierre were also taken to the guillotine.
 The political reign of terror was a betrayal of ideas and ideals of the revolution.
Countries such as Spain, Sweden,Britain had become supporters of the revolution
because of its ideas and ideals but when they saw them being violated by the
radicalism of 1793 to 1794, they turned their back against the French Revolution.
Britain was initially won over by these new ideas but this butchery and man slaughter
turned her against. As already noted, the Revolution Tribunal was put in place to try
suspects. The processes of the tribunal were quickened to produce quick sentences.
This was against the revolutionary virtue of fair trial. The judges were allowed to pass
the sentences without much consideration. This was against the fair trial jury , an idea
of the revolution
 The law of Suspects determined that all people suspected of being counter
revolutionaries be charged immediately. People who did not agree with the
government or were unhappy with the course of the revolution became the victims of
this senseless butchery. Their killings was justified by dubious laws , The law of
suspects, it was a violation of the right of personal opinion. They were no longer
allowed to think differently. By the law of Prainal of June 1793, judges were allowed
to pass judgements without having evidence. This was just as good as the arbitrary
arrest , lettre decatchet of the Ancient Regime.
 More so, men like Fouch were men of blood who took pleasure in killing. There were
summary mass killings , meaning killings without following the due judiciary
processes in places like La Vendee, Lyon. The number of the official executions is
believed to be around 16 600 excluding those who died in prisons, starvation and
from the war. Some historians put the figure of those who were killed in La Vendee at
80 000. Some suggests 200 000 deaths as more realistic figure for western France
where the opposition to the revolution was concentrated. Even Danton a friend of
Gadze C Page 33
Robespierre ended up opposing this extreme violence. Thus, the revolution was no
longer liberating people but rather eating its own children.
 Politicians such as Danton, Madam Roland were guillotined simply because they had
chosen to enjoy freedom. The majority of those who were killed were ordinary
people, 28% peasants, 14% middle class, 11% lower middle class, 8% were nobility,
70% were the clergy
NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE RELIGIOUS TERROR
 The public practice of religion was banned since catholism was associated with the
Ancient Regime and counter revolution. This was against the revolutionary idea of
freedom of worship. Dates were no longer calculated from the Birth of Christ but
the birth of the Republic, 1793. All signs of religion were removed, street names
that were religiously related were removed, the clerical dress was banned, churches
closed. The names of the saints on the calendar were removed. The priests and the
nuns who were on vows were tied together, thrown into water in what were called
underwater marriages. The religious terror and the Worship of Reason which has
been taken as the worship of Robespierre were a serious betrayal of the religious
freedom of worship, a key demand of the revolutionaries.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE MILITARY TERROR AND ECONOMIC TERROR
 In the military, success in war was a must as those generals who failed in the war
were killed and the new generals were promoted. While the military terror is said to
have brought victories for France, some argue Carnot was successful because
France’s enemies Prussia, Austria, Russia, had conflicts over territories in Eastern
Europe. Thus only Britain remained active against France. Besides the allies ,
Britain , Austria , Prussia and other argued over strategies to use and their armies
did not put much effort.
 In the economic terror,the government dictated on the prices of goods.Those
business people who resisted were killed and the death of people cannot be justified
but rather seen as senseless and cruel.
JUSTIFICATION OR POSITIVE EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR
 The reign of terror was justified and produced positive plausible effects through its
political , religious, economic, military terrors. The economic terror brought justice.
There was a huge gap between the rich and the poor. The necessary terror was
declared on those who were profiteering taking advantage of the war, blocked trade
with Europe . some industrialists were killed. They were necessary killings because
they were disadvantaging the poor in the name of profits. Justice was done to
defend ideas of the revolution. Laws of maximum controlled the prices of goods.
That was the justice of the revolution. No more hoarding, wages were also fixed.
Taxation was imposed on all the people. This was the equality of the revolution.
Those who were rich were encouraged to give to the poor in fraternity, brotherhood
and common purpose , ideas of the revolution. Agriculture was stimulated to
Gadze C Page 34
increase on production and food availability. There was the introduction of the
metric system of measurement and weight. All these measures protected ordinary
people given the collapse of the economy, devaluation of the currency, drought,
unemployment, absence of help to the poor, starvation and poverty. The economic
terror therefore became a necessary evil.
 More so in political terror, external and internal enemies were threatening to reverse
the ideas and ideals of the revolution by taking France to the old days. The political
terror became necessary in this emergency. There were certainly people who were
helping the external enemies against the revolution.it was necessary to deal with
them. Terror became necessary as an emergency. Emergency is the right way to
govern a country in a war. Terror was meant to make the government stronger to
control enemies at home and from abroad. Emergency is normal government
response to threats local or from abroad. It is unfortunate that the innocent people
were killed, blood flowing freely everywhere but it served the revolution from those
who wanted to restore the old institutions and systems. Peasants supported the
monarchy yet the revolution hated institutions and systems of the old. Louis XVI
had to die because he actively attracted counter revolutionaries to reverse the ideas
and the ideals of the revolution
 More to that the military terror was condemandable. Carnot as a commander
improved on weapons, strategies, attack of the enemy , the army conquered Europe.
There was the careers open to talent in the army , an idea of the revolution. Military
able officers from mainly the middle class who loved the revolution gave France
victories against Prussia, Britain, Holland, Belgium, between 1793 and 1794. They
were able to free the French soil from the invaders. The army spread the ideas and
ideals of the revolution through war and conquest. This was better than any method
could have done. The Napoleonic army foundation came from the reign of terror
THE ROLE OF ROBISPIEPRE IN THE REIGN OF TERROR
POSITIVE ROLE
He championed the sovereignty of the people, liberty. He was against the distinction between active
and passive citizens.His propaganda motto that if one is an enemy of the revolution,one is the enemy
of the state made people feel they should not be seen as enemies of their own state and were therefore
forced to support the revolution
--He introduced specialised labour,some in industries,some in war and people did not get tired and
this protected the revolution.
--He aroused the sprit of nationalism among the soldiers.This made the French soldiers to fight with
great zeal as opposed to the grand soldiers of the Monarchy who were forced to fight.
--He introduced educational reforms by promoting technical education when he built technical
schools for public education.
Gadze C Page 35
He wanted the deputies and officials to be accountable to their actions and subject to the public
scrutiny. This why he set up a special police department which could ensure that public officials
would not abuse their power although some argue that he had done nothing whilst in office to protect
social democracy
Robespierre protected 173 Girondins when they protested against the purge as the Jacobins wanted
to kill them. He publicily condemned excesses by Fouche and Carnot
He was regarded by men as a conscious calculating politician who prepared his ground carefully,
never took action until he was so sure of success. He persued exclusively the defence of the country.
He did not show much capacity in administration but was prepared to work with the man of ability.
All the property of those who were on suspension of being counter revolutionaries was devoted to the
relief of the poor but this have been seen as a bribe to Paris
He had a catalogue of victories, the royalist revolution was put down in Lyon, Toulon was recaptured,
the duke of York beaten, Austria defeated, and Holland invaded, France liberated from the invaders.
He was a master of the Paris revolutionary machine before he became a director of national policy.
The revolution was on the defensive. It sought salvation in personal tyranny and Robespierre was the
right man for the job. Under him, agriculture improved, Jacobins entered into the manufacturing to
reduce the shortages of goods, there was the abolishment of slave trade.
NEGATIVE ROLES
He has been regarded as a blood thirsty leader who put his opponents to the guillotine using the law of
the suspects e.g. Danton, Madam Roland. He condemned France to a senseless bloodshed and made
politics a matter of name, calling e.g. ‘’ moderates ‘’, ‘’ traitor’’, ‘’ counter revolutionary’’, at fellow
revolutionaries he disliked.
He did not allow genuine errors. He was quick to accuse his enemies of treason without evidence and
was responsible for the terrible law of 22 Prairial. He kept power into his own hands and was
therefore responsible for the many executions.
He respected the traditional worship and he declared the worship of Reason.
ROLE BY OTHER REVOLTUIONARIES
St Justice was active in the execution of the king who was judged to be a counter revolutionary. He
was executed to please the revolutionaries because the king was now an obstacle in the revolution. He
said it was a crime to be a king hence the guillotine was used to execute the king. He supported that
the republic will remain a house of cards until the axe of the law fall on the tyrant. This shows that
members like St Justice contributed to the reign of terror negatively.
Danton moved in prison preaching the revolutionary gospel. With time, he worked with Robespierre
in making sure that the enemy of the revolution were captured and killed. At first, he said to have
demanded the killing of 500 people before he demanded the heads of 2500 anti-revolutionaries.
Murat the physician and political writer agitated against the in justice in the government but with the
passage of time, he used violent measures to preserve the ideas of the revolution together with
Robespierre.
Gadze C Page 36
WHY THE REVOLUTION TURNED RADICAL UP TO 1794 OR ISSUES THAT PROVED

DEVISIVE TO THE REVOLUTIONARIES OR ISSUES DESTOYING THE
REVOLUTIONARY CONSENSUS.
Reforms of the National assembly
The issue of the veto had begun to divide the member of the National Assembly. The king did not
fully accept the idea of a constitutional monarchy. However, by October 1789, the parties seemed to
work together and had celebrated the universal of the storming of Bastille on July 1790 together.
Active and passive citizens
The issue of voting was to divide the revolutionaries. While all the French men were to equal in jobs,
some were more equal than others. The French were divided between active and passive citizens for
the sake of voting. In order to be an active citizen and qualify to vote, one had to pay tax of the
equivalence of three days Labour. This effectively disqualified 40% of the citizens. To hold public
office one had to pay tax to the equivalence of 10 days wages, 50 days labour worth of taxes to be a
member of the National Assembly. The middle class got the right to vote, dominated the government
and the poor were excluded. Thus the sans-culottes and popular clubs in Paris demanded the
abolition of the distinction between passive and active citizens
FINANCE AND CHURCH LANDS
The revolution had not solved the poor state of the government finances. Some had seen the
revolution as meaning, they must not pay taxes. The government had no source of money. The
government sold the church lands. The land was bought by the rich middle class and rich peasants.
The poor peasant got nothing and this turned them away from the revolution especially in the catholic
areas. This forced the government to go for direct tax on land. The more land one owned, the more tax
they paid. This was a reform the land owners refused in 1787 when colon proposed it.
Economic Reforms
Laissez faire, hands free approach allowed free trade, no price control on the basic goods. This was
good for the middle class. This raised alarm especially from the poor. This became a source of
division from 1792 with the peasant and workers opposed to this.
The need for justice in law
The law in France had to be uniform. Old courts of law were abolished. The reforms made the French
justice delivery system reachable, fair and cheap. Torture was removed and death sentence reduced .
The religious question

 The future of the catholic church proved divisive and was to break the revolutionary
consensus. The CCC of 1790 had made the clergy civil servants, were to be voted
into office and the people became more significant now. The patrotic French
supported the CCC but the conservatives saw it as an attack on the catholic faith. The
French opinion was divided and polarised
 Some clergy cooperated with the CCC and took oath but some refused,. The church
and the nation was divided between the constitutionalists and the non-
constitutionalist. The pope and the king opposed the CCC hence the flight to
Vareness as the king tried to seek support against the revolution outside Paris
Gadze C Page 37
The flight to Vareness
 The king wanted to leave Paris. He was asked to give assent to the CCC. The attempted flight
failed and the king was brought back and through the condemning silence of the Parisian
crowds. He stayed in the Tuileries.
 The attempted flight caused radicalism by the cordiliers, Girondins, Jacobins. The idea of the
Republic gained support. It was at the Vareness that the monarchy died. All that which was
left was for the revolutionary to bury it and give it a funeral service.
 The news of the flight saw revolutionaries turning on each other, the moderate, non-
constitutionalists, some members of the National Assembly were opposed to the idea of the
Republic
The legislative assembly, Emigres, priests and war
 Non-constitutionalist priests were labelled as un patriotic and some radicals opposed that and
they were labelled suspects
 An ultimatum was issued in response to about 4000 people who were living in France by the
end of 1791. An ultimation demanded the emigres to return by January 1792 or face the
taking over of their properties
 The radicalism was led by Brissot who no longer supported the king after the flight to
Vareness. He was supported by 130 deputies of the legislative Assembly and other neutrals.
 The king’s refusal to act against the emigres as demanded by the radicals confirmed the
king’s sympathy for the counter revolutionaries.
 Radicals like Brissot wanted the war against counter revolutionaries and their protectors. He
argued the war will raise people ‘s enthusiasm for the revolution. War will also expose
counter revolutionaries in France. War will liberate those oppressed in Europe.
War and the overthrow of the Monarchy
 The Duke of Brunswick gave a Manifesto known as the Brunswick Manifesto.It became clear
that Prussia and the king were one and the same with foreign and local counter
revolutionaries. The king was to be overthrown so that the revolution will survive. The
experiment of a constitutional monarchy had failed. This increased radicalism due to the
action of the king. Radicalism became justified action against counter revolutionaries.
 The war of 1792 was seen as a solution to all the problems, a victorious vindication of the
revolutionary ideas. Although France initially failed in the war, Louis XVI was not restored
as the royalists had predicted but rather Louis XVI fell from power.
The reign of terror
 The Prussian army was advancing, men were called to fight, and suspects were searched,
imprisoned, killed by the sans- cullots. This radicalism was seen by the Paris mob as justified
and necessary.
 The king was found guilty of treason and was condemned to death in January 1793. His blood
was seen as impure . His death was seen as a warning to the other monarchs
 The revolutionary tribunal was set up in Paris by the committee of Public Safety to try
counter the revolutionaries
 The sans-culottes increasingly became violent against the Girondins who were seen as
moderates. This led to the arrest of the Girondins deputies and the pursuit of the suspects by
Fouche. There was butchery; democracy had to wait for better times.
Gadze C Page 38
 The political, economic, religious, military terrors took the revolution into radicalism and
destroyed the revolutionary consensus.
THE ROLE OF THE JACOBINS IN THE REVOLUTION AND OTHER CLUBS
 Political clubs and societies emerged to discuss issues of the day. The Jacobin club acted as a
pressure group of patriotic French who linked with all the patriotic French across towns
 Membership to the club was through the payment of fees but its discussions were open to the
public. The opening of the discussion to the public was meant to popularise Jacobin ideas
using revolutionary press and would be politicians made their influence felt.
 In the beginning, the Jacobins were made up of the moderates and the radicals eg
Robespierre. After the attempted flight to Vareness, the club became more radical. This
forced the moderate members to leave and they formed the Feuillet club. However, the
Jacobins remained popular in Paris and the provinces.
 In 1791 the Jacobins supported the Girondins who clamoured for the war despite
Robespierre’s opposition. The Jacobins club there after increasingly supported the
establishment in France of a Republic and the overthrow of the Monarchy due to Louis’s
action and attitudes which proved he was a counter revolutionary
 The club became an important centre for the political leadership and produced radical leaders
of the reign of terror eg Robespierre. There were sister Jacobin clubs across France , about
900 by 1791 but they looked to Paris for direction. They acted as centres of patriotic opinions,
centres of propaganda for the revolution and training ground for the would be politicians.
 The Jacobin club in Paris exerted its influence over governments of the revolution eg the
National Assembly, Legislative Assembly, National Convention. The Jacobin clubs in the
provinces had great influence in the running of local affairs in their areas.
 The Cordeliers club was formed in 1790 in Paris and was more radical than the Jacobins. It
attracted more members due to its low fees
 During the reign of terror, it acted as a forum for the sans-cullots opinion and attracted radical
leaders like Danton and Murat. It educated people on politics, protected popular leaders, kept
democracy and was a watch dog to authorities
 The cordiliers were opposed to the separation of people as active and passive citizen just like
the Jacobins , it campaigned for a Republic after the attempted flight to Vareness
 The political clubs in Paris had great influence on the course of the French revolution because
they were able to send their members to all levels of government to influence decision
making. At local levels , the clubs gave a platform to political activist and gave propaganda
which encouraged the revolution
 The influence of clubs was felt by the court as far back as 1789 and Louis XVI himself had
pointed to their influence against him. In 1791 Louis XVI criticized the clubs as leading
people astray.
THE ROLE OF PARIS
 Events between the storming of the Bastille to the overthrow of Robespierre in the reign of
terror were activities by Paris
THE ROLE OF PROVINCES
 Many revolutionary leaders were from Paris

 leaders were elected from below by provinces
 terror of 1793 mostly pronounced in provinces
Gadze C Page 39
 enemy watch committees were active in provinces as in Paris
THE SANS-CULLOTTE
 They were the lower of the middle class eg journalists, clerks, tailors etc. To be a Sans-
calotte, one had to be patriotic and a stronger supporter of the revolution. After 1792 , the
qualification was, the ability to defend the Republic against foreign and internal enemies.
 They were against the separation of people into active and passive citizens. They believed in
direct democracy where people were central.
 The Sans-cullotes stormed the Bastille in 1789, attacked the king’s residence to overthrow
him in 1792. They carried the reign of terror, forced the expulsion of the Girondins in 1793,
forced the convention government to adopt the law of maximum in 1793, they took the reign
of terror to the rural areas
 They were active in provinces where they formed the provincial revolutionary armies to
defend the revolution.
 The Paris Sans-cullotes had great influence on the revolution. When Sans-cullotes stormed
Bastille they saved the National Assembly on 14 July 1789 and the Sans-cullotes became
influential until their power were broken in December 1793
 Although the Sans-cullotes were not a political party, they looked to the leaders like Murat,
Danton, and Herbert. No government was able to rule effectively without the support of the
sans-cullotes. Jacobin leaders like Robespierre realised this and were willing to accept the
importance of the Sans-cullotes and used them to overthrow the Girondins in 1793
 They were patriotic and active citizens who were involved in popular demonstration such as
the storming of the Bastille, the attack of the Tuileries in 1791, the over throw of the king ,
the September massacres
ROLE OF THERMIDORIANS IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
 They were a group of professionals. Some just came at the right time of the revolution when it
was under the threat of the extreme radicals like Robespierre who were conducting a vicious
reign of terror through the white terror campaign. They reintroduced the Catholic Church
which had been replaced by the worship of Reason.
 They called for amnesty, closure of the Jacobin club, drafting of a new constitution which
created a legislative assembly with two houses, the council of leaders and the council of
Ancients.They wanted to create a conservative Republic free of centralised power,rigid
economic,religious controls,terror.The Thermidorian reaction began with the toppling of
Robspirre in 1794.It embarked on white terror to get rid of the Jacobins. The Thermidorians
repealed the Law of Suspects,the Law of 22 Prairial and the Law of Maxmum.It sent deputies
to the provinces to bring to an end the reign of terror.The Jacobins were removed from the
positions of power,harassed,attacked,driven into exile,murdered,the Jacobin club shut
down.They did not wish to restore the Monarchy but the elimination of the Jacobins who
were responsible for the reign of terror.The politics of the Thermidorians was moderate
Republican.They removed the death sentence,reversed the decree against the emigres.This
made the emigers to come back to France with the hope to get back their property and perhaps
to restore the Monarch.The church ceased to be a constitutional church and there was freedom
of worship in 1795 but with no religious dress,symbols,processions and bell ringing.In the
economy,they favoured capitalism.They ended price controls.The National Convention was
dissolved and replaced by the Directory in 1795.
Gadze C Page 40
The creation of the Directory was a good move towards the democratisation of France
 However the Thermodorians work was also negative in some aspects. The legislative
Assembly which was created dominated by the Girondins were opposed to the views of the
political groups especially the Jacobins
 They also cut ties with the Paris mob, the icon of the revolution. When they abolished virtues
like the national attire, it removed oneness.
 Prostitution became common in the French cities . Within 15 months ,the Thermidorians
government was so unpopular with the people as it failed to solve many problems because it
lacked strong leaders and significant events.
How far and why was Louis XVI responsible for worsening political and social problems of
France between 1789 and 1793?
 At the Estates General Meeting, he was indifferent and did not meet the demands of the
people as he failed to give reforms from above and this led to the formation of the National
Assembly and his exclusion.
 The king’s refusal to sign the August Decrees, the Declaration of the rights of man which
removed the Third Estates grievances eg taxes and favouritism to the nobility. He only signed
under heavy pressure from the most radical
 The radical CCC which caused chaos must be blamed on the radical despotism in 1790 to
humiliate the clergy and angered the nobility and peasants and divided revolutionaries and
destroyed harmony
 His position to the 1791 constitution and Flight to Vareness , he was seen as a traitor against
his people and the revolution calling for his removal and coming of Republic because the king
had failed to embrace the revolution.
 Declaration of the pillnitz and the Brunswick manifesto by Austria and Prussia sealed the
king’s fate with the Sans-cullotes invading his official residence making the king captive
leading to his fall.
 Counter revolutionaries came to France and local threats leading to the reign of terror and the
radicalism. This radicalism led to the political confusion
 The need to protect the revolution from internal and external threats by the radical Jacobins
worsened the political and social situation in France due to the works of the Public Safety,
Law of Suspects resulting in abnormal political terror. Brunswick Manifesto and the Pillnitz
must be blamed because they worsened the radicalism.
WHY DURING THE PERIOD 1789-1793 DID LOUIS XVI FAIL TO SATISFY THE
DEMANDS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARIES.
 He was indecisive and was afraid of upsetting the nobility
 His attitude at the Estates General meeting of siding with the first and second Estates
 How Louis XVI saw the August Decrees and the Declaration of the rights of man as
damaging to his royal power
 The CCC was too radical and had been rejected by priest, bishops, peasants. It means it had
been unpopular and Louis XVI could not side with the revolutionaries
 The August Decrees and the 1791 constitution weakened Louis XVI powers and could not
accept this hence the flight to Vareness. This succeeded in causing mistrust
 The Declaration of Brunswick and Pillnitz led to Louis XVI’s isolation as the French saw him
as a man who worked with the counter revolutionaries. This led to mistrust and the king
became a prisoner up to his execution in 1793
Gadze C Page 41
 The emergency of the pro-Republican clubs eg the Jacobins , Cordeliers, sans- cullotes were
now opposed to a constitution monarchy.
Question: Why did the inauguration of a constitutional monarchy not prevent Louis XVI
from being executed?
 People were against the monarchy abuse of power
 The Declaration of the rights of man and citizens which the king refused to sign made him the
enemy of the people , power was reduced .
 Flight to Vareness, the king was seen as a traitor and lost valuable support . He was seen as
the enemy of the people
 The middle class in France, s government especially the Jacobins who were extremist called
for Republic.
 Some people were revengeful eg on the killing of the people at Bastille .
 Foreign countries wanted to interview in France, the Pillnitz, the Brunswick manifesto and
people wanted to get rid of the king in order to silence them. It was stated that the restoration
of the monarchy was a matter of interest to all monarchs of. The language was provocative
and gave an impetus to the Emigres to continue working against France
 The 1791 constitution had given the king veto powers which made it difficult to pass
reforming measures. It also favoured the middle class leaving out the ordinary people who
now favoured Republicanism to implement reforms
 The war Clamour of the Girondins
 The king was the commander of the army, failure of the army was blamed on the king
 Civil arrest in the provinces show how unpopular the king was
 Utterances of the queen who invited his brother Leopold II of Austria to intervene to restore
Louis XVI.
 War was seen by others as war against the monarchy
 Documents discovered showed that the king after fleeing to Vareness was the enemy of the
revolution. He had not been honest even by signing the constitution
REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, 1789-1791
ARCHIEVEMENTS
 The French revolution began in 1789 in state of bankruptcy and the summoning of the
Estates General for the first time since 1614
 There was the Declaration of rights of man and citizen, abolishment of feudal dues, NB:
look at many benefits from the declaration of rights
 There was the storming of Bastille, a symbol of the Ancient Regime. NB: look at the
achievements of this event.
 The August decrees removed tithe, the corvee, hunting and fishing rights , there was
equal taxation and career open to talent
 The constitution was also crafted and stated that the right to vote must be upheld , the
king had to recognise the National Assembly and this reduced the power of the king
 There were legal administrative reforms whereby the royal courts were abolished. A new
system of local government was introduced where departments were subdivided into
districts, communes and mancipation where officials were elected into the office
 The CCC of 1790 , priests and bishops to be elected by voters
 Church land was taken to avoid bankruptcy
Gadze C Page 42
 The march of women

 Creation the National Guard. The army was successful in withstanding counter
revolutionaries and royalists uprisings
 Judges became independent from the influence of the executive and legislative arms of
the government. Old unfair courts which favoured the privigileged classes were
abolished. The law was made uniform. Judges who bought their offices were removed
 The 1791 constitution provided for the constitutional monarch. There was separation of
power, legislative ,excutive and the judiciary as advocated by Montesquie as opposed to
all the powers into the hands of one person. The king could no longer declare war
without the support of the assembly, make treaties , power to veto laws was under
control, no control of level authorities. The government embarked on land redistribution.
HOWEVER
 The 1791 constitution left the government too weak since it had no executive powers and the
Jacobins took advantage of this to rise to power. Local assemblies had extensive power and
the government had little power over them due to overcentralistion of power hence the reason
why it was short lived.
 In a spirit of self-denial, the National Assembly destroyed itself and the much needed
experience to run the government when through the constitution. Stopped themselves from re-
election hence it was short lived
 It excluded through its constitution member of the legislative Assembly to be ministers hence
poor government ministers due to limited choice
 The government became so unpopular because it favoured active citizens, those who paid
taxes of the equivalences of 3 days and those who had property and gave them the right to
vote at the expense of the poor majority
 Radicals like Robespierre, wanted total and political revolution on the principles of Rousseau
hence the government was short lived since the Jacobins wanted to remove it and continue
with the war
 It could not survive and by merely looking at its political representation, it had court nobility
who worked with counter revolutionaries in and outside France, noble who had supported the
revolution felt it had gone too far. Thus with such a composition the National Assembly could
not survive.
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSMBLY, 1791-1792
CHALLENGES
 France lost heavily in the war, high deaths, in adequate military training to the patriotic
volunteers following the declaration of the war in August , an allied force of Austria,
Prussia ,Spain , Holland, Britain, Savoy invaded France and this was a sign of the
weaknesses of the Girondins in the Legislative Assembly and the king. France was faced
with defeat and some of the commanders deserted to the Austrians. This was a serious threat
to the revolution since they supplied vital information
 The government failed to solve economic problems especially the high inflation. War also
led to the shortages of resources and people began to suffer from shortages. The government
failed to get an answer to the civil war at La Vendee and the government had to withdraw
forces to suppress the rebellion.
Gadze C Page 43
 The rise of Jacobins who believed in firm hand to restore order in France led to the collapse
of the Legislative Assembly. The Jacobin doctrine of the sovereignty of the people appealed
to the masses. Their able leaders like Danton, Robespierre Murat got support from the Paris
town council. They also had a network of debating clubs which spread their ideas and this led
to the collapse of the Legislative assembly. The failure of the Legislative government to deal
with inhuman activities eg the failure to prevent the attack of the Tuileries by Paris mob in
august 1792 which humiliated the king, the September massacres were blamed on the
government.
ARCHIEVEMENTS
 It set a Revolutionary Tribunal in Paris to try counter revolutionaries and avoid massacres like
those of September 1791
 Owing to the restoration to conscription of generals, representation of missions were sent to
provinces to speed up the conscription and they had unlimited powers over the departments
and the armies
 In each town, it kept an eye on foreigners and traitors
THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OR JACOBIN, 1792-1795{THE GOVERNMENT DURING

THE REIGN OF TERROR]
 When it came to power, it faced numerous challenges, reverses suffered at war in which
France fought the first Coalation Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Holland , Sardinia. France
was defeated heavily.
ARCHIEVEMENTS
 The new calendar used until 1804 was by the convention from 1792. The months were
rearranged to correspond with the seasons associated with them. Years were divided into
months and months into weeks.
 The decimal of weight and measure was used and adopted by the whole world
 Revolts in Lyon, Toulon and a civil war in La Vendee were suppressed and came to an end.
The government was successfully against foreigners and their armies. By 1795 Prussia, Spain,
Holland were forced to make peace with France
 During the period of the Convention, the Committee of Public Safety issued decrees,
appointed and dismissed officers, recruited soldiers and its measures saved France from
collapse
 The constitution which they came up although it was not implemented due to the war
situation, it was good because it ensured , no property qualification in order to vote, freedom
of worship, free labour movement, executive authority was shared by 25 people
 France was now exporting revolutionary ideas by taking Savoy, Nice, Belgium, Rhineland
 In the economic terror, bread was rationed and food supplies had prices controlled. The laws
of the Maximum controlled the prices of the basic goods and hoarding was punished by death.
 To improve the revenue base, the rich were taxed
 The military terror recruited people for military and labour services. This was an important
step towards a major war. A very big army was built with the effort of Carnot and was
disciplined and efficient
 Agriculture was stimulated, industry revamped
NB: Look at how this was done
NB: Look at other positive development from the reign of terror
Gadze C Page 44
WEAKNESSSES
 NB : look at the negative effects of political, economic, religious, military terrors
THE DIRECTORY
WEAKNESSES
 Due to the high inflation, the paper money was introduced. However, the government
balanced the budget for the first time. The revenue base was boosted by taxes on windows
and doors.
 The leaders were just the old crowd in new clothes, it was just a regime of survivors
 On social problems, corruption became a permanent problem of the Directors especially
Barras who was continually a Director through giving bribes and foreign diplomats later
realised that to negotiate with him meant enormous bribes. Poverty was widespread especially
in rural areas. There was high unemployment leading to poverty in urban areas. The poor
harvests of 1795 led to many deaths
 Little efforts were put to normalise relations with the Catholic Church which was the religion
of the majority who were antagonised by the reign of terror. The social problems and
government’s inability to deal with them led to the 1797 protest vote in favour of royalist and
Napoleon served the situation for Directors. In the 1798 elections, the Jacobins controlled the
government but just like in the 1797 elections, results were nullified and this show how
unpopular the Directory was.
 It was suspected of repeating war for the sake of its own selfish interests and it became
unpopular. The French were tired of the war and wanted a leader who will bring peace and
Napoleon who had had been successful in Egypt was the one.
 The Directors except Carnot were men of little ability and they presided over the final
liquidation of the revolution as they got support from speculators, business people, army
contractors, land owners who wanted to consolidate personal gains.
 One Director retired every year and this worked against continuity. Also, the powers of the
Directors was limited, they could not veto laws, had no control of the treasury
 There were no means of resolving conflicts between the legislature and the executive and the
council could refuse to pass laws which the executive wanted
 Endless wars had to paid for. The solution to bankruptcy was tax on licences, land tax,
uniform taxation but the war forced the government to fall back.
SUCCESSES
 Financial administration under Rommel saw the introduction of the paper money. He also
revisited the taxation system and it worked better than before the budget was balanced at last
 Threats to political stability in La Vendee were dealt with through the creation of the tolerant
order and obedience. Robbery was dealt with and those who sought to overthrow the
government e.g. Babeuf in 1796 were dealt with.
 It stayed in power more than any of the 3 governments. compared to the convention where
there was the reign of terror, there was stability and security
 The government through Napoleon achieved peace in Europe eg the Campo Formio treat of
1797 with Austria brought peace to Europe; France got Belgium and the Rhineland. Austria
got Venice. Austria moved out of the first Coalation and she became a friend. France had
Britain as the only enemy.
Gadze C Page 45
 To reduce inflation, the government bought national bonds and this reduced the national debt
from 240 to 80 million.
GROUPS THAT BENEFITED AND SUFFERED FROM THE CHANGES IN FRANCE

FROM 1789-1799
 The clergy monopolised pastorship, bishops held more the 1 post, churches owned about 10%
of land, enjoyed tithes, did not pay tax, supervised education and health before November
1790. However they suffered when the church land was nationalised since it had been at the
centre of the revolution. The clergy were forced through the CCC to support the new
government , old church courts were swept away as the national assembly created a church
free from the papal control. The church was no longer a state within a state but its spiritual
functions were not interfered with.
 Tithes were abolished and bishops who held more than one office were given sanctions. The
privilege of the church to decide how much to pay in taxes ended whilst the CCC reduced the
church to position of a department of the state and the church was punished because it was a
powerful conservative force of the monarchy. Thus these measures affected largely the upper
clergy hence the reason why they joined the emigres. They suffered persecution during the
reign of terror, they were killed, imprisoned
 The landlords and the nobles who were the most conservative of monarchy had their estates
inherited by their sons , took high offices at the court of Versailles , had large incomes which
they used to buy posts, did not pay taxes , no military service, no forced labour, had fishing
and hunting rights, enjoyed feudal dues, were the major inventors in mines and
industry,enjoyed high posts in the army and navy , became ambassadors, enjoyed life of
luxuries at the court of Versailles. However, the upheavals of the years 1789-1799 saw land
being transferred from landlords to a number of small property owners who included the
peasants through the land redistribution programme. Land became a national property, sold or
remained unoccupied
 The nobles were targeted, their property was confisticated and enjoyed mainly by the middle
class. The banning of feudalism deprived the nobles of income and life of luxuries came to an
end . their social and economic standing was filled mainly by the middle class and the rich
peasants. The remnants of the noble were attacked by the Jacobin’s reign of terror, property
confisticated by the state
 The period marked the end of privileges. Former beneficiaries were forced to abide by the
constitution . This was a blow to the royal court
 Workers and peasants used to be a form of property. Half of the peasants had no land before
1789, landlords acted as judges, paid high rents, had long working hours, no free labour
movement, paid the taille, poll, salt taxes, paid feudal dues to the landlords, tithes to the
church. The August 3 Decrees of 1789 marked the end of feudalism and declared equality of
all persons. Feudal dues were abolished, tithe abolished, fair judiciary system was instituted,
rich peasants benefited from church lands which they got on permanent tenure.
 The middles class had political grievances, exclusion from government, military posts on the
basis of birth rather than talent. The middle class became the leaders of the revolution, got
high posts in the army, governments, towns, provinces. The career open to talent benefited
them because they were educated rather than many peasants and workers who not in
government but were the Paris mob. The middle class made decisions in government,
councils, and provinces. They benefited from government bonds which they used to buy
church and nobles land. They benefited from the Liaise Faire policy where there was no
Gadze C Page 46
government control in the economy. This explains terror against them through laws such as
the law of maximum . some of them were killed
 Clubs were formed by the middle class and their duty was to uphold the revolution from
external and internal forces. Clubs shaped France’s national policy from work at the expense
of the poor peasants and workers.
 In 1791 workers in Paris threatened industrial action as a way to obtain high wages but the
National Assembly which was dominated by the middle class passed a law against trades
unions, collective bargaining, picketing, strikes to protect their businesses . Thus peasants
and workers were short charged by the revolutionary government. The alliance of the
peasants, workers, middle class favoured the middle class
 The Declaration of right of man gave universal suffrage to all but this was later ignored
because it was felt it would give the middle class a disadvantage against the majority peasants
and workers. Property qualification , paying of taxes became the qualification and this
excluded the majority of the poor people. The Declaration of rights benefited the middle class
more, NB: Refer to the Declaration of Rights documents to see and give those benefits
 The reign of terror victimised mainly the unprivileged, peasants, workers as the revolution
was now eating its own children through terror, 28 000 of the victims were ordinary people
How far did the aims of the revolutionaries change between 1789-1799
 Revolutionaries were members of the Third Estate and those who joined the revolution later.
They aimed at abolishing privileges , feudalism , wanted religious tolerance, equal taxation ,
fair laws, constitutional monarchy etc.
They wanted moderate reforms as long as the king was ready to accept changes and
radicalism will have no chance in France until such a time when Louis XVI escaped to
Vareness in 1791.This became a turning point in the French revolution. It became clear that
Louis XVI was an unwilling collaborator in the matter of reforms. This hatched the idea of a
Republican and the removal from the throne of Louis XVI. This was also encouraged by
Louis’ vetoing of the decrees against the emigres
 When he attempted a flight to Varenness, letters found showed he was one and same with
the enemies. This made the revolution to be extreme.
 Internal and external threats to revolution saw radicalism as an answer to those emergencies
e.g. revolts in La Vendee, Austria and Prussian threats through the Declaration of Pilntiz and
the Brunswick Manifesto respectively and later the first Coalation were the threats which
caused the execution of Louis XVI in1793.
 Threats to the revolution also caused the reign of terror by the Jacobins
 The aims of the revolution changed to a larger extent and became radical between 1789-
1793 due to the king’s political blunders, revolutionary wars, Republican feeling in the
National convention. When the Estates General met, revolutionaries merely wanted
moderate reforms eg fair taxation, equality before the law etc. they expected the king to
carry out the reforms through. However the king failed to reform from above. This led to the
formation of the National Assembly because the Estates General meeting had failed to
produce a political guideline for France. The National Assembly became an alternative
centre of power to reform France and an end to Louis XVI’ s despotism
 At the Tennis Court Oath, the king was advised by Necker to concede to the need for
changes but Louis was badly advised by the queen, his brothers and refused to make
concessions against the privileged classes. This forced the revolutionaries to be more radical
in search of more reforms. Although Louis XVI removed the lettre de catchet , freedom of
Gadze C Page 47
press etc in June 1789 but they did little to appease the Third Estate because they had come
late and they did not go far enough.
 More radicalism is seen in the formation of the citizen army called the National Guard which
led to the storming of bastille together with the rowdy crowd. The revolutionaries began to
run a parallel government which gave the August Decrees, Declaration of rights which took
away the royal power. However, moderates still dominated and had only wanted a
Constitutional Monarchy but the king felt his powers were being eroded and refused to sign
them hence people saw him as an anti-revolutionary. This led to the emergence of the radical
minority in the National Assembly who aimed to take power from the monarchy, remove
him
 Now that they had the political wave length, making political decisions, the church
privileges were attacked through the CCC NB- Give how this was done and the effects of the
CCC
 The king attempted flight to Vareness in June 1791 NB- Give the effects of the attempted
flight to Vareness.
 The Brunswick manifesto and the declaration of Pillnitz worked against the king whom they
sought to protect and made his overthrow justified hence the invasion of the Tuileries by the
Sans-cullotes.
 There was a spilt between the moderate Girondins and the radical Jacobins in government.
As France was losing the war, radicals under Robespierre took over the government and
started terror against local and foreign enemies leading to the execution of Louis XVI. Thus
the aims of the revolution changed due to the king’s blunders but also due to the greedy for
power by the radicals Robespierre, Danton, Murat.
ACHIEVEMENTS BY THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IN EUROPE
 The great Slogan liberty, equality, fraternity were received internationally. The Dutch
Batavian Republic established in 1795 used these words for its motto
 The fall of Bastille was greeted as a greatest event ever to happen to the world. It was seen
as a dawn of new era NB- See more comments on the storming of Bastille,see positive
international effects,also see negative international effects.
 Philosophers such as Hegel saw it was a new age, the age of philosophy. In the Rhineland
peasants revolted in imitation of France as Germany cities were crowded with more or less
copies of the Jacobins. Some even wanted their land annexed to France
 The Italian states were saturated with the subversive revolution class. When Napoleon
entered into Italy in 1796, the enthusiastic welcome received proved how revolutionary it
was in reaction to Austrian oppression .
 In the republic of Geneva, a government was overthrown in 1792. Equality was given, a
democratic constitution was written . This shows how far the French ideas had spread.
 The first And second estate were so sad that they would never reform until something as big
as the French revolution took place .Thus the French revolution protected the natural rights
of men even those who did not claim them . Thus the enthusiastic of the French people and
the revolution troops defeated European Kings.
 Thus democratic solidarity international Tom Pain of Britain, Jeremy Bentham were
welcomed in France as France felt she was conducting the revolution on behalf of mankind.
Thus until the excesses of the reignof terror, the aggression of the French armies , there was
a multinational revolution in the world . By 1792 , people hated the revolution because of
Gadze C Page 48
the mass executions. The number of opponents increased with the execution of Louis ,
XVI.
 The French laws, institutions and ministries in occupied areas were spread with the help of
the native supporters. Prieviledges were abolished , liberation was spread but creating
nationalism led to them realising that the French masters were as bad as their regimes and
this was a mistake hence the need for self-government in country like Austria, Prussia
 The Campo Formio of 1797 led to the French getting much of the Rhineland, Northern Italy.
Western Europe sympathised with the ideas of the French revolution but when the French
armies started living on local supplies, this led to anti French feelings and this caused
nationalism against France
 In Vienna and Berlin, court officials sealed off the country against ideas from France. They
kept their territories from reception of the revolutionary propaganda.
 Feudalism was abolished, old system of taxation ended, freedom, equality, fraternity given
 It led to the revolutionary wars in Europe in a Coalation of Prussia, Austria, Spain, Holland,
Sardinia, Britain against France
 Revolutionary wars started in 1792 to the Napoleon wars. The revolutionary wars led to the
imposition of the continental system on Europe by Napoleon in 1806. Those who resisted
lost power eg Sweden in1807.
 Europe lost resources, soldiers, money eg in 1799 Napoleon took money from Modena,
Naples, the pope, recruited soldiers from the occupied territories. All this caused a lot of
suffering on Europe.
 By 1807 almost the whole of Europe except Britain was rearranged by Napoleon with the
formation of Republics such as the Cisalpine, Batavia, Helvetic, confederation of the Rhine.
 The French ideas, language, culture were spread into other countries by the exiled emigres
ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IN FRANCE
 All officials were elected and responsible to those who elected them
 France was divided into 83 provinces which were further sub divided into 547 districts and
43 360 municipalities
 The Gabelle tax and other taxes were abolished
 By November 1790, church land was nationalised since it has been at the centre of the
revolution. The sale of church land meant success of the revolution. The peasants benefited
much from the sale of church land. People were allowed to buy government bonds and use
them to buy church land and the Nation Assembly converted these bonds into paper money
used in all transactions.
 Tax was charged on all property and the poor benefited on this tax system and it was a fairer
system as all property and income was to be taxed on the same basis.
 In October 1789 tariffs which made trade dull were removed and the natural market was
created for the first time. This was made possible by the creation of single measures of
weight which applied to the whole of France
 Restrictions which made it difficult for people to enter certain trade were removed.
However, the right to strike was taken away from workers
 Declaration of human rights-NB- look at the positive and negative
 There was the codification of the law; old courts were swept away, court of appeal judges
were elected by the departmental assemblies. However, judges were elected by active
citizens only.
Gadze C Page 49
 The lettre-decatchet was abolished and people were brought to courts in 24 hours. For the
first time justice became accessible, cheap, impartial and popular. However, Napoleon later
reintroduced the hated lettre de catchet
 There was separation of power between, parliament, judiciary, and the executive. However
under Napoleon, the parliament was used as a rubber stamp to the executive
 The National assembly created a church which was free from abuses, the pope NB see the
negative effects of the CCC.
DESCRIBE THE ROLE OF THE PARIS MOB
 Everyone else who was not a clergy or nobility was the Third Estate. They were the power
behind the formation of the National Assembly, National Guard
 The attack of the Bastille NB- give the positive and negative aspects from the storming of the
Bastille
 The March of the women NB- give the value of the march of women
 The flight to Vareness-NB-look at the effects of the flight to Vareness
 The reign of terror was made possible by the mob, the sans-cullotes
 The abolution of feudalism in August Decrees was made possible by the pressure from the
Paris mob
THE ROLE OF THE THIRD ESTATE
 Formation of the National Assembly after the failure of the Estates General meeting and the
Tennis Court Oath
 Capture of Bastille, give positive and negative effects
 March of women give effects
 Abolution of the feudal dues NB – give details
 The Declaration of rights-NB- give positive and negative effects
 The CCC , NB – give positive and negative effects
 The 1791 constitution-NB- give the positive and negative effects
 The reign of terror , look at the positive and negative effects
 Formation and role of clubs – NB- give the details
THE RISE OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
INTRODUCTION
The rise of Napoleon was due to a number of factors which include the political inaptitude of
the Directory as shown by its failure to put the economy of France on a sound footing, its lack
of support at home, its reliance on the army to put down revolts. But in spite of this,
Napoleon owed his rise to his own ability as shown by his own military adventures he
resoundingly won and cunning opportunism
 Napoleon owed his rise to the political inaptitude of the Directory which was filled with self-
seeking politicians who were novices who had made a fortune in the economic chaos of the
proceeding revolutionary years and who were eager to maintain if not to increase their gains
in the economy. This inaptitude in political terms is axiomatically seen in the revolts of 1796
in which the French, rather than the Paris mob revolted demanding bread and the constitution
of 1793. Bread riots if you want were a direct reflection of the French populace’s
discontentment with the intrinsic failure by the Directory.
Gadze C Page 50
 The failure of the Directory to put the economy of France on a sound footing show failure by
the Directory and is a projection of its poor policies which can only result from political
inaptitude and inexperience. Hence because, the Directory shot itself in the foot by proving to
be ineffective form of government the French people looked forward to. The French people
now looked towards Napoleon in the hope that he could alleviate France’s financial problems
in the same manner Robespierre would have done given ample time.
 The Directory had no support within France as shown by election showing people were
hostile to the Directory in 1793, 1798. The Directors had to use armed force. This situation is
properly put to light by David Thomson when he asserts that the Directory was increasingly
becoming unpopular. This lack of support was vastly contrasting to the mythical midas touch
possessed by Napoleon which threatened the power and authority of the Directory hence the
reason to send him on the Egyptian campaign albeit for a short period in 1797 so as to annul
his growing popularity. Thus the Directory’s unpopularity led ostensibly to the rise of
Napoleon
 After inheriting the problems of Convention government, it remained weak as it tried to
grapple with brigandage, the desire for peace abroad, the need to reconcile the church to the
state. Thus people saw in Napoleon the promise of strong government.
 Lack of agreement led to the Directors to allow the coup in 1797 with the support of
Napoleon. This was to protect them from the royalist threat. They were these fears which in
1797 allowed Sieyes to plot with Napoleon the coup of Brumaine. They were these
weaknesses which helped Napoleon to the fore front. The coup of Brumaine was to Napoleon
a God sent opportunity.
The Directors did not use civil ways to resolve problems but the army was under Napoleon
and it was like investing power in Napoleon.
 France had been in a state of confusion since 1789, so there was need for order, a strong hand
of a soldier. The Monarchy was overthrown by violence, a Republic kept by violence,
Robespierre rose to power and fell by violence. Therefore, it was natural that the period of
confusion should be followed by a strong government and Napoleon promised to give one.
 The Directors’s rule rested on the narrow social base and pre assumed certain military
conquests. The Directors themselves were vulgar and very unscrupulous and did nothing for
the people whose blood had accessed them power.
Bread and butter issues so critical in the 18thc were ignored by the government. France
remained in financial straits. Therefore, people realised that change would not come from the
Directory but change had to be brought to the Directory and it was through Napoleon
 Napoleon was advertised as a General of genius through military conquest and was therefore
seen as a genius of war who made a name for himself. Thus the dark on the party of the
Directory was light on the party of Napoleon. His military genius was converted into an
important stroke.
 However,Napoleon also owned his rise to his own ability as is substantiated by the military
victories which attracted and warranted admiration and elevation. The first of these examples
was his successful handling of the rioting Paris mob in 1796 which earned him the command
of the French army fighting in Italy.
Napoleon’s ability was also shown in the dismissal and annulling of the 1797 elections and
his brilliance brought the military ability of directorship of Napoleon one step closer and also
the hand of his sweet heart, the mistress of Barras one of the Directors because he had
married Josephine his daughter
 Napoleon’s Italian and Egyptian campaigns shows how effective he was as a General. In
Italy, he promised the army, honour, glory, wealth as motivation. He looted the works of art,
Gadze C Page 51
got reparations for war, and got the Rhineland, Northern territories in Italy by the Campo
Formio treaty. People saw him as a hero in France where the Directors were failing to inspire
the economy. Thus the Italian and Egyptian campaigns became a red carpet and a declaration
to the rise of Napoleon in contrast to the Directory.It showed that Napoleon was wiser than
his masters, the Directors. His successes marked the resurgence of national feelings called the
Risorgimento. It was inspired by a soldier Napoleon who was ahead of schedule.
 Napoleon was very calculating and Palmer quotes him as saying that one must not speak
unless he is sure that he is the ablest speaker in the room.
Scientific improvements, better roads, maps, mobile artillery, professional armies etc were
new technologies Napoleon took advantage of. Thus the army won him power and its
continuous successes would keep him in power as observed by P.J Larkin.
 Luck also played part in the rise of Napoleon. He had deserted the army in Egypt in 1799, he
was to do this in Russia again in 1812 yet in 1799 he was the best man Sieyes was looking for
as he was trying to link the army and the political system. He wanted Napoleon, a popular
military hero to use him as a front, a sword. Sieyes did not usually make mistakes but made
one when he chose Napoleon. This brought Napoleon to power.
CONCLUSION
After all has been said and done in as much as Napoleon’s rise is to be found in the
combination of the Directory’s weaknesses and his ability. The later reasons were more
responsible for his rise.
THE DOMESTIC POLICY OF NAPOLEON
 Napoleon’s domestic tenets,reforms or policies have often been measured against the ideas
and the ideals of the French revolution. Ideals of the revolution included liberty, equality and
fraternity. Fraternity meant brotherhood and a common purpose. Liberty meant freedom from
control, imprisonment, slavery, free act, the right to express oneself as one chooses, it meant
freedom from excessive government control. Whereas equality meant equal treatment of
people irrespective of the differences. It meant having the same values. On the other hand,
ideas of the revolution included sovereignty of the people, freedom from arbitrary arrest, good
governance , equality, the right to choose, the right to vote, free worship, access to education,
improved economy, equality before the law, provision of infrastructure, career open to talent,
removal of privileges, division of France into communes and department etc,
DOMESTIC TENETS,OR REFORMS,OR POLICIES OF NAPOLEON
 Central government ,- local government- code Napoleon

 Career open to talent and the legion of honour
 Concordat—industry and commerce—public works
 Education- police state—press censorship and dictatorships- financial reforms
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
 The council of state proposed laws, the tribunate discussed laws but did not vote for those
laws, the legislature voted for those laws but did not discuss them, the senate examined if the
laws were in line with the constitution. Napoleon had the full control of the arms of the
government , the tribunate, the senate and the legislature. The council of state whose duty was
to initiate laws was appointed by Napoleon and this was tantamount to Napoleon initiating
laws. Although Napoleon knew his weaknesses, chose a body of experts who were specialist
who could provide him with advice he needed in the government field, he was a dictator of
Gadze C Page 52
the old. The council of state was just like the masters of requests and councillors of the
Ancient Regime.
 The legislative body as already noted voted for the laws without discussion and they never
rejected government proposals after 1804. The Senate that chose legislative members were
bribed by Napoleon using land and money so that they will not criticize him. They were a
mere collection of nominated people only serving to give dignity to their master Napoleon’s
decisions instead of checking on the power of the executive
 The whole constitution ignored the popular rule. The function of the voters was limited to
choosing a list of candidates from which the senate selected members of the legislative body.
The government became a highly centralised despotism in which all the authority came from
the first consul (Napoleon). The arrangement was divided to put power into the hands of the
first consul Napoleon. Practically, there was no sovereignty of the people as the
revolutionaries had demanded, Napoleon was sovereign. He had become a supreme ruler and
was not subject to a constitution, could take advise if he wanted, dismiss officials as he
wanted, ministers were responsible to him not to the parliament. After the constitution of the
year XVI which show him proclaim himself as the Emperor, personal appointments of
prefects in departments, sub prefects in arrondisiments, Napoleon had dictatorial powers.
Article 42 of the law said the law of the first consul was going to suffice. It means he had all
the powers in his hands. Although there were 3 consuls, the other 2 were his mere assistance
not his colleagues. Consuls Cambaceres and Lebrun were too loyal to him with Lebrun as an
ex royalist and Napoleon was moving step by step in the direction of the monarchy. He once
remarked that his throne was worth more value than any men. He was the only men with
authority in France. One naturally thinks of Alexander, Augustus, Charlemagne, Peter the
Great, Hitler and Stalin. He gave France a strong government which he dominated as an
emperor, a Caesar In 1801 he declared himself the first consul and in 1804 through a
referendum he became an emperor for life. The referendum was merely used to legitimate his
power, he was a ruthless dictator.
 However Napoleon sought public approval through the plebcites. The will of the people had
initially allowed the coup of Brumaine; he became a consul for life and emperor through
plebcites. His reign through the use of plebcites has been seen as liberal. His government had
constitution arms like during the days of revolution’s 1791 constitution but they were only
figure heads. However, Napoleon was innovative in that he brought order where the
revolutionaries had brought chaos. He also appointed efficient officials in his central
government. Political liberty was lost for an efficient government, the financial, judiciary
administration, religious reforms.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
 The leading officials in each sub division and division were appointed directly or indirectly
by the central government. These were known as prefects and they were the equivalence of
the intendants during the Ancient Regime. The prefects, heads of communes were appointed
by Napoleon and were autocratic as Napoleon in their departments. Prefects were directly
responsible to Napoleon.
 Although the Revolution geographic divisions of France into departments were retained,
Napoleon returned centralisation of the Bourbon monarchy. Unlike the years 1789-1792,
there were no more elected officials but Napoleon appointees, prefects for departments, sub
prefects for arrondisements and mayors for communes. Although local assemblies continued
to assist these officials in giving advice, they were no longer elected. Napoleon left prefects
Gadze C Page 53
and sub prefects with a lot of powers. They were described as ‘’ little emperors’’, it shows
autocracy. They were passive agents of Napoleon. However some argue that the control of
prefects by Napoleon was difficult due to communication problems. However, some argue
that the fact that they were expected to put on a uniform just like soldiers shows that they
were not independent and were expected to be loyal to Napoleon. Prefects were active agents
of Napoleon’s autocracy who smoked out opponents, placed suspects under house arrest.
 However, the departments of the revolutionary period were preserved. Officials appointed by
the government and subject to dismissal by it headed departments. He borrowed from the
revolution the idea of departments and communes but created new sub divisions, the
arrondisement to replace the districts. The idea of local autonomy was sacrificed to the idea of
orderly administration. This was an achievement by Napoleon. His government was able to
reach many people. Not even the ancient Regime, the revolutionary governments were able to
set a strong and efficient local government as did Napoleon.
 Napoleon was innovative in that he brought order in the local government by choosing
efficient officials. They were the technicians and Napoleon was the architecture. When he
chose to maintain 83 departments introduced by the revolutionaries, putting up arrondisement
and communes, he proved he was the child of the revolution.
CODE NAPOLEON OF 1804—1810
 One of the greatest evils of the ancient Regime was lack of uniform code of law. The great
code replaced 360 codes of the Ancient Regime. It was a combination of the egalitarian
principles of the revolution and the authoritarianism of Napoleon.
 It was a summary of the laws of France on such topics such as rights and duties, marriage,
divorce, parentage, inheritance, property, civil procedure, criminal procedure, penal and
commercial code. It simplified complex laws which had existed for centuries. Napoleon made
into law some of the things the revolutionaries had demanded in 1789 eg individual rights,
freedom of beliefs, and equality before the law. The code became the main law to govern
civilised societies in Europe because of its clear shape. The ideas of the liberty, equality,
fraternity accelerated the change from the feudal societies to bourgeoisie societies
 It confirmed the legal equality of male citizens hence the reason why it seen in Germany,
Italy, Latin America as the most mature document for a civilised society because it catered for
all. It had important achievements of the revolution, freedom from conscience, equality before
the law, freedom to choose a profession , abolishment of feudalism , trial by jury, freedom of
speech. All these were borrowed from the Declaration of rights of men and citizen.
 The code confirmed the rights of private property and land thereby winning the support of
peasants and business people. It respected the land settlement of the revolution and assurance
that the land obtained from the church and noble will be preserved. It granted religious
tolerance, civil marriage and divorce
 However, the codes confirmed the directorial nature of Napoleon. It promoted the interest of
the state at the expense of the individuals. The duties of the parents and children were
defined. The authority of the father in the family was restored and the despotism of the state
was repeated in the family structure. The status of women was reduced as she was subjected
to the power of the husband. She was only able to own property with the permission of the
husband. Divorce was made more difficult. As for inheritance , there was an equal division of
property among the heirs. Private property was recognised.
 Equality before the law was recognised. The use of torture was banned. Trial by jury was
given to people.
Gadze C Page 54
 The civil code rejected the Jacobin revolutionary ideas of individual’s right to existence since
only the wage earner’s word was taken in wage disputes, so there was no equality. Trade
unions were banned, workers were forced to carry passes. It was a bourgeoisie document.
 By the criminal procedure, Napoleon returned to the Ancient Regime. There were heavy
penalties for political offenders. One had to prove his innocence just like during the Ancient
Regime. Torture was allowed to get information.
 The state urged the police to enforce labour discipline. Workers were forced to carry labour
passes and those who did not have them could not be employed. The organisation of strikes
was forbidden. Thus the document was middle class oriented since it favoured the employers
at the expense of the employees.
CAREERS OPEN TO TALENT AND THE LEGION OF HONOUR, 1802
 Napoleon himself rose to power by ability. He wanted state positions to be opened to the man
of talent through merit. This was in agreement with the Declaration of rights of men and
citizen which opened careers to the men of talent. The usefulness of men depended on talent.
This did not take into consideration the status of men but ability, not the background but
talent hence the rise of Murat who was from a poor background. These were to enter a legion
of honour. They were to be an aristocracy of merit who later became more equal than other
since this hierarchy was later created with wealth and talent. Careers were open to talent but
such people should be rich as Napoleon did not trust needy people with talent. It was a
bourgeoisie document.
 The career open to talent and the legion of honour removed the monopolising of jobs. Thus
Napoleon created a new nobility of talent who had to enter into the legion of honour. All
those who gave exceptional service to the state were honoured and rewarded.
Napoleon upheld the idea of the revolution by opening careers to talent recognising as per the
Declaration of the rights of man that all people were from birth free citizens but social
distinction rose purely on the grounds of usefulness, meaning talent
 Careers open to relent was a statement saying Napoleon owed nobody anything. The period of
jobs for sale, jobs for friends as in the old government was now over. No more corruption
 Under the career open to talent, he established under which able men in administration, the
central government, army, were drafted into their respective trades. Those able in the
political sphere were given a chance to prove themselves. Thus there was equality
 The legion of honour although it was controversial since it created a nobility, it was
progressive. The created nobility had no political power but described as noble by decoration.
It was Napoleon’s token of appreciation to those who had distinguished themselves in their
respective trades. It inspires people to enter and practice other trades. Napoleon’s government
therefore had egalitarian principles.
 However, against the March 1790 constituent assembly declaration which abolished honorary
distinctions, superiority of the Ancient Regime, hereditary nobility, Napoleon restored the
above with joy. He created a hereditary nobility of 3000 , princes, Dukes and created a class
of hereditary nobility
His legion of honour attacked equality. While the legion of honour made people work hard
but it made them more loyal to Napoleon in order to get honour and a medal. Thus his legion
of honour of 1804 had two sides. While the career open to talent was good but it continued
the class system as the nobles were mainly from the army
Gadze C Page 55
 The equality side was overshadowed by his legion of honour which created a nobility of talent
with titles from court to Duke with Napoleon as the emperor. Thus Napoleon merely wanted
to cement his power.
 The creation of the legion of honour was against the advise of many of his supporters and it
was an early sign of many of his in equality tendencies. The legion of honour became a court
of relatives, loyal subjects, ladies of honour who were taught on how Marie used to do things.
The noble of the Ancient Regime joined Napoleon’s banner and were singled out for favour
and came to dominate Napoleon‘s court .
THE CONCORDAT, 1801

 Since the taking away of church lands in 1789, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of 1790 ,
the pope being critical of the revolution in 1791 and seen as an enemy , Napoleon out of
political calculation took the opportunity of the coming into the power of the new pope to win
the papal endorsement of his regime in an effort to end the link between the church and anti-
revolution and win the majority who were the Catholics and the revolutionaries . Napoleon
was confronted with the task of bringing peace between church and the state in France. The
1789 revolution had brought bitterness between the state and the church. The preamble of the
concordat was compromise between the extreme views of both sides.
 The Catholic Church had been challenged during the French revolution and an effort to create
a church free from the pope had failed. The constitutional priests had no following, they had
married, had adopted a secular life. The religious France was at heart Catholic. Napoleon
recognised the value of organised religion for peace and order. The Vatican itself despite its
hatred of the revolution was prepared to compromise in order to be recognised as the official
religion of France.
 The church once again entered into the communion with Rome but it had no property but it
became a state religion, church officials appointed by the state, they had to take an oath of
loyalty as they became civil servants. Other churches were allowed to freely worship but had
to preserve public order
 The concordat has been seen as mutually beneficial, the church was not going to benefit
anything if Napoleon had not decided to recognise it and Napoleon was not going to benefit
anything by sideling the church.
 Napoleon was a visionary in that he saw the church and religion as a social cement. He
restored the status of the people’s religion and therefore brought much order into the church
which had seen a lot of confusion.
 Napoleon stripped off the church of its Ancient Regime oppression and he instead promoted
religious tolerance. This encouraged the growth of liberty. Napoleon was therefore
progressive. He was able to reconcile the state and the church and the terms were not dictated.
The settlement was a compromise.
 Napoleon recognised the fundamental principles of the revolution but did not allow the
church to be in charge of birth , death, marriage certificates. Church officials were to be civil
servants , their land taken during the revolution was not going to be given back.
 However, Napoleon wanted an established church to support his throne and to cement social
relations. The concordat was done for power as evidenced by his massage to the council of
state where he told them that his policy was to govern men as the great majority wish to be
governed. It was as a catholic that he won a war in La Vendee. It was as a Moslem that he
established himself in Egypt. If he was governing the Jews he was going to rebuild the temple
of Solomon. He once told his brother Lucien that skilful conquerors have not entangled with
Gadze C Page 56
priests but contain and use them. Thus Napoleon wanted to win the favour of the Catholics
and at the same time controlling them.
 The concordat was reconciliation but Napoleon wanted the support of the church, a church
which was now a weakened client of the state. The state remained superior to the church as
Napoleon kept the church privileges at a minimum in exchange to a phrase that catholism was
the religion of the majority of the French men. The pope blessed Napoleon’s government, his
dictatorship. Catholic was the religion of the majority and not the state. He respected the
church just like Caesar of Rome, it was just a lip service. He wanted to control people through
the belief system. He had successfully broken the link between catholism and royalist unrest
to kill the catholic opposition.
 Napoleon bound people together by religion and got effective state control of the church,
loyality from the church. His motives were not born out of religious conviction but from
political calculation to help him secure his position. The church gave patriotic sermons,
announced government policy, encouraged conscription. Thus the people of France were
bound by religion to Napoleon. He had successfully made the bishops his prefects in purple.
They served Napoleon’s government and dictatorship.
EDUCATION, 1802
 Revolutionaries wanted to organise the educational system in Zimbabwe but had not found
time to do more than make a beginning. Napoleon the child of the revolution translated the
ideas into facts. The innovative and progressive Napoleon wanted education to provide
administrators and technical experts for the service of the state. The revolution destroyed the
old system of education but created nothing to put in place apart from the limited number of
central schools.
 There were school of 4 grades, primary, secondary, semi military boarding schools called
lychees and special schools for technical training. Overally education was under the control of
the Empirial university of France. Education was made free at primary level.
 In 1795, revolutionaries had encouraged research and Napoleon as the child of the revolution
supported the works in physical science, fine arts, mathematics, literature. The curriculum
was widened. In 1794, the Ecole pole technique which exist even to date was established and
Napoleon as a child of the revolution expanded it.
 However, reforms in education were carried out with the view to control. There was a single
university in France to control all educational systems. Free thinking became a thing of the
past. The University of France was under Napoleon’s appointee whose duty was to make sure
that school taught the authorised curriculum. He wanted students to study science and
arithmetic which he knew could breed passive students. Thus education was censored in 1810
and effectively controlled. This was a blow to the liberal gains of the revolution. He did not
want a thinking nation. The state was hostile to intellectual freedom.
 Napoleon believed that education had to agree to the authoritarian nature of his regime. He
wanted to use education to control the political and moral opinion of the youth in order to
raise obedient officials. The young were taught for political purposes, to serve, to march and
to die. He needed capable officials necessary in his government, army. The young were
indoctrinated to be obedient to authority. The youth were starved of the whole some pleasures
of youth , confined to barracks, put on military uniforms, drilled, spied upon, modelled to
satisfy the desires of Napoleon in his policy of ‘’catch them young ‘’
 Elementary education just like during the Ancient Regime was left to municipalities and
many schools had no teachers due to lack of funds to train them. In rural areas illiteracy
Gadze C Page 57
continued due to shortage of primary schools. Central schools were supported by the
government and the standards were very high as education flourished in the early days of
Napoleon. However since they appeared to promote independent thinking, Napoleon allowed
them to die out.
 The Lycees which replaced central schools which were privately administered but under the
government control were colleges of patriotism for training of future leaders. The government
designed syllabuses, appointed teachers, gave lectures on military issues.Some bursaries
were available to sons of officers and government officials and few ablest scholars. Thus the
bourgeoisie benefited from Napoleon’s education and the poor were excluded. Church
schools were allowed until such a time when they competed with the Lycees.Napoleon took
control of education through the university of France in1808.
 As already noted the introduction of the Lycees where students would attend semi-military
education shows that Napoleon wanted a nation of armed men. The career open to talent also
bears witness of this. To Napoleon, education should be the first object of the state,
everything depends on it, the present and future. At university spies were sent to investigate
on the enemies of Napoleon. Powerful subjects like philosophy, History were banned.
Political literature was destroyed.
 Napoleon paid little attention to the education of the girl child. Their mothers were their
educators. Their role was at home not in public. Thus there was no equality and women
advancement. The march of women in 1789 had made women visible but Napoleon reversed
this. His policy in education lacked gender equality.
PUBLIC WORKS
 Napoleon carried out a large number of public works in France. He employed prisoners of
war to carry out many works of public utility. The high ways of France are the achievements
of Napoleon. Napoleon was innovative. Bridges, canals, roads, railway lines as economic
installations were put in place. Sea ports were widened, marshes s were drained, museums
and gardens were cleaned. There was also the beautification of Paris and other cities. This
shows that Napoleon was innovative and progressive. Museums were filled with treasures
stolen from Italy. Napoleon employed architects, painters, sculptors. Construction were
erected within a short space of time including widened streets, sewerage and fresh water
provision were improved.
FINANCIAL REFORMS
 Napoleon appointed a Director for taxation to whom deputies in each department, agents in
the arrondisements, communes were answerable .Thus by so doing, tax collection was made
more efficient. Direct tax was kept at reasonable levels but more indirect taxes were charged
e.g. on alcohol in 1804, salt to improve financial revenue. Inflation was contained and the
Franc was the most stable currency in Europe including Britain. Financial reforms improved
the revenue due the regular tax collection and the reduced government expenditure. The
budget was balanced in 1801-1802. A stable financial environment also led to the growth of
industries by 25%. New industries were born out this financial boom. They were involved in
metals, wheels, sugar refining, tobacco and cotton processing. Unemployment disappeared
or was very low, thanks to the industrial growth made possible by the financial stability. The
financial stability promoted the improvement of roads, canals, harbours, and this
infrastructure promoted trade. However, the financial reforms benefited mainly the
bourgeoisie who owned businesses and the means of production.
Gadze C Page 58
INDUSTRY AND COMMRCE
 The French manufacturers were protected against foreign competition. There were serious
efforts aimed at improving production in industry. He borrowed production methods mainly
from Britain. Agriculture was improved by the introduction of new methods from Belgium
and Britain. Marshes were drained making them suitable for agriculture and habitation.
Cotton was introduced from the east and the technology to work on cotton come from
Britain. The Lyon silk industry was revived.
 Chambers of commerce and advisory boards were set up for manufacturers. Technical
schools, prizes, loans, exhibitions encouraged new businesses. Schools were set up for
technical training, prizes were offered for inventions, industrial shows were organised to
market the industrial goods , machines for weaving were discovered, methods of dying were
discovered. Industrialists and technicians visited British factories. The British machinery and
workers were imported into France where they were put into operation with the government
help. The economy was modernised supported by the established bank of France. It printed
notes, adopted the gold standard, gave loans to businesses and helped create stability. The
introduced import substitution industrialisation promoted the growth of industries which
were home grown. Thus the finance which had been the cancer of the Ancient Regime
improved as Napoleon corrected the fiscus by allowing the flourishing of commerce,
industry, trade to improve the French finance and its economic status. The economy was
modernised. There were a lot of jobs with good wages and people were gainfully employed.
The Sedan wool manufacturers employed 24000 workers
 However, the introduction of tariffs led to high price of goods. The reforms in industry did
not lead to the industrial growth of the scale usually portrayed. The pace of industrial growth
did not improve much during the time of Napoleon compared to the period of the French
revolution. The position of the French industries by 1815 was the position of British
industries in 1780. The energy for the industrial revolution in France was consumed by the
French revolution and Napoleon wars of conquest.
 The labour conditions in France were authoritarian as workers were supposed to use
passports and police visas which were kept by the employer and without them, workers
could not be employed. Strikes were not allowed, working condition were bad although
wages rose up to 1810 and fell later. While Napoleon tried to assist the industrial growth, he
was interested in power and the industrial prosperity was a means to power and by this he
belong to the old Regime of dictators.
 The controlling of labour shows that Napoleon’s ideas on economics were old fashioned.
This was partly because he was pro-middle class, the new owners of the means of
production, the new nobility after 1789. Even good measures such as price controls on
bread and flour were done for power. He knew drought was a great threat to his power than
the desire for liberty.
THE POLICE STATE AND CENSORSHIP, 1800
 In endorsing his dictatorship, the theatre and the press were censored by the employed
officials. The number of newspapers was reduced from 73 to only 24 in 1810. Later, only the
state controlled lemoniteur was the only source of information. Thus Napoleon violated the
freedom of the press as given in the Declaration of rights of man and citizen. Critics of
Napoleon such as madam de Stael and Benjamin Constant were deported or imprisoned.
They were accused of being irresponsible intellectuals who confused people
Gadze C Page 59
 Napoleon employed Fouche as the minister of police. His duty was to ruthlessly suppress any
opposition to Napoleon. The days of the live political clubs such as Jacobins, Girondins came
to an end. Political clubs that threatened Napoleon were banned. Political offenders were
arbitrarily arrested and were denied the trial by jury. About 650 Jacobins were executed
accused of plotting a coup.
 Political meetings were only allowed by the emperor before they were held. They were
strictly monitored and recorded. Manifestos were to be carefully given to the political
gatherings. These measures diffused political opponents.
 The army and the police were used to quell out opposition against Napoleon. People were
beaten in Brittany, 70 shot. The people lived under perpetual fear as France was turned into a
police state. Other political parties were banned. After 1806 when his foreign policy was
failing, Napoleon became even more ruthless. Only those newspapers that hailed Napoleon’s
rule were left to rule. Editors from the other newspapers had to submit their story line to the
officials for verification before publishing. Critical stories were withdrawn. He felt if the
press was not controlled, he was not going to remain in power for for a long period.
THE DICTATORSHIP OF NAPOLEON
 He closed down the critical media. In Paris, 9 newspapers remained and later only 4. There
were government mouth pieces.
 Fouche known for the reign of terror brutalities was the chief of the police who made use of
the Daily police bulletins, spies, informers to find on the public sentiments.
 He made use of Littre decatchet of the Ancient Regime, detention without trial. The 1789
Declaration of rights was ignored.
 He was the consul for life and later an emperor. He was no longer subjected to the
constitution of France.
 Elections were banned and Napoleon appointed officials.
 The church was tied to the state although he allowed religious freedom etc.
 However, Napoleon’s dictatorship was seen as necessary. A common man after a period of
disorder wanted somebody who could serve their wishes and they respected Napoleon.
Although Napoleon took away people’s rights, he did so with foresight. He knew too much
freedom will lead to extremism like what happened during the storming of Bastille. There was
needed to keep people within bounds to avoid another revolution.
 Napoleon’s dictatorship was efficient and had popular support as shown by the referendums
held. His empire at home was prosperous. His dictatorship ended the violence of the
revolution and people needed order and it was given by the autocratic rule of soldier
Napoleon. His autocracy was outweighed by many positive aspects. There was peace , France
was quiet, code Napoleon was wonderful, educational reforms went into effect, the bank of
France stabilised the currency , the collection of taxes was efficient, the polite society re-
emerged , visitors came to Paris , prosperity was widespread , the old Regime was dead, no
terror , no civil wars, no bankruptcy , no offices for sale, no loading of taxes on the poor,
commerce boomed , peace with the Vatican and England, amnesty to the emigres, he gave
France victory abroad, he was enlightened despot , he restored the respect of authority in
France , he inherited mutiny in the army and created discipline.
EGALITARIAN OR EQUALITY PRINCIPLES OF NAPOLEON IN HIS DOMESTIC

REFORMS
Gadze C Page 60
 Career open to talent did not choose between classes, freedom of worship, freedom from
feudal dues, removal of privileges, equal taxation.
 Royalists and revolutionaries become equal in France.
 However, code Napoleon gave few rights to woman , men had more authority
 Declaration of rights of men and citizen undermined equality eg right to vote won by the rich
 Legion of honour had some enjoying the privileges, military , favoured more for awards
 Education discriminated against women and the poor but males were given that equality
 The code gave employers more powers and the workers were made inferior etc.
NAPOLEON A SOLDIER WHO HATED DISORDER
 NB- show how France was in a state of chaos, socially, politically, economically to prove
Napoleon brought order.
 NB-look at how education was recognised eg curriculum widened.
 NB- look at the religious reforms and how they brought order, unity, reconciliation.
 NB- look at the financial reforms, the amount of reorganisation put into it
 NB- see order in the code Napoleon
 NB- see industry and commerce etc
 NB- see Napoleon’s failures in all these
NAPOLEON THE CHILD OF THE REVOLUTION
 Council of state was adopted from the Directory

 All the equality measures come from the revolution
 Divisions of France into communes, departments was borrowed from the revolution
 Joseph Cambon in 1793 unified administrations and Napoleon perfected it.
 The codification of the law was attempted during the revolution
 Equal division of property
 1796 revolutionaries tried to establish banks and Napoleon made it a reality etc.
NAPOLEON THE CHILD OF THE ANCIENT REGIME
 NB- see all the dictatorial tendencies, attempt to control as seen in his domestic reforms, it
shows he was the child of the Ancient Regime
OPPOSITION TO NAPOLEON AND HOW HE DEALT WITH IT BETWEEN 1789-1814
 He was opposed by the Jacobins left who wanted a democratic radical Republic and they had
the support of the army and the lower working class in towns
 The royalist right had always opposed the revolution getting help from the emigres and
foreign powers
 Liberals like Benjamin were opposed to Napoleon’s dictatorship. They wanted the power of
the executive to be reduced. They wanted rights such as the freedom of speech to be
guaranteed
 Napoleon responded to the opposition by the use of the carrot and stick method. The rebelling
royalists in the west were given amnesty, more religious freedom and end of laws against the
emigres. He combined amnesty with repression and the royalists were silenced totally during
Napoleon’s rule through the assassination of the leading people
 When there was an assassination attempt I on Napoleon by the royalists, Fouche blamed the
Jacobins as an excuse to eliminate the threat of the Jacobins and this was effective
Gadze C Page 61
 At departmental level, the crucial officials were the prefects. These ‘’little emperors ‘’ as
they came to be known were a link between the central government and the provinces. They
were the ears and the eyes and hands of the government at local level as they took their
instructions from Napoleon and the the Ministry of Police. This was effective in silencing the
opposition
 The Ministry of Police under Fouche up to 1810 and Savoy after 1810 watched all forms of
opposition using spies, informers kept Napoleon informal daily. They also supressed the
press. Opponents were tried in special courts without jury.
 It became difficult for opponents to come in the open
 The concordat dealt with the opposition from the church after the CCC which created
dissidents. Napoleon now controlled the church
 The press, theatre, books, newspapers, education were controlled because they exposed these
darker side of government. It was now difficult for the opponents to operate
 Code Napoleon marked the control of Napoleon starting at home with the father controlling
 Central and local government controlled by Napoleon
 Education controlled by Napoleon. It was a potential source of opposition
WHY INSPITE OF HIS DICTATORSHIP POLICIES, WAS THERE NO REVOLUTION

AGAISNT NAPOLEON
 NB- discus Napoleon’s dictatorial methods and show how they helped him survive eg press
control , secret police, control of central and local government, control of education , control
of religion, industry and commerce, financial reforms etc. These policies were effective
against the opposition and at the same time they were an effective solutions to the social ,
economic, political situation of France. Achievements in foreign policy also won for him
the hearts of many French.
NAPOLEON’S FOREIGN POLICY
AIMS
 He wanted glory that will be brought by a successful war since his policy was France before
all
 He wanted to reduce the naval strength of Britain and challenge the status quo that she was
the master of the sea. When he failed to do this at the battle of Trafalgar against Nelson , the
continental blockade became an alternative for more or less similar reasons.
 He wanted to reduce the economic power of Britain by fighting an economic war with her
 As a nationalist, he aimed at spreading the ideas of nationalism to conquered lands, liberty,
equality, fraternity, the destruction of the nobility, freedom from superstition. This will make
him received as was the situation in Italy.
 Exploitation of resources for the benefit of France in the conquered lands. Raw materials
obtained from Italy, works of arts, conquered territories taxed for the benefit of France eg
Prussia, soldiers leaving off the land in the conquered areas in what Napoleon described as
an army marching on its stomach. Italy became an economic colony of France
CAUSES OF THE RENEWAL OF THE WAR
 The peace treaty of Amiens between Britain and France did not contain conditions of a lasting
peace. Napoleon could not accept a situation where Britain was the master of the sea and had
many colonies abroad.
Gadze C Page 62
 Britain also felt the French power threatened her security and the war became inevitable.
 Peace between Britain and France lasted until 1805. Britain and France regarded peace as
temporary because they were suspicious of each other and the war was caused by:
 Shelter given to French emigres by Britain
 Personal attack of Napoleon in the British navy
 British disliked the growth of French power. In Switzerland , British gained extensively,
gained in the east, India and west Indies
 Violation of the treaty of Amiens where France refused to evacuate man until Britain gave up
her interests in Egypt.
 France refused to give freedom to the British trade
 British seizure of some Spanish treasure destined as subsidy for France.
DEFEAT OF THE THIRD COALATION
 The Austrian army was defeated in October 1805 at the battle of Ulm
 Prussia was crushed at Jena in1806
 Austria and Russia were defeated at the battle of Austerlitz
 Russia finally surrendered after her defeat in 1807 at the battle of Friend land
 Only Britain remained at the war with Napoleon
 Infact, at the battle of Trafalgar British supremacy in the navy proved unquestionable when
the French navy was destroyed.
THE TREATY OF PRESSBURG, 1805
 It was signed with Austria which ceded all her possession including Venice which was given
by the Campo Fornio treaty.
 Austria to reduce her influence over the southern Germany states
 Austria to pay a war indemnity.
 Napoleon went on to set on a union of west Germany states known as the confederation of the
Rhineland whose prince carried Napoleon’s foreign policy. It shows how aggressive
Napoleon was
 The treaty enabled Napoleon to recognise Germany as the Holy Roman empire disappeared
with states being put into larger units
 Germany states became dependent on France for protection and had to supply troops to
France. Thus in his foreign policy, Napoleon was self-centred. he had control over Italy and
Germany.
THE TREATY OF TIL SIT
 After defeating Prussia, Napoleon turned to Russia. The treaty was signed with Russia when
Napoleon met Alexander 1 of Russia and Fredrick William II of Prussia.
 Annexed to France were Belgium, Nice, Savoy, Genoa, Croatia etc. kingdoms within the
French empire (satellite state) were Holland under Louis Bonaparte, confederation of the
Rhine, kingdom of Westphalia under Jerome Bonaparte,
 Napoleon Bonaparte as the king of Italy, Naples , Sicily were under Joseph Bonaparte and
Louis was the king of Holland.
 Allies of France were Russia, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Sweden,, Prussia, Bavaria, Dalmatia
 Britain stood isolated militarily and diplomatically. This was largely due to Napoleon’s
diplomacy in signing secret articles with Prussia and Russia
 The treaty of Tillsit saw Napoleon ‘s power reaching the fullest
Gadze C Page 63
WHY NAPOLEON WAS ABLE TO DEFEAT EUROPEAN COUNTRIES BETWEEN 1799-

1807
 European powers had mutual distrust such that they allied with Napoleon at the earliest
opportunity. Napoleon knew Britain had colonial ambitions in India and USA and she did not
trust Russian intentions in the Mediterranean Sea. Napoleon used these differences to get the
Russian alliance.
 He knew Prussia and Austria both wanted to dominate Germany. Austria objected to a rising
Prussia and therefore allied with Napoleon
 Diplomatically, Napoleon played one country against the other
 In conquered lands, Napoleon introduced the code Napoleon which was so appealing to the
people and got converts in Italy
 He also made sure that he married from the royal dynasties and monarchs of Europe. In 1810,
he married in the Austrian dynasty and by this marriage he ensured friendship with Austria
 Napoleon avoided general congress and general negotiations preferring to deal separately
with the defeated powers.
 According to some analysts, reasons for defeating European countries by Napoleon were
mainly military than political. Military historians argue that Napoleon inherited an army
which was already superior to that of the enemies. the army was reformed after the 1740-1748
war with Austria and the 1756-1763 war with British
 After humiliating defeats, the army was modernised up to the period of French revolution the
lighter standardised cannon was manufactured, carried around the battle feild by horses to
where it was needed. The cannon gave the much needed support to the soldiers.
 During the French revolution due to the career open to talent, young officials were promoted
and this promotion was based on talent. This was strengthened by the fact that the state was
operating in a state of emergency against the enemies at home and abroad. Many soldiers
were introduced into the army since 1793 and France was a nation at war and it was the duty
of every citizen to contribute towards the war effort, the young had to serve as soldiers. Thus
by 1795, the army had a million men, the young and the veteran fighters. These patriotic
French soldiers were willing to suffer losses for the French victory. Although the army was
not well supplied , the soldiers lived off the land
 Napoleon was a great General of genius. He was born a leader of man with natural authority
and he made use of talent to get his way. He was able to reward success and bravery
punishing failure and weaknesses. The awarding of career open to talent, other decorations,
titles, all helped Napoleon to become a General of genius.
 Napoleon had advantages over his enemies. He was the commander in chief, head of state and
therefore there was no conflict between the government and the battle front. If Napoleon
wanted troops , they were raised , if Napoleon wanted supplies they were organised hence his
successes over his enemies.
 He was able to give morale in the battlefield. Wellington, one of Napoleon’s marshals
remarked that Napoleon’s presence in the battle field was worth 40000 men. When asked who
he thought was the greatest commander wellington remarked that in that age , in the past
ages , in any ages, it was Napoleon.
 Napoleon’s intellectual capacity was impressive. His thinking was clear and had details in
memory hence the reason why he was able to command the army, rule France, rule the
empire. He was able to direct all his military campaigns personally as he believed that in war
men are nothing and one men is everything. this means that Napoleon was a master of his
men .
Gadze C Page 64
 Napoleon was a strategist. He did this by learning great military lessons of the past from
Great Generals and put them into practice. He did little innovation himself but put methods
into use.
 Napoleon always aimed at locating the enemy main army in order to break their resistance.
He waged a war of fast movements and caught the enemy by surprise. One French soldier
remarked after the battle of Ulm that the Emperor had found a new way of waging the war by
making use of soldiers’ legs instead of their bayonets. Therefore, fast movements won wars
for Napoleon
 However some argue that Napoleon was successful because of the quality of French soldiers
than his leadership of those soldiers. He has been criticized for being uninnovative and
repeating tactics by the generals of the past as he argued that everything was in the execution.
 Napoleon benefited from the weaknesses of his enemies. He was successful because his
enemies were weak and divided. However some argue that their weaknesses were a result of
Napoleon’s strengths. He was able to divide his enemies by entering into agreements with
them separately eg Austria at Press burg and Russia at Friedland and was able to leave Britain
to fight alone.
NATURE OF NAPOLEON’S RULE
 The nature of his rule talks of how he government the home and foreign Empires. Some have
seen him as Saviour and servant of France whose enlighten rule brought benefits to the
French by creating institution and reforms that would serve people ( NB- look at the positive
aspects of his domestic policy, see the negative side as well)
 Between 1799 and 1804, Napoleon tightened his grip on france. He had become an emperor
in 1804 and did little to prove that he was child of the revolution. As an emperor he
effectively joined the club of the kings and had a dynasty in his name ( NB- outline the
dynasty policy and its effects). His government became more and more like the Ancient
Regime. In 1810 he married Marie the daughter of Austrian Emperor; he proved that he was
the child of the Ancient Regime. (NB- show Napoleon was the child of Ancient Regime) yet
on the contrary he is known for preaching the ideas of the revolution.( NB- prove he was a
child of the revolution)
 His military victories were celebrated through the day called St Napoleon’s Day. Children
were to be loyal to Napoleon. This was supported by propaganda in the form of poetry, songs,
plays, portraits of Napoleon
 After 1804 Napoleon became oppressive especially after 1810( NB- look at Napoleon’s
dictatorship and the measures that were used to control. Look at the positive and negative
aspects)
 His foreign empire was characterised by exploitation ( NB- look at Napoleon’s reasons for
creating an empire and effects, his use of diplomacy , military force to dominate and effects
of these methods on his rule eg resentment due to the effect of dynastic policy.
FEATURES OF NAPOLEON’ EMPIRE IN EUROPE AND WHY IT FINALLY ENDED
 This refers to special characteristics that were unique to Napoleon’s empire. Napoleon’s
empire was a product of the blitzkrieg, that is to say lightening war,the war of fast
movements combined by diplomatic victories
They include:
 The continental system, use of military conquests as seen in the battle of Ulm in 1805 , battle
of Jena in 1806, battle of Frieldland in 1807 etc
Gadze C Page 65
 Another feature was the dynastic policy(illustrate the dynastic policy)

 He took advantage of the mistrust that existed among the European powers
 Another feature was the use of the empire to finance the development of France eg Italy
became an economic colony of France, sources of raw materials. Poland provided gifts which
were about ¼ of the treasury etc
 He also introduced the code Napoleon in the empire to ensure that the empire was loyal to
him
REASONS FOR THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE
 The continental system and it effects

 The size of the empire
 Strengths of opponents
 The pensula war, Moscow campaign
 The dynastic policy
 Formation of the fourth Coalation
 He was created by war and had to be kept by war
 France was tired of war etc.
WHY NAPOLEON DID INTRODUCE POPULAR REFORMS BEFORE 1804 AND

OPRESSIVE ONES THERE AFTER
 Its true he introduced well-meaning reforms before 1804 eg concordat, career open to talent,
financial reforms, public works, education, industry and commerce etc. Napoleon wanted to
popularise his rule by reforms which were appealing to the people
 The aim was to secure his rule through popular support as shown by the plebcites conducted.
Napoleon changed from being a consul for life in 1803 to being an emperor in 1804 and his
powers were unchallenged as he became dictator. Some argue that Napoleon had always
wanted to rule France as an emperor and he found an opportunity in 1804 when France was
on top of her successes seen in the effectiveness of the domestic reforms. The foreign policy
was a success as well. However after 1804 when he felt secure, he became dictatorial and
limited freedom of speech, press censorship in 1810, Littre decatchet in 1810, the imperial
university introduced in 1808 to control education and make it loyal to the government. Thus
Napoleon wanted to establish a popular rule by popular reforms. Once he got that support ,
Napoleon proceeded to what he had always wanted to be, use of dictatorship
THE DOWN FALL OF NAPOLEON: FAILURE OF FOREIGN POLICY
THE BRITISH SUPREMACY IN THE NAVY

 Without the British strong navy, the continental system had chances of survival. On
several accusations, the British navy was a blow to Napoleon’s plans eg during the
Egyptian campaign, at the battle of Trafalgar. After the Trafalgar Napoleon realised
the supremacy of the British navy hence he resorted to the continental system. Even
during the pensula war, British support to Spain was made possible due to her naval
strength.
THE,SPANISH WAR, PENSULA WAR OR THE LIBERIAN WAR, 1808
AIMS OR REASONS FOR THE WAR
Gadze C Page 66
 Napoleon wanted to reduce the amount of the goods entering Britain through the
ports of Portugal since the amount had doubled. Thus the continental system was not
working.The Pensula was an island. Portugal was the first country to declare that she
was not going to follow the continental system by Napoleon . This led to Napoleon
invading Portugal but for him to reach Portugal , he was supposed to pass through
Spain where a number of uprisings were taking place against Ferdinand VII . The
people of Spain nolonger needed him because his reforms were old fashioned hence
the nickname ‘the old spider’ meaning he nolonger introduced new reforms in Spain.
Napoleon replaced him by his brother Joseph . The Spaniards resisted this and a
war broke out between Spain and France.
 The French-Spanish relations were not good. The duty of Spain was to supply men,
money to Napoleon. When Spain failed to do so, Napoleon removed the Spanish
king and put into power his choice he could control. He put his brother on the
throne.
 Napoleon wanted to defeat Portugal Britain’s ally and force her to implement the
continental system
THE WAR AND ITS EFFECTS
 The Spanish example is instructive. Imported ideas had been accepted but it was a struggle
against Napoleon’s domination by the use of arms which brought a new sense of nationhood,
a common culture and a shared value of culture that was a shared pride. Napoleon’s last
military successes were the invasion of the pope’s lands to force the pope to recognise the
continental system. Napoleon as an Emperor of Rome, his enemies were to be the pope’s
enemies. Rome was occupied and the pope was reduced to his proper rank and Napoleon
consolidated his power in Italy.
 Napoleon imprisoned the pope for his neutrality, took his territories. This provoked the
catholic world and at the same time he attacked Spain, a world country which care much
about catholism than commerce as represented by the continental system which Napoleon
was punishing it for refusing to partake it. The Spaniards raised the standard of resistance
against Napoleon.
 The damage was that British resources were brought on land to support Portugal and Spain.
This hardened their resistance against Napoleon and the desire to pin him down.
 The guerrillas of Spain carried out a vicious campaign against Napoleon. They handed a
steady loss of life on the French troops as the difficult terrain put his armies at a disadvantage.
Napoleon failed in Spain for various reason. He underestimated the resources needed to
conquer Spain and Portugal. Napoleon also thought he had much support in Spain. Austria
also resisted and Napoleon had to leave Spain. More to that, the British decision to leave a
small army in the pensula under the able command of Wellington strengthened Spanish and
Portuguese resistance.
 Spain controlled the rural areas and France had to guard communication lines and escort
supplies to soldiers. The French command of Junot, Massena, Marenot, Joseph etc was
divided by jealousy and this affected the French war effort. Although the French army later
rose to 353000 men, they had no military authority beyond the spot they stood. Wellington of
Britain using the guerrilla warfare drove them out of Rodrigo, Bravado, Madrid and Northern
Spain was liberated in 1813 following Wellington’s victory at Victoria. The French had been
weakened by the demands of the Moscow campaign and fresh soldiers from Portugal and
Spain. The French military pride was weakened in this long guerrilla struggle. The war was
Gadze C Page 67
both expensive and discouraging and its effects on France were beyond the enforcement of
the continental system.
 The Spanish war led to the rise of nationalism against Napoleon. The Spanish now appealed
to liberty as they saw his brother Joseph as despotism replacing despotism. The significance
of the war lies in the fact that nationalism in Spain was raised. Horrific paintings by Spanish
patriots raised the whole population to patriotic anger against Napoleon occupation of Spain.
There was general resentment against the French presence. Napoleon’s weapon of
nationalism turned against him. The local patriotic committees organised by the Clergy and
nobles together with regular soldiers who used guerrilla warfare exposed Napoleon to his
European enemies, he could be defeated
 The Spanish resistance encouraged the Austrians to take up arms in 1809 forcing Napoleon to
leave Spain to fight Austria. At the battle of Aspern France was defeated and this brought
excitement to the Austrians . The Spanish and Portuguese resistance provided Britain with a
continental space of operation against France. The continuous resistance destroyed the French
morale and resources since the army of 200 000 men had to be maintained in the pensula. It
meant more taxation and conscription in France. Napoleon lost 300 000 men, 3 billion francs,
and became unpopular back home by 1809. The pensula war was a small death to Napoleon
hence the reason it was called the Spanish ulcer. The Moscow campaign just speeded the final
crisis.
THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM, 1806
AIMS OR REASONS FOR THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM
 To make the British economy bankrupt to support the war and friends in the war.
 Economic problems will make Britain poorer due the importation of goods
 Britain’s debts will grow leading to inflation and economic collapse
 Closing trade will lead to unemployment and political unrest forcing Britain to talk with
France on France’s terms.
 France wanted to make huge profits by selling the manufactured goods to Britain.
THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM
The use of the economic war against Britain started in 1793 by the revolutionaries since they
believed British strength lied in her naval strength and this will leave France as Europe’s
industrialised country replacing Britain.
 The continental system was Napoleon’s way of dealing with Britain and it involved the
political control of Italy and Spain. Italy offered less problems but Spanish nationalism
presented a fierce problem. The Berlin decrees of November 1806 formally launched the
continental system and Britain was declared to be in a state of blockade with countries
forbidden to trade with her, her citizens subject to arrest, their property confisticated, all
goods from Britain and her colonies were to be confisticated, ships from Britain were refused
entry into continental ports.
 The British society Napoleon fought with through an economic war was subjected to stress
leading to inflation. Exports fell in 1807, early 1808 causing real hardships in Britain. This
caused savage revolutions and violence. It led to machine breaking. The French clothing
industry benefited because it now sold to the continent now that Britain was banned. The
continental system was effective between 1807-1808, 1810-1811 but failed in 1809 and 1812
 Through the Berlin Decrees, the treaty of Tilsit, the Milan decrees of 1807,saw the continental
system being enforced. Napoleon defeated Austria, Holland, Germany, states who were the
Gadze C Page 68
consumers of British goods and South America was buying elsewhere. Britain was affected
more.
 Had France been able to fully enforce the continental system, this might have forced Britain
to negotiate but France failed. The British economy remained resilient than Napoleon knew.
Her industries had grown larger during the French revolution and the demands for the British
goods corresponded with this growth.
 The continental system failed because it was not enforced consistently because France was
not able to control the continent and relied on unionist allies to enforce the continental
system. Napoleon had to use force on allies leading to conflicts. The continental system was
difficult to enforce because the world needed British goods including France and Napoleon
who wanted clothes and shoes for his army, the Dutch gin for his own use. Napoleon was a
major culprit against the Continental system as he gave licenses for importation of British
goods. Of course he benefited since the licenses were expensive and it meant more money to
Napoleon but this contributed in a big way to the failure of the continental system.
 Napoleon’s failure in Spain and Portugal opened trade routes to South America and even
countries under the control of Napoleon needed British goods.
 Napoleon was unable to control the Coastline. The smugglers had a field day. The
Continental system was a blockade, a boycott of the British goods since Napoleon lacked
naval power.
 It is true that the Continental system opened markets for the British goods, France benefited
from import substitution industrialisation but the Continental system destroyed the hope of
Europe ever cooperating with Napoleon since it caused high prices of goods causing
starvation poverty and desperation.
 In January 1807, Britain responded to the Continental system by the Order in Council which
required the neutral ships to be given a licence in a British port. Napoleon responded by the
Milan Decrees of December 1807 in which Napoleon would confisticate all the ships which
respected the British order in council. There was a commercial war between a sea power and
the land power up to November 1812 but Napoleon had less successes. As already noted,
smugglers had a field day officially through the use of custom officials and at times through
the use of arms and Napoleon’s machinery was powerless to deal with smugglers. When
Napoleon ordered smuggled goods and confisticated goods to be burnt, his officials burnt
valueless rubbish in place of valuable goods. Smuggling became an organised business to the
extent that smuggled goods were ensured against confistication.
 The British order in council starved Europe causing high prices, hardships and hatred of
Napoleon by Europe. The French ship owners and merchants suffered eg in 1807 Marseille
had 330 ships but by 1811 it had only 9. This shows the successes by Britain. This built
opposition against Napoleon from the ship owners and merchants. Napoleon lost the support
of the middle class. By 1809 the Continental system was falling apart forcing Napoleon to
give trading licences, he gave more in 1813 so as to get revenue for his wars thus evidence of
the failure of the Continental system. The middle class that had supported and benefited from
his policy blamed the Continental system for the economic depression of 1810-1811.
Napoleon became unpopular.
 The neutral ships suffered greatly. If they failed to respect the British order in council they
were seized by the British warships. If they followed the British order in council Napoleon
would seize them. Neutral ships resented Napoleon.
 Napoleon’s allies who were less industrialised but had surplus agriculture produce wanted to
export them to Britain. No amount of force by Napoleon would stop such lucrative
transactions with Britain. The world continued to search for cheap British goods. There was
Gadze C Page 69
opposition to Napoleon’s economic dictatorship in Europe. Alexander of Russia opened the

Russian ports to neutral ships. This doomed the Continental system and it led to the Moscow
campaign.
THE RISE OF NATIONALISM
 Nationalism played an important role in the rise and fall of Napoleon. He had appeared as a
liberator to the conquered lands where he abolished feudalism, brought the civil code,
reformed education, commerce. He became popular since these instilled a sense of
nationalism to the conquered people. However his domination of conquered countries, Spain,
Germany, and Italy raised discontentment. He even went on to put on throne his blood
relations. This was anti-nationalism.
 Napoleon had rearranged the map of Europe without considering nationalism. These raised
nationalist views in Germany through reforms and resistance, the Spanish ulcer, the Moscow
campaign, the unity in the fourth Coalation, reforms in Germany all show the impact of
nationalism.
REFORMS IN PRUSSIA (GERMANY)
 Hindenburg of Prussia saw the need for reforms. Reforms were to be from above than below.
This was meant to gain people's trust.It was part of the role played by nationalism in the
downfall of Napoleon alongside,the pensular war,the Moscow campaign,the dynastic policy
and the formation of the fourth coalation.
 The confederation of the Rhine was formed by Napoleon and it was against Prussia and
Austria. Previously in Germany, Austria was seen as a menace and in the Rhineland Prussia
was loved less. Napoleon was loved until such a time when he started to oppress them, he cut
them from trade, French markets, suffered from armies of occupation, had to supply fighting
men. They saw the need to unite in order to remove foreign rule.
 Revival started after the failure of Jena. It was learnt that the problem was not just a military
one but the need for national revival and the need to free the father land. Poets, philosophers
and pamph letters combined to preach nationalism. Philosophers called for a monarchy
abiding by law thus a constitutional monarchy which identified with the people. They called
upon the Germans to follow their own traditions not French ideas. A sense of nationhood was
supported by an intellectual movement of the Germany philosophy and literature which was
supported by a reading public. Patriotic songs were composed.
 The government delivered a lot of reforms. A professional army was trained and it exceeded
42 000. Barbarous discipline in the army was stopped and there was military justice in 1808.
There was career open to talent in the creation of a General staff. Thus the years of defeat
created a state and an army that could cope more effectively by the Napoleonic challenges.
There was made a national institution where all the citizens had to undergo military training
and were put under a reserve army. Improvements which were up to date were made in the
training, uniforms and weapons. These reforms were completed in 1813, well in time for the
final onslaught against Napoleon at the battle of the nations by the fourth Coalation
 Taxation was improved and treasury improved
GROWING UNPOPULARITY AND REVOLT AT HOME

 Before 1808, wars had become a business like for France. When his foreign policy was
starting to fail, it led to burdens for France as the taxes were raised, conscription raised to help
the war effort after 1808.
 At home Napoleon ruled without a constitutional liberty. Thus the public opinion became
hostile and national sentiments grew stronger.
EXHAUSTION OF FRANCE
 France was hausted in terms of human, financial and military resources
THE MOSCOW CAMPAIGN, 1812
REASONS FOR THE WAR
Gadze C Page 70
 Mutual distrust between Napoleon 1 and Alexander 1 of Russia who suspected each of the
hostile expansionist policy in the Baltic sea and the Balkans
 Napoleon’s Austrian marriage annoyed Russia. It meant Napoleon preferred Austria as an
ally.
 In 1810 Alexander introduced trade tariffs which discriminated against French goods in
favour of British goods. Napoleon was determined to use force to restore his dominance over
Russia to enforce the continental system.
 Napoleon wanted to defeat Russia in order to grow his empire and to be able to expand
further to the east
 Alexander ‘s violation of the continental system was a challenge which could not be ignored
and the Tsar had to be humiliated to make Russia submit to Napoleon
THE WAR AND EFFECTS
 The battle of Borodino was savage and costly on Napoleon who lost a quarter of his army.
The vast distances, climate, the thin population and a strong Russian nationalism were
enemies beyond the power of Napoleon The Russian forces engaged the French army in
guerrilla warfare. The scotched earth policy, cold, diseases, desertions, hunger destroyed the
grand army of Napoleon. Cold a natural ally of Russia destroyed Napoleon in the same
manner it did to Hitler years to come. It was the same enemy Britain Napoleon had left in the
west undefeated which Hitler had also failed to defeat in the battle for Britain, both choosing
to defeat Russia but unfortunately not realising the cohesion of the Russian nationalism.
Napoleon suffered his first major defeat.
 The cosmopolitan army of 675 000 men from all nations of Europe gathered in order to
overwhelm Russia by the weight of numbers collapsed under its own weight in the long
distances of Russia and nationalism . The French army was not beaten into the battle, stress,
starvation ,swallowed the military machinery which collapsed leaving behind a legacy in
history .Some argue that the army was not destroyed by snow, ice , cold but was destroyed
before the winter, 70 000 were lost on the retreat. They allege that Napoleon lost his army by
poor management, poor supply and over confidence as seen in the fact that he allowed
himself only 9 weeks to defeat Russia and return to Germany victorious
 His army had only summer clothing and enough food for 3 weeks. Many supplies proved to
be inadequate or non-existent eg no bandages for the wounded hence the defeat
The French military command had confusion, poor strategies. There was lack of fore sight
and this caused the defeat.Napoleon did not negotiate earlier to save his power
 The victorious Tsar preached to Germany the need to revolt against Napoleon. He master
minded the formation of the fourth Coalation.
The real impact was that the defeat removed the reputation that Napoleon could not be
defeated. The French morale was down. This encouraged the Germans to take up arms against
Napoleon. Therefore, the Moscow campaign was a turning point in Napoleon’s fortunes.
ENEMIES LEARNT FROM NAPOLION”S TACTICS
 Armies learnt from Napoleon fighting methods each time he fought them. Napoleon later was
defeated by his own tactics. They leant to use home grown soldiers instead of the
mercenaries. This nationalism proved to be very important where Napoleon himself was now
using a multinational army hence the value of nationalism as a weapon against him.
THE DYNASTIC POLICY
 By appointing his blood brothers on the thrones of Europe Napoleon was opposing the ideas
of the French revolution and the right to self-determination. He was anti-nationalism,one of
the major reasons for his downfall when he violated it. Joseph Bonaparte was in Naples and
later in Spain, Murat in Naples when Joseph left for Spain, Jerome Bonaparte in Westphalia,
Louis Bonaparte in Holland, Napoleon Bonaparte king of Italy, Louise Marie became the
princes of the empire, Benedetto a friend was made the king of Sweden, sisters and in laws
were given thrones as well.Blood relations were a foreign rule and despotism replacing
Gadze C Page 71
despotism.The very weapon Napoleon had used against the autocratic Monachs of Europe
now turned against him.
BETRAYAL BY TRUSTED OFFICIALS
 Talleyrand was secretly negotiating with Napoleon's enemies. He did not want Austria to be
humiliated as happened in 1805. Fouche started to work with royalists and to negotiate
secretly with Britain. They deserted Napoleon by choice after they saw the inevitability of his
fall.
FORMATION OF THE FOURTH COALITION
 It was formed in 1813 by Britain, Russia, Prussia , Austria. Napoleon faced the 4 major
powers for the first time and they were helped by Napoleon's former Marshalls Benedette and
Moreuau who advised on strategy. Napoleon was cornered at the battle of lepzig or the battle
of Nations. Paris was occupied in April 1814 to the island of Elba.
MILITARY REASONS FOR E DEFEAT OF NAPOLEON
Inspite of Napoleon as a General of genius, he could not militarily dominate Europe due to
combined military and non-military factors:
 There were changes in methods of warfare by both sides. Attacking by column was no longer
working, Napoleon restored to artillery.
 Napoleon lost most of his experienced soldiers. The young soldiers were not fully trained.
 His victories later became costly eg 30 000 lost in the battle against Austria in 1809 compared
to 500 in 1805 against the same enemy.
 At first Europe used old tactics but they later learnt from Napoleon's tactics and were able to
pin him using his own methods.
 After 1807 2/3 of Napoleon's soldiers were from multinational countries in his grand Empire.
It was at this time that Austria and Prussia replaced mercenaries with national soldiers.
 Napoleon made a mistake when he played into the hands of his enemies when he ventured
into the Spanish and Russian ventures. These battles in the effort to enforce the continental
system proved costly (NB- Look at the effects of e Spanish and Moscow Campaigns).
 Napoleon's command structure did not take his senior officers into his confidence; he did not
allow them independent action. His Marshalls only had a duty to trust and obey him. When
they were left in command they failed(look at what happened in Spain)
 The fourth coalition of 1813 destroyed him because he was not able to persuade himself that
the members of the coalition remained united.
 By 1814 Napoleon's confidence had fallen
 However credit must also go to his enemies, their reforms in the army , Prussia, Austria,
Spain for coming up with working strategies
 The desertion of Napoleon by his trusted generals to the enemy saw them selling strategies to
the enemy and this was enough to limb Napoleon off the battle field.
HOW FAR NAPOLEON RULED FRANCE BY FORCE
 He was consul for life and later emperor

 He ignored the constitution
 He controlled the press, there was police state
 No more elections, appointed and dismissed ministers
 He had control over central and local government
 Educational reforms meant to control people
 Dynastic policy was against the national aspirations
 The concordat show e desire to control
 NB - give all the dictatorial means by Napoleon
 NB- also see and justify his dictatorship
 NB- also see his other constructive works in home reforms and foreign policy that justify his
rule.
Gadze C Page 72
‘’THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM WAS THE REASON BEHIND THE COLLAPSE OF

NAPOLEONIC EMPIRE’’ DO YOU AGREE ?
 The continental system partly explain the collapse of the Napoleonic system and empire
because it soured relations between Napoleon and his allies, conquered territories but other
factors occurring after 1812 after the continental system was abandoned also explain
Napoleon’s fall more accurately on his European empire.
 Through the continental system’s Milan and Berlin Decrees of 1806 and 1807, his allies
Prussia and Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Austria were compelled to enforce the
continental system yet Napoleon had little ability to enforce it yet the British commerce was
more resilient. The Continental system had many negative effects on France and Napoleon’s
empire hence the reason why Napoleon invaded Portugal and Spain after 1808 and Russia in
1812. Napoleon failures in these major campaigns were major reasons for the eventual fall.
While there is a link between the Continental system and these campaigns but the link is
indirect. Thus the Spanish ulcer and the Moscow campaign directly led to Napoleon’s
downfall. ( NB- discus the effects of these )
 Reforms in Prussia produced a state which was militarily prepared to turn the tide against
Napoleon at the battle of Nations. (NB- give the importance of the reforms in Prussia)
 The fourth Coalation was effective. (NB-give the details]
PROVOCATIVE, MILLITARISTICS AND DIPLOMATIC

 Napoleon was not militaristic, provocative and aggressive when he dealt with Britain at the
Amiens , the battle to Trafalgar. He fought the battle to defend the treaty of Amiens where
Napoleon, was supposed to leave Egypt and Britain would leave Ceylon, Trinidad, Malta.
Britain only left Malta
 Napoleon used diplomacy at Comp Formio negotiations and got Austria, Belgium , Northern
Italy and he gave Austria Venice , Adriatic . There is diplomatic since Napoleon gave his
enemies small states in order to appease them.
 The Milan and Berlin Decrees for the Continental system was not aggression since Napoleon
was protecting the French industries from foreign competition. He was being defencive but
however aggression is seen in his confistication of goods of Britain. Extreme measures in the
blocking of neutral countries was provocation. He attacked Spain, Portugal Russia so as to
enforce the continental system shows he was aggressive.
 Napoleon’s imprisonment of the pope was provocation. He was now undoing his diplomacy
where he had previously won over Italians by use of appealing ideas of the revolution.
Militarism is seen in his failure to tolerate the neutrality of the pope, imprisoning him, took
over large territories, deported him. This was provocation to Italy and the catholic world.
 Napoleon domination of Europe militarily from Spain in the west to St Petersburg in the East
from Denmark in the North to Naples in the South shows he was militaristic.
 Napoleon’s creation of the Grand Duchy of War Saw was a threat to Russian interest in the
Balkans and the Mediterranean sea. He was provocative.
 The dynastic policy shows how much he was provocative CNB- illustrate the dynastic policy
and show its effects eg in Spain.
 The Moscow campaign shows how much Napoleon was provocative to Russia. He wanted to
teach Russia a lesson.
Gadze C Page 73
 Nap formed Poland out of the territories of Austria and Russia. This worried Russia which
had polish subjects. Nap was provocative.
 Diplomacy is seen when he took advantage of the mistrust that existed among the European
powers eg Britain and Russia over the Mediterranean sea, Austria and Russia over the control
of Germany. Diplomacy seen in that he avoided general congressed and talked to countries
separately.
 Marriage alliances eg with Russia and Austria shows diplomacy.
 He was defensive from the first to the fourth Coalation which defeated him where Britain was
behind these coalitions. Thus Britain was so undiplomatic.
WHY DID NAP CREATE AN EMPIRE AND WITH WHAT EFFECTS
 He wanted to protect the French territories and the ideas of the French revolution
 He wanted to export European countries the ideas of the French revolution eg civil code,
concordat , taxation systems or other benefits
 He wanted to ensure the end of old regimes
 He was driven by personal glory where he wanted to dominate like Peter the Great
 He wanted his foreign empire subjects to be tied to the,social,legal control of France so that
they will provide France with fighting men ,raw materials ,markets, act as buffer zones to
protect French territories
 His foreign empire had to pay for the war indemnities, rennovations ,tribute for defeat and
had to have to finance Napoleon ‘s costly wars –from 1806 Italy paid an annual tribute of one
and half million to the French treasury and lot of money for the French ship building
programmes and half million from Italy used to guard the Russian coastline as he enforced the
continental system Italy had to maintain an army of 55 000 men for the wars outside Italy
 Satellite states provided Naples dynastic policy (NB-illustrate the dynastic policy) .
 In Poland , gifts alone were too much to the extent that Poland lost potential revenue
from its people amounting to about 1\5 and this led to bankruptcy
 All the satellites had to trade with France only and Italy become a dumping ground of
the French goods of all kinds at high prices
The Effects Were : the resentment of Napoleon’s policies and Napoleon ‘s fall due to the
effects of :the continental system , dynastic policy ,pensula war , Moscow campaign,
nationalism , Germany reforms , formation of the fourth coalation where the major powers
Britain , Austria ,Russia,Prussia for the first time united against Napoleon(NB-elaborate on
these above events and their effects .
NAPOLEON AS A SOLDIER HATRED OF DISORDER
 Emphasis in education was on military education so as to produce loyal citizens . The

study of social sciences was forbidden as it equipped students with critical minds
against the government . Education was free to all the classes so as to appease the
peasants etc NBA- look at other progressive works
 Religions reforms were designed to avert lawless and discontent – The church was
brought under state control to monitor its activities . Freedom of worship was given
NB –look at other positive progressive works and see the negative side or effects
 Taxes were centralised etc
Gadze C Page 74
 Laws were codified to bring order . NB look at the positive progressive works of
code Napoleon but also see retrogressive aspects
 Use of spices , control of the media , police state , lettre decatchet to create order and
discipline NB- Look at the negative aspects
 NB- look at progressive work by Napoleon in his domestic reforms, they show order and
hatred of disorder . Negative aspects which were retrogressive show disorder
THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT OF 1815
-It was a meeting of royalities and diplomatists for the reconstruction of Europe.It was chaired by
Matternich of Austria who was the chief planner of most of the congresses who also wanted a restored
peace under Austrian dominance.After the defeat of France,Talleyrand convinced the great powers
Austria,Prussia,Britain,Russia that Napoleon was responsible for the war not France.
-Alexander of Russia was both liberal and authoritarian,Castlereagh of Britain believed in the
restoration of the balance of power,no single power will be stronger than the others
AIMS OF THE TREATY
-To settle the affairs of Europe –To return to the pre-Napoleon position
-Restoration of the legitimate rulers –To reward the opponents of France and punish her allies
-To establish a ring of strong states around France and these buffer states around France would be
for the world peace
-To secure a permanent peace by discouraging revolutionary movements in Europe
PROBLEMS FACING PEACE MAKERS
-A major problem facing peace makers was the chaos caused by the 22 years of war and the
overthrow of regimes and boundaries since 1792 when the French revolutionaries started the war and
worse still, with the pronouncement of the start of the Napoleonic wars in 1805 and this affected the
map of Europe.The boundaries of Austria,Prussia,small Germany states were seriouslyaffected.Italy
had seriously undergone changes.Some states were made part of France yet some were grouped
together to form Republics and kingdoms Poland under Napoleon 1 became the Grand Duchy of
Warsaw with its rulers and people under the rule of Napoleon their new master.The Bourbons were
removed from power by Napoleon who put into throne his generals eg Murat and Beradotte the rulers
of Naples and Sweden respectively,thus peace makers in 1815 had to deal with tough decisions on
boundaries and rulers of states
-The other problem was how to prevent France from disturbing the peace of Europe in future given
that states boardering France were weak,small to resist French armies but the solution was reached by
creating buffer zones around France as shall be seen in the principle of containment.
-The great powers had to settle the problem of Germany states where there were conflicting interests
between Austria and Prussia over the Germany states especially after 1813.Napoleon himself had
created in Germany the confederation of the Rhineland which replaced the Holy Roman Empire
which was Austrian dominated .More serious problem between Austria and Prussia was over the
future of Poland with Alexander 1 of Russia proposing for the creation of a larger independent
Gadze C Page 75
political block with him as the king and this will replace Napoleon ‘s Grand Duchy of
Warsaw.Russia’s plan was rejected by the other powers on the basis that Poland wil not be
independent but a Russian satellite state.
-The issue of Poland had serious problems on the European balance of power and the Germany
balance of power because Prussia wanted Saxony which was a Germany state as compernsation for
the Polish territory she lost.
-The treatment of France became a problem after the return of Napoleon but when Napoleon
left,Britain convinced other powers that leniency to France was good for the survival of the Bourbon
Monarchy,stability in France and Europe as a whole.However,with Napoleon successfully returning
in 1815,countries nolonger took Britain’s advice seriously with Russia and Austria demanding more
sanctions against France and Prussia demanding more sanctions by removing France from the major
powers.
-Public opinion was a problem emanating from liberty,equality ideas as given by Napoleon,the code
Napoleon and effects,oppression by Napoleon had made the occupied territories more patriotic and
nationalistic yet this could not be accommodated by the big powers who felt they would poison
peace and stability hence the reason why they put forward their own interests ignoring the realities
of nationalism and liberalism.
THE PRINCIPLES OF VIENNA
1.THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMACEY AND RESTORATION
-For the purpose of the victory was to restore social and political framework that had been determined
to re-establish the old legitimate governments of Europe.It was the view that countries or states had
one family directly instrusted by the power by God.To Metternich,the hereditary Monarchism was
desirable not because it was the will of God but because it offered the hope of continuity and stability
in human affairs.Thomson says that the Monarchy was at this time to most people the most natural
form of government in the world.Legitimate rulers were restored in France through Louis XVIII,the
Papal states for the Pope,Moderna,Tuscany and Parma were restored.Ferdinand 1 was against French
revolutionary ideas and would suppress nationalism and liberalism.The traditions of dynastic
absolutism was deep rooted and tested and it had survived the French revolution and even shined
more after the defeat of Napoleon.The basic idea of the Monach was the idea that hereditary right
gave the best title to political power and will earn loyality from the subjects.Loyalitybto the
Monarchy was seen as the best possible kind of political cement and social cohesion because it was
considered by people as the best and natural government.The traditions of dynastic Monarch that even
Napoleon took care to merry into the greatest of the world old dynasties that is the Harbsburg . He
was not opposed to Monarch as a form of government because he made his brothers ,joseph king of
Naples,Louis king of Holland,Jerome king of Westphalia.The Hereditary absolute Monarchs were of
Russia,Prussia,Austria,Britain had not been disturbed by Napoleon.The defeat of Napoleon was
victory for nationalism.
-However,the principle of legitimacy was not automatically applied to the Germany states.They were
not restored in Western Germany,Poland,Saxony,Norway,Austrian Netherlands and Northern
Italy.The Venetian and Genoa Republic was not restored since they hated Republicans.It passed into
the hands of Austria.The Holy Roman Empire which was destroyed by Napoleon was not restored.
2.THE PRINCIPLE OF REWARDING ALLIES
Gadze C Page 76
-Victors had suffered material and human losses and wanted territories for compernsation and for
strategic and national interests.Allies had to be compernsated for territories lost to Napoleon and the
French revolution.Other territorial adjustments were made to satisfy the ambitions of certain allies in
order to bind them more to the Vienna Settlement.The most important was the one concerning Poland
and Saxony which at some point threatened Europe with war.Russia negotiated with a
sword .Finally,40 percent of Saxony was transferred to Prussia to further strengthen the position of
Germany .She also got the Rhineland,Genoa,part of Saxony.Poland became part of the kingdom under
the leadership of Russia.Poland got Finland from Sweden
-Territories in Germany were shared out of the sphere of influence between Austria and Prussia.In
Italy Austria got Lombardy,Venetia,Dalmatia.Norway was transferred from Denmark to
Sweden.Britain got the lsland of Tobago in the West lndies,Ceylon,Cape of good
Hope,Mauritius,Malta,lsland of Heligoland.Switzerland was to be neutral.
3.THE PRICIPLE OF CONTAINMENT
-The allies wanted to check French aggression by putting barriers around her.The creation of strong
barriers around France was caused by the fear of French aggression.The barrier states had to act as
shock absorbers.A new United Kingdom of Netherlands under the House of Orange later to become
Belgium was created to make a buffer state in the north of France.Revolutionary armies had been
successful there.The Italian boarder state of Sardinia was strengthened by the addition of Nice and
Savoy taken from France and Genoa to the east.A great confederation of the 39 states was formed to
replace the Holy Roman Empire.This Germany confederation was under Austrian control to protect
the from French expansion.Some states in the Rhineland were also created under the control of
Prussia since Austria had left the Rhineland.Prussia strengthened these states against the French
aggression.
-Piedmont was atrengthened by being given Genoa in Northern Italy to guard the north of
France.Lombardy and Venetia were given to Austria to act as buffer zones against French
aggression.However,the French aggression was used as an excuse,an exaggerated estimate of French
ability to once more disrupt the peace of Europe
4.THE PRINCIPLE OF BALANCE OF POWER
-It was the desire of Castlreagh to ensure that no one power became too powerful to dominate the
whole world to disturb the balance of power.Britain wanted to dominate Europe
economically ,Austria wanted to dominate Central Europe,Russia wanted to control Poland.It was
difficult to achieve the balance of power in territory,population and resources.This was worsened by
the fact that it was a balance of power concerning the big powers only not small powers.It was not
easy to achieve because of the self interests of big powers.The congress aimed to divide among the
great powers certain disputed territories in a way accepted by all.
-Russia demanded the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and parts of Poland.Prussia agreed to this provided
she would get the whole kingdom of Saxony.Austria,Britain,France wanted to go to war against
Prussia and Russia over this issue but the problem was later solved with Russia getting most of the
Dutchy of Warsaw and Prussia getting Danzig,Posen,Kingdom of Saxony,Pomerania,territories of the
Rhine.Austria got Lombardy,Venetia in Italy,Sweden got Norway from Denmark after she abandoned
the Netherlands.In Germany,39 states were formed into the Germany Confederation.British gains
were in the colonial fields,the Cape,Ceylon,West Indies,Heligoland,Malta. When there was danger of
the balance of power not being achieved,alliances were formed to redress the balance of power.Thus
Gadze C Page 77
the idea of the balance of power was much alive at Vienna for the states to co-exist peacefully despite
the differences.
-Metternich and Castlreagh were anxious to limit the Russian power in the Balkans to prevent her
from breaking up the Turkish Empire.However,to achieve the balance of power in Europe,a
compromise had been reached over Poland and Saxony which ensured that no single power
dominated eastern Europe.
-Austria gained Lombardy and Venetia and dominated Italy .In Germany Austria gained territories in
the South and Prussia the north.The 4 great powers emerged from the congress stronger than before
with no power completely in dominance.Thus through the Quardruple Alliance of 1815,the great
powers agreed to defend the balance of power which they had created.The Holy Alliance was also
meant peace in the artimosphere of brotherhood brought about by the balance of power.At Aix-la-
Chapelle,Russian activities in the Medeterrenian sea under the banner of punishing Barbary pirates
was resisted by Britain since it was suspected to be ploy to disturb the balance of power.
-Austrian and Russian interventions in suppressing revolts eg in South American colonies was seen by
Britain as an attempt to extend their influence thereby upsetting the balance of power.The same is
true of the Greek revolts of 1821 and Russian interests of intervening of behalf of the Christian
Greeks against Moslem Turkey.This was seen by Britain and Austria as a Russian attempt to try to
spread her influence in the Medeterrenian sea and disturb the balance of power
FAILURE OF THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT
-It has been argued as a total failure because it underestimated the power of nationalism and
liberalism.Public opinion was disregarded ,national feelings despised as countries were being
transferred from one prince to the other without consideration for the wishes and habits.Some
scholars argue that power and dynastic convenience was given priority over national and economic
interests.The Vienna Settlement was a conservative settlement framed by Monarchs and diplomats of
the old order to deal with early 19th century problems through the use of the 18th century iideas.Thus
because of this reason,the settlement of Vienna only had limited applicability in the fast moving world
of the 19th century.Nations and people were bundled as if they were goods .They were used to
compernsate other states or to form barrier states eg the people of
Norway ,Belgium,Serbia,Finland,Italy were put under foreign governments which they hated.If the
primary aim of the Vienna settlement was to achieve unity,then the settlement failed.It is important to
note that Britain never accepted the validity of conservatism of the Russian or Austrian variety.
-The Vienna settlement had sought to guarantee political stability and to promote France with a
regime that would heal the wouds of the revolution.However,the restoration of the Bourbons was a
substandard compromise which was subjected to the most severe strains between 1815-1830.The
government of Louis XVIII proved to be very unreliable and probably reluctant to prevent an
epidemic of counter revolutionary vengeance.
-The revolutionary character of 1815 settlement contrasted with the democratic and progressive sprit
of the Versailles treaty of 1919.The 1815 dynasties crumbled to dustbin in 1919 and were replaced by
the world safe for democracy and the self determination of the peoples.The principle of legitimacy
was selectively applied and ignored in western Germany,Poland,Saxony,Norway,Austrian
Netherlands,Northern Italy,Venetian Republic.People were not given the choice to consider leaders in
Spain,Naples,Italy etc no winder that there were various revolutions in Spain,Naples,Italy as people
werefighting for their independence and rights.The 1815-1848 period has been referred to as the
Gadze C Page 78
period of revolutions as the Vienna settlement had failed to re-establish order within states because of
the return of the discredited dynasties in Spain,ltaly,Germany using the principle of legitimacy and
this provoked revolutions due to their dictatorship.
-The major powers did not see the need to revise the settlement in future and its revision was only by
force eg Britain used force and this led to the independence of Belgium,Holland,Poland became a
nation in 1919
-The Congress did not settle the question of maritime rights or deal with the eastern question on the
question of the future of the Spanish America.
-Making the principle of legitimacy the basis for the internal governance of states was wrong since
this was only workable on the assumption of a fairly uniform pattern of monarchism who were like
minded.The Vienna Settlement never captured the sympathy of European public opinion because the
settlement did not represent small powers and their views.Decisions were made by the big 5 to take
the land small countries.This was too much a cost for the small powers to pay for international
stability at the expense of the wishes of the people.
-However,the Vienna settlement had its achievements.It was not an ought right failure .The balance of
power was some how created since no one power had the kind of supremacy that France had enjoyed
by 1812.The balance of power as observed by TA Morris proved to be greatest achievement of the
Vienna settlement and the most prominent diplomatic feature until 1848.It would be wrong for one to
blame the makers of the peace at Vienna for the failure to appreciate the power of nationalism and
liberalism.The statesmen were not only bound by agreement which was made previously among
themselves but more by the need to reap some compromise between the conflicting political interests
of the major participants.
-Modern scholars are of the opinion that the Vienna settlement was right to ignore nationalism and
liberalism because they were still in their infant stage .More so,the powers at Vienna did not see
anything wrong with foreign rule since it had been common throughtout history.They did not see the
strength of the rising force of nationalism,the aggressive nationalism that had recently been seen from
France seemed to be a threat to European civilisation and therefore a danger that must be nipped in
the bud.They restored the old order regimes and sought to strengthen by territorial gains the powers
most likely to keep France in check.
-Modern scholars have given credit to the Vienna Settlement for the absence of a major war in Europe
until 1854 with the outbreak of the Crimian war.The disregard of liberalism and nationalism did not
cause war but war was prevented because the Vienna Settlement did not cause any major injustice to
any of them,not even the defeated.Peace makers were of the old order and did not want these new
Napoleonic ideas but preferred to keep stability by use of the old order methods which they knew
better.
-The abolishment of slave trade was the most interesting the Vienna settlement had to consider .In
1815,slave trade was condemned as inconsistent with civilisation and human rights .On the navigation
of major rivers ,the code was drawn up which defined the condition of rivers intersecting into more
states.The rivers were supposed to be used by all states.
-It led to the better understanding between the great powers and this tended to promote peace in
Europe at least for 40 years leading to the development of Europe.Also,the Vienna settlement led to
Gadze C Page 79
the germination of future organisations such as the league of Nations ,the United Nations..More to
that ,the French commercial wealth remained untouched although she was a guilt part.
-Powers represented the old order but they represented the best and not the worst of the old order.A
new Germany was created although it came to be seen as against nationalism.Monarchism was deep
rooted as giving the best title to political power and earning loyality from the subjects for political and
social cement.
-One of the noticeable achievements of the Vienna settlement was its ability to contain the threat of a
possible revival of French power by creating buffer zones around France as one way of strengethening
defencive arrangements around her boarders .Beligium and Holland were joined into the kingdom of
the Netherlands while the Austrian troops were stationed in ltalian states of Lombardy and Venetia,all
this was an effort against French aggression.France had to pay a war indemnity ,had to be occupied by
a Europen force and this weakened her and she was nuetralised
-The statesmen cannot be blamed for the internal revolts witnessed between 1815 and 1848 attributed
to their ignoring of liberalism because nationalism was a small affair for the middle class only with
the majority peasants for freedom ,peace and independence and they had to be protected from the
French aggression.
-The Vienna settlement was not dictated settlement like the diktat of the Versailles treaty which
created the legacy of deeply felt resentment that undermined European stability for two
decades .Onthe contrary ,the Vienna settlement attempted international cooperation in the form of the
congress system although this was not very successful but the balance of power was successful.The
Napoleonic dictatorship was never reproduced in in Europe .Russsia’s efforts to dominate eastern
Europe were checked and stopped .This different from what happened after 1945 with the fall of Nazi
Germany in Eastern Europe,Stalin and the Communist Russia simply took over.
“A CONFERENCE OF PROPERTY TRANSFERE, A RECIPE FOR FUTURE INSTABILITY”
-The sharing of territories among the big powers as these territories among the big powers as these
territories were transferred from one territory to the other to create the balance of power by sacrificing
small voiceless nations .
-The Holy Alliance was an attempt to justify universal interference by despotic regimes in the internal
affairs of small states,a recipe for future instability.The Holy Aliiance , a front against the revolution
but Russia and Austria,members of the alliance had differences in the Balkans.
-Revolts in oppressed states leading eg a constitution in Spain,Germany students rising against

Metternich,colonies of Spain and Portugal set up their independent governments.Russia against the
1812 constitution but Britain saw this as an internal issue to Spain.To protect their conference,powers
agreed to use peaceful means and arms to restore the status.By 1823,there was disintergration of the
Vienna settlement due to the growing rift between the forces of conservatism and change and the
conference of property transfere could not be sustained and use of force was resisted by Britain.
-To maintain their property,there was need for consensus but with the coming of the less committed
Cunning,continental obligations against liberalism were not possible.Whe it came to interventions in
Italy,Spain,Spanish colonies ,Greece,Britain withdrew in disagreement to intervention.
-It was a recipe for disaster because small powers were not consulted and they did not approave
territorial settlements .The congress system became a league of despots under Alexander and
Gadze C Page 80
Metternich to suppress liberty and put down popular movements and oppressed people responded by
revolting eg in Naoles,Greece,Portugal,Spain and this caused instability.
-It was a recipe for disaster in that it ignored nationalism and liberalism with countries transferred
from one prince to the other without any consideration to the wishes of the people.It was formed by
Monarchs and diplomatists of the old order to deal with the 19 th century problems through the use of
the 18th century ideas.It therefore had limited applicability in the fast moving world of the 19 th
century.
-Nations and people were bundled as if they were goods to compernsate other states or form barrier
states eg the people of Norway,Belgium were put under Holland ,Serbia,Finland under Russia,ltalians
under Austria as properties of these countries.
-The confrence failed to achieve unity among governments hence instability.The Bourbons failed to
live up to the expectations and was subjected to stress between 1815 and 1830.The Vienna settlement
was reactionary and contrasted with the progressive and democratic sprit of the Versailles treaty of
1919 where old empires collapsed and were replaced by the world of the self determination of the
people.
-However,the balance of power was created,nationalism was still in its infancy stage,foreign rule was
still acceptable,peace was kept for 40 years,slavery stopped,use of international rivers by all NB-
Include other constructive works of the Vienna settlement.
THE VIENNA SETTLEMENT ,AN ISTRUMENT TO SUPPRESS THE WEAK BY THE STRONG
-Weak countries include Spain,Belgium,ltaly which were sacrificed for the international good to
prevent the outbreak of another war,keep the balance of power,to ensure end of French aggression ,to
maintain the principle of legitimacy.Balance of power maintainedby resisting Russian ambitions in
Eastern Europe by Britain and Austria.The stronger powers were Britain,Russia,Austria,Prussia
-The 1815 settlement had noble goals than oppressing the weak.France had been defeated and weak
but was readmitted to the congress system with her economic wealth undisturbed with a restored
ruler who accepted a constitution .A new Germany was created although it came to be seen as anti
nationalism
-The navigation of major international rivers ,condemning slave trade,recognition of the rights of the
jews
-System of monarchism was generally generally favoured and seen as God given
-led to the germination of international organisations like the league of nations and the Unite Nations.
-Nationalism and liberalism had to be ignored because they were linked to Napoleon and were yet to
grow and after all,Napoleon had been defeated and therefore these needed to be defeated.
-Foreign rule was common in history and the powers saw nothing wrong with this.
-Violent expression of small nations was a product of the aggressive nationalism of the French type,it
was to them a threat to civilisation of Europe and therefore a danger to be contained.
-The absence of war for 40 years was because there was no injustice to any of the big powers,not even
the defeated France.
Gadze C Page 81
-However small powers were sacrificed for the general good of Europe.The principle of legitimacy
was made the basis of international government yet there was no uniform pattern of monarchism and
like minded monarchs.
-It underestimated the power of nationalism as territories such as Norway,Belgium,Finland were used
as pawns in the calculations of the peace makers regardless of the wishes of their
inhabitants.Belgium was joined to Holland ,Norway to Sweden and Venetia to Lombardy under
Austria hence the Belgians breaking away from Holland in 1830.Historical tradition was ignored
when Genoa was handed over to Sardinia and Venetia to Austria unwillingly.
-The issue of religion was ignored when the Catholic Belgium was added to the Protestent Holland
hence the enemity.The Catholics of the Rhine were brought under Prussia ,those of the Grand Duchy
of warsaw becoming Russian subjects.
-The Vienna settlement never captured the sympathy of Europen public opinion since small countries
were not represented,all decisions were made by the big 5 hence the revolts by the oppressed people
against the despotic interference justified by the Holy Alliance.
-Territorial settlements of the Vienna settlements were not apporoaved by the small countries,no
wonder why there were revolts against the congress system with the congress system suppressing the
liberties of the people whose lands they had taken.
WAS THE VIENNA CONGRESS SHAPED BY REACTION AND CONSERVATISM?
-It was shaped by the desire to achieve peace on one hand and conservatism on the other
hand.Delegates such Metternich ,Alexander,Hindernburg wanted to preserve their positions against
nationalism hence the principle of legitimacy,balance of power,barriers around
France,compernsation(NB-Discuss those principles) It was due to their conservatism that states such
as Belgium,Luxembourg,Genoa,Savoy,Nice,Holland did not get their independence .These small
states were sacrificed to serve the interests of reactionary conservative great powers who wanted
Europe to remain monarchical.Metternich hated liberalism and nationalism for it was a threat to the
Austrian Empire which was multi-national.
-However, they also aimed to achieve peace.Forces of liberalism and nationalism were seen as a threat
to peace
THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
-It was a gathering of Europeans to harmonise conflicting interests of great powers in the interest of
Europe as a whole.Its effectiveness depended on the willingness of the big 5 to show restraint in the
pursuit of their individual interests.Without this,it would be difficult for this international government
to to achieve consensus on important issues.
-The aim was to achieve and prolong great power alliance after defeating Napoleon.It was a benefit
seen by Castlereagh on the benefits to be expected from the habits of confidential intercourse
established by the 4th coalation against Napoleon.The powers had to keep on consulting each other in
the form congresses attended by the major powers.
-According to LCB Seaman,there was no congress system .The congress system according to him was
the imagination and creation by historians .There was no real system but meetings and conferences
held by the major powers.
Gadze C Page 82
-After the defeat of Napoleon,international relations returned to their normal course of mutual
suspicion and competition.Although Britain and Austria worked together to contain France and
control Russia between 1815-1819 but theis working relationship broke over disagreements about the
purpose of the alliance.Austria latwer got support from Russia and Prussia in the policy of resistence
to revolutionaries in Europe.The main obstacle to the successful working of the congress system was
the lack of consensus on the appropriate action to take on rising situations.Worse still,Metternich was
trying to dominate the congress system although Castlereagh had been seen as the father of the
congress system
ORIGINS OF THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
-In 1814,allies had agreed to remain in alliance for the next 20 years in order to maintain the territorial
and political settlement to be reached as soon as Napoleon was defeated.The allies wanted to prevent
the domination of the world by one power.They had defeated Napoleon in unity and felt it was
important to stay in unity as a concert of Europe.
AIMS OF THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
-To preserve political divisions of Europe into dynastic states but at the same time find means of
settling disputes among themselves.
-Concerted action among the largest powers of the continent
-To preserve peace in Europe
QUARDRUPLE ALLIANCE,NOVEMBER 1815
-I t wqs signed by Russia,Austria,Prussia,Britain and the powers agreed that power must be put
behind the Vienna settlement if it was to be preserved .They pledged themselves to maintain it by
force for the period of 20 years.
-The powers agreed on a periodic meetings of their representatives in the concert of Europe to keep
peace in Europe.However,peace was difficult to maintain in Europe in the absence of an international
government and disturbed nationalities.
-From the onset,Castlereagh made it clear that ,while she joined the alliance,but she could not
intervene into the internal affairs of other states hence her refusal to intervene in France in favour of
Louis XVIII.Thus the congress system was doomed because many people were against foreign
rule .The difference of opinion between Britain and friends was to become the reason for the British
withdrawal from the congress system and its eventual collapse years later.The congress system was
bound to fail because it saw democracy and nationalism as wicked.Britain’s refusal to intervene
inother states meant that the principle of legitimacy could not be fully enforced.The Quardruple
alliance served the interests Austria,Prussia and Russia.Despite the fact that France was readmitted,an
army of occupation withdrawn,the other great powers still strengthened their ties against France in the
Quardruple alliance.
THE HOLY ALLIANCE
It was proposed by Alexander 1 and it talke of brotherhood by all European countries in a Christian
family.Some politicians regard it as a vague document.It is uncertain whether the congress was
system was authorised to act in the name of Europe on the basis of high standing moral principles of
Gadze C Page 83
the Holy Alliance.It was this uncertainty that created major problems for the working consensus of the
congress.They were looking at themselves as mere;y delegated by providence to protect peace and
justice and to treat their subjects in light of Christian religion.
-However,Alexander was trying to dominate Europe through the mask of Christian values after lavish
praises bestored on him as a white angel who defeated Napoleon a black angel and therefore his mind
might not have been stable.The Holy Alliance was an attempt to try to justify universal interference
by despotic regimes into the internal affairs of small nations and it was a front against revolutionaries.
-It is important to note that the Holy Alliance was there to preserve peace in Europe as long as it kept
the signatories Austria,Prussia,Russia together.The alliance helped to prevent Prussia ,Austria from
fighting against Russia in the Crimian war and this helped keep out the war out of the Crimea where
nothing vital could be destroyed.Thus to preserve peace,the 3 had to find common interests and it was
provided by the Holy Alliance.The Holy Alliance was the fear of the revolutionaries which was real to
all the 3 powers hence the reason why it created a bond .To the European liberals,the Holy Alliance
was a front of despots against the liberties of mankind.Thus the Holy Alliance served the interests of
Russia,Prussia,Austria through the policy of intervention,principle of legitimacy,ignoring the
principle of nationality by these autocratic powers.They were afraid that if revolutions were allowed
to spread , they would affect monarchs and their absolute power since they had learnt a lesson from
Louis XVI of France,so revolutionaries in Europe had to be attacked.Thus the Holy Alliance removed
the chances of revolutions ever happening against Austria,Russia,Prussia.The Holy Allliance served
their interests.If nationality was not ignored,empires such as Austria made up of many races could
have declined.Thus this was kept until the end of the congress system it it favoured the interests of the
Holy alliance than anything else.
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE 1818
-It was called to deal with the withdrawal of foreign troops from France and its admission into the
family of big powers.Other powers secretely renewed the Quardruple Alliance against France in case
she becomes militaristic again
-Alexander wanted an alliance against revolutionaries in the Spanish colonies but Britain opposed and
Austria did the same fearing Russian expansion in Western Europe.Britain was against the army being
stationed in Beligium to suppress revolts.Metternich wanted the support of France in opposing the
popular movements wherever they showed themselves in Europe.
-It was agreed that the Jews needed to be protected in Europe,removal of the Swedish debts to
Denmark.However,powers could not agree on a joint Barbary pirates because of fear of the Russian
naval vessels in the Mediterenian sea
-The states had contrasting policies eg Alexander wished to send troops to help the king of Spain to
suppress rebel subjects but Britain opposed such interventions into the internal affairs of other
countries.Thus ,the AIX-LA-Chapelle served the interests of Prussia,Austria,Russia through its vow
to suppress revolts.It also served the interests of France by removing an army of
occupation.However,Russia’s wishes to combat the Barbary pirates in the Medeterenian sea were
thwarted on the grounds that Russia was seen as seeking expansion in the name of combating Barbary
pirates and slave trade
THE CONGRESS OF TROPPAU,OCTOBER 1820
Gadze C Page 84
-It was a response to the Spanish revolts as the Spanish colonies were fighting for independence and
the 1812 constitution.There were also revolts in Portugal,Piedmont,Naples,Germany.This forced
Alexander to summon the monarchs of Europe to discuss the revolts.Britain was opposed to
interventions while Austria did not sympathise with these revolts.Britain felt the Spanish and the
people of Naples had genuine grievances.Britain also did not want to intervene in situations where her
interests were not affected.Britain and France only sent observers at Troppau and they refused to sign
the Troppau protocol.
THE TROPPAU PROTOCOL
-Although Britain opposed, Austria took a position to suppress revolts together with Russia and
Prussia in the Troppau Protocol which was an alliance to suppress revolts.Britain felt the congress
was being misused.Metternich had written warnings on the exisitence of planned revolutions giving
Germany,Spain,Portugal,France as examples.He described France as a hot bed of revolts but that was
not true.There was no sign of France as the Head Quarters of revolts as stated by Metternich.
-Revolts were caused by incompetent governments,restoration of clericals,unhappy army officers over

poor salaries,progeressive middle class and lesser nobility leading to secret societies like the
carbonary in Naples.The revolts in Piedmont,Naples,Spain were suppressed easily.The Troppau
benefited Metternich and the Holy Alliance members who agreed to deal with revolts despite the
opposition from Britain.They even signed the Troppau protocol.
CONGRESS OF LAIBACH,MAY 1821
-The main purpose was to mediate between Ferdinand of Naples and his subjects by the Great powers
after the government had refused to midify the constitution in line with France’s.The congress gave
Metternich the mandate to intervene by force in Naples and he crushed the revolts in Naples and
Piedmont.He kept a military watch in Italy.The congress of Laibach was a complete victory for
Metternich while Britain condemned the Austrian action.The British position of non interference was
not respected.
CONGRESS OF VERONA
-It was based on the Greek and Spanish question .Russia wanted to help fellow Greeks Christians,all
members of the orthodox church against the moslem Turkey.Britain and France feared this would
affect the balance of power in favour of Russia in the Medeterian sea.Disturbances continued in
Spain.In Britain Canning took over from Castlreagh and openly declared the end of the congress
system.The congress of Verona is referred to as the funeral service of the congress system as the hope
of cooperation between Britain and the continental Europe came to an end.However,the Verona
served the interests of Austria as she was given the go ahead to suppress revolts in Spain.
COLLAPSE OF THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
-The congress system of 1815-1825 was destined to be short lived because the big powers were static
in a highly dynamic continent of Europe .The principle of legitimacy,balance of power,ignoring the
principle of nationalism shows how undynamic it was .However,the big 5 were not prophets to tell the
direction events were going to take.Thus to judge that the congress system was destined to fail would
be myopic and naïve.
Gadze C Page 85
-The congressmen killed it in its infancy by turning the clock backwards in time,time will not stand
still and that the most difficult thing in the world next to getting a new idea into people’s minds,it is
difficult to get it out.The rise of popular press,intellectual advance movement and the spread of
education led to revolutions which killed and buried the congress system.It was a reasonable statemen
like arrangement which had the defect of nationalism and dynamicim.The congress system failed to
internationalise the affairs of small nations to join hands in the matters of Europe and small nations
therefore lacked cohesion and respect for the congress.It was an offence which the moral conscience
of Europe which was being shaped by liberalism and nationalism.It was based on the 18 th century
balance of power which was regularly humiliated by Alexander through his mask of liberalism which
he used to gaincontrol of small countries.
-The congress system failed because it did not have a quorum,which countries should attend.The
major powers met on ad hoc bases when they had major problems.Thus,it was not pro active.The
statesmen were enemies at peace and united when there were problems.
-Powers were bound by the Quardruple Alliance and the Holy Alliance hence the problem.Britain
was accused of failure to cooperate with her war time allies.Thomson says that the congress system
was a gathering of looters,thieves,convicts and it was inevitable that the decisions made lacked
longevity in the fast moving world of the 19th century.Castlreagh proposed a congress and like
Woodrow Wilson of America ,the brains behind the league,virtually turned down all the proposed
documents.
-The league of nations had a charter,the United Nations had a charter but the congress system was
based on two conflicting documents,one colding practical and the other warm and vague.the Holy
Alliance and the Quardruple alliance respectively.
-The congress system was an invention by the historians to explain the history between 1815-1825
and there was nothing substantial about the congress system.The congress system was formed on the
basis to prevent the French aggression.As soon as France was readmitted into the body of European
powers at Aix-la-chappele,the fear of France which had brought European powers together into
common understanding came to an end.In practice,the congress system became a union of kings in
suppression of the liberties of the people.Oppressed people responded through revolts and Britain did
not support this interference into the internal affairs of other European powers.
-Britain’s changing attitude led to the collapse of the congress system.After the war,Britain was
against continental obligations,to have a free hand and to be without alliances and commitments
which might lead to her being involved into another war.Canning who succeeded Castlereagh was
anxious to break the congress system,he lacked the parental fondness of it.Thus the British desire tom
lsolate herself from European affairs destroyed the congress system.NB-See the introduction of the
congress system as well
ACHIEVEMENTS BY THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
-Stable international order
-Reintroduction of France into the great powers family and this helped to keep France stable
-Russia was nolonder regarded as an expansionist power by being commited to the defence of the
status quo and against the spread of liberal and revolutionary ldeas.
-It was a fore runner to the league of Nations
Gadze C Page 86
WHOSE INTERESTS WERE BEST SERVED BY THE CONGRESS SYSTEM BETWEEN 1815
TO 1825?
NB-Look at all the Congresses up to Verona
-NB-All countries benefited peace for 40 years
DISCUSS THE ROLE PLAYED BY BRITAIN AND OTHER POWERS IN THE COLLAPSE OF
THE CONGRESS SYSTEM
-Russia ,Austria used the congress system as a means to suppress revolts (NB-Look at the congresses)
. Such actions invited opposition from Britain and France such that the problem of the powers
thinking in the same line was shown to be difficult hence the decline of the congress system.By
1820,it was clear the guiding force behind the congress system was nolonger there.
‘THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA FAILED BECAUSE IT ATTEMPTED TO REWIND THE CLOCK

SEVERAL YEARS BACKWARDS’ DISCUSS
-Although the Vienna Settlement had its own weaknesses but it did not outrightly fail.However,it is
true that the big 5 monarchs were attracted to the past and wanted to redraw the map of Europe which
had been tempered with by Napoleon (NB-Demonstrate using the balance of power
-The Vienna Settlement was crafted by the Monarchs and their aristocratic diplomats of the old order
who took the clock back in time as shown by the principle of legitimacy (NB-Demonstrate this using
the principle of legitimacy)
-Rewinding the clock is also seen in the new forces of liberalism and nationalism which were ignored
because they were being suspected.
-Secret diplomacy and separate agreements eg on the Saxony-Polish issue was a return to the 18 th
century diplomatic methods in which Russia and Prussia secretely agreed to support each other in
claiming Poland for Russia and Saxony for Prussia but this was discovered by Austria,Britain,France
who threatened war if the two pressed on with their demands.Aithough the two gave up,it was clear
that the monarchs slided back to the 18th century.
THE ITALIAN UNIFICATION
Division of Italy in 1815

1. The kingdom of the two Sicilies
 It was poor and cruelly ruled by the inefficient Ferdinand
2. The Papal States
Gadze C Page 87
 They were ruled by the pope and was poorly governed, no freedom of speech, torture against
those seen as modern ,poor economic development.
3. Modern, Parma and Tuscany
 They were better than the pope or Ferdinand subjects .They were governed by Austrian
Princess
4. Lombardy and Venetia
 Part of the Austrian empire .Lombardy was the most fertile province in Italy and Venetia had
Venice as its port and was the richest trading centre .It had been turned to a police state ,there
was censorship ,no freedom of opinion ,high taxes and Austria was hated
5. Piedmont
 The kingdom was ruled by Victor Emmanuel 1 who was an Italian
NB-These divisions of Italy were an effort to kill the growing forces of liberalism and
nationalism –The Vienna settlement of 1815 in Italy favoured a return to the old order
OBSTACLES TO UNIFICATION , ITALY A Geographical Expression
 Metternich of Austria was on record as saying Italy was merely a geographical expression.
Italy was faced by many problems which promoted disunity and made Italy a geographical
expression
 A number factors moulded this unsmooth experience ,tradition of localism ,geographical
position ,autocratic rule ,different schools of thought among the Italian ,the Roman catholic
question ,the presence of Austria to thwart moves for unification. Italy was standing on ‘’
jelly legs ‘’, each Italian state had its own economy which was different from the other . At
the 1815 Vienna settlement ,she was like a humble sheep led to the slaughter .She was
sacrificed to Austria so that she would act as a buffer zone to guard against the future French
aggression.
 Even after the Vienna settlement, the Italians seem too passive about their unity . They
seemed to be unmoved by the fact that the principle of nationality ,self-determination were
ignored at the Vienna Settlement.
 According to Dennis Richards, ’Italy could not be called a nation than a stack of timber could
be called a ship ‘ CA Leads quotes Metternich as saying that in Italy province was against
province town against town, families against families and men against men. Numerous
political units did not promote unity.
 Mountain ranges acted as barriers, roads were few and this hampered cooperation. Currencies
and measures and weight were different, no single state had a Parliament.All constitutions and
laws, institutions of French origin were abolished by the restored principles and this was
evidence of resistance to transformation and change.
 Rulers guided their positions jealously and could not entertain any unity which was going to
do away with their powers and privileges.
 Italy represented many myths based on the past traditions. To some, Italy stood for the
Ancient glories of the Roman empire, to some for the Mideval free city states, to some it
stood for the power of the pope
 Different schools of thought also affected unity, no wonder why Italy failed in the 1848 -1849
revolution. The period 1815 to 1848 witnessed the emergence of the different schools of
thought aiming for Italian unity but could not agree. Mazzini led the democratic Republican
idea. The papal federalists wanted a federal state under a reformed pope. The opportunity
came for the federalists but pope plus IX failed to take it up. The liberal monarchists from
Piedmont wanted Charles albert to liberalise institutions and led Italy to unification. The
Roman Catholic question also crippled unification.The Pope supported by France, had control
over the central Italy and he guarded his position in the Papal States.
Gadze C Page 88
 Austria that boasted of considerable influence in Italy after 1815 except in piedmont
hampered the aspirations to unity by Italians.
The geographical mapping of Italian states as already seen made unification difficult.
 Italy’s people were backward. It was peasant dominated and they understood little about
unification. Rural areas were not keen to take part into politics. Thus the diffusion of national
feelings was difficult.
EARLY ATTEMPTS AT UNIFICATION
 Italian secret societies called the Carbonarri emerged after 1815. They were dominated by the
upper middle class and were reformists who were fighting for sectorial interests and did not
seek to end foreign domination.
 Revolts occurred in Naples in 1820, and Ferdinand was forced to give a
constitution.However, the Austrian forces intervened and remained in Naples until 1825 and
Ferdinand abolished the constitution which he had given. The revolt spread to Piedmont in
1821 but was crushed by Austria and a new constitution which was given was withdrawn. In
1830 revolts started in Parma, Modena, Tuscany and the Papal states leading to the formation
of the provisional government and the granting of a chatter. The revolts were crushed by
Austria thus the events of the 1820s, 1830s proved that they was need for a national
movement rather than the Carbonari.
 The Italian cause has not been taken to the masses but was rather limited to the middle class.
It was therefore clear that the local un coordinated movements would not succeed against
Austria thus something greater was needed . It was the work of Mazzini that supplied that
need. The period until 1848 in Italy was a period where she was trying to free and unite
herself by her own means ‘’ Italia fare dase’ ( Italy will liberate herself ). During this period
the Italian Risorgimentos( resurrection) aroused the world wide interest
MAZZINI AND THE YOUNG ITALY
 Mazzini was the prophet of Italian unity, a full time revolutionary, an inspirational leader, a
good organiser. Garibaldi was a soldier, a Republican and Cavour was a states men who
provided the brain and diplomacy needed in the unification of Italy. The role he played in the
unification of Italy was the most important it seems
 Mazzini was considered the soul of the nation and played a vital rule in the unification.
Previously, he had joined the Carbonari and later he formed the Young Italy in 1831 in an
effort to attract more supporters. This association was on improvement of the Carbonari and
it appeared to the poor and was a national movement.
 The watch word for the ‘’Young Italy ‘’ was unity and independence. His organisation
sought to see the participation from the Italians below the age of 40.
 Mazzini was republican and the ‘’Young Italy’’ was to liberate Italy from the hated
foreigners and it would unite the state as a Republican as opposed to Cavour who was a
Monarchist.
 He believed in education and the revolution as means to achieve unity. The minds of the
Italians had to be prepared before the coming of the struggle. Greater ideas had to come
before great action. He taught his followers not to fear death when he remarked that the tree
of liberty grows stronger when watered with the blood of martyrs.He also remarked that the
dagger of the assassin grows more deadly when sharpened on the tomb stone of the martyrs.
These teachings exalted Italians and called them into action. He gave Italians a vision of Italy
Gadze C Page 89
that was to unite. His reputation did not rest much on his practical achievements but rather on
his power as a prophet.
 The young Italy was so popular and successful to such an extent that Mazzini was expelled
from Piedmont or Sardinia. His missionary work greatly fostered the desire for unity and
freedom among Italians. He encouraged Italians to fight for their independence no matter
how much they were failing.
 It is generally agreed that Mazzini was valuable in encouraging unity among Italians. He was
the first Italian to promote nationalism and to actively work towards a united Italy through
political action leading to the over throw of the foreign and native oppressors. Cavour and
Garibaldi benefited much from the nationalism which he created in the second Risorgimento.
He published Italian problems abroad and encouraged people to take the coordinated action
against foreign rule. He took the Italian cause to the masses because he knew of their
importance if Italy was to be united at all. Mazzini was a patriot, an orator and Metternich
described him as the most dangerous man in Europe who was able to encourage his
followers with revolutionary ideas. He encouraged his followers to go among the working
people and arose in them a desire for liberty. This gave an almost religious dimension to the
cause of unity and independence.
 His career as a propagandist was well received in Italy and Europe by radicals. He aroused
enthusiasm among the soldiers and statesman. He thus made a deep personal impression in
the history of mankind. He may not have achieved the unification of Italy but even those who
unified Italy had other different motives. He can reasonably claim that it was his Republican
principles which were put in action by Garibald that forced the Piedmontese government to
go beyond Piedmont domination of Italy and move for unification than Cavour would have
wished. He wrote that he had consistently acted as the spar, he worked, fought, bled for Italy
while the Cavour cabinet was consistently opposing, then reaping the results as soon as
unification was unavoidable. This shows that Cavour benefited from the works of Mazzini
 Mazzini’s ideas of revolts were used by Cavour to complement his reliance on foreign
intervention. He used radicalism in central Italy and the Papal states Thus Mazzini’s admirers
can with valid reasons claim that he was successful in implementing his political programme
in view of the truth of the time.
 Mazzini kept the flame of the Italian nationalism burning at the time of the greatest
difficulties.While it seems Cavour achieved much, but Cavour had to dirty himself in the
waters of European politics and his reputation suffered. Cavour who some feel did more than
Mazzini , he did not understand the force of nationalism . He unwillingly adopted
nationalism because he feared Mazzini and Garibaldi might monopolise Italian nationalism.
The ‘Wholly Sardinian’ Cavour who wanted other states annexed to piedmont used
nationalism created by the ‘young Italy’ to his advantage. The united Italy was erected on the
foundations Mazzini had laid but the completed building did not resemble his dream of
Republicanism. He had given the Italians ideas to a united Italy but it was left to others to
translate the ideas into reality
However ,Mazzini has been criticized for his many weakness . His Young Italy called into the
cause of Italy those who were below 40years. He thus limited Italians participation in the
national cause. Some argue that his propaganda reached few people because it was spread
secretly.
 Mazzini’s teachings led to the useless shedding of blood and as an organiser of

revolts, Mazzini was always a failure except for the short lived Roman Republic
Gadze C Page 90
 His strict Republicanism unlike the flexible Garibaldi later became an obstacle when
Piedmont’s monarchy Charles Albert appeared to be willing to lead a movement for
unification.
 He believed in “Italy and God” motto (Italy will liberate himself) and could not
accept the gift of the unification from the Emperor of France, Napoleon III or the
Russian tsar or Bismarck of Germany.While he was aware that Austria was a
stumbling block to the creation of the united Italy, he failed to note that Austria was
not going to be driven out of Italy by local revolts
 Mazzini also conflicted with the aims of Piedmont. This was a serious miscalculation
on his part as it turned out to be when Cavour sought foreign aid. France, Germany,
Russia played a crucial role in the unification of Italy. Even after the 1848 revolts he
still believed that ideas ripen quickly when nourished in the blood of the martyrs. As
a result, the Italian efforts were destroyed in the Roman republic of 1849. He could
not accept the gift of unification from the king of Piedmont although he was better
placed to lead the unification. Mazzini spent most his time encouraging failing
revolts. This sealed his otherwise good name and reputation
 Mazzini’s problem was his belief that the Republican idea should be pursued at all
costs by all means. He believed that Italy should be ruled by an elected government.
His refusal to cooperate with any king later proved to be a hindrance when victor
Emmanuel II who was democratic took over power in 1851 in Piedmont.
 Cavour saw the defects of the “Italy and God” motto. He made full use of foreign aid
and to achieve unification. Mazzini had a problem in separating what was possible
and what was impossible.
 Mazzini and the Republicans failed because of the methods they used in unifying
Italy. They chose to use revolts which were uncoordinated and lacked leadership.
They were easily dealt with by Austria in the 1820s, 1830s, 1848-1849.
 Mazzini and the Republicans lacked a standing army to face Austria. Cavour and the
monarchists were better placed in this area. They had an army but got more military
support from foreign aid which Cavour sought
 In the Piedmontese- Austrian war of 1849, the monarchist saw the need to modernise
piedmont in preparation for the task of ejecting Austria from Italy and this was done
by Cavour
THE PAPAL PARTY
 Besides the Carbonari, Mazzini and young Italy, Cavour and Garibaldi, the Papal Party had
attempted between 1815-1848 to liberate Italy. The Papal Party was influenced by the
writings of Gioberti who had suggested that the Pope should be a champion and liberator of
the country. The Pope came into office in 1846 and introduced many liberal reforms, stopping
torture, releasing political prisoners. Unfortunately the Pope Pius IX knew little about politics
and the courage required. According to the Grant and Tempely, the Pope Pius IX struck a
match to light a candle but discovered that he was in powder magazine. Thus when the 1848
revolutioncame, he withdrew from the work he had started.
THE 1848 REVOLUTION
CAUSES
Gadze C Page 91
1. When Pope Pius came into power in 1846, his releasing of political prisoners, creation of a
council of states, a council for Rome, created the citizen guard, this raised liberal hopes.
2. The economic problems of 1846-47, the natural disasters caused hunger. There was an
economic recession. Prices rose and the mass suffered.
3. Need for political reforms led to people revolting demanding liberal reforms. Generally all
over Europe people had no freedom so people went to war for freedom.
4. Hatred of foreign rule which was imposed on Italy by the Vienna settlement of 1815. They
were fighting to destroy the arrangement made at Vienna more than 30 years ago.
5. The Vienna revolution in Austria and the fall of Matternich encouraged the Italians to revolt
hoping to achieve independence.
6. Imposition of tax on tobacco in Milan, lombardy caused friction between the army and the
civilians. The civilians had no money to buy tobacco and they stopped smoking. The Austrian
army responded by blowing smoke on the faces of the civilians. Grouped by other grievances,
they decided to revolt.
THE 1848 REVOLTS
 Sicily under Ferdinand I was the first to revolt demanding a constitutional government.
Soldiers were driven out of town and the government gave reforms , released prisoners. When
Austria intervened the gains were reversed
 In lombardy revolutionaries defeated the Austrian army and drove it out
 In Tuscany, Parma ,Mordena ,there were, revolts leading to the granting of a constitution.
However, revolts were later crushed by the Austrian army.
 In Piedmont, Charles Albert did not want the services of the Republicans, Mazzini and
Garibaldi. Charles Albert wanted to expand Piedmont than create a united Italy. Piedmont
expected the Pope Pius IX to help but the Pope developed cold feet against Austria. This left
Charles Albert to be defeated alone by Austria at Custozza and lombardy came under
Austrian control but Venetia stayed out. Piedmont was also defeated at Novara forcing
Charles Albert to leave the post to his own son Victor Emmanuel II.
 The revolution in Rome where the pope had developed cold feet continued. This led to the
proclamation of the Rome republic under Mazzini who introduced reforms. With the help of
France, the Roman Republican was later destroyed. The gains of the revolutionaries were
reversed everywhere except in Piedmont where Victor Emmanuel II refused to withdraw a
liberal constitution. This gave hope to the Italians who also learnt that foreign aid was
necessary. Cavour saw this more than any body else.
REASONS FOR THE FAILURE OF THE 1848 REVOLTS
1. Charles Albert hesitated to attack Austria without Pope Pius IX. He did not want the support
of Mazzini and Garibaldi. When he delayed to attack Austria, Austria had time to organise her
forces hence the defeat of Piedmont at Navara and Custozza.
2. Austria’s military power was superior compared to Italians, so it was clear ‘’Italia fara dase’’,
was not working.
3. Italians were divided. The Republicans led by Mazzini were intolerant of the other methods of
achieving Italian unity, they had nothing in common with the Monarchists who looked to
Charles albert of Piedmont. According to Antony Wood, the Italians never deserved to
succeed, for they had remained a prey to local jalousies which even their hatred for the
Austrians did not overcome.
Gadze C Page 92
4. The Pope’s defection discouraged and surprised all those who had pinned their hopes on him
and Ferdinand of Naples using the Pope’s arugment against the revolution and war against
Austria, took the opportunity to suppress revolts in Naples.
5. The intervention of Napoleon III led to the fall of the Roman Republic
6. Italians did not see the importance of foreign aid as they believed they were their own
liberators. This became a complete failure.
7. The 1848 revolution which had taken place in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, had as was in
other countries failed in Austria. The failure in Austria liberated many soldiers to go and fight
in Italy.
LESSONS LEARNT AFTER THE 1848 FAILURES
 The 1848 revolutions indicate that the Risorgimento had progressed a great deal. Although a
failure in the short term, they were successful in long run. Napoleon’s invasion of Italy in
1796 and his rule of Italy saw the Italian patriots realising that the survival of Italy lay in
nationality. However, the 1815 Vienna settlement did not build upon Napoleon’s
contribution which was positive but instead destroyed the unification of Italy due to Austrian
presence hence the reason why Metternich described the Italian pensula as a geographical
expression, meaning there was no unity or nationhood
 However between 1815 and 1848, great strides were made towards national unity through the
role of Mazzini up to the 1848 revolutions. Italians learnt that the real enemy of Italy was
Austria and for unification to be achieved, Austria had to be defeated. They also learnt that
Austria could only be defeated by foreign military and not the discredited ‘’ Italia fara dase’’ (
NB- demonstrate how it was done and effects)
 The 1848 revolutions also revealed on the need to modernise Piedmont which was the only
Free state from Austrian occupation and prepare it for the leadership of the Italian unification
(demonstrate how it was done)
 Therefore, the 1848 revolution demonstrated that although much still needed to be done to
achieve Italian unification, the foundation had been laid. The Italians now knew what they
wanted and were prepared to fight for it . Italy was no longer a geographical expression It was
in 1815.
WHY ITALY REALISED UNIFICATION ONLY AFTER 1849
 The inffective methods used by Mazzini were removed (NB- Give more details) eg foreign
aid
 Italy got the leadership of Cavour who come up with the idea of foreign aid and modernised
piedmont in all sectors(NB- Illustrate these)
 The fall of Metternich and the Metternich system in the 1848 revolution helped Italy unify
since Austria was stumpling block.
 The decline of the Austrian economic power after 1849, saw Prussia taking over and it
favoured unification as shown by the events of 1866 to 1871
WHY PIEDMONT BECAME THE FOCAL POINT OF ITALIAN UNITY
 Piedmont enjoyed many advantages which made her play a leading role in the Italian
unification. It was the only state free of Austrian control in 1815 and it therefore became a
centre of liberal aspirations.
 Piedmont had key figures who played key roles in the unification process eg Charles Albert,
Victor Emmanuel II, Cavour NB (look at the roles played by the three giving positive and
Gadze C Page 93
negative roles eg Charles Albert gave a constitution in 1948 tried to defeat Austria but was
defeated at Custozza and Novara. Victor Emmanuel supported Risorgimento and maintained
a constitution. Cavour modernised piedmont ( discuss in detail) Cavour sought foreign aid
(discuss in detail)
 Piedmont’s economic growths including industry were greater than that of the rest of Italy.
( look at the economic reforms in details)
 Piedmont had a modern army which was to prove its worth in future wars against Russia and
Austria.(NB – look at military reforms and discuss the effectiveness of the army in the
upcoming military assignments.
WHY AUSTRIA LOST INFLUENCE IN ITALY AFTER 1848
 The Vienna settlement of 1815 brought Austria into the Italian pensula controlling Venetia ,
lombardy ,influencing leaders in Italian states such as Sicily,Parma,Mordena,Tuscany
 However , things changed after 1848 due to 1. the fall 0f Metternich and end of Austrian
influence in Italy 2. the Italians had learnt lessons from the 1848 failures eg foreign aid , need
to modernise piedmont [3] The rise of Cavour and his vision eg foreign aid and modernising
of piedmont [4] with the death of Cavour in 1861 , the process of unification had brought to
the north Parma , Moderna , Tuscanny ,Papal states , Sicily , Naples and Bismarck had to do
all for Italy after 1861
CAVOUR AND THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY
DOMESTIC POLICY OR INTERNAL REFORMS

 Cavour ‘s policy of modernising piedmont while evading any suggestion of a revolution was
a plan to the greater aim of some form of Italian independence.
 The first essential thing was the transformation of Piedmont into a modern state with
commercial and industrial prosperity
 As finance minister Cavour had initiated and concluded a string of free trade treaties with
Belgium , France, Britain, and had a dual purpose: to link with more advanced states of
western Europe and to attact into Piedmont the raw materials and machinery necessary for the
development of Piedmont.
 He floated large internal and foreign loan to pay off the war indemnity owed to the Austrians
as well as Finance the industrial projects of the government.
 By 1815, Piedmont was not yet a modern state but she had produced a number of impressive
projects to advertise her status at the head of Italian states
 Cavour was a Piedmontese who wanted to change Piedmont into a modern state through
modern infrastructural developments. It was to be linked with the world through a rail way
line and Genoa to be turned into a modern port. Of Italy’s 1798 km of railway track in 1859,
piedmont had 819km.
 1855 witnessed the production of Italy’s first stream ship, the first home produced railway
locomotives
 He signed treaties with Belgium, France, Britain linking Piedmont to the lucrative free trade
area of Western Europe. Piedmont was run on western lines though she still legged behind
Austria , France, in Europe. Cavour’s approach was economic and his hope was
infrastructural development and free trade as a Piedmontese Minister.
 New state banks were established to finance national development. He passed laws promoting
the formation of cooperative societies, new companies and banks.
 The development of Piedmont’s economy was critical, political regeneration of a nation is
never separate from its economic regeneration.
Gadze C Page 94
 He also reduced the powers of the church and subordinated it to the state through the Siccardi
laws of 1850. The church had to concentrate on preaching although this made him unpopular
with the Pope.
 Efforts were also made to modernise the army since Cavour had realised the link between the
economy and war. He argued that the army and weapons in any state depends on the state
economy.
CAVOUR’S FOREIGN POLICY
 The failure of the 1848 revolts marked the new era in the history of Italy that gave rise to the
advent of the able leaders like Cavour who is described as the architect of Italian unity
although some historians would like to label him as an opportunist.
 Cavour realised that the old maxim of ‘’ Italia fara dase’’ was not working as shown by the
1848 revolts. Cavour wanted Italy to be unified under Piedmont not Piedmont to be
submerged into a united Italy.
 Cavour realised that foreign aid was necessary if Italy was to drive Austria out. One can argue
that the decisive contribution was his realisation that the Italian cause was an international
problem hence Italy could unite by exploiting differences of great powers who had divided
her at the Vienna settlement of 1815. Foreign aid was essential to do that. He saw that the
Italian problem was not merely a problem in the domestic politics . Italy could not make
herself. Cavour however has been criticised by the radicals in that he did not unify Italy but
enlarged Piedmont. Although this is true in that the 1863 constitution gave more powers to
Piedmont with Victor Emmanuel king of Italy, Cavour the prime minster, the system of
weights and measures from Piedmont being adopted, Governors, District administrators,
senior civil servants all came from Piedmont. However this criticism has been seen as having
gone too far because it made sense to bring all Italian states under Piedmont rule since it was
modernised and strong. The fact that the Austrian rule was almost non-existent in Piedmont
shows that the state had made significant progress towards self-determination.
THE CRIMIAN WAR, 1854-1856
 Cavour was an opportunist who took part in the Crimian war on the side of the allies to
advance his cause. When the war broke out, it was fought between Russia on one hand,
Britain, France, Piedmont on the other hand. Cavour after this war hoped to bring the major
powers at Paris conference to Italy’s attention. Moreover, in the war Cavour had an
opportunity to test his army.
 At the conference Napoleon III promised to do something for Italy. Napoleon III supported
the Italian cause when he was young. He was a member of the Carbonari and had fought in its
revolts. Napoleon claimed to be a champion of Napoleonic traditions hence Napoleon III
wanted to emmulate his uncle Napoleon I. Napoleon claimed to be champion of the oppressed
people. Napoleon III also sympathised with Italy because he wanted to be adventurous in
order to gain prestige and popularity. In the civil war , Napoleon had tested fruits of
popularity which were derived from a successful war hence the intervention. The creation of a
northern Italian kingdom with the help of Napoleon III will be a diplomatic victory in Europe.
Napoleon III also wanted to gain territories for France, Suvoy and Nice. This would be the
reversal of the humiliating 1815 Congress of Vienna. More so , Napoleon III had won the
1857 elections in France. He felt free to embark on fresh adventures abroad
 Some historians have seen Cavour’s intervention as a master plan for the unification of Italy.
He realised that if Austria became an ally of the west, then it will be difficult for Italy to
Gadze C Page 95
achieve anything against Austria. The war was seen by others as a brain child of Victor
Emanuel who wanted to reassert his royal authority but the war made Cavour more confident
when dealing with Austria.
 The effects of the Crimian war were greater than the causes. The war destroyed the
partnership of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, which had existed for 40 years since the 1815
Vienna settlement. By 1856 only Austria was committed to the Vienna settlement of 1815.
Thus the Crimian war destroyed the 1815 status quo. The Piedmontese army had not fought
with distinctions in the Crimian war but Cavour at least got something for Italy, the support of
Napoleon III, the isolation of Austria, the destruction of the 1815 Vienna settlement, later the
support from Britain and Prussia.
THE TREATY OR PACT OF PLOMBIERS, 1858
 Napoleon III invited Cavour at the Plombiers and Cavour realised the opportunity it was. The
two sealed a bargain known as the Pact of Plombiers but nothing was signed.
 Napoleon III was going to supply the fighting men and the fighting will be confined to
northern Italy leaving the Pope undisturbed. Napoleon’s cousin Jerome will merry Victor
Emmanuel II’s daughter Clotilde and the two states will be linked by the old fashioned
dynastic bond of marriage. All the states were to be under the presidency of the Pope.
Napoleon will get a reward in the form of Savoy and Nice as a reward for the service given.
The above shows that Cavour was an opportunist willing to accept conditions of this kind.
His goal was not unification but the expansion of Piedmont. They never discussed the
unification. The meeting had come without Cavour planning for it and the people of Italy
praised the up coming war but Napoleon was fishing in the troubled waters of Italy
 The Pact of Plombiers were the views of Napoleon. It was a diplomatic score for Napoleon.It
produced a marriage alliance, success for Napoleon a Bonarpatist, a violation of the 1815
Vienna settlement because he was going to get Savoy and Nice, the Pope would lead the
federal Italy and the Catholics in France would be happy, Italy will not immediately be
strong to challenge France and Napoleon will be happy, he will keep Italy a client of France
as Napoleon I did
 The Plomblers did not discuss unification although it happened partly due to Napoleon and
Cavour but also happened to a greater extent in spite of the two. The Plombiers was a
substitution of Austrian with French influence through the creation of an Italian federation
 Cavour has been accused of being a French who like Napoleon III was not planning for the
unification of Italy. Cavour merely wanted to get for Piedmont as much as was possible and
mix and decide matters with international statesmen than being an apostle of Italian
nationalism. He gave away Savoy and Nice in violation of Italian nationalism.
 However, Napoleon perhaps truly wanted to be a leader of Europe delivering oppressed
nationalities. On the other hand Cavour realised Napoleon was not going to help Italy for
nothing. This method was going to make the Italian movement safe. He had realised that
Mazzini’s methods of revolts were going to make the Italian movement exposed to
destruction.
WAR WITH AUSTRIA, 1859
 Cavour was able to skilfully and diplomatically provoke a war with Austria and making her
appear the aggressor as was agreed at the pact of Plombiers. Garibaldi was called in to lead
the volunteers although he was a Republican he was willing to work under Victor Emmanuel
II.
Gadze C Page 96
 Piedmontese and the French army won battle sat Magenta and Solferino leading to the defeat
of Austria. At the peak of the successes Napoleon withdrew from the war and opted for a
peace treaty at Villafranca.
VILLAFRANCA
 If the peace treaty of Villafranca was not fair on Cavour, it was because he wanted to violate
the Plombiers agreement and Villafranca did nothing against the federal plan they had agreed
at Plombiers
 The battle of Solferino proved too costly to France and Napoleon forcing him to make peace.
This has forced some to argue that Napoleon had betrayed Cavour since Austria retained
power in Italy and a small cost to Austria was loss of Lombard to Italy. It should be noted that
Napoleon was worried Bismarck might attack France and the swift victory he had expected
against Austria as was the 19th century tradition had failed. Cavour resigned in protest. To
Napoleon III the war had been senseless in that he failed to get the prestige he had hoped for
at home. He angered the Italian patriots. In a deal brokered by Lord Russell the British
foreign minister, plebcites were held in areas under Austrian control except in Venetia.
Italians voted in favour of the union with piedmont and Cavour had led the Risorgimento
successfully this far.
 Villafranca shows Napoleon’s failures to realise that glory had to be paid for and his action to
the Italians was treason. However according to David Seaman, Villafranca shows that
Napoleon was no longer able to fight Cavour’s battles. If anything Cavour gained Lombard
and Parma and Napoleon gained nothing though the Villafranca humiliated Cavour a his
failure hence the resignation.
 Napoleon withdrew from the war perhaps because he was not sure the small kingdom of
Piedmont was going to be able to pay France’s war expenses if the war continued. Piedmont
also did not have the capacity to continue fighting. However Villafranca is valuable in that
Napoleon III had insisted that no force will be used to restore Austrian rulers who had fled
their thrones during the war.
 Cavour’s diplomacy was important for the unification of Italy but was helped by extra
ordinary good luck. After the Villafranca disappointment, Ricassoli and Farrini persuaded
central Italian territories to be united by Piedmont and the northern kingdom was created and
war had failed to do so. Villafranca shows Napoleon was afraid of creating a strong united
Italy on the door step of France as this might endanger the French interests.
THE CENTRAL DUTCHIES
 The former rulers of Parma, Modena; Tuscany,part of the Papal states revolted and refused to
allow back their former rulers and expressed their desire to join Piedmont. Britain gave more
support as she promised at the Paris. This was done through Lord Russell who suggested that
a referendum should be held to determine the wishes of the people. He supported the Italian
cause. The role by Napoleon’s army was also important because it led to the rulers from
Parma, Modena, Tuscany fleeing. He also ruled that force should not be used to restore rulers.
The new Italian Kingdom was created and only left out Venetia, Papal states, Naples, Sicily,
Umbria.
SAVOY AND NICE
Gadze C Page 97
 Cavour returned to office and offered Savoy and Nice to Napoleon111 who lost the support
of the liberals at home and abroad. This also shows that Cavour was not a true nationalist. The
sacrifice of part of the Italian soil was proof that the ideas of a nation meant nothing to
Cavour.
 In a plebcites held, Savoy and Nice voted in favour of union with France.
THE CONQUEST OF NAPLES AND SICILY, GARIBALD AND THE THOUSAND,1860.
 This has been described as the colourful episode of the history of the Risorgimento.
Garibaldi a Republican just like Mazzini believed that Italians had to liberate themselves.
He hated Cavour’s giving away of Savoy and Nice to France.
 Revolts had started in Sicily by hungry peasants and they were not initiated by Garibaldi
or Cavour. People wanted to get rid of local rule than being united to north Italy. Similar
revolts took place in Naples as nationalists appealed to Garibaldi for help .
 Garibaldi was successful due to the reckless courage , a quality he had in full measure.
 Cavour and victor Emmanuel wanted Britain and France to stop Garibaldi from using
sea in order to access Naples and Sicily.
 Although Garibaldi was a Republican, he worked for the incorporation of southern
states to the united north with the help of local population and his army .
 He adopted the “Italy and victor Emmanuel” cry although he was a Republican. .
Garibaldi handed his conquest to victor Emmanuel and refused the honour and reward
 Cavour never worked easily with Garibaldi whom he hated and not trust .It seems he
encouraged him secretly and secretly worked against him or he discouraged him publicly
but secretly encouraged him but was seriously disturbed because he did not know
Garibaldi’s intentions
 Unlike Cavour, Garibaldi believed in the impossible but when he achieved what
appeared difficult Cavour got credit for it by saying he encouraged Garibaldi secretly.
Cavour had opposed Garibaldi secretly because he knew people supported Garibaldi.
Cavour was also afraid Garibaldi’s actions would provoke war with Austria and Cavour
would lose Napoleon as a friend .
 Cavour also did not want a successful Garibaldi as this would cause war between the North
and South after giving away Savoy and Nice , Cavour did not want the comparison with the
popular Garibaldi .
 However Garibaldi has been accused of forcing the pace of unification .The central and
South South of South southern Helena states were not ready for unification .They voted for
South were not ready for union with Piedmont because they did not know what would happen
. However, Garibaldi has been accused of forcing the pace of unificati. Some people of
Central and southern states wanted independence to avoid being recruited into the army, high
taxes, high cost of living hence the revolts that were witnessed a few weeks after
unification .But Garibaldi felt he had done his job for Victor Emmanuel II
THE AUSTRO PRUSSIAN WAR OF 1866

 In the Austro –Prussian of 1866 Italy was promised Venetia if she fought on the side of
Prussia against Austria. The Prussia Victory saw Italy getting Venetia .Once again,
unification was made possible by the victory of a foreign army and ltaly got Venetia
THE FRANCO –PRUSSIAN WAR, 1870
Gadze C Page 98
 As usual Italian problems were solved by European factors beyond Italian control.
 In the Franco Prussian war , Napoleon withdrew troops from Rome leaving the Papal army to
be easily defeated by the Italian army. Rome was occupied . It became the capital city of the
united Italy
AN EVALUATION OF THE ROLE PLAYED BY CAVOUR
 Cavour`s army was to deliver Italy from Austria and the formation of an Italian kingdom.
Pledmont had to play a leading role in the war with Austria .He has been regarded as an
architecture of Italian unity. He was convinced Italy would not make herself because the
Austrian army was too strong yet it held the vital Italian territories of Lombardy and Venetia.
Only force could make Austria give up these territory pledmont alone could not defeat
Austria, Custozza and Novara had demonstrated this. Piedmont needed an ally. Thus Italian
unification could only make progress with foreign help.
 Cavour is regarded as the brains behind the Italian unification for he had realised that Italy
could only be made by exploiting defferences between foreign powers. He thus coaxed
foreign powers into defeating Austria. He did this by making diplomacy but to a larger extent
benefited from extra ordinary good luck.
 Cavour’s diplomacy won him the support of Garibaldi in 1860. Garibaldi managed to seize
states like Naples, Umbria, Sicily. Cavour’s diplomacy forced Garibaldi into surrendering
these states to Victor Emmanuel. The key to the Italian unification had been careful
diplomatic preparation based on the realisation of the need for military help from France
rather than rely on general revolutionary situation.
 Cavour was very flexible in the face of great political and emotional forces that he could not
directly control. Ricassoli and Farrini efforts gave him a north Italian kingdom. This was what
the war had failed to achieve.
 As Cavour modernised Piedmont, he wanted her to be fully prepared for the leadership of
Italy and unity in alliance with foreigners
 Cavour like Bismarck of Prussia made use of the war to achieve his objectives not the failed
revolts of the 1820s, 1830s, and 1848. He took full advantage of the mistakes by the enemies.
 The Crimian war of 1848 was such an opportunity Cavour took advantage of. The
Piedmontese army fought so well and the Pact of Plombiers of 1859 saw Italy promised help
in the war against Austria
 Parma, Modena, Tuscany revolts were encouraged by Cavour’s successes in the north.
Plebcites were help and people voted for union with Piedmont. Naples, Sicily later voted for
union as well
 However in spite of the above positive roles, the question of Cavour’s nationalism has
produced even greater controversy. There is no agreement on whether he was Piedmontese or
Italian nationalist just like Bismarck the Prussian. Mark Smith argue that as late as 1858 still
Cavour could not accept Mazzini’s ideas of a united Italy. Cavour just wanted to get
Lombardy and Venice in order to dominate the pensula, that was enough
 Cavour was presented as a Piedmontese who sought to solve the problem of Piedmont not to
unify Italy. He wanted Piedmont to be a powerful state within Northern Italy. Agatha Ramm
wrote that Cavour was first a Sardinian minister with Sardian aims associated with the
national movement. He worked to make Piedmont economically, politically; financially
sound as he believed that other states would be absorbed into Piedmont.
 TA Morris views Cavour as a man not in control of events, directing them towards his
preconceived goal but as a practical politician with aims originally limited but later he
Gadze C Page 99
modified them and expanded them due the development of factors over which he had little
control. He was an opportunist. However great may have been the part played by Cavour, the
unification of Italy was a result of extra ordinary good luck. According to Antony wood,
Cavour later wrote that blessed was the peace treaty of the Villafranca. Cavour did not make
the future. It was done for him by the others. He even could not imagine Garibaldi’s swift
success in the south. Garibaldi did a lot for Cavour and Cavour enjoyed this glory.
 Cavour achieved his aims by bribing newspapers, betraying colleagues, persecuting Mazzini
supporters. He created the myth that he was a hero in the unification of Italy because he was
successful. He has been forgiven for holding such a view because in the beginning his aims
were limited. The core of his aims was not unification but freedom from Austria and
sovereignty of Piedmont so as to make her safe from foreign interference hence the reason he
prevented unification in 1860 by keeping Rome and Venetia out.
 To prove he was Piedmontese, after unification, Piedmontese coins, customs, weight and
measures, constitution dominated
CONTRIBUTION BY GARIBALDI
 His aims for Italy were simple. He worked for a free and united Italy preferably a
Republican but a constitutional monarchy if necessary. His fighting ability were important
after 1848. He was a soldier of reckless bravery who helped to unity Italy. He was able to
instill confidence into the people. He attracted followers for his cause. He used influence
effectively in Sicily and Naples in 1860 to win supporters for the Italian cause.
 He worked for the incorporation of states to the north in the motto “Italy and Victor
Emmanuel” after the “God and people” motto had failed. He had the heart of a lion. His
contribution did not rest on his thoughts but rather on his actions. His interventions were
decisive although he served the interests of Cavour more than he did for himself
 He has been seen by others as a great thinker but possessing divine stupidity of a hero. He
lacked education and mixed everything in a hopeless confusion. The way he thinks betrayed
his reputable role. He been accused of forcing the pace of unification and force marching
history in extravagant hopes since the central and the Southern States were not ready for
unification but only wanted independence
 However, the unification of Italy needed the oratory and organisation of Mazzini, fighting
ability of Garibaldi and the diplomatic skills of Cavour.
PLANNING AND CHANGE TO ITALIAN UNIFICATION
 Cavour and Victor Emmanuel as the leaders of Piedmont saw the need to use a strong
Piedmont in the North in order to unify the Southern States. Piedmont through the domestic
reform had to modernise to this end. There was planning.
 Cavour saw the need for foreign aid to expell Austria out of Italy that was planning but the
Crimian war became an opportunity to popularise the Italian question at the Paris peace
conference.
 Plombiers was on opportunity Cavour used to get the French aid.
 Carefully designed plebcites were used in the Southern states, Parma, Modena, Tuscany. Thus
planning was meant to prevent the uprisings elsewhere.
 The Sicilian expectation was both a chances and planning in that the revolts had started
without Cavour or Garibaldi. Chance in that although they were not revolts for unity,
Garibaldi took advantage to achieve unification.
 Garibaldi’s exploits in Naples were planned
Gadze C Page 100

 Role of Mazzini,Garibaldi,Cavour provided the bases for the planning of unification through
the power of their ideas
 The fall of Metternich in Austria and Louis Phillippe in France gave a chance to the
unification of Italy.
 Role of Orsin,a plan and a chance.
 Marriage alliance between Jerome the son of Napoleon III and Victor Emmanuel’s daughter
was planned.
 The Austro-Prussian war of 1866 leading to Italy getting Venetia was a chance.
 The Franco Prussian war was a chance.
THE UNIFICATION OF GERMAN
WHAT WERE THE OBSTACLES TO GERMAN UNITY AND HOW THEY WERE
OVERCOMED
QSNS-How important was nationalism in the German unification?
Did the German state of 1871 represent’ Prussianisation’ or unification
How consistent were Bismarck’s methods and aims during the period 1862-1871?
Why was Bismarck more successful than the liberals in unifying German?
Identify the factors that enabled Prussia to be a leading state in Germany by 1860
Why did Bismarck chose to unite Germany by’blood and iron’
‘A statesman knows his general direction but not his exact path’Do you agree with this statement of
Bismarck’s unification of German?
BACKGROUND TO GERMAN UNIFICATION
The 1815 Vienna Settlement reduced Germany into a confederation of 34 states and they grouped
deliberately to make them weak.Each state was independent of each other with its own
army,government.The North was protestant while the South was Catholic
-The attitude of Austria and Prussia the leading states of German were conservative and wanted to
keep their influence among the states and largely respected each other’s position.They were at this
stage not interested in uniting Germany but to live side by side in what Metternich called peaceful
dualism.The state of affairs suited Metternich of Austria well for he could control a weak and
disjointed Germany.
-The German Diet(parliament) was the main organ of the German Confederation,was the centre of
development and cooperation of the Germany states.It was made up of ambassadors of states not
representatives chosen by the people.Austria was the President of the Confederation,she influenced
decisions against unification.
-The German Diet was weak because it was not made up of the representatives of the people,laws
made were not binding,it was difficult to achieve a two thirds majority needed to achieve
decisions,there were also the monarchs of Austria,Britain,Denmark,Holland in the Diet and they did
not represent the interests of unification.The Diet had no means to enforce its decisions,the army was
not effective.
Gadze C Page 101

-The Germans did not agree on the methods to unify Germany.Some favoured the exclusion of
Austria which had non Germany speaking people.Some wanted the Germany speaking Austria to be
included into the unified Germany.Others wanted the whole of Austria included into the united
German.
-Rulers of small states did not want greater unification fearing the loss of their positions and status.
-The history of German from 1815 to 1848 was dominated by Metternich of Austria and his aims.He
stood for Europe of the old against new Europe of revolutionary ideas.He persuaded the German Diet
to pass the Carlsbad Decrees which outlawed student associations,liberalism,liberal leaders were
sentenced in jail,there was censorship of the written work.Metternich was to intervene in any state to
support any German ruler.The Carlsbad Decrees were a disadvantage to those who wanted to fight for
liberalism in German.
-Prussia also hated liberalism and the Prussian king also worked with Metternich in suppressing
liberalism and nationalism.He gave Austria spies,secret police,military repression.He was able to
prevent political changes in the German confederation and preserved the independence of its 39
despotic states from 1815 to 1848.
-The Frankfurt Assembly had given hopes to German unification but had its own problems,could not
agree on the form of unification,had no money,army,failed to solve the Holstein-Scheswig question
since the former put under Denmark by the Vienna Settlement of 1815 had Germaans.
HOW THE OBSTACLES WERE OVERCOMED
 The Germany realized that they were a single nation in language, customs race traditions, past
history. This cultivated the spirit of patriotism leading to movements working to create a
Greator Germany
 The growth and increase of liberalism saw a number of people looking forward to the
creation of a free and united Germany with a liberal constitution. The growth of liberalism
cultivated the spirit of a greater Germany.
 The Zollverein under Prussia removed custom barriers in the confederation where goods were
charged passing across borders. This had made goods expensive and discouraged trade. By
1844, of the 39 states, only Austria, Hanover, Hamburg, were out of the Zollverein. Besides
making imports cheaper and improving trade, it was a focal point for unity. Through the
Zollverein, Prussia not Austria was taking the lead in German affairs.
 The exclusion of Austria resulted in people looking to Prussia to the position of economic
leadership which was later going to be transformed into a political leadership, thus over
taking Austria.
 Bismarck learnt from the mistakes and the failures of 1848 when the Frankfurt Assembly
instead of deliberating on real issues, spent much time on democracy. To Bismarck, the
solution was to strengthen Prussia’s economy, army so that she will lead in the unification of
Germany.
THE FOUNDATION OF GERMAN UNIFICATION AND THE ADVANTAGE
BISMARCK AND PRUSSIA HAD IN UNIFYING GERMAN
THE PRUSSIAN ECONOMY AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES
-Prussia was blessed with natural resources and they gave her an advantage over the other
German states.When she got the Rhineland in the 1815 Vienna Settlement,she got access to
even more resources.She had coal,iron,zinc.The government and the private sector were
interested in developing these natural resources.Von Motz,the finance Minster from 1825-
1830 improved tax reforms giving revenue to boost road construction.
Gadze C Page 102

-Prussia was leading in the development of heavy industries.Her coal and iron industries
benefited from the introduction of new technology as witnessed by the rise of steam engines
which rose from 419 in 1837 to 1444 by 1848.Thus the coal output rose due to this
technology.
-The growth of heavy industries was made possible by the government legislation.The Mining
laws of 1851 and 1860 removed the restrictions on the movement of mine workers and
promoted morbility.The steel industry improved greatly and the employees in industry rose in
number.This was encouraged by the Prussian army demands for steel products.
TRANSPORT
-The rail transport was improved in the 1840s and the 1850s.By 1860,55 percent of the
railway lines were owned by the state and it proved to be the blood life of the Prussian
economy hence the argument by some that the German Empire was not found on blood and
iron,meaning militarism and war but on coal and iron meaning industrialisation.Thus it was
the case of economic regeneration for political regeneration.Thus the Historians seek to
understand the role of economic factors in Prussia and Bismarck’political
achievements.Bismarck is believed to have strongly used the economic advantage of Prussia
to achieve his political ends.
THE ZOLLVEREIN
It was yet another important factor that gave Prussia an advantage.The Zollverein had a
gigantic task towads the unification of Germany as it removed tariffs in order to produce
sufficient economies towards German unification.Thus the zollverein which was a customs
union played an important role as a sign of solidarity towards the issue of nationalism.It gave
extra support to Prussia in terms of finance.The industrialists,capitalists produced some grants
and loans towards the ecomony of Prussia to a prosperous stage.Thus in future this economic
prosperity will enable Prussia to fight against the other great powers such as Austria and
France.Thus the economic support of the zollverein was valuable to unification.
-This custom union which was formed in 1834 in German was dominated by Prussia and it
gave her an advantage over Austria in German affairs.As the leader of the zollverein,Prussia
negotiated on behalf of the zollverein members and she benefited from the treaties with
Beligium,France,Holland,Piedmont.
-The zollverein united people of German economically and this created an opportunity for
Bismarck to use the zollverein as a way of unification.The people of the confederation now
interacted and it became easier for Bismarck to organise people into a political sector.The
people were developing political idea that they must create their own united country.
-Industries and factories rose sharply due to the zollverein to the extent that they started to
invent weapons eg the artillery.These weapons of industry were a result of the zollverein and
this enabled Prussia to defeat the enemies using formidable military force
-The zollverein,an economic union although not the same as political union produced the
habit of the states to work together.By 1844,Bevaria,Austria and a few other states were out
of the zollverein.Thus the Prussian leadership was now more important than the Austrian
leadership.Unification became possible because it was led by Prussia put into leadership by
the zollverein.Austria was lsolated from the Germany confederation intentionally or not
nobody really knows for sure.
-However,while the economic growth and foundation was important,it was at least up to 1856
with the start of the great depression.Austria was excluded from the zollverein in 1864 but it
did not disintergrate until its military defeat in 1866.Moreso,while the zollverein made the
Southern states more loyal to Prussia economically but they were politically loyal to Austria
as they participated in the 1866 Austro-Prussian war on the side of Austria.When Bismarck
incorporated them into the zollverein parliament after the 11866 war,they eventually fought
the Franco-Prussian war on the side of Prussia.In addition to that,some doubt the kind of
unification that excluded Austria,Bevaria and some small states.Thus in this case,one will
Gadze C Page 103

doubt the value of the zollverein in uniting German when it excluded Austria,a big and
important Germany state.
THE PRUSSIAN ARMY
The Prussian army made use of technology in the swift transportation of soldiers using the rail
transport and this proved decisive in the 1866 war against Prussia and the 1870 war against
France.It took Prussia 5 days to move soldiers to the war front against Austria in the 1866 war
and it took Austria 45 days to do the same.It took only 36 hours for Prussia to transport the
troops to Lorraine in the war with France in 1870.
-The weapons for the Prussian army were improved drastically by the use of the needle gun
which was first used in 1848 and continued to be used by 1864 when it proved to be decisive
in giving victory at Sadowa,one journalist described it as the king.However,since the needle
gun had failed the test of time in that it had a short range and was not accurate,by
1870,Prussia was now using the artillery,breech loader with steel cooled barrel.
-Von Roon was the Minster of war and Von Moltke was the General of Staff and the two
were against liberalism and Austria.Liberalism stood in the way of economic reforms in order
to improve the performance of the army by inceasing taxes to support army reforms.The army
was increased from 500 000 to 750 000 and the great question of the day was not going to be
solved by spechees and resolutions of the majority but by blood abd iron.Blood and iron
refers to the army.The recruitment of the soldiers was increased ,reserve soldiers joined the
regular army and soldiers served for more years for continuity.
OTHER FACTORS THAT AIDED GERMAN UNIFICATION
-The complications which occurred in Europe eg the issue of Russia and Poland. Bismarck
enjoyed the advantage of helping Alexander II of Russia suppress the rebels and got the
Russian support in the war with Austria,France.German unification became a product of
international complications and the opportunism of Bismarck.
-Bismarck sought alliances diplomatically eg was able to isolate Austria,Russia and France
remained neutral and Italy helped for the reward of Venetia,and also in the Danish and the
Franco-Prussian war.
-Britain was keeping an lsolation policy on continental affairs and she believed that the
German state will provide a buffer zone on the boarders of France and Russia. Russia and
France were Crimian war rivals and Russia saw its sympathies with Prussia because the
Austrian policy on the Crimian war had betrayed her.There was not going to be a joint
military action against Bismarck and this made unification easier for Bismarck.
-Austria which was a challenger of the unification was weak and was facing problems at
home in her multi-national Empire.Thus she was not able to counter the unification efforts by
Bismarck.
-Nationalism continued to grow and led to the unification of German encouraged by the
Italian successes so the Germans were looking to Prussia to lead in the German cause as
Piedmont did to Italy.The liberals had learnt from the 1848 revolution that the use of
liberalism was not very useful,only force and mighty was needed to unify German.
-The attitude of William 1 was also important.He was a military man who was able to work
with Bismarck.This was assisted by the weaknesses of enemies eg France in 1870-1871 war
was fought when France was least prepared
BISMARCK THE PRUSSIAN
QUESTIONS
Gadze C Page 104

-Bismarck’s foreign policy is controversial in as far as the unification of Germany is concerned

in the period from 1861-1871.The key issue centre around the four most important issues or
questions
1 Was Bismarck a Prussian who worked for Prussian interests and anything beyond this was
coincidental?
2 Did Bismarck possess the blue print for unification,an overall plan which he followed step by
step to its inevitable and predictable outcome?
3 Was Bismarck merely an opportunist,cleverly exploiting the mistakes of his opponents and
taking calculated moves which happened to be successful?
4 Did Bismarck give his successes to a coincidental gathering of favourable international and
domestic circumstances?
BISMARCK THE PRUSSIAN
There is a debate to the extent to which Bismarck worked for the interests of Prussia more than
those of German.
 Bismarck strengthened Prussia his state by the economic and military reforms e.g. the
Zollverein, extension of rail way lines in order to export their mineral resources and promote
industrial development
 The industrial revolution made possible the manufacture of heavy artillery which transformed
the warfare field where Prussian army was large, well drilled and tactically superior. The
development of banks provided capital and industrial expansion became possible to the
standard of a major power.
 Bismarck became anti-Austrian in his sentiments. He wanted Prussia to be recognized as an
equal to Austria. According to Collins, Bismarck thought of the spheres of influence, Austria
to dominate the south of the river main and Prussia the north of the river main. According to
Taylor, Bismarck initially wanted a partial unification of Germany. He aimed at the
unification of northern Germany and not total unification of Germany. He wanted Prussia to
dominate a lesser Germany. Austria was leading a greater Germany and in 1863 the Austrian
emperor called for a conference to discuss the issues of a greater Germany controlled by
Austria and Bismarck refused and the whole scheme failed, Bismarck wanted to dominate a
greater Germany
 Bismarck was a brilliant opportunist who initially was a Prussian nationalist whose aims
were to bring the Austrian domination of northern Germany and the exclusion of Austria
from the Germany affairs. According to David Thomson, the unification of Germany was
coincidental, a by product of his never ending pursuit of Prussian interests. He wanted to
dominate the northern Germany. Bismarck in his expansion of Prussia, he was always able to
convince himself that he was carrying the will of God and to create a greater Germany, he
crushed the liberal opposition to the army reforms, so taxes were collected without
parliamentary consent as he argued that Germany did not look forward to Prussia’s liberalism
but to have strength and that the great question of the day was not going to be decided by the
speeches and resolutions of the majority as this had proved to be mistake in the 1848-1849
revolution but that it was necessary to use iron and blood.
 Bismarck as the Prussian representative to the Germany Diet began to favour a united
Germany but not at the expense of surrendering the traditional and power of Prussia.
 His solution of a Germany problem was not a liberal one but a dictated one led by Prussia.
This was to be done in the same manner Cavour aimed at unifying only the north of Italy
Gadze C Page 105

originally. According to Willmott, Bismarck became an unlikely advocate of nationalism for

a united Germany state which would exclude Austria, he had not become a nationalist, he
remained firmly a Prussian patriot as late as 1865 when he asserted that he was much less
Germany than Prussia.
 In expanding Prussia, he was always able to convince himself that he was carring the will of
God.
He had crushed liberal opposition after he had calculated that everything would be forgiven
 The unification of German if ever that was his aim was going to be done under Prussian
domination but the actual steps which led to the wars owed a great deal also to chance and
mistakes by opponents Bismarck realized that it was easier to dominate a number of
Germany smaller states than Austria which did not want to lose her foreign lands after the
creation of a strong central government. To him, nothing committed in the interest of the
state could be wrong especially if that state was Prussia.
 In the Holstein –Schleswig question Bismarck wanted them to pass into Prussian hands
because of their strategic position and he saw a chance in growing territories for
Prussian order in to assert his pre-dominance in northern Germany, a victory for
Prussian interest. According to LCB Seaman, Bismarck did not unite Germany as is often
claimed and he did not even wanted. He absorbed into Prussian states of the Germany
confederation except Austria.On the duchies he remarked that the question of the duchies
was not that of right or by law but by force and Prussia had that force therefore Bismarck was
a Prussian who in this case wanted them to pass into Prussian hands because of the strategic
position and he saw a chance in growing territories for Prussia order in to assert his
pre-dominance in northern Germany, a victory for Prussian interest. According to LCB
seaman as already noted, Bismarck did not unite Germany as it often claimed and he did not
even wanted. He absorbed into Prussia states of the Germany confederation except Austria
and he and added Schleswig, Alsace, Lorraine, and called it the Germany Empire. In actual
fact, it was not because it excluded Germans in Austria and Bohemia.It was Hitler who by
1939 created a German Empire merely wanted the dominance of Prussia.
 There is no reason to doubt that the broader aim in the 1860s was his belief that Austria and
France would have to be dealt with if German was to be unified under Prussian dominance
but the actual steps that led to wars owed a great deal also to chance and to the mistakes by
opponents.
 In the Austro –Prussian war of 1866,Von Moltke saw it as necessary not for territorial
aggrandisement but to secure the establishment of Prussian hegemony in northern
Germany.However ,Prussia got Shleswig,Holstein,Hanover,Nassau,Hesse Cassel.She got an
extra four and half million people,acces to the northern sea,the old confederation was
replaced by the northern confederation,the Prussian king was the President,Bismarck was the
Chancellor of the new organisation,Bismarck controlled armies of member states,brought
southern states through a custom union called the zollverein.
 After the Austro –Prussian war,Austria was treated leniently,Italy got Venetia,Austria was
allowed to expand to the Balkans,so here,Bismarck did not only serve the Prussian interests
but a blend of interests,Austrian,Italian and Prussian interests are seen.However,the Prussian
and Italian alliance in the Austro-Prussian war of 1866 should be seen in that the two were in
pursuit of unification and had to help each other.Italy desperately needed Venetia from
Austria to achieve unity.Moreover,Bismarck genuenly needed to expell Austria from
Germany affairs so as to have a state free from alliene influence.
 Bismarck preapared for war with France to complete the unification of German along the
lines he desired,the unification which would come from the power of Prussia.The
provocation which Bismarck wanted was provided for France.After the war the greater part
of German was under Prussian control,the king of Prussian king was the Emperor,the
constitution of the North was adopted by the new German Empire,Prussia dominated and
Gadze C Page 106

was described by Grant and Temperly as a large grey wolf followed by jackals like
Bavaria,Saxony,Wurtemberg,followed by 35 smaller animals varying in size from rats to
small mice.The Franco-Prusssian war seem to have served the interests of Prussia at the end
of the war since he seized the opportunity to unify the southern states to Prussia and took
Alsace and Lorraine from Austria in serving the imperial interests of Prussia.However,on the
contrast the war broke out because France wanted to expand her territory to the Rhineland,so
Bismarck was protecting Southern states against French aggression,so the interests were
German rather than Prussia.The Hohenzollern candidature in Spain was an attempt to
encircle France by the Hohenzollerns on both sides.If one is to go by this , the chief
Minister Bismarck served the interests of Prussia since he wanted the Hohenzollern to
dominate both sides of France.However,it must be noted that there was instability in the
Spanish politics.Thus the interests were not Prussian but Spanish.Moreover,Bismarck
disapproaved that he had any connections with the Hohenzolern candidature.
 According to A.J .p Taylor,Bismarck’s victory over Austria assured him of the dominance of
the North but the German national sentiments would not be stopped at the River Main.Prussia
whether it wanted it or not had become a leading power in German.Bismarck had become a
prisoner of his own successes.He could not turn his back to the German question.According
to Agather Ramm,Bismarck remarked that Prussians they were and Pruusians they will
remain.German unity to him was an extension of Prussian power .He gained power for
himself,great power for Prussia and great power for German which he ldentified by
Prussia.At one point Bismarck remarked that German was too small for both Austria and
Prussia to plough.Thus one would conclude that by pursuing German unification,Bismarck
Prussianised the unification.
 In 1863,Bismarck pursued Polish rebels for Russia but some see it as a peace meal to make
Russia act the way Bismarck wanted and served Biamarck later.However,contrary to
this,Bismarck was trying to preserve the territorial arrangements made at the Vienna in
1815.It is therefore applaussable to consider that he was serving the interests of Europe of
1815
Conclusion
Bismarck’s policies up to 1870 were dominated by Prussian interests but were not sole
ones.He helped preserve the Vienna Settlement,unification of Italy,helped Austria to expand
to the Balkans.
BISMARCK’S FOREIGN POLICY STEPS FROM 1862-1871 LEADING TO THE
GERMAN UNIFICATION
THE POLISH REVOLT OF 1863
Poles under Russia and great powers sympathised with the Poles so were the
liberals.Through the Alvensleben Convention,Bismarck helped Russia suppress the Poles and
got the gratitude of Russia.According to Willmot ,according to Bismarck ‘s blue print,this
event offered the opportunity to secure the Russian neutrality in the upcoming clash with
Austria.Bismarck wanted to make sure that the Holy Alliance between Austria and Russia
was truly dead since he could not risk fighting Russia and Austria on the battlefield.This was
the first step in the unification.
-Bismarck in a letter to his sister in 1861,Bismarck revealed his feelings towards the
Poles,they had to be striked so that they despair for their lives .While he had sympathies for
their plight but if Prussia wanted to survive ,the Poles had to be exterminated .The ldea of the
Polish question as the first stage in the unification has been challenged .The Russo-Prussian
agreement was Bismarck’s attempt to gain security against the possible disturbance by the
Poles since he also had them in the Prussian territory .Thus Bismarck was afraid Alexander II
might give liberal concessions to Poles under him and this would encourage the Poles under
Prussia to demand liberal reforms .Thus Bismarck’s interpretation of the Polish revolt as the
first stage of a calculated plan to wage war on Austria for German unification or Prussian
Gadze C Page 107

dominance must be challenged .Worse still ,the agreement between Russia and Prussia made
him an enemy of Britain ,France and Bismarck’position was endangered by the Polish
question.
-Bismarck was not successful as is often said that he made Russia neutral in future but the
truth is that Russia was still weak after the Crimian war defeat .Furthermore ,Russia naturally
distrusted Austria and worse still Austria took this opportunity to present and parade herself
to the world as a liberal power against the autocratic Prussia.
THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION,1864
This incident marks the start of Bismarck’s unification of German by war and diplomacy as
was done by Cavour of Italy .He thus prevented his enemies from allying with any major
power .His first major aim in war was the isolation of the enemy and this was always
achieved, thus the unification of German was achieved along Bismarck’s lines .Some
historians describe Bismarck’s foreign policy as the outcome of a master plan which he
conceived when he became the Foreign Minister in 1862 and worked it according to a precise
time table. According to Benjamin Disrael ,the then Prussian ambassador to Paris, Bismarck
in an interview told him that as soon as the army will be brought into such a condition to
inspire respect ,he will declare war on Austria ,dissolve the German Diet and give national
unity to German under Prussian leadership .Recent commentators have seen Disrael as hero
worshipping Bismarck who was yet to know the complex politics at the highest level .It was
from this interview that some historians of ealier years believed Bismarck had a master plan,
knew his general direction and had to follow it to achieve unification.The master plan
implied that Bismarck knew what he wanted and how exacly he would achieve it years
before the events themselves started unfolding.
-Recent research shows that it is impossible for even great statesmen to impose their will on
the world and to plan events successfully for 10 years .They argue that Bismarck had plans
not to unify the whole of German but to control the North ,dissolve the German Diet
controlled by Austria and this was done by siezing opportunities not creating events but
floating with it and steer.
-The Schleswig-Holstein if one take Bismarck ‘s work for a master plan ,he like Cavour
exploited the international situation diplomatically to achieve his ends and this was to be
done without moral consideration for it was judged only by success .Bismarck wanted the
duchies which were under Denmark according to the London treaty of 1852.Holstein was
German in population and Schleswig Danish in population but Denmark wanted the two
incorporated into Denmark and tension ran high in German.
-Bismarck did not want the two duchies included into the German Diet controlled by Austria
,Bismarck saw a chance to fight Austria using the duchies .Thus the Schleswig-Holstein
question was used to test the Prussian army and if successful will indicate the future
leadership of German and would give Prussia prestige .Therefore ,Bismarck’s involvement in
the duchies was like Cavour ‘s involvement in the Crimian war but unlike Cavour, Bismarck
was to go it alone later.
WAR WITH DENMARK , 1864
Disrael says that Bismarck outlined his scheme of action in London 1862 that he was going
to attack Denmark in order to get Schleswig and Holstein, remove Austria from the German
confederation .If this is true, Bismarck had a master plan when he took office .There were 3
steps by Bismarck to achieve unification. each step was marked by war ,one against
Denmark ,Austria ,France .WiImott says that unification was a product of war. However ,it
is difficult if not impossible even for the great statesmen to plan events of 10 years as
Bismarck is said to have done and to impose his plans to the world as Metternich of Austria,
Alexander I of Russia are said to have done ,system makers.
Gadze C Page 108

-Bismarck has been seen as a supreme opportunist who was flexible but after a series of
events after a long period ,what Bismarck did looks coherent than it was at the time .He was
therefore a Prussian who worked for Prussian goals as is seen in the
Denmark,Austrian,French wars.The unification of German was incidental due to his never
ending pursuit of Prussian interests. Initially he thought Germany should dominate the
North of the River Main but the war with France brought the Southern States.Therefore,he
and Cavour were not super men.
-The cause of the war was the fact that the 1852 London treaty did not allow Schleswig and
Holstein to be incorporated into Denmark.In 1863 Denmark came up with a new constitution
which allowed Schleswig to be incorporated into Denmark in violation of the London
treaty.This was a mistake by Christian IX the leader of Denmark.Bismarck did not want to
use the duchies to create conflict with Austria but Bismarck had always wanted to
incorporate them,the conflict over them in future was the mistake of Austria..
-Bismarck’s handling of the question was skilful,he had already secured the friendship of
Russia,he entered into an alliance with Austria against Denmark,Napoleon III a supporter of
nationalism supported Prussia and Austria since they were moving towards national
unity,France and Britain were promised rewards for their neutrality .Denmark was
defeated,Prussia and Austria signed the Gastein Convention in which Prussia was to
administer Schleswig and Austria Holstein.Now Bismarck was confident the Prussian army
was going to defeat Austria as it had done Denmark.Bismark is said to have provoked
Austria over the Schleswig-Holstein question for a war.
-However,recent commentators argue that the war was a genuine mistake by Austria when
she housed the Schleswig refugees running away frm the Prussian exploitation and this was
in violation of the Gastein Convention.While it can be true that Bismarck had planned the
war of 1866 with Austria using the question of the duchies,however,it must be considered
doubtful whether it has been Bismarck’s deliberate intention all along.Bismarck ;s only clear
policy was to prevent the Austrian leadership of the German states.Bismarck certainly
entertained the idea of a united German under Austrian domination.It seems most likely that
Bismarck did not follow a set plan but a wait and see policy .He took advantage of Austrian
violation of the Gastein Convention when she sheltered the Prussian refugees fleeing from
Prussian persecution.
THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR, 1866
 The two conflicted over the future of Schleswig and Holstein. Austria wanted them to be
incorporated into the Germany bund which she controlled but Prussia was against it since it
strengthened Austria Prussia and accused Austria of violating Gastein convention .Bismarck
proposed a dissolution of the Germany Bund and proposed for a constitution which will
exclude Austria. Thus if Bismarck was doing this to provoke war, this was indeed a master
plan as Bismarck started to order the international situation to his liking in order to isolate
Austria and this looks a master plan .
 Russia was not going to support Austria because she had not helped her in the Crimian war
of 1854.Britain was busy making reforms back home .France was at Biarritz promised a
territory on the left of the Rhineland for her neutrality.Italy was promised Venetia from
Austria if she helped Prussia against Austria.
Gadze C Page 109

 According to Von Moltke,the war was seen long before it was fought not for territorial gains
but for the establishment of Prussian hegemony in German.If this is true then Bismarck
ordered the international situation to his liking.
 Some scholars argue that France was neutral not because Bismarck was diplomatic in
promising her a price but France wanted a friend after her relations with Russia were
damaged after the Russian treatment of the Poles.So France wanted a friend in Europe,thus
Prussia.Napoleon also wanted Italy to get Venetia from Austria without fighting.Above all,the
French army was not in a position to fight .Therefore at Biarritz Napoleon was not cheated as
is often claimed but conditions made him to cooperate.However,Bismarck is credited for
realising that France wanted peace.
 In violation of the Gastein Convention,Austria had referred the conflict to the German
confederation and had allowed the badly managed citizens of Schleswig into Holstein and
this provoked the war and Austria was defeated at the battle of Sadowa after 7 weeks.
THE TREATY OF PRAGUE,1866
Austria was leniently treated so that she will be neutral in the unfolding drama.She did not
lose any of her German territories but had to give Venetia to Italy,had to agree to dissolve the
old German Bund and replace it with the new Northen German bund,Austria could nolonger
claim any share in German affairs.Prussia annexed Schleswig,Holstein,Hanover,Hesse
Cassel,Frankfurt.The Southern States were left out of the Northen German bund
confederation to prove that Bismarck was a Prussian patriot rather than a German
nationalist.Bismarch allowed the Southern states to form their own confederation.
-According to Bismarck’s blue print,the Austro-Prussian war will be successful if France was
neutral and this Bismarck claim to have achieved it at the Biarritz.Then as part of his master
plan,his pre-planned scheme,it would be essential to treat Austria leniently after defeating her
to avoid bitterness which will lead to the desire for revenge.There has to be the possibility of
friendship again so that Austria will not be a friend of France or any opponent of Germany.If
this was Bismarck ‘s calculated move then he was a diplomatic man who manipulated
international events to his liking.
-However,recent research has that when Bismarck went to war with Austria,he was taking
advantage of an exceptional favourable international situation.According to A J P Taylor,both
Russia and Britain had vitually eliminated themselves from the international European
balance and this gave the years 1864 to 1866 a character unique in recent history.Russia never
forgave Austria for her anti-Russian stance during the German war and Russia welcomed any
opportunity to see Austria humiliated.Thus Bismarck was not a master planner but may be an
opportunist.
-Contrary to Bimarck ‘s version that he had a meeting with Napoleon at Biarritz and
Napoleon guaranteed him neutrality,recent research has shown that on 12 June
1866,Napoleon signed a secret agreement with Austria in which he was offered a territory in
the Rhineland if Austria was victorius .However the victory for Bismarck was not only
victory against Austria but France as well .Somebody remarked that it was France that was
beaten at Sadowa although Napoleon out of embarrassment called it a victory for nationalism
which he always stood for.By assisting Italian and German unification ,France was only
creating a rod for her own back as the two combined against France.Through this victory and
the treaty of Prague, Bismarck unified the northern German, helped Italy to unify ,raised
Prussia ‘s level against France in Europe, Bismarck got prestige in German and even the
opponents at home were silenced and they saluted the genius of Bismarck and surrendered to
his successes.
Gadze C Page 110

BISMARCK AFTER THE 1866 WAR VICTORY
It has been a subject of debate on whether Bismarck after dominating the Northern
confederation Bund wanted to end or to carry on with the unification of German to its logical
conclusion.Bismarck wrote to his wife that there was nothing more to do in their life
time.However,Bismarck had to go beyond his plan of dominating the north of the River Main
because he was afraid Southern States might look for friends elsewhere against Prussia eg
France wanted them as allies.
Some Germans did not want Bismarck to stop but to continue until all of German was
unified.It had also become a shame to have states South of the River Main remaining out of
the Northern Confederation and the 1866 had made unification possible.
The treaty of Prague shows that Bismarck had gone more than his original plan of dividing
German into spheres of influence,one for Austria and the other one for Prussia.Instead he had
expelled Austria out of Germany, German unification without Austria will not be German
unification.
Prussia whether it liked it or not had become the leading German power.According to AJP
Taylor,Bismarck to some extent was a prisoner of his own successes,could not turn his back
on the German unification.Other powers especially France and Russia saw the change in the
balance in German.The French citizens rose and demanded a war of revenge against Prussia
and this explain the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.
After 1866,the Franco-Prussian war has been seen by others as inevitable and as in the logic
of history.The defeat of France would remove the only power that would help the Southern
States resist Prussian dominance in German and this would convince Southern States on the
need to join the Northern German Bund under Prussian dominance since the Catholic South
has always been friends of France and now they needed to be convinced on the need for
French protection.
It has often been asked if Bismarck after 1866 began the diplomatic work for the unification
of German or if he planned a war against France.AJP Taylor declared that Bismarck’s foreign
policy after 1866 victory had no clear aims.His desire was not to challenge any one,he was
content to leave the Southern States alone,he felt he had done enough in his generation.His
foregn policy was passive after the treaty of Prague.There was no steady march to war as
there had been before 1866.There is no evidence Bismarck worked for the war with
France.Bismarck ‘s energies were directed to the building up of a new German state north of
the River Main.
Wolfgang says that although Bismarck realised that the final intergration of German was to be
achieved by war with France,he would be glad to avoid it and was happy to see the north and
the south united by France’s agreement.
THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR OF 1870
During the 1866 Auatro-Prussian war ,France was promised a territory for her neutrality,the
Rhineland,German in character.The skillfull Bismarck presented himself as a German
nationalist by refusing to let go of the German soil,thus the French diplomacy had
failed.Bismarck had proved to the Southern states that he himself stood for German
Gadze C Page 111

respect.Bismarck even leaked to the press Napoleon III ‘s intentions and this made Napoleon
III unpopular.
Napoleon III sought to redeem the lost pride by seeking the French occupation of Belgium but
Bismarck leaked the French demands to the British press.Bismarck presented Napoleon III to
the world as a man breaching the Belgian neutrality which Britain believed in so much and
Bismarck became popular and Napoleon III became unpopular.Having failed to get the
Rhineland,Belgium,Napoleon was now going for Luxembourg.It was independent and neutral
according to the 1839 treaty but was a member of the German Confedration and the
Zollverein.The Prussian and Germany sentiments were against France taking over
Luxembourg since the international conference ruled that independent and ruled by the king
of Holland.The French opposition politicians,the Empress Eugine,the French High Command
and the Middle class had wrongly advised Napoleon that a war would lead to his high
standing.However, recent commentators argue that Bismarck wanted to give away
Luxembourg to France so that Napoleon III will help stabilise Northern German but Bismarck
did not want to do it publicly for the fear of losing the liberal support in the
Reichstag.However,the king of Holland would not sell Luxembourg without an agreement
with Bismarck yet Bismarck did not want this to be known and this ruined the deal with
Napoleon.Thus Bismarck did not trick Napoleon over Luxembourg but circumstances
prevented the deal.
THE HOHENZOLLERN CANDIDATURE AND THE EMS TELEGRAM were the

immediate causes of the war.Qeen Isabella who was pro France was removed by the Spanish
military Junta.The government of Spain and Bismarck wanted Leopold of the Hohenzollern
family to take over and this was against Napoleon III.According to the Bismarckian blue
print ,Bismarck wanted the incident to provoke war with France after which he would
incorporate the Southern German states.By the Hohenzollern ,Bismarck will create a strong
position against France by surrounding her with enemies and to keep her busy in Spain.If
Bismarck engineered the Hehonzollern candidature to provoke war , Bismarck could just do
anything and all things were possible just like other things were possible to Bismarck.
Leopold decided to withdraw the candidature but France demanded Prussia to apologise
through a telegram and to give the assurance that this would never happen again in
future.Apologising was humiliating and Bismarck is said to have edited the telegram to sound
provocative and was published in the French and Germa newspapers.However,recent research
has shown that Bismarck’s editing of the telegram did not cause the war but extreme
Bornapatists who were looking for a chance to humiliate Prussia.Historians used to believe
that the Spanish candidature was a deep laid mine,Bismarck’s trap of France but the war was
rather a blunder by France which Bismarck took advantage of for a war.Bismarck had not
planned for the war but he saw it coming but when at last he saw it was inevitable,he claimed
it was his war in order to present himself as the creator of German not a man who was
mastered by events.He went to receive the credit for having created the war by editing the
telegram but the truth is that France made a blunder by declaring war on Prussia and Prussia
welcomed this war.
Bismarck ‘s diplomacy had Austria as a friend by the lenient treaty of Prague,Russia had not
forgotten the Prussian help of 1863,after the Belgian claim by France Britain was against
France,Italy was promised Rome which was occupied by a French army for her
neutrality.Thus France was Isolated and hoped the Southern States were going to support her
if war broke out but they instead supported Prussia and France fought the war without a
friend.France was defeated in 1871 and by the treaty of Frankfurt lost Alsace and Lorraine to
Gadze C Page 112

Germany,had to pay war indemnity,the Southern German States joined the Northern German
Bund,the king of Prussia became the German Emperor,the Prussian constitution became the
German constitution,Prussia dominated a united German,Rome was given to Italy and the
Italian unification was complete.
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE GERMAN UNIFICATION
Thomson says that the events that led to the unification of Germany were planned by
Bismarck when he came to power in 1862 according to a precise time table.Thomson ‘s ldea
was reinforced by Desrael when he outlined that Bismarck wanted to attack Denmark in order
to get Schleswig and Holstein and to remove Austria out of the German Confederation.The
revisionist scholars have put to test the master plan argument by questioning the ability of
statesmen to plan 10 years ahead and impose their ldeas to the world.Disrael ‘s argument has
been dismissed as a fallacy and Disarael has been seen as hero worshipping Bismarck.
Bismarck rather has been seen as an opportunist who exploited the international events as
they unfolded themselves rather than a planner of the long term events.Statesmen cannot
create the current events according to a time table but they can float in their stir Bismarck was
not a system maker like Metternich and Alexander,thus they were hero worshippers who
called him a master planner of events.Bismarck was a Prussian nationalist who worked to
enlarge Prussia or unify German under Prussian control by ousting Austria out of the German
Confederation.Bismarck ‘s policy towards Denmark,Austria,France was due to his desire to
enlarge Prussia hence the argument that the unification of German of his unending pursuit of
Prussian interests by creating spheres of influence,Austria in the South and Prussia in the
North.Had it been that war with France was inevitable,Bismarck would have been happy
with the Northern States with the exclusion of Southern States.The unification of German was
incidental since it came as a result of a war with France which Bismarck did not expect.
Presenting Bismarck as a master planner of events is meant to create the impression that
Bismarck was a legend and an extra ordinary politician.This was propaganda for Bismarck
and German meant to show the world German wisdom and that Bismarck was the only
man.He was deliberately quoted than any other statesmen in order to prove that he was wiser
than any other statesmen.Bismarck as the diplomatic man has been exaggerated to prove that
all people were fools.He was able to push Prussian interests in1866 not because he was too
exceptional but he profited from the changes in the attitude of Russia.Up to 1848,Russia
believed in the Holy Roman Empire and any attempt to expand Prussia against Austria before
1853 and the Crimian war would have meant war with Russia. Thus the Crimian war had
weakened Russia and her defence of the Holy Roman Empire was no longer possible and
when Bismarck came to power in 1861,the way had been cleared for him .Thus Bismarck
profited from the external events. Even Bismarck later in life admitted that man cannot create
events but float in them giving direction.
One should always ask these questions ;

1 . Was Bismarck a Prussian who worked for Prussian interests and anything beyond this was
coincidental ?
2. Did Bismarck possess a blue print for unification ,an overall plan which he followed step
by step to its inevitable and predicted outcome from 1862 to 1871 ?
3. Was Bismarck merely an opportunist ,cleverly exploiting the mistakes of his opponents
and taking calculated moves which happened to be successful between 1862 and 1871 ?
4. Did Bismarck has success to a coincidental of favourable domestic and international
circumstances between 1862 and 1871?
Gadze C Page 113

5. ‘A statesman knows his general direction but not his exact path’ In other words was
Bismarck a master planner or an opportunist ?
6. ‘ Unification was the wrong term to describe the process of German unity ‘ Do you agree ?
WHY WAS FRANCE GRADUALLY ELIMINATED FROM THE GERMAN AFFAIRS

BETWEEN 1866 AND 1871 ?
Discuss thoroughly the following ; Napoleon III was out manoeuvred by Bismarck ,France
suffered both military and diplomatic defeats at the hands of Bismarck, Napoleon ‘s desire
for glory made him to make many mistakes in foreign policy eg Bismarck took advantage of
eg at the Biarritz meeting with Bismarck in 1865,the outcome of the 1866 Austro-Prussian
war of 1866,the issue of the German Southern States , the Luxembourg crisis , the
Hohenzollern candidature and the Franco – Prussian war of 1870 – 1871 .
WHY DID THE LIBERALS OF 1848 FAIL TO UNIFY GERMAN ?
Discuss the following ; The liberals of 1848 failed to enlist the support of the of the peasants
and workers , the revolts were middle class ones .
-The liberals lacked visionary leadership in the mould of Bismarck who was skillful ,
diplomatic and visionary.
-The liberals did not have an army and relied on the volunteers who were easily suppressed
by the German states.
-The influence of Austria just like in Italy against the Republicans was influential against the
German liberals .Austria was behind the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament which was
another effort to unify German but all this failed due to Parliamentarians ‘s differences over
the position of Austria. Some Parliamentarians wanted the unification under the Prussian
leadership and to exclude Austria and these were called the lesser Germans and some wanted
Austria to be included into a united German and they were called the Greater Germans and
they were looking up to Austria for leadership . Thus the Austrian influence was kept and it
delayed the unification .
-There were differences between the leaders and the followers and the conservatives who
were supported by the army to suppress the liberals .
HOW FAR DID THE SUPREMACY WHICH PRUSSIA GAINED OVER OTHER
GERMAN STATES FROM 1849 TO 1871 DEPEND ON MILITARY FORCE
Austria was more effective and active as shown by her involvement in the war against
Piedmont in 1849 , 1859 against the Franco-Piedmontese army . This clearly shows the
dominance of Austria before 1862 . However the rise of the Prussian army can be traced as
far back as the days of the Napoleonic wars reforms in the military to 1857 with the
appointment of Von Moltke together with Roon the Minister of war and a supportive king
William I . Bismarck came up with military reforms which modernised the army ( NB-See
previous notes )
The effective of the Prussian army can be seen in the 1864 ,1866,1870-1871 wars which
shows that Prussia was superior in German affairs due to the military force as shown by the 3
wars ( NB-Demonstrate using the 3 wars )
However , other factors were also important eg the Zollverein , Bismarck ‘s diplomacy etc
( NB-See your notes on the foundation for German unity and the Prussian advantages in
unifying German)
Gadze C Page 114

CAUSES OF WORLD WAR ONE
BERLIN, KAISER, GERMAN WAR
 In the First Moroccan crisis of 1905, the Kaiser made a provocative speech to the effect that
Morocco was independent, all powers had equal rights in Morocco under a Moroccan leader,
that Germany will protect the independence of Morocco, that a European conference only
should change Morocco’s status. The Kaiser wanted to demonstrate that no international
dispute could be solved without reference to Germany. The Kaiser also wanted to prove that
France was a weak ally of Britain and Russia. Thus World War One was the Kaiser’s
war .When the matter was referred to the international conference at Algeciras this was a
direct challenge to France but the meeting demonstrated German isolation as France was
supported by many countries .German saw this as jealousy by her neighbours who wanted to
encircle her. German no longer believed in international conferences as a means of settling
international conflicts. However, according to AJP Taylor, the Moroccan crisis in North
Africa did not cause World War One since no military preparations were made by any power.
However, the crisis left imperial jealousies and accumulating grievances. This explains the
Germany sending of the Panther ship to the port of Agadir. The Kaiser was challenging
Britain’s naval supremacy. This is one thing Bismarck had avoided. German did not want
trading rights in Morocco but to frighten other powers. The incident worsened the relations
between Germany and Britain unnecessarily. Worse still, it promoted naval race between
Britain and Germany. The Kaiser and Germany advertised themselves as aggressors to the
world. This made Britain and France to co-operate militarily after realising how Germany was
a threat to their interests. This situation led to the ‘armed peace’ in Europe. The Germany
government was criticised in parliament for conceding defeat in Morocco. The Germany
government responded by militarising for war so as to avoid embarrassment. Germany
became revengeful .However, historians argue that these incidences could not have led to war
due to lack of Russian interests in the affairs.
Events in the Balkans were an opportunity for Germany to revenge in North Africa. German saw
an opportunity to humiliate Russia a member of the Triple Entente and a Serbian ally .German
was behind Austria Hungary, a fellow German state and a member of the Triple Alliance
alongside Italy. The Germany assurance to Austria marked a major fall in international relations.
Germany public opinion during the Balkan crisis supported war as revenge to Germany
humiliation in Morocco. Books supporting war sold faster. However, the Kaiser remained
reluctant to enter into the Balkan wars. However Germany gave Austria a blank cheque, unlimited
support ready to draw the sword whenever the Austrian actions made it necessary. The Germany
actions made Austria Hungary care free in the conduct of her foreign policy against Serbia which
was supported by Russia, a fellow slav with the members of the Triple Entente Britain and France
sympathising.
 When the Kaiser came into power in 1890, he remarked that Germany future lied in the water.
He supported the popular argument that Sea power is the basis of world power. He referred to
himself as the master of the Atlantic Sea. Bismarck unlike the Kaiser who had lived in peace
with Britain, the Kaiser wanted to build a Germany navy which will match the best in the
world. This would force Britain to opt for neutrality in any future European wars . This was a
mistake by Germany because aggression will only make Britain more aggressive. Naval
growth was also calculated to make German a major imperial power by getting territories
Gadze C Page 115

overseas. German was confrontational .In the Jameson raid of 1896 by the British against the
Boers, the Kaiser congratulated Paul Kruger for defeating Star Jameson. This worsened the
tension between Germany and Britain.
 The Germany system of government had collapsed after the fall of Bismarck .There was no
coordination between the civilian, military departments and the Parliament after Bismarck
died as the chancellor. The new chancellor was weak, the parliament was weak, and Kaiser as
the Emperor was weak. Bismarck used to be a man of authority. He was a man of iron and
blood who followed diplomacy first then used the army to achieve policy. Now under
Hollweg, there was no diplomacy, no policy and the army decided. Bismarck worked very
hard to prevent war between Germany and France that would involve other European
countries. He created a network of alliances that would prevent France from getting allies
after her 1870-1871 war defeat. France was isolated so that she will not start a war against
Germany. The system of alliances only split Europe into two hostile camps after the departure
of Bismarck.
 It was only in Germany where there was a general feeling in favour of war and the
government was weak to stop it. The successes of Bismarck in creating the German Empire
created a myth that she was too strong. Germany now wanted to be powerful for the sake of
it. She had no aims .France wanted Alsace and Lorraine back, Russia wanted Constantinople,
Britain wanted her defence of the high seas, Austria wanted to destroy Serbia .Germany had
no aims. War was preventable after the Sarajevo assassination but war was inevitable.
Germany had promised Austria unconditional support so there was no going back. The
Germany army saw success in this war and success alone justified the war. The government
of Germany failed to control its military men as well as those from Austria. The war of 1914
broke out because Austria and German wanted it. No amount of righteous anger by Austria
Hungary and Serbia should have been allowed to justify the war. Austria Hungary could not
survive by destroying Serbia because this was going to dragg in Russia and the Triple Entente
powers. It was Germany that made Austria Hungary careless and very miscalculating. She
made Austria believe that if a general war came, they will win it quickly. This made Austria
Hungary careless. She later pretended to restrain Austria from war. Germany could not even
restrain her own soldiers. Germany just wanted to run away from the blame of having started
the war. Germany was always preparing her soldiers secretly. She was the aggressor. Hollweg
told the parliament that they were violating international law but necessity knew no law.
Other powers had to respond to this Germany aggression. Russia had to protect the inferior
Serbs from Austria supported by Germany, France and Russia joined because they were the
target of the Schlieffen plan, Britain joined because she knew she was next given the
Germany aggression .
 Germany had a war plan, the Schlieffen plan .The main theatre of war was to be France. Thus
the plan targeted France but honestly was not going to end there . France was to be attacked
and defeated in six weeks before moving to the East to attack Russia. She had an aggressive
foreign policy. She was a real danger to the international peace.
 Some Germany authorities argue that the tremendous industrial growth after 1871 forced
Germany to expand or burst. Overproduction and overpopulation made it necessary to find
new territories to settle the excess population. The living space had to be found at the expense
of others. It meant war.
 According to Norman Lowe, the Russians were worried about the Balkans where both
Bulgaria and Turkey were under the Germany influence .This would enable Germany and
Austria to control the Dardanelles, the main Russian trade route thereby killing the Russian
economy. In fact when world war one broke out, this is what actually happened .
THE IMPACT OF IMPERIALISM
Gadze C Page 116

 It was not only the sudden rise of Germany which caused tension in Europe but the rise of
imperialism from 1880 – 1914 in Africa and Asia. It increased tension among European
powers Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. Imperialism among European powers was a
battle for wealth, power, growth and survival. The world was divided between the living and
dying powers according to Lord Salisbury the British Prime Minister. Thus to remain a great
power or to become one, there was need for an empire. This was to be done by armed force
and the denial of self-determination to small nations. It is true that imperialism did not cause
WW1 as seen in Morocco but it contributed to future events significantly. Small powers in
Eastern Europe wanted self-determination while great powers wanted to expand at the
expense of weak nations. This created an atmosphere of antagonism. Britain did not want to
decline as an empire, Germany wanted an empire, Austria Hungary wanted to survive. While
some problems for example Britain and France over Egypt and Fashoda were solved but
some incidences which caused tension e.g. Anglo-Boer War, the first and second Moroccan
crisis were never solved right up to World war 1.
EVENTS IN THE BALKANS 1908-1914
THE 1908 BOSNIAN CRISIS
 There were three main crisis in the Balkans, the 1908 Bosnian Crisis, the 1912 and
1913 balkan wars, the 1914 Sarajevo assassination. When Austria Hungary annexed
Bosnia and Herzegovina which had many Serbs in 1908 , the Serbian nationalism
reached a boiling point. The Serbian access to the sea was blocked, her dreams of
Serbia uniting with Bosnia and Herzegovina for a Yugoslavia country was frustrated.
She expected the Russian support and that of the Tripple Entente powers France and
Britain . The Entente powers Russia, France, Britain, appeared to be weak at the
time. Russia was weakened by her defeat in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904. Serbia
was too small to go alone against Austria supported by Germany. Germany stood by
Austria Hungary successfully. Britain and France merely protested at the Austrian
action and did not do anything more . However, Russia felt she needed to do
something for Serbia, a fellow slav in future. The Bosnian conflict brought in major
powers, Germany for Austria Hungary and Russia for Serbia. Big powers had
interests but they were hiding behind the small powers , Germany behind Austria and
Russia behind Serbia.
 The Serbian humiliation led to the formation of terrorist organisations such as the
Black Hand that did the job in the 1914 Sarajevo assassination. The Bosnian crisis
worsened the anti-Austrian feelings characterised by the training of spies and
saboteurs and the spreading of the anti-Austrian propaganda in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. This, as already noted led to the germination of anti-Austrian
organisations which had the support of the government of Serbia.
 While Africa had been easier to share among the imperial powers due to lack of
African resistance but the Balkan nationalism was wide awake. The Serbian
nationalism had the potential of infecting the multinational Austrian Empire with
nationalism. This was going to lead to the collapse of the Austrian Empire. Thus
Austria was fighting for the maintenance of the status quo while Serbia was working
for the disintegration of the Austrian Empire. Austria felt that Serbia must be crushed
before she became too strong.
 When Austria occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, she had the Germany assurance.
This diplomatic bullying by Germany made Russia to increase her war expenditure,
Gadze C Page 117

come closer to Serbia and never to go back in the Balkans. The Germany assurance
to Austria marked the fall of international relations. Russia and Serbia were
diplomatically defeated but this left bitterness .Russia started the military
reconstruction so that she will be able to support Serbia in future if she was to keep
her influence in the Balkans. On the other hand, Austrian successes with the support
of Germany in 1908 made her careless in the future Balkan Crisis.
THE BALKAN WARS OF 1912-1913
 Since 1908, the Balkans remained a melting pot. Major Powers were always
involved in the weakening and strengthening of Turkey for their own benefits. In
the 1912-13 war, the Turkey Balkan subjects wanted to destroy the Turkish
Empire. This was due to the Turkish brutality, need for territorial gains by Balkan
States. Russia now pledged to work together with Serbia militarily unlike what
she did in 1908. Big powers had their own interests in the Balkans. They were
against the changing of the status quo by the Balkans league against Turkey. The
Balkan league of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Montenegro easily defeated
Turkey. Turkey disappeared from the map of Europe and only Constantinople
remained. Albania was declared independent and this angered Serbia because she
no longer had access to the sea. The sharing of spoills among former friends led to
the splitting of the Balkan league leading to the war of 1913.
 Serbia emerged out of the two wars bigger and Austria felt threatened. Serbia got
many territories. She was expected to build a bigger state for the Serbs with Serbia
as the centre the same manner Piedmont was to Italy and Prussia was to Germany.
She emerged out of the war with a big population meaning also the ability to raise
a big army, it also meant power and prestige. The victory for the Balkan league
was the victory of nationalism. This was a disaster to Austria Hungary which had
many races, tribes, nationalities under her control. It was feared that these
nationalities due to the spill over effects might start demanding independence
from Austria taking the example of the Balkan states from Turkey. The defeat of
Turkey affected the balance of power. The Serbian victory saw her erasing the
humiliation and the loss of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This led to the growth of
Slav nationalism across Dalmatia, Bosnian in an effort to create a united
Yugoslavia . Hundreds of students were looking forward to the creation of
Yugoslavia.
 Austria since 1912 was pursuing war for a solution to the Serbian power and got
confidence from the Germany support. Germany was ready to draw a sword
whenever Austrian action made it necessary. When Germany chose to be an
Austrian servant, this made the situation in the Balkans more dangerous especially
given that there was an arms race by bigger powers. Germany increased her
soldiers by 1913, France extended the military service period, Russia planned to
expand her army, and Britain strengthened her military naval bases. France
promised to help Russia in the event of war with Germany. Thus France had given
Russia a blank cheque. Germany supported Austria. Serbia was confident. Russia
and Austria could no longer accept any humiliation. Thus by 1913, all the
ingredients for a major war were there. The long term causes of world war 1 were
reflecting themselves into the immediate causes of world war 1 for example the
drama of the system of alliances ,arms race and militarism .
THE SARAJEVO ASSASINATION OF 1914
Gadze C Page 118

 It was the immediate cause of World war 1. The assassination of Ferdinand of

Austria by Principe of the Black Hand organisation finally triggered World
war 1. The Serbian government might not have planned this but the
intelligence office together with the ministry of foreign affairs might have
known about it. Serbia could not denounce the killing by Principe because it
will be unpopular with the Serbs. They would not praise it neither because
this will cause more tension with Austria. The assassination was fatal and was
seized by Austria with both hands for a war to crush Serbia as is explained
by the difficult ultimatum it sent to Serbia, a reason for war since the terms
were not acceptable to an independent country especially the third ultimatum
that talked of the Austrian police getting into Serbia to supervise the
implementation of the other two terms . This was clearly a violation of the
territorial integrity and the self honour of an independent country .
 The death of Ferdinand removed from Austria a man who supported peace.
Austria now wanted the destruction of Serbia at all costs. As for Russia, the
Sarajevo assassination and the possible consequences were a repeat of the
1908 Bosnian crisis where she had failed Serbia and if she failed her again,
Russia would lose influence in Serbia. Russia will in no case be indifferent to
the fate of Serbia. France did not want to be discredited as a major ally of
Russia. This would also mean the end of Russian influence in the Balkans.
Russia was worried by the Balkan situation given that Turkey and Bulgaria
were under the Germany control. This was going to give Germany and
Austria a chance to control the Dardanelles which was the main Russian
trading route and will disturb the Russian economy. Thus the 1914 war to
Russia was a war of survival. Other powers also felt their existence was at
stake, Austria wanted the survival of her multinational empire which was
being threatened by the Serbian nationalism. Austria felt Serbia was
supposed to be destroyed. This was a mistake by Austria because the war was
not going to be settled at local level. Germany believed the same without
seeing that her violation of the Belgian neutrality was going to bring Britain
into the war.
 The drama of the system of alliances,a long term cause of world war 1 was
played and replayed. Germany gave Austria a blank cheque. The Germany
military command wanted war quickly so that they will not fight on two
fronts. Germany turned down the British proposal for a meeting to resolve
the problem. Britain was brought into the war by the violation of the Belgian
neutrality by Germany. This angered the British public opinion and they
wanted hands of Belgium. Previously they were not interested in the war “To
hell with Serbia” as they did not want to die over Serbia. Austria wanted to
crush Serbia but was not determined without Germany support. Germany
wanted to dominate the world and this brought in France, Russia, and
Britain against her. Germany was prepared to risk a major war in order to
dominate the world.
WHY EVENTS IN THE BALKANS EVENTUALLY CAUSED WW1
 While World war 1 had both short and long term causes, there were events in
the Balkans that sparked the war in 1914. The Balkans was a hot spot with
the rise of pan Slav nationalism. Rivalry among the big powers in the region
increased after 1900. Serbia as a champion of Slav nationalism wanted the
demise of the Habsburg hold over the region. Russia backed Serbia in this as
Gadze C Page 119

a way of reaching the sea. The Habsburg were anxious over the rise of pan
Slavism as a destabilising factor hence their reaction since 1908-1914. Austria
had tried to keep Serbia under control as seen in the annexation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. The events of 1908 brought into the bigger picture that the
alliance system in which Germany consistently up to 1914 backed Austria,
Russia and Serbia. The alliance system broadened what could have been a
regional conflict. This was coming at a time when the generals were planning
for war and diplomacy was failing. Thus the long term causes of world war 1
were spilling into the Balkans to cause war.
 In the 3 Balkan crisis of 1908, 1912-13, 1914, the involvement of major powers
either caused or worsened the situation. In 1908 Austria annexed Bosnia and
Herzegovina. This was against the Berlin Congress of 1878 which gave them
independence. This Austrian annexation was caused by her fear of Serbian
nationalism in the Balkans. Russia was dragged in as a Slav big brother.
THE GROWING OF ARMIES AND ARMS OF WAR
 The armies were built and increased their strength and Europe’s big armies
were ready for the war. More expenses were spent on the weapons as
countries sought military expansion. European and American armament
industries made a lot of profits from the manufacture and sell of armaments
to both sides of the armed camps, the Triple Alliance, Triple Entente. New
weapons were invented as countries were competing to arm themselves.
While all the governments had a feeling that war must be avoided, all the
governments were busy gathering arms of war. Nicholas II of Russia
organised a meeting to try and reduce arms of war but was ignored, evidence
that war was within a distance.
 Various powers drew up their war plans, the Schlieffen plan for Germany.
France was to be theatre of war and was to be defeated in 6 weeks before
turning to Russia. Russia planned to attack Austria, defend herself against
Germany. France was determined to force Germany to fight the war on two
fronts. France had a war plan 17 where she negotiated with Russia so that
she will attack both Austria and Germany once the war started. Thus Europe
divided into two camps was prepared for war. The wrath for war was
provoked by the Balkan explosion. This anger overflowed and brought
Europe into ruins. Now that Europe had big armies, 2, 2 million for Russia
and France, 2,2 million for Germany and Austria Hungary , war was
inevitable. These big armies were supported by huge armaments. Countries
looked to the strength of their armaments and armies than the use of
diplomacy in solving conflicts.
 Countries had developed military policies which they wanted to defend by
1914. Germany, France and Russia had policies as already seen. At sea, the
position of Britain as the mistress of the high seas was being threatened by
Germany. The world had been able to solve the competition for colonies for
example in Morocco but powers now sought security in the alliance system
as checks and balances to powers.
 The Balkans continued to be a hot spot and made powers more committed and
more confident in the military spheres and made Europe to take a gamble in
the hope that the war was going to be short.
Gadze C Page 120

THE SYSTEM OF ALLIANCE
The system was started in Europe by Bismarck the, Germany chancellor in order to isolate
France and avoid revenge after the 1871 French defeat and its loss of Alsace and Lorraine to
Prussia. Bismarck wanted to leave Germany enemies without a friend . Bismarck had worked
hard to prevent a war between Germany and France that would involve other European
powers. He knew France was going to seek revenge for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine.
Although the system of alliances succeeded at first, it eventually split Europe into two hostile
camps after the departure of Bismarck. A rival alliance was formed which was an ingredient of
war. The Triple alliance of 1882 was made up of Germany, Austria Hungary, and Italy. The
Triple Entente was made up of Russia, Britain, and France. The camps became hostile to each
other as evidenced by the Moroccan, Balkan crisis. The countries supported the alliance to
avoid humiliation as failure to support a member would mean defeat of the camp. It became a
test of strength and loyalty of members to the alliance. The “two armed camps” were a war
machine since it meant supporting a friend to the point of war to keep the prestige of the camp
intact. Cases were no longer dealt with on merit but loyalty to the camp.
THE PARIS CONFERENCE
KEY WORDS
Radical-------------- Advocating fundamental changes

Vindictive----------Seeking revenge
Negligible----------small or unimportant as to be not worth considering
Flawed-------------imperfection or defect or blemish
Blend--------------mixture
Fatal--------------disaster or ruin
Revenge---------retaliation
Idealism---------tendency to seek perfection in everything
The 5 peace treaties signed with the defeated powers after ww1 together are known as the Paris Peace
treaties . To fully understand the events shaping the peace treaties, one should look into the views of
the big three, Woodrow Wilson of America, Lloyd George of Britain and Clemenceau of France.
Clemenceau wanted revenge, retaliation especially against Germany. He wanted compensation for all
the losses suffered when Germany invaded France . Wanted Germany to be militarily weakened, the
Rhineland to be independent. He wanted Germany to be broken into many states so that she will be
weak. Wanted her to lose the Saar, Upper Silesia, Danzig, East Prussia, Germany to pay reparations
for French damages suffered in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war and WW1, wanted a naval blockade of
Germany. Clemenceau was radical and vindictive. The public opinion in France was for revenge and
the Versailles treaty had to be a punishing peace treaty.
Lloyd George of Britain operated between the ideas of Clemenceau and those of Woodrow Wilson.
He went against the British public opinion on Germany that wanted revenge. Lloyd George did not
want the settlement to be too harsh on Germany because this will make Germany revengeful and
Gadze C Page 121

cause another war. He wanted Germany to quickly recover so that the two will resume normal trade
relations since Germany was Britain’s major trading partner. He did not want Germany to be
frustrated to the extent that she will become a communist. Germany had to be strong to guard against
the spread of communism. He did not want the balance of power to be in the favour of France at the
peace conference. This was so in spite of the fact that he had won an election on the promises of
hanging the Kaiser and to make Germany pay for the cost of the war. The British public opinion
wanted a hard line against Germany. As for Woodrow Wilson of America, his country was important
as a World war 1 partner that gave loans, fresh soldiers, war supplies to the allies. He wanted peace
treaties to be based on full international law, democracy, the right to self-determination. He came up
with the 14 points which talked of e.g. restoration of Belgian and Serbian independence, self-
determination for Czechs and Poles.
There were many positives out of the Paris peace settlement given that it had to satisfy a diverse of
interests e.g. British interests in Egypt, France in Alsace and Lorraine, Italy in Europe and Africa
where the allies had promised her territorial gains, territorial gains for Romania, a state for Poland
from Germany Poland Austrian Russia created a state for Czechoslovakia, a state for the Serbs called
Yugoslavia. It was going to be difficult to negotiate and satisfy all these interests. Thus the Paris
peace conference must be commended for a big task in handling the above diverse interests .
The Versailles Treaty unlike the Vienna Settlement of 1815 which bartered the happiness of the
subject people, the Versailles treaty of 1919 was committed to satisfy the demands the nationalist
movement in East and Central Europe. Democracy was not ignored because this was a demand from
the electorate from Britain, France, and America, so, Germany had to follow democracy. France
wanted the Versailles treaty to be a moment of victory for her but this was to a larger extent opposed.
To be honest, Germany had not lost much in terms of economic power. Her economic performance
was good in the 1930s. Negative effects were there e.g. she lost her overseas colonies, surrendered her
land to the Poles and Czechs but the loss was not to the extent the Germans chose to see the effects.
The Germans chose to see everything problematic after 1918 as a result of the Versailles treaty.
Germans were quick to forget their own weakness e.g. when the Germany army was facing defeat in
1918, it destroyed mines, buildings, property of the ordinary people, killed civilians.
The British public opinion wanted the Kaiser to be hanged, so were the French. In spite of all the
pressure, Lloyd George proved to be a statesman. He did not want Germany to be treated like a cow
from which both milk and beef could be extracted at the same time.
The Versailles was right in that it corrected the wrongs of centuries when it gave independence to
subject people of Central Europe. The 14 points by Woodrow Wilson were good. He was ready to
discuss a fair treaty with Germany but Germany responded by the use of force to decide whether
justice and peace will reign in the affairs of men yet after defeat they wanted the 14 points to form the
basis for peace negotiations. This was in spite of the fact that Germany was ruthless when dealing
with Russia eg at the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 and when it dealt with Romania at the
peace treaty of Bucharest .The Germany refusal of the 14 points made the allies to think of modifying
them in their own favour and for France to be allowed to be more vindictive. Germany had ignored
the sweetest compromises when it was made clear to her by Lloyd George that the war by the allies
was not an aggression against the Germany people or fighting to destroy the Austrian Empire or the
Germany Empire but the adoption of a democratic constitution which would make it easier to produce
a democratic peace with her.
Germany was deceitful and cheating. The Germany revolution of 1918 was a fake one and stage
managed to force Britain and America to give Germany a lenient peace treaty while at the same time
keeping the Germany army intact. Another invalid claim by Germany was on the harm of the
Germany economy after the Versailles Treaty. By 1925 Germany steel production was twice that of
Britain. The territorial losses were not severe. The return of Alsace and Lorraine was proper. The
Gadze C Page 122

losses of territories to Belgium and Czechoslovakia were not that damaging. To fully appreciate how
fair the Versailles treaty was, one has to compare it with the Brest Litovsk signed with Russia in 1917.
Russia lost 34% of her population, 54% of her industries , 89% of her coal mines. Therefore , the
Germany loss of East Prussia to Poland was nothing compared to what Russia had lost to Germany. In
any case , if Germany was the victor, it would have taken allies territories.
The peace treaty of 1919 wanted to contain the German Reich by liberating the Slavs, creating a great
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania and cut to size Austria .It denied Germany the dominance of
Eastern Europe using Austria to trouble the slavs who also had the right to exist as the Germans and
Austrians. It is not true that Czechoslovakia was a manufactured state ,that Romania was corrupt , that
Austria was corrupt ,Hungary was dictatorial .The arrangement made at the Paris peace conference
were the best at the time
As for disarmament and reparations, they were not enforced and did not weaken Germany as the allies
had wanted. After all the powers were supposed to disarm –as for the war clause ,it is a fact that
Germany was responsible for World war 1 .She had a war plan .The war of 1914 was the greatest
crime against humanity and the freedom at the people .Germany and her friends were responsible for
the 7 million dead,20 million wounded . The Germany people supported the war, gave loans, and
obeyed orders .Therefore Germany cannot pretend to be good after the loss of war in order to escape
the consequence of war.
However the Paris Peace Conference has been criticised. The reparations Germany had to pay were
too harsh as the vindictive and revengeful France wanted Germany to pay for the post war
reconstruction so that taxes for the French citizens were going to be reduced. Reparations were one of
the major grievances against the Versailles treaty. She had to pay reparations at a time when her
economy was weak. By 1923, the Germany economy had collapsed. She was unable to pay.
Poland was formed and it included the minority Germans, Romania was formed at the expense of
Russia, Hungary was formed at the expense of Yugoslavia. All this was done by violating nationality.
Thus Russian and Germany national interest were ignored. Czechoslovakia was now made up of
many nationalities and when World war 2 broke out in 1940 , the minorities left .This shows that the
Paris conference was not fair on the minority groups
Trade and commerce was affected by the Paris Peace conference. Old economic ties were destroyed
and new ones had to be formed .The Austro Hungarian empire had been more prosperous than the
divided and independent 7 units created from it by the treaty of St Germain.
It was expected that the new states in Eastern Europe will be democratic but this proved to be
false .Most of the areas were backward.
France had hopes to revenge .Clemenceau was old enough to remember the French humiliation of
1870 in the Franco-Prussian war .He was now working for French revenge and glory .The French
were forgetting how Napoleon 1 caused havoc in Germany .The fact that the terms were dictated
gave Germany nationalists an excuse to complain .Many people outside Germany later sympathised
with Germany since they felt Germany was treated unfairly.
The Germany territories were taken by the victors as mandates on behalf of the league of
Nations .This was against Woodrow Wilson’s point number 5 which stated that colonial territories
were supposed to be settled in accordance with the interest of the inhabitants .Germany had agreed to
Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points as the basic for the peace treaties .Therefore, the Germans were
determined to do away with the Versailles treaty and remained a threat to world peace.
Gadze C Page 123

The war guilt clause was resented by the Germans yet the French wanted the Germans to pay the war
bill in full. This would only work with German cooperation. When it refused, the victors had no
means to enforce the payment of reparations.
Germany expected the peace treaty to be lenient since it came from the democracies of Britain,
France, and America and since Germany was not allowed to contribute anything and the peace treaty
was a diktat which was mainly influenced by the vindictive and revengeful France against Germany.
Germany was disarmed and broken as a military power. Politicians like Hitler took advantage of
Germans hatred of the Versailles treaty and Weimar Republic to attack the government. The
Versailles treaty failed to cultivate good relations with Germany so that she will not find reasons for
resentments. It also failed to eliminate the Germany power and when Germany sought to overturn it
she was able to do so by the use of force.
It was wrong for the allies to refuse to sign the Versailles treaty with the military people and the
Kaiser who had started the war. They were the real people than the Weimar Republic who stood for
real nothing in Germany. The military people remained the real force behind the scenes in Germany
and the real representatives of the Germany people. The allies should have brought the military people
on the table to accept defeat and repent as war criminals.
The setting up of the League of Nations in 1919 was harmful. Peace could only be defended by the
powers that brought it Britain, France, America, Russia by the force at arms but France, Britain,
America hated Russian Bolsheviks and Russia hated them as well. Britain wanted Germany as a
trading partner. Thus Britain and France had differences and the League of Nations could not work.
Worse still America and Russia were out. Only great powers could prevent wars. This is the lesson the
League of Nations ignored.
Nazism in Germany was a political disease caused by the Versailles treaty. Appeasement in the 1930s
by Britain and France was meant to remove the danger spots one by one instead of allowing them to
go out of hand as in 1914. Appeasement failed to bring peace.
The St Germain treaty signed with Austria saw her army reduced, she had to pay reparations, her
population was reduced. At the Trianon signed with Hungary, the Sevres signed with Turkey ,she
lost Turks and disappeared from the map of Europe. However, although Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Turkey, were against the terms forced on them, they were not powerful enough to be a serious threat
to peace. Of course , the damages were severe. Turkey was swept from the face of Europe hence the
revision of the Sevres treaty. She lost most of her territories to Britain and France in the name of the
League of Nations and mandates. Britain and France were benefiting from them.
The St Germain signed with Austria banned the brotherly union between Austria and Germany.
Austria became a land locked country. Lost 80% of her industries to Hungary through Trianon treaty,
lost industries to Poland and Czechoslovakia. She was expected to pay reparations. Austria suffered
economic collapse. She could do nothing because she was small.
MUSSOLINI AND ITALY 1918 -1939
FACTORS BEHIND THE RISE OF MUSSOLINI AND THE FASCISTS
Economic,social and political factors largely explain the rise of Mussolini
POLITICAL FACTORS
-Italy emerged out of ww1 with many social,economic and social problems.Italy emerged out of this
war a poorer nation.He and the Fascists appeared to have solutions to the problems affecting
Italy.They talked of national identity,strengthening of the nation and glory and this attracted war
Gadze C Page 124

veterans.The Italians had not gained the glory they wanted since they described the Versailles treaty
as a mutilated treaty. Italy wanted the German territories in Africa,Fiume.When Mussolini spoke of
glory,he was speaking to the classes with grievances concerning the unfairness of the Versailles treaty
since they did not get the territories they wanted.Some Italians hated an involvement in ww1 and Italy
entered this war as a divided nation.Mussolini was one of the people who hated this war,this situation
helped him gain power in Italy.
-The post ww1 situation shows that those social,economic,political situations gave birth to ideologies
eg communism,socialism.Thus due to the problems faced in Italy,people saw socialism as better than
capitalism.The fascists who wanted the means of production to be owned privately gained the support
of the industrialists and the middle class
-There was political confusion between 1919-1922.The liberals in the government were divided.Some
saw Mussolini as a partner against the socialist threats while some were against him.More to
that ,there was the exisistence of the coalation governments which were weak.This led to the clush of
ideas,thus why the socialists were gaining the ground.The liberals were making mistakes in that they
introduced reforms and these reforms allowed more Italians to vote.Thus the government had no full
control of the voters since many people were now allowed to vote.The Fascists were now allowed to
vote and by so doing,they got a voice as voters.They also introduced proportional representation and it
was a mistake because it brought the smaller parties even the Fascists into the government.Mussolini
promised a strong government and he got support.Besides,the Fascists got 35 seats in the 1921
elections.The Party was seen by people as a party that wanted to get into power through legal means
and they were seen as honourable and they got the symphathy of the people
-The Fascists made use of violence which was unleashed by the war veterans and the black shirts.The
violence of the Fascists played a critical role in that it enabled the blackshirts to control the streets to
prove the power of the Fascists and was a reminder to the government as the power of Mussolini and
this forced the liberals to think otherwise.Given the menace and the threats posed by the
socialists,Mussolini read the situation well.The Socialists were a threat to the land owners.They
encouraged landless peasants to form trade unions and these trade unions started occupying
farms,factories ,industries.As already noted,Mussolini sided with the land owners and the
industrialists by sending the black shirts to disperse the landless peasants from these farms and he got
a lot of support from the landlords and the industrialists.They benefited the financial power from these
classes.The Liberals tolerated the violence of the Fascists to that of the Socialists.They felt that
Mussolini could be controlled once in government.
-The attitude of the Roman Catholic church helped Mussolini and the Fascist party.When Pius 1X
came to power,he was more sympathetic to Mussolini and wanted them into power.He felt that once
the fascists were in power they could make better deals with the church.The power of the Catholic
church was undoubted in the Catholic states in Italy.The Roman Catholic church gave unreserved
support to the Fascists. The effect was that the all the opponents of the Fascists were very weak
without the support of the Catholic church hence the reason why the socialist organised strike of 1921
failed and this benefited Mussolini and the Fascists
-The role of Mussolini himself was critical.Mussolini was a journalist by proffesion.He was able to
clearly articulate his issues.He was a mob orator,his spechees were appealing to the people of
Italy,they were so receptive and this skill won him hearts.Such a gift was rare by thenhence the reason
why the Fascists were able to rise to power against their opponents by then.Mussolini was also skilful
and diplomatic.It was his ideas that the Fascists must support the Conservatives,the
Gadze C Page 125

landlords ,industrialists and factory owners. He had seen the value of these classes as the sources of
finance and he got their support forever.In addition to that,Mussolini’s belief in the parliamentary path
was important,thus why he gained 35 seats in 1921 with the effect that he was seen as somebody who
wanted to get into power through legal means at a time when there was violence and intimidation in
Italy.He also had a great personality in that in the period 1919-1922 there was deep division in the
Fascist Party. Mussolini was able to unite the Italians out of this factionalism due to the differences in
ideologies. He was able to stop the radicalism and extremism.Mussolini also realised that the use of
force alone will not bring the Fascists to power hence the reason why he negotiated with the
Liberals.This was a brilliant piece of diplomacy.The use of violence alone could not have helped him
much to be given the position of the Prime Minister.Thus Mussolini got into power through deals and
compromises.The March to Rome was critical to his rise to power.After the failure of the 1921
demonstrations by the socialists against the Fascists,the Fascists felt strong to start their own march to
Rome.
ECONOMIC FACTORS
-There was massive unemployment when Italy was emerging out of ww1.The problem of
unemployment was worsened by the returning of millions of ex soldiers and the American
immigration laws that prohibited immigration.Jobs were difficult to come by in ItalyRunning away
inflation addede to the sufferings of the Italians as the lira had only a fifth of its pre war value.The
prices of goods went up by 50 percent while wages remained the same pre war values.Unemployment
encouraged uprisings across the country urged by the Bolsheviks revolution in Russia.The
government failed to respond to the crisis and Fascism was seen by some as an option to
socialism.This was particularly true of the king and the aristocracy who saw Fascism as a better devil
to socialism.It was a real hope to property owners given that workers were occupying factories and
land.The Fascists seem to have a firm action to prevent a revolution and the take over by the
socialists.Fascism was the only viable option to Bolshevism and murdering 3 000 socialists in
October 1922.Unemployment and high inflation pushed people away from the weak government
-The war also slowed down the trading of goods with the other countries.Italy could not afford this
trade due to high debts.Other countries stopped buying Italian goods and refusing to give her loans.
SOCIAL FACTORS
-poverty was one of the most recruiting factors by the Fascists as it caused social unrest in Italy as
people turned to extreme parties in protest to the economic problems.Urban poverty was common and
the option became one of seeking redress by violent means hence social unrest.It was at this time that
the Fascists appered as a way forward to the failing government by offering promises to end the so
many social ills such as the lack of advanced education which made Italy a Junior of her allies in
ww1 Britain and France that was making her feel inferior.The Italians wanted a raised social standing
in the family of nations.Anti social vices such as prostitution ,lawlessness,soldiers coming from ww1
living on bandtry due to the lack of jobs ,high crime rate were the social manifestations of poverty the
Italians wanted dealt with by their government.Sadly,the solution to these bread and butter issues
were beyond the government of the day.People preferred the Fascists whose physical presence in the
streets and their control of the streets through the black shirts gave the picture of strength and
potentially a strong government hence their rise to power.The government of the day grappled with
problems such as starvation and suffering ,many deseases and lack of state support and poor social
support that had become fashionable in the 20th century yet the government could not provide
answers to these social challenges.Its failures advertised the Fascists as the government in waiting to
Gadze C Page 126

replace the failing government of the day.Thus social factors promoted the rise of Mussolini and the
Fascists in Italy.
MUSSOLINI”S DOMESTIC POLICY
-His domestic reforms are usually known as the battles,the battle for land,the battle for electricity,the
battle for wheat,the battle for births,the battle for steel.The domestic reforms can be divided into
political,social and economic.
ECONOMIC REFORMS
-Mussolini’s economic policies were were generally aimed at gaining support from the people.Most
of Mussolini’s battles which were intended to achieve autarchy or self sufficiency caused at least as
many problems as they solved.The battle over the Southern part of Italy was meant to eradicate the
terrible poverty in Southern Italy and Sicily.It was a failure despite a propaganda ,nothing was
done.Plans to develop new villages were never implemented as the money was embezzled by corrupt
officials.Southern Italy remained impoverished and Mussolini was never heard again.
-The battle for wheat in 1925 aimed to get farmers to grow more wheat in a drive to self sufficiency,
to reduce the balance of trade deficit,to lower the necessity of foreign imports of bread,to show ltaly
as a major power.Medals were given to the most successful farmers and their stories were reported in
newspapers with the effect that it motivated the farmers.There was misallocation of resources with
more committed to the production of wheat.By 1935 wheat imports had been cut by 75
percent.However,the battle for wheat was of limited success. Wheat was grown at the expense of the
cheaper vegetables and fruits.Rich farmers did very well as they were assured of the good prices for
their produce but this was achieved at the expense of the lucrative dairy farming and arable farming
whose output fell.Agriculture remained inefficient.Farm labourers remained the poorest class in the
country with wages falling from between 20 to 30 percent in the 1930s.Production in lucrative export
crops like fruits,olive fell causing the loss in lucrative profits.The battle for wheat was one of
Mussolini’s efforts at the creation of a totalitarian state.More resources were lost than what was
obtained.The Italians suffered as more imports continued,ltaly had to import olive oil,the export of
fruits,wine,cattle,sheep dropped, even in wheat itself.As already noted,other agricultural products
suffered because the growth of wheat was even done in wrong regions.Other agricultural products like
meat,eggs had to be imported leading to poor diet.Worse still,Italy did not record much economic
growth out of this since she did not have an industrial power house sector to deal with the agrarian
farm produce unlike eg Germany which had the Ruhr,Britain which had the South Wales,Italy did
not have the vibrant industrial zones.
-The battle for land was part of the drive to improve agriculture yields by mechanising agriculture.
The programme was financed from the public funds and created jobs for the unemployed.Mussolini
wanted to reclaim the land for use and out of that land he wanted to build the Italian cities as he was
talking of building hundreds of cities after the land reclamation The land cleared was also used to
build roads ,houses to improve on lialy’s infrastructure.These schemes were labour intensive and
employed a lot of people,so they served a positive purpose in that area.Other than the drain the
mosquito infested Pontine marshes,the programme was a failure since it aimed at pleasing the tourists
other than creating extra farm land.The battle for land was an overall disaster and was done for
propaganda.Few peasants were resettled even after his efforts.The battle for land was later abandoned
because it had failed,only 13 percent of peasants gained land and this created an unequal society with
the rich becoming richer while the poor were becoming poorer
Gadze C Page 127

-The 1926 battle for the lira was an attempt to show that Italy had a strong currency.The lira was a
symbol of the nation,the sign of her riches,the fruits of the ltalian labour.The British pound traded
about 150 ltalian lira and after the revalueing, it was now trading 92,46 to the British pound by
1927.Mussolini wanted to create a strong nation with a strong currency . Mussolini was able to
achieve the exchange rate he wanted.Politically,the position of Mussolini was secured.The decrease in
the prices of the imported rawmatearials such as coal and iron for the manufacture of weapons of war
and ship building and this allowed ltaly to build her army and this allowed ltaly to be able to attack
Ethiopia in 1935 and to be able to fight in ww2.When Mussolini revalued the Italian currency too
high,it made the Italian exports more expensive on the international market leading to reduced
orders.Factories were on a 3 day work a week and the workers suffered wage cuts of 10 to 20 percent
even before the wall street crash.It caused cheap imports into ltaly.Many of the effects of the battle for
the lira were negative.They hampered the economy.
-Mussolini’s public works were quite a success .He aimed at improving the life of the people.The
transport sector was improved with the building up of motorways and bridges.Railways were
electrified and expanded.Trains ran on time.Schools and sports stadiums were built. Major projects
were done to help generate employment and strengthen the infrastructure.Public works reduced
unempoloyment and gave Italy infrastructure of lasting value.Commerce was expanded
-In the creation of the corporate state,Mussolini wanted to demonstrate something to the world.After
the end of ww1,there were radical changes as workers moved to the extreme left.This resulted in the
hostility between the employers and the employees.There was a struggle between socialism and
capitalism.Mussolini in the creation of a corporate state regulated the relations between the
empoloyers and the employees.Equal number of employers and employees gathered to overcome the
class conflicts to avoid strikes and other labour disputes as the nation had to come first and other
interests had to come later.Labour matters were solved amicably without many disputes.Italy became
an example to the world and many visitors came to see how Italy had succeded in doing
it.However,the corporate state programme was done for propaganda so that Mussolini will get support
in and outside Italy.Mussolini also turned Italy into an institutionalised labour system between the
state and the employers and the employees.This consolidated the power of the Fascists as workers
were denied the right to strike given the horrible conditions of service.The system was corrupt with
embezzlement of funds and nepotism.There was increased state control for
totalitarianism.Industrialists however got it their own way.Their voices came to dominate in these
negotiations yet the conditions of labour was deplorable.Mussolini could not control business as allies
in government given the financial support they had given to Mussolini during his rise to power just
like the church had done.Thus Mussolini could not establish total control over the owners of
businesses.
-In autarky,Italy wanted to achieve the economic self sufficiency and self reliance.The economy had
to produce instead of importing.The production of goods brought to an end the problem of
unemployment at first.Initially this appeared a success but later suffered because Italy was now
preparing for the war.Italy was now producing arms of war and this affected the programme.The
standards of living were poor and workers became poor due to the autarky and this explains the failure
of Mussolini’s industry
SOCIAL REFORMS OR CHANGES
-The social policies were also meant to increase his popularity.The battle for births was an attempt to
increase the number of Italians from 40 to 60 million by 1950 as more people meant more soldiers for
Gadze C Page 128

war and labourers. In 1920,the population stood at 37 million,so his target was a tall order.Bachelors
paid heavy taxes,childless couples were taxed.There were jobs promotions for those with children.His
policies gave a short term boost to the birth rate due to the incentives given to women to give birth to
more children.When Mussolini thinks of the battle for births,it is not clear of the intention but logic
indicated that he wanted to imitate the Great Caesar and create a Great Empire.He might have been
tempted to get many soldiers to get territories.Hitler and Germany strengthened power was seen in the
population hence the punishment of bachelors and childless couples by Mussoline at the same time
rewarding women with many children as already noted.The emancipation era for women came during
this period of the battle for births.In Italy women assumed a new status as they were allowed in
industries just like their male counter parts.However, The battle for births was a failure,the birth rate
went down between 1927 and 1934.It declined from 29,9 percent to 23 percent in 1940.The
population only rose due to the fact that people were living longer due to improved medical care.
Thus due to the post world war economic challenges in Italy,women knew the challenges of giving
birth to many children,so they defied Mussolini’s totalitarianism in this aspect.The population
increase was mainly by immigrants into Italy.
-The overall efforts in social services wasto improve the welfare services.This explains the coming of
the dopolavoro,a workers subsidised leisure when workers were given entertainment after
work.People were taken to over seas,sea beaches and resort centres and they were very happy as they
enjoyed leisure and the sports sponsored by the dopolavoro.The Italians and the foreigners loved the
dopolavoro.The cinema industry was promoted at a time when the Holly wood film industry was
booming.This had the effect that it created jobs and was an opportunity to tell the Italians of the
Fascist achievements through film.The dopolavoro was also used to assist the needy Italians in
especially difficult circumstances and at the same time it raised the image of Mussolini,thus it was
done for propaganda to face lift the image of the Fascist regime just like anything by Mussolini.The
conditions of service for workers were horrible,long working hours,low wages among the so many
numerous challenges making the dopolavoro a drop in the ocean.
-The lateran treaty was signed in June 1929 between Italy and the Vatican with Mussolini doing it for
Italy and Pietro doing it on behalf of the Pope and was confirmed by the Italian constitution of 1948.
was meant to get support from the church as Mussolini sought to consolidate his power and create a
totalitarian state.Mussolini wanted to end the long standing conflict between the state and the
church.The history of antagonism between the church and the state came to an end and there was now
peace.The Catholic church was now recognised as the religion of the state and this allowed the
Catholic church to indoctrinate people into being the Roman catholics.The Pope was given control
over the Vatican and made the Vatican a world city for the Catholics worship,religious education was
made compulsory in primary and secondary schoolsThe majority of the Italians were Catholics and
the Lateran Pact earned him the Catholic support. The treaty aimed to solve once and for all the
Roman Catholic question with regards to the former papal states that had become modern Italy and
the Vatican.The signing of the treaty constituted a propaganda coup by Mussolini because he had
been able to solve the Roman Catholic Question that had exisisted since the 19 th century and it ended
the 60 years of conflict between the state and the church. This made the Fascist popular in Italy and
they gained an extra million vote in the 1929 elections since Mussolini had been endorsed by the Pope
himself as a great figure.The church became of less threat to the Fascist supremacy .There was no
more open opposition from the Catholic church.The fascist kept its influence over the church eg it
approaved all the church appointments,thus one had to be a Fascist to enjoy high church positions and
therefore the church could not oppose the governmentHowever,making religion compulsory
compromised the fascist ability to indoctrinate. This became so because people were catholic first
Gadze C Page 129

before they became Fascists,so Fascists nolonger had total control over ldeology in Italy.This means
that fascism could never have complete control over the Italian people.Later the catholic church
refused to be a perpetual subordinate of the Fascist state of Mussolini by cautioning him especially on
his illtreatement of the Jews in imitation of Hitler”s anti-semitism policy.Thus with regards to the
church,Mussolini did not always get it his own way and the consolidation of power was not
total.Worse still,the Catholic youth were more stronger than the Fascist youth.
-In education,the main purpose was to indoctrinate the Italians with the Fascists ideas and this greatly
compromised on the quality of education.Mussolini wanted a nation of warriors.Boys were expected
to grow into fierce soldiers who will fight with glory for Italy while girls were expected to be good
mothers who would provide Italy with a population expected of a great power.Children were taught in
schools that the great day of modern Italy started in 1922 with the march to Rome.They were taught
that Mussolini was the only man capable of taking Italy back to greatness as they were taught that the
natural duty of a man was to fight while girls were bearing children and that giving birth was natural
to girls.This effectively indoctrinated them for a totalitarian state.The introduction of religious
education in schools and universities saw Mussolini getting more support from the church.The
dominating principles were those of the church and not the Fascists and this marked the failure by him
to create a totalitarian stateThe government schools were poor with limited resources while those of
the rich catholic church were better resourced and offered better quality education.Education was
meant for the middle class children,the elite.The Fascist failed greatly in this area since primary
schools were neglected.Poor teaching and the poor leadership in schools since Mussolini wanted
loyality to the regime made education poor.
-Sport was deliberately supported by the state with state resources with the view to consolidate power
and create a totalitarian state.Sport was meant to give the impression that the Fascist regime was
successful.The Italian sport record improved greatly in the 1930s and Mussolini’s image rose.Italy
won the soccer world cup in 1934 and 1938.In the Olympics games in the 1930s, cyclists and boxers
won a lot of gold medals.The young women who were successful in sport were promoted to make it
suit well in his propaganda.In reality,Mussolini’s control of the women was limited.
POLITICAL REFORMS
-His political changes aimed to help him consolidate power. Mussolini as a Prime Minister of a
coalation government did not have full control as there were only 35 fascists .He had to exercise
moderation and seek cooperation in order to entrench power.He formed a government that would
please most people with only 4 out 14 people being fascists.He kept the most important posts to
himself eg Home Affairs,Foreign Affairs.In his speech, he threatened to disband parliament if
members did not cooperate and even went on to ask for full power for a year with the request being
granted.This became the basis for his power and his consolidation of power.
-The Fascist Grand Council was formed in 1923.It was a ruling body of the Fascists party controlled
by Mussolini.The members were controlled by Mussolini who appointed them.The Fascist Grand
Council became more important than the government and it rendered the government inactive as the
council made all the important decisions
-The police was totally replaced by the Fascists and came under Mussolini’s direct control.They
arrested political opponents and did not take action against acts of violence by the msvn,a new militia
created from the quadri,Mussolini’s private army.Mussolini created the Ovra,a secret police to hunt
down his political enemies and imprison them in concentration camps as he sought total control of
Italy.He also made changes to the voting system.In the late 1920s,only men above 21 years and
Gadze C Page 130

belonging to the fascist party couild vote for a list of 400 candidates selected by the Fascist Grand
Council.The electorate was reduced from 10 million to 3 million and those who voted against the
Fascists were identified and punished
PRESS CONTROL
-The press control started in july 1925 where the anti-fascist newspapers were shut down while the
other newspapers were only allowed to print articles approaved by the government.Mussolini
attempted to remake the Italian mind through the twin tools of propaganda and the press control.He
was a gifted propagandist who knew the relationship between the political power and media
censorship hence the establishment of the High Commision in 1929 to deal with anything contrary to
the national interests so as to instill faithfulness to the fatherland.It was not the duty of the press to
subject the government to any investigation.As Mussolini became more dictatorial,he directly
became in charge of censorship.He banned all the opposing newspapers,radios,theatre so that people
will have acess to the Fascist ldeas only.The whole objective was to achieve total control in order to
create a totalitarian state.
THE ACERBO LAW
-It was an electoral law passed by the Italian parliament in 1923.It stated that a party with at least 25
percent of the votes will get two thirds of the seats in parliament and the remaining third will be
shared by the other parties.Mussolinin knew he was going to get that 25 percent because already he
had 35 seats and counted on the 10 from the Nationalists.Mussolini used this law to control
parliament in his totalitarian ambitions.The law enabled the Fascists to take control of parliament . It
was an important step for Mussolini to have total control over Italy .Mussolini used the law to
increase his personal control over Italy.
MUSSOLINI’S FOREIGN POLICY
AIMS
-It is important to know Mussolini”s foreign policy aims in order to measure successes and failures or
see the extent to which he was able to achieve his objectives.In his foreign policy aims , Mussolini
wanted Italy to be respected,he wanted to give Italy the show off as a great power thus reviving the
period of the Great Caesars,he wanted to gain all the territories Italy was promised when she joined
ww1 on the side of the allies in 1915,to prevent the Austro-Germany unification,to create a living
space for the Italians by building an empire in the Medeterrenian sea,to get the lsland of Corfu given
to Greece
SUCCESSES
-The lsland of Corfu in 1922 saw Mussolini and the Italians seeing it as a starting point for the Italian
agenda of creating a great Italy as Greece was supposed to pay compernsation for the killing of the
two Italian officials in Greece.Mussoline made full use of the media he controlled to use the Corfu
incident as a propaganda to raise his image.Mussolini showed the strength of art after the Corfu
incident.He started to create art and architecture to show case Italian successes and the glory of the
empire.The Corfu incident and the use of art advertised as great and was seen as the restoration of the
Great Caesar period.Mussolini became popular among his people
-The Locarno treaty signed in 1926 was an effort to ensure that peace peace would be maintained
between France and Germany by stating that the boarders between the two nations were effectively
Gadze C Page 131

fixed.This proved to be a resounding success at the time since the French invasion of the Ruhr had
caused the tension to rise.Mussolini enjoyed being seen as a crucial element in the signing of the
treaty.He was also seen as a major player in the signing of the Kellogg Briande Pact that outlawed war
as an instrument of foreign policy.It was signed by Germany as well among the so many countries and
British fears of an ever increasing world of militarising states eased.
-His successes in Libya,Somalia gave him control and provided him with a source of men for future
conflicts. His victory over Ethiopia was hugely popular and Italy became united under the euphoria of
nationhood although some see it as bullying of the little Ethiopia with poisous gas,modern war
planes,and modern weapons.Success was not as monumental as it was made to be seen.In
reality,Mussolini was attacking small unarmed people.He still lacked the financial and the military
strength that would have made him a great power.When Hitler called him to join ww2, he was unable
to respond because he was weak.
-The acquired colonies eg Albania became economic colonies .They were critical as sources of
rawmatereals.markets and some of them becoming virtual dumping grounds of the Italian goods.This
promoted the ltalian commerce by show casing her goods beyond her own boarders.This helped
generate more wealth for the economically struggling Italy.The ltalian influence over Albania,first as
a protectorate before her eventual occupation,gave her access to the sea,a cheap means of transport for
her imports and exports.Occupied territories became options for the ltalian living space .
-Wars gave ltaly cheap booty eg from countries such as Croatia,Dalmatia .The rearmament
programme created jobs for those who served I the army.This was especially important given the rate
of unemployment in post war Italy and given the effects of the great depression,a world economic
melt down starting in agriculture in1928 and then the rest of industries by 1929 with devasitating
effects.
FAILURES
-Mussolini’s military expenditures in Libiya,Somalia,Ethiopia,Albania made Italy predodominant in

the Mediterranean region although these campaigns exhausted his armed forces in the
1930s.Mussolini later allied himself with Hitler eg the Rome-Berlin Axis,the Pact of Steel.He later
came to rely on Hitler to prop up his dictatorship.His self confessed thirsty for military glory battled
his acute intelligence ,psychological acumen and political shrewdness for control over his military
policies.Originally a revolutionary socialist,he abandoned his party to advocate Italian intervention in
ww1.Following the war he served as a rifleman,Mussolini decided his destiny was to rule Italy as a
modern Caesar and recreate the Roman Empire.He forged the the para military Fascist movement in
1919-1921 using it to march to Rome,became a Prime Minister,seized dictatorial powers between
1925-1926. He subdued Libya between 1922-1932,pacified Somalia between 1923-1927,conquering
Ethiopia between 1935 and 1936,helping the Nationalists win the Spanish civil war in between 1936
and 1939,seizing Albania in 1939.He made Italy predominant in the Mediterranean Red sea
region.But as already noted,his military adventures left his armed forces exhausted.
-National poverty ,resource deficiencies and scientific industrial weaknesses combined with
inflexible commanders ,plagued the ltalian forces.The king,Victor Emmanuel III provided Monarchist
officers with an authority figure to impede Mussolini’s dominance of the armed forces.An air power
enthusiast,Mussolini did create an innovative Fascist minded air force.It perfomed well in Ethiopia
and Spain but lagged technologically after 1935.Whilst Mussolini promoted Fascist to leadership
positions and sponsored some new arny thinking in the 1930s but bitter interservice rivalry crippled
Gadze C Page 132

joint military planning.Mussolini lacked the understanding and power to solve these problems.Thus
he pursued his imperial dreams with politically,strategically and doctrinally incoherent forces
-Wishful thinking ,megalomania and Fascist ideology gradually overshadowed Mussolini’s common
sense.He interpreted diplomatic victories over Britain and France during the Spansh wars as proof of
his military genius.Because of his parents and older brothers ‘s short lives,Mussolini expected to die
young but considered himself to be uniquely capable of leading Italy to greatness.Therefore he
perceived a fleeting historical opportunity from 1935 to 1945 for spectacular aggrandisement by
pitting Fascist –Nazi power against the French –British decadence hence the wars after
1935.Mussolini was fighting the wars with expenditure exceeding Italy’s economic abilities to
manage.Mussolini was spending billions of lira on Ethiopia and Spain instead of modernizing ltaly
-Hitler regarded Mussolini as a lesser ally. Germany was highly dismissive of the the Italian
Medeterenian dream.It was a mistake to leave Britain and France for Germany.Hitler was involved in
many errands without even telling him eg the invasion of Austria,Czechoslovakia shows how much
Italy was seen by Hitler as standing for nothing and meaning less.
-In the Spanish war of 1936,Italian troops were defeated,400 killed,1800 wounded,5oo taken
prisoners,lost 25 artilery pieces,10 motors,85 machine guns,67 trucks.This shows how much Italy lost
from this war and how weak the Italian army was and how weak it even became,it lost resources and
men and thereby making the Spanish war a severe failure to Italy.The Spanish war shows Mussolini’s
personal greedy for increased power yet he did not achieve it.
-Mussolini’ wars led to the loss of lives,children orphaned,women widowed.It was not worth it given
the fact that some colonies in the so called Mediterrenian Empire brought less benefit for example
Ethiopia,Somalia.Thus besides glory to Mussolini,ltalians lost in these wars of aggression by
Mussolini.The cost benefit analysis will show that it was not even worth the billions of lira spent on
these wars.
-Mussolini could not match the glory of the Caesars who had come to dominate by creating a big
Empire.The economic situation of ltaly could not allow her freedom to wage wars.Mussolini was a
poor Caesar in the world of rich nations.The Italian economy was inferior to that
Germany,Britain,France,countries she sought to measure up against.This explains the reason why she
could not immediately join ww2 in support of Hitler as given by the Pact of Steel.Her economy was
weak.
THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AND THE RISE OF HITLER
THE ECONOMIC,POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE WEIMAR

REPUBLIC
After WW1, as victors had wanted, Germany had to democratise and the Weimar Republic was the
democratic government allies wanted. However, the Weimar Republic just like other post war
European countries was battling with social, economic and political problems threatening its survival.
The Weimar Republic as a dictate by the allies was blamed for economic, political and social
problems in Germany and became very unpopular. It was blamed for high inflation, shortage of basic
Gadze C Page 133

goods, high poverty, high unemployment, the great depression of 1929, payment of reparations, low
wages due to the poor industrial performance, high prices of goods, bankruptcy, war debts, strikes,
low production in industries etc. On the political scene, political parties had little experience to
operate a parliamentary democratic system introduced by the Weimar Republic. This proved to be a
disaster to the government. The communist ideology from Russia which had started in 1917 in a go
slow but sure spread into the whole world was indeed causing violence. Army officers disgruntled by
the Weimar republic and blamed the Weimar Republic for accepting the humiliating terms of the
treaty. The army was the most influential class in Germany politics. It accused the government of
selling out. The weak Weimar Republic relied on weak private armies and could not deal with a series
of political killings. People now wanted a strong government. The democratic and weak Weimar
Republic had failed and the Germans were looking forward to an alternative government. This
explains the coming of the Nazi and Hitler. Private armies were allowed and they expanded e.g. the
SS, SA in the 1930s by the Nazis. Private armies were engaged in violence as they sought support and
to silence opponents, disrupt opponents meetings. The government did nothing on this. Inter-party
violence became the order of the day and the government failed to handle it hence the unpopularity of
the government. The introduction of many political parties made it difficult for one political party to
win majority votes in order to be allowed to form a government. In the absence of a commanding
majority from any single party, parties resorted to coalitions which only survived for a short time.
This means that there was no continuity in government policy. On the social front the government
became unpopular due to the lack of accommodation, poverty, high crime rate, hunger and starvation,
a feeling of frustration among the Germans, robbery, prostitution, theft, gangsterism, and social
unrest. All these problems were blamed on the government hence the reason why it became
unpopular.
THE SOLUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS
FACED BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC
Between 1924 and 1929, Stressman who took over as chancellor of the Weimar Republic improved
on the Germany currency by giving new currency. Since Germany did not have adequate resources to
back the currency , it was backed by the value of the country’s land and agriculture resources, thanks
to Luther who was the Minister of finance.
Stressman succeeded in ending the strike on the Ruhr against the French Belgian occupation of 1923
and persuaded the French to leave the Ruhr in 1925 thereby ending the devastating occupation and the
protest by the Germany workers in the form of the stay away as a response. Germany also signed the
Locarno treaty with France, Belgium where Germany promised to be a good neighbour who will not
violate the Belgian and French boundaries and if so Italy and Britain will assist Belgium and France.
Germany ‘s Rhineland was to be removed off the allied army of occupation in line with the spirit of
the Locarno, Stressman applied for Germany to be admitted in the League of Nations and was
successful. Germany industries were prosperous and unemployment was on the decline. The
prosperity was based on the loans from America which were used to finance industrial development.
The greatest weakness however was that industrial investments and government expenses were not
adequately financed from the Germany capital of profits, imports remained higher than exports.
Prosperity was also due to urgent desire of the former allies to prevent the collapse of Germany.
Extreme political parties including the Nazis, communists, nationalists, lost ground because of the
successes of Stressman. Financial stability was followed by political stability which strengthened the
position of the Weimar Republic between 1924 and 1929. Before the beginning of the depression in
October 1929, Stressman had succeeded in securing a revised system of reparations payment which
had to be paid over the next 59 years.
FACTORS PROOMOTING THE RISE OF HITLER IN GERMANY.
Gadze C Page 134

‘ECONOMIC FACTORS EXPLAIN THE RISE OF HITLER IN GERMANY ‘ DO YOU

AGREE ?
To fully appreciate how the economic factors led to the rise of Hitler, one has to look at the source of
these economic problems. During WW1 Germany like any other European country, financed World
war 1 by borrowing to avoid increasing taxes which will lead to citizens stopping their support for
war. Germany covered her war support wholly on borrowing. In order to pay the debts, the
government resorted to printing paper money. By the end of 1923, the value of the currency had fallen
to 1 billion paper money to get one gold. At this point, it had become hyperinflation which brought
major discontent, social revolution and led to the rise of Hitler as an alternative to the failing Weimar
Republic
The beginning of World war 1 marked the beginning of economic problems associated with the
financing of war expenditure which led to inflation.The Germans believed that war would end in
weeks and that they would end victorious. Worse still, when the war started some Germans panicked
and exchanged their savings into gold. This drained the country’s gold reserves and this became the
first step on the road to financial ruin. The National Bank printed more paper money and in 1919 it
was 5 times than what it was in 1913. Germany’s national debt stood at 50 millions marks in 1918.
The prices of goods doubled while the value of the Germany currency was falling drastically. Worse
still, Germany lost mineral rich territories to the allies. The fact that Germany was declared war guilty
meant that she had to pay reparations amidst the economic chaos which led to social unrest, strike by
workers and the demand to remove the government and replace it with the one which was more
aggressive. The final blow came with the announcement of the Reparations Bill in 1921. It was to be
paid in annual instalments and amounted to 20% of the total value of Germany’s exports. France and
Belgium worsened the situation by occupying the Ruhr to enforce the payment of the reparations.
This worsened the economic situation as the government spent more money in supporting the
unemployed, refugees. The government also resorted to the printing of more money, 92 trillion by
1923, 496 trillion marks by the end of 1923 using 300 paper mills, 200 printing machines. At this
point, prices had risen sharply to the extent that businesses and individuals preferred to be paid in land
than cash. Those with goods decided to hold on to them since they did not want them to be
depreciated by the power money. A newspaper was selling at 200 million marks, bread at 485 million
marks, I kg butter for 5 billion marks hence the reason why it was called the great Germany inflation
of 1923. The effects were that workers, businesses, ordinary people suffered and blamed the Weimar
Republic. The economic hardships led to people seeing other political parties as the alternative hence
the reason why Hitler and the Nazis in the 1924 election got 82 seats. There is a general consensus
that the great Germany inflation had a direct link with the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.
There is no doubt that inflation had a long term effect on Germany. Debtors were the highest
beneficiaries because they were paying debts using seriously weakened currencies. Owners of this
money blamed the government for the losses and preferred Hitler and the Nazis. Losers were also
those with fixed incomes eg pensioners and those who depended on insurance money who were
mainly the middle class. Hitler rose to power supported by the economic losers led by the class and
the middle class radicalism after losing their status and influence in the Germany society.
With the end of Great Germany inflation due to the stabilising loans given by America, there was
steady growth between 1925 and 1928. The number of Nazis seats fell from 82 in the 1924 elections
to 12 in the 1928 elections because the economy was good. Thus there is a link between the rise of
Hitler and the Nazis and the economic performance. However, by 1929 due to the great depression,
unemployment stood at 6 million in 1932. It means that about 1 in every three Germans was
unemployed. The unemployed saw Hitler’s party as an alternative. People spent money as they earned
Gadze C Page 135

it and there were no savings by both the government and the private sector. This led to the banking
crisis of 1931 which was worse in Germany than anywhere in Europe .Stressman in 1929 accepted a
revised plan or the payment of reparation but the Nazis launched a violent campaign against them
accusing him of pushing foreign interests .The Nazi were therefore able to poison the minds of the
Germans against the Weimar republic and they got more support .
In September 1930 Hitler and the Nazi were increasing their votes in parliament .In agriculture, prices
fell and debts worsened leading to bankruptcy .Many famers sold their land and became unemployed.
The big land owners in Germany suffered greatly .Large scale agriculture had a dominant political
role .Land owners were Prussian farmers influential in Germany politics .The consequences of the
fall of agriculture was the loss of confidence in Germany politics .There was a rapid growth of anti-
government sentiments which contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler and
the Nazi’s. In the Reichstag elections of 1930, the Nazi’s increased their votes by 2, 6% of the votes
of 1928 and became the second largest party in 1930 with over 18% of the votes. They got a lot of
seats. They were supported by the middle class, civil servants who felt threatened by the great
depression. They all moved to Hitler’s party which was attractive and had skilful ways of
manipulating people’s feelings against the bad economic performance. This was worsened by the
middle class radicalism when they lost their position to big companies and they felt they had lost
independence and self sufficiency. They felt that their jobs were being threatened and they found
refugee in Hitler’s party and in 1932 elections they got 230 seats.
In order to please the suffering masses due to the effects of the great depression, the government tried
land resettlement. This was a mistake because it became the enemy of land owners who joined hands
with big companies and joined hands with Hitler. Thus Hitler had a steady mass base and was
believed to be a guarantee against Marxism and nationalisation of their wealth. Between 1929 and
1933, most school leavers had little hopes of getting jobs. The Hitler movement became attractive to
them for two reasons, the unemployed had time with Hitler’s parades and enjoyed it as they got
something to do, they got hope for the future. Another minor attraction was militarism which involved
putting on a uniform and the discipline of Hitler’s followers. Hitler’s promises to return to order and
traditional Germany values, promises of economic action were good news. The voting pattern for the
Nazis and the Nazi party composition reflect these groups.
ROLE OF OTHER FACTORS
POLITICAL REASONS
The Nazi was able to denounce the treaty of Versailles as a problem in Germany. They portrayed it as
the greatest evil the Germany state ever encountered. Equipped with this, the Nazis attacked the so
called “traitors” who had stabbed the Germany on the back by their signing of the Versailles treaty.
The Nazis referred to the Jews in particular and the Weimar Republic in general. The Versailles was
attacked because it attacked at the centre of Germany arm’s race which struck at Germany national
pride and her chances of correcting the wrongs of the Versailles using the military force. Germany
would be powerful to resist an attack from France or Poland. Many leaders sympathised with Hitler’s
demands for the full rearmament of Germany and to abolish the Versailles treaty.
The organisation of the Nazi party had become so effective in the early 1930s that it out competed its
opponents. The storm troopers who were groups of unemployed middle class people made several
parades everywhere. Their uniform appealed to the majority and their marches were so attractive.
They were directed by Hitler’s close friend Rohm. There was violence and intense blood shed
between the storm troopers, communist, socialist opponents. The number of storm troopers
Gadze C Page 136

determined the outcome of the day which was success for the Nazis against the socialist and the
communist.
The outside political help was important. Winning elections might not have brought Hitler into
power because there was no provision for that. The access to President Hindenburg was the key to
power. Hitler emerged victorious with the support of industries, commerce, finance, agriculture,
civil servants, army who wanted Hitler to bring solutions to Germany problems.
The fear of communism was given concreate shape by the Bolsheviks takeover of Russia in 1917.
This led to on the spot approval of any government which could remove such fears once and for all.
The after war treatment of Germany by the Versailles treaty as already noted cultivated a spirit of bold
foreign policy which will establish Germany as a might power to . The showing of ruthless
determination to destroy the Marxist threat to property and to eliminate harmful and unwanted
elements such as the Jews was popularised by the Nazi propaganda to revive the traditional hatred of
the Jews. The feeling that democracy must come to an end made Nazism popular to many people.
Land owners, industrialists, financiers, army leaders wanted an authoritarian state which will support
agriculture, industry against trade unions, will please the army by undoing the Versailles, saw these
groups moving to the Nazis.
The Nazis took full advantage of the failure of the Weimar Republic. The Nazis did not create these
weaknesses but exploited the crisis that affected the government especially the great depression. If
luck ever played a role in history, it was in 1933 for the Nazis. It was by chance that Hitler was
invited to be the chancellor in 1933.
Propaganda played an important part in the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Doctor Goebbels was
responsible for the propaganda machinery. He came up with slogans, themes, speakers and this was
effective. In the 1932 Presidential elections, he used an aeroplane to carry Hitler to rallies. This
created an image of a modern technological Germany, young and youth which only could be obtained
in the belief in Hitler. The youth became attracted to the Nazi because the movement was
technological and young to suit them . This gave the Nazis 13 million votes of which the majority
were the youth. This was a key to unlocking the door to power because he had the command of the
masses. Doctor Goebbels’s propaganda was reduced to the understanding of the most stupid among
his audience. However, it is important to note that this propaganda took advantage of the Germany
defeat in world war 1, the great depression , crisis in government most of these problems were
unfairly blamed on the government of the day,thus the work of propaganda .
ROLE BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS
The Nazi connection with Ludendorf , a military leader of World war 1 saw Hitler introduced to the
political influential classes in Germany. Without Ludendorf, Hitler could not have been known. The
Nazis started to enjoy financial contributions. Hitler’s friend Rohm had access to weapons which were
given to the SA together with vehicles were all important in the rise of Hitler.
THE ROLE OF HITLER’S PERSONAL QUALITIES
Hitler’s rise to power has been seen as due to the power of ideas. Hitler was seen as a demagogue but
some observed after Hitler’s death that his message was not more than the empty phraises of the
power thirsty demagogue. However when Hitler’s ideas are put together, they will form a convincing
ideology but not enough to explain the reasons why he got the masses behind him. His ideas on
history as a racial struggle, his anti-semitism, creation of Germany Empire were all followed by
action.
 Hitler became the leader of the Nazi party in 1921. He ended the factionalism and was seen
as the leader of the party. He was promoted by the party as the charismatic leader. No other
Gadze C Page 137

party was doing this. He was promoted as a man with a mission to build Germany. The image
of Hitler was a common denominator, recruiting more followers who wanted radical changes.
They loved Hitler because he voiced more than anyone else hopes of the national rebirth and
the destruction of the national enemies. It is difficult to believe that the Nazis could have
come to power without Hitler. He had a passion to dominate, an absolute belief in himself as a
man destined by fate to lead Germany. He was an orator who was underestimated by his
opponents. He was a master of tactics who was underestimated by his opponents. He was a
master of tactics who took full advantage of the weaknesses of his opponents .
 Hitler made full use of propaganda to get the following of the masses . Few of those who
voted for Hitler had seen him . He was able to excite the masses who met him, or heard about
him ,had read about him through propaganda. He made them believe that he alone could end
the German problems and lead German to greatness. They hated the Marxists who Hitler
spoke against. Hitler gave a voice to the grass roots anger by promising alternatives that were
very simple. All the Nazi propaganda was wrapped around Hitler. It was made simple yet it
made people mad, screaming and crying. Hitler swept the masses off their feet at the rallies.
He preached against what they knew and did not want.
 The mass mobilisation entered into full gear in 1929 to 1932. Success was feeding into
success. More supporters were recruiting more supporters through the endless rallies,
meetings, marches , battles to control the streets. All these kept the Hitler movement in the
headlines as a movement of actions. They were making full use of the person of Hitler. He
was a man of the people . He was seen as humble as evidenced by his rejection of the
priviledges of the old order in favour of a new society. He was seen as strong and
representing the true German values .He believed in himself.He had a political gift and
sustained energy .He understood the psychology of the masses .He had a good knowledge
about History and military strategies that impressed people. He was the man the nation was
waiting for after the successes of Fredrick the Great , Bismarck who unified Germany and the
coming of a sad chapter in Germany History of defeat in world war 1. Hitler was seen as a
man to save the nation.
HITLER ‘S DOMESTIC REFORMS OR POLICY OR MEASURES , AN ATTEMPT TO REVERSE
THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC , POLITICAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING GERMANY AND THE
WEIMAR REPUBLIC BETWEEN 1919 AND 1933
ECONOMIC REFORMS
This was an area that directly brought the downfall of the Weimar Republic. Unemployment should
be singled out as an economic evil. The Nazis sought to create jobs. The Jews were persecuted and
this brought jobs to the Germans. Similar efforts were done in public works. These were vigorously
introduced to create jobs and increase the demand for the German goods.The motorways were built ,
the chancellery gorvenment offices ,private houses for party officials, the construction of roads, rail
way lines, the draining of marshes.Hitler paid attention to the vast building schemes hence the
employment of the so many Germans.The public works were so impressive even to the outside world
as it created infrastructure of lasting value that enabled the economy to keep going.By 1934
unemployment fell by 2,7 million ,1,7 million by 1935 to shortage of labour by 1939 . By 1934 ,
reamarment began and was one of the reasons for the disappearance of unemployment by 1936 .
In agriculture, the Nazis sought to reverse the hard conditions of the 1920s of falling incomes and
debts to the farmers. In 1933 the government introduced the Hereditary Farm Law where land could
be passed on to the descendants. This was a motivational factor to the workers on the land . The Nazi
controlled production , distrubution and price of food through the Reich Food Estate. The farm
incomes rose as the prices of agricultural products rose. The Joys Of Rural Life were a series of
Gadze C Page 138

schemes to celebrate the harvests with Hitler meeting the farmers and this motivated them.Food
production an area that had seriously affected the Weimar Republic continued to improve until 1939
when world war 2 broke out. The peasants were protected by laws from high prices and the falling
prices of their agricultural produce. Peasant debts were cancelled. The government introduced the 4
year plan in agriculture. The 4 year plan wanted to achieve self sufficiency in agriculture.
Rawmatereals were supplied to industries. However, while the government protected the peasant
food producers which was the foundation of the German family and race , it was against the rise of
bigger farming units for production on a larger scale and it went against self sufficiency which was
the Nazi economic plan.
The scarce foreign currency were protected by using the local currency to pay debts. This enabled
other countries which had the Germany money to buy Germany goods .Germany entered into trade
relations with the Balkans and South American States whereby Germany bought goods from these
countries using the Germany mark and other countries did the same. Thus for Germany which had no
foreign currency ,this practice by Hitler was work of a genius
-Hitler came up with a 4 year plan in agriculture to achieve self sufficiency .Agriculture was able to
provide rawmaterials to industries showing how successful it was . Similar efforts were done in the
steel production. Steel production registered significant successes.
-Hitler did not forget the interest of workers. The Strength through Joy entertainment gave workers
entertainment gave workers entertainment and better working conditions . Workers were given the
Strength through Joy cars called the People’s cars and this motivated them and Hitler got the best out
of them.Workers enjoyed holidays with the help of the government. In 1938 , 180 000 Germans had
enjoyed holiday with the help of the government . About 10 million had enjoyed the holidays overally
with the help of the government and workers were motivated .Workers in skilled jobs had their wages
increased by about 30 percent by 1939 . The fact that the production and selling of goods rose before
1940 shows that the living standards of workers was improving . This was a success by the
government .
-However , when the Nazis came to power, they had no full details about the economy . Although the
government had initially improved on the supply of goods but after 1936 ,consumer goods production
slowed down due to the production of the arms of war in preparation to ww2 . This had the negative
effects in that it was consuming much of the state funds and was done at the expense of the other key
sectors such as food production.
-While industry benefited from the control of labour which used to disrupt production ,industrialists
were told what to produce . While workers benefited from the Strength through Joy Programmes , full
employment , stable rentals , more paid holidays , but they lost the right to strike , employers had
more power over them ,they suffered from long working hours ,low wages .By 1935 -1936 ,the
Germany economy plunged into a rawmaterials and foreign currency crisis .This was characterised by
limited foreign currency and the unfavourable terms of trade . This was worsened by the low food
producton and this threatened social unrest . The Germany economic problems were mainly due to
rearmament which was done at the expense of consumer goods . Rawmaterials supply fell to the
extent that by 1936 , there was only two months supply left .
-Hitler wanted to embark on economic self sufficiency through the 4 year plan but the export geared
industries opposed it. Small traders in towns although they had voted for the Nazis to help improve
their life , they gained less from the Nazi regime.They were removed from the market by the big
companies that were always growing in power , 40 percent in 1933 and 70 percent in 1937 . Big
companies were supported by Hitler since he wanted them to help in the rearmament . Germany was
not self sufficient by 1939 . The economy only improved after the taking away of the Jewish
Gadze C Page 139

properties , Austrian property after unification . Full employment only became possible after the Jews
were removed from work and after the women were forbidden from taking employment.
-The living conditions of the workers did not improve much . They lost the right to belong to trade
unions , the middle class continued to dominate . Germany workers compared to workers of Western
Europe and America , worked 4 hours longer a day and 49 hours longer in a week in 1939 , 52 hours
longer in a week in 1943 . There were many accidents at work . The Strength through Joy which was
supposed to give the workers leisure was dismissed by historians as propaganda by Hitler . NB-For
social and political reforms , see Hitler ‘s consolidation of power or creation of a totalitarian state or
Hitler ‘s dictatorship
HITLER AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER OR HITLER ‘S DICTATORSHIP OR THE
CREATION OF A TOTALITARIAN STATE.
-The Enabling Law gave Hitler power to make laws regardless of the Parliament. Hitler justified his
dictatorship by argueing that the government needed these special powers in order to deal with the
problems affecting the government.Key institutions of the government were brought under Nazi
control.The Enabling law eliminated the remaining elements of the Germany democracy . It was an
effort to Nazify the Germany life in the political , civil service , trade unions ,the law , education,
army, economy , culture which came under the total Nazi control . The Enabling Law fortified Htler
‘s dictatorship which was supported by 88 percent in a fererendum. However , this support was stage
managed through intimidation .
-The night of the long knives was the bloody repression on the part of Hitler ‘s movement and was a
critical moment for Hitler in his consolidation of power . It removed one force capable of offering
serious opposition from within which would have attracted the opposition from eg the army which
would have toppled Hitler . The power shift from the SA to the SS , Hitler’s personal bodyguards
strengthened Hitler ‘s power . The occasion of the night of the long knives was a reminder to would
be opponents that Hitler would be ruthless wherever his interests were threatened . Thus from 1934
onwards , within the Nazi movement , Hitler could only be removed from power by the army and the
SS . However in the army , the majority of the Generals were loyal to Hitler and in the SS which was
the pillar of the Nazi government , it was so indoctrinated that it could not rebel and nobody else
could challenge him . The night of the long knives , june 1934 , killed Rohm and the other leaders of
the SA . I t was evidence of the Nazi brutality . It was a clear testimony that there was no turning
back . It was action against those who believed in the second revolution against the industrialists
calling for nationalisation . Rohm had been calling for the an end to conservatism yet many army
officers were from the aristocratic families . Hitler wanted the support of the army . Thus Rohm and
the SA had to go . In the night of the long knives, the SA which used to protect the Nazi meetings
while disrupting those of the enemies , the central weapon of the Nazi revolution just like the Red
army of Russia under Trotsky , Hitler felt the SA was nolonger needed . It had finished its business of
street fighting and their leader Rohm was a threat from within the Nazi Movement . Hitler , army
commanders , Himmler , Goering , Hess , Von Papen were against Rohm and the SA power
-The SS, Gestapo , Storm troopers led to the expansion and the pinnacle of Hitler ‘s personal power .
They replaced the law . They fully enhanced Hitler ‘s power as they supervised the political health of
the nation and getting rid of all symptoms of deaseases and germs . Those who could not accept Nazi
rule or opposed it were to be dealt with by an efficient Gestapo . The SS under Himmler was a
ruthless private army with high physical and high educational standards . They formed the killing
squards killing Jews,Communists,and anyone who opposed the government . The Gestapo was
responsible for suppressing internal enemies which it identified and was the most feared in Germany
for its terror . It could imprison people without trial and this was seen as legal . Thus Hitler was
increasingly becoming allergic to the slightest sign of criticism . He surrounded himself more and
more with the flattering cronies , the contempt for critics and opponents within and outside Germany .
Gadze C Page 140

The maximum number of people was terrorised with the minimum amount of effort . Enemies of the
state were discovered , watched , made harmless by any means the SS,Gestapo ,Storm troopers saw
fit .Tolerance meant weakness on an SS man and an SS man with a soft heart had no place in the
organisation . Those who used to think were still thinking and those who did not think then were now
thinking less and the thinkers were no longer able to lead the non thinkers . The opposition real or
potential was crushed .
-The Law served the purpose of Hitler .Where the law favoured Hitler , it was used , where the law
was an obstacle to Hitler , it was ignored and thrown away.Laws were abused to support Hitler and
Nazi actions . The law was seen as coming from the fuhrer . The judges and the lawyers had to
interpret the law in the interest of the Nazis and those who opposed were dismissed .
-The Jews were removed from the public service . Trade unions were banned and replaced by the
government controlled Germany Labour Front . Political parties were banned . The Parliament was
left without power . Laws were announced by Hitler in the name of the Parliament . The Parliament
became the most male chorus in the world . It had no power and did as Hitler wanted .
-The Germans were subjected to a ceaseless propaganda to maintain the national feeling fever high in
the devotion of Hitler , the father figure who commanded xenophobic nationalism planted in the
Aryan race . Doctor Goebbels controlled communication to influence people to accept Nasism , see
Jews as state enemies , promote one nation , one people ,one leader . Newspapers , radios , films ,
music , art , theatre , sport were controlled . Germany produced the people ‘s radio which was cheaper
to ensure that all the people had access to a radio set . All of Hitler ‘s speeches and party rallies were
broadcast to the Germany people . The intelligent Hitler’s propaganda was done indirectly so that
people will not be aware of it . Propaganda created the Hitler image . Hitler was projected as a
reasonable leader who put the nation interests first ahead of his own personal interests , a man who
had the authority in dealing with the Germany enemies . Propaganda made people to believe that
Hitler was the man behind the Germany successes enjoyed at home and abroad . Goebbels created the
Hitler myth which created the bond between the Fuhrer and his people until the collapse of the
government in 1945 .
-Socially , in education , books that were regarded as un Germany were burnt . Over 12 000 books
were banned . The Germany people who were not prepared for the loss of freedom left the country .
This led to poor quality education as Hitler sought total control . Education had the aim of opposing
free inquiry . Biology emphasised on the Aryan race . History looked at nationalism , militarism ,
Germany glory of the past and the rise of Nazism . Nazism and the Meinkampf became set books in
schools . Teachers who valued independent thinking were removed , some left Germany , the
number of school children dropped from school . The Jazz music from black Americans was banned
. The film industry was controlled and all the employees from the film industry had to take an oath of
loyality to Hitler . Women were seen as weak and inferior and their role was to obedient women in the
home . The Germany women ‘s League was formed to encourage women to be good mothers . The
Youths and the Maidens were seen as the future of the Nazi Party . The Catholic Youth were banned
because they were competing with the Hitler youth . The Hitler Youth were taught about Nazism ,
trained to harden the body , obey the command . They weretaught that the Fuhrer came from heaven
and that he was everything and themselves nothing.He captured the minds of the children , innocent
and uncritical in the house that Hitler built . However , in the 1930s there was resistence from the
youth movement especially from the working youths who provoked and attacked the Hitler youths .
They followed the English dressing , jazz music . The University Youth formed the White Ross
Organisation which opposed the Hitler Youth . I n religion , Nazism was seen as a religion and other
religions were seen as competing . The Catholic schools were banned , their Youth were brought
under Hitler control . The Catholic press was controlled , sisters and priests were persecuted .
Protestent churches were brought under state control . However religious leaders such as Niemoller
Gadze C Page 141

were taken into the concentration camps for opposing Hitler . Benhoeffer also opposed and was
executed in 1945 . In the anti-semitism , Jews were persecuted . The Jews were seen as a misfortune ,
national enemies . They were excluded from the civil service, education , health , legal system, their
shops and businesses were boycotted . The final solution to the Jewish problem meant the planned
killing of the Jews in gas chambers . In Euthanasia , the disabled people were eliminated as they were
seen as weakening the Germany Aryan race . By 1945 , 27 500 were killed .
HITLER ‘S FOREIGN POLICY
FOREIGN POLICY AIMS
Hitler had the following foreign policy aims ; to destroy the Versailles treaty , to create a greater
Germany , to find a living space for the Germans , to bring all the Germans into the reich , to do away
with communism , to recover the lost territories , to rearm Germany .
1 . Hitler wanted to revise the Versailles treaty which was causing humiliation and anger among the
Germans . The treaty resulted in the Germans being lost to Czechoslovakia , Poland ,Austria . Thus
Hitler wanted all the Germans back into the Reich , a home for all the Germans . Hitler had made it
very clear in his book the Meinkampf of 1924 that he was going to destroy the Versailles treaty . The
treaty limited the Germany armed forces to 100 000 but in 1935 , Hitler built an army secretly . He
held a rally for rearmament in 1935 against the Versailles treaty . He introduced conscription and
tested his army and weapons in the Spanish civil war of 1936 against the Versailles treaty . Hitler was
helped to rearm by Britain in the Secret Naval Agreement against the Versailles treaty . He was
allowed to build 35 percent Germany naval strength to that of Britain . Hitler also built 8250
europlanes , about 1 million soldiers in opposition to the Versailles treaty . Hitler was telling his
generals to get ready for the war . The Spanish civil war as already noted was an exercise for his
aeroplanes , air men , armed forces , equipment in defiance of the Versailles treaty and in preparation
of the war . Previously he had remilitarised the Rhineland , went on to invade Austria , Sudentenland ,
the whole of Czechoslovakia , Poland againt the Versailles treaty . All this was made possible by the
appeasement policy by the League of Nations which was feeling the Versailles treaty was too harsh
and Hitler had to be allowed to revise it . Hitler wanted the Germans to be equal to the other nations
rather than being a punished nation . He felt that the Versailles treaty had left German weak and
exposed to attaks by inferior races . The Versailles treaty weakened Germany and prevented her from
going to war with the other nations Czechoslovakia , Poland ,Russia to get territories . Hitler had to
get rid of the Versailles treaty because it represented Germany defeat in ww1 . Thus a war had to be
fought to give Germany victory . While it is true that Hitler sought to reverse the terms of the
Versailles treaty , his overall aim was the creation of a greater Germany for the creation of a living
space for the Germans . Many wrongs of the Versailles treaty had been corrected by 1938 but Hitler
did not stop his acts of aggression . The revision of the Versailles treaty was just an excuse for war .
2 . Hitler wanted to create a greater Germany for the living space of the Germans in his expansion
policy to the east . The expansion policy was meant to give the Germans a living space and to make
sure Germany will dominate the world . This was going to be done by creating a greater Germany
through the use of a sword , meaning force . Germany had to join other European nations in the battle
for wealth , power , growth . Germany had to expand or burst . Empires had to be obtained by armed
force . Hitler had a geo political goal to create an empire and move Germany from the restricted living
space to the new land and soil so that she will not vanish from the earth or serve others as slaves . An
empire was to be the source of food , the basis of power politics . The Germany boarders of 1914
were an unfinished business . Germany wanted to stand up to America , Britain , France. No country
was going to give territories easily eg Czechoslovakia , Austria , Russia among many countries.
Hitler wanted to expand to the east in what popularly became known as the drive to the east to find a
living space for the Aryan race mainly in Czechoslovakia , Poland ,Russia in order to get
Gadze C Page 142

rawmatereals such as oil , iron ore . They also wanted land in the east to grow food to feed the Aryan
race . Ukraine was seen as the granary of the Aryan race .
-The creation of a greater Germany can be traced to the period of ww1 where the Germany
population had become too big . It had become necessary to find a living space at the expense of the
slavs who were seen as the weaker races . Hitler argued that the Germans were over populated and
could not be fed from the Germany resources only . He argued that America was a big country but
still had influence over some parts of the world for markets and rawmatereals . The British and the
French were doing the same . Hitler wanted the land of Russia because of its natural resources . It had
greater agricultural potential yet it was inhabited by the inferior slav people whom Hitler saw as sub
humans . The treaty of Brestlitovisk signed after Russian defeat in ww1 was almost achieving the aim
of creating a greater Germany at the expense of Russia . Russia was to be turned into a bread basket of
Germany had Germany won ww1 . According to Hitler , history was a struggle between races in
which those with bigger territories were viewed as stronger than those with smaller territories . Thus
when ww2 broke out , Hitler invaded Holland, Belgium , Denmark , Norway ,Sweden , Luxembourg
between 1938-1941 in an effort to create a greater Germany . Hitler felt the business of dividing
territories was an unfinished business .
3 . HITLER WAS AGAINST COMMUNISM
-A student of Hitler’s book the Meinkampf will remember that Hitler wrote that he wanted to do away
with communism . He argued in his book that the Jews were the power behind the 1917 Russian
revolution which was led by the Bolsheviks in which most of the leaders were Jews and therefore
needed to be destroyed . Hitler had a shared hatred of communists with Britain , France , Japan .
Infact , the League of Nations saw Germany as a dam wall against communism . Hitler sought to link
Judaism with communism in order to get the support from the Germany people against communism .
It was false that the Jews were the power behind communism in Russia . Hitler wanted to build on the
hatred that the Germans had on Jews and wanted them to hate the communists the same manner they
hated the Jews .
-When Hitler came to power , the communists were banned after they were accused burning the
parliament building . Thousands were put in concentration camps such as Dachau where they were
killed . They were later joined by other enemies .
-Hitler signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy to get rid of the communism international
. They were later joined by Spain , Denmark , Romania , Turkey in the international fight against
communism .
-The signing of the Russo-Germany Pact of 1939 was a marriage of convenience between Russia and
Germany . It allowed Hitler the freedom to attack Poland in 1939 without the Russian interference . It
must not be mistaken as a treaty of friendship with the communist Russia . In 1941 in the operation
Babarossa , Hitler attacked Russia in order to put communism to an end and settle the Aryan race in
Russia .
4 . Hitler wanted to rearm Germany
-Hitler ‘s rearmament policy was meant to increase Germany ‘s armed forces against the Versailles
treaty . In order to do this , Hitler withdrew Germany from the world Disarmament Conference in
1933 argueing that other countries such as France were rearming . He also withdrew from the League
of Nations . This allowed him to rearm without any caution from the League of Nations . The number
of soldiers rose from 100 000 to 500 000 to 1 million between 1933 and 1939 . The number of
europlanes rose from 36 to 8250 . War ships rose from 95 . This was a great success by Hitler
because no country asked why he was arming . It was also a success because Hitler went against the
Versailles treaty , the League collective security , it reduced unemployment , made Germany
Gadze C Page 143

strong ,made Hitler popular in Germany . Britain allowed Germany to improve on her naval strength
by signing the Secret Naval Agreement with Britain in 1935 where the Germany navy was to be at 35
percent strength to that of Britain . Hitler broke the Versailles treaty with the support of Britain. Hitler
now had power over Britain that was appeasing him .
-Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland and there was no challenge from the League of Nations . Hitler ‘s
intervention in the Spanish civil war of 1936 alongside Mussolini was to meant to exercise his pilots ,
aircrafts , weapons and the armed forces . It was clear Hitler did not aim for peace but war to
dominate the world as he sought to create a living space for the Germans .
5 . Hitler wanted to bring the Germans into the Reich , a home for all the Germans
-Hitler wanted to include all the Germans into the Reich which he wanted to enormously expand . He
wanted to unite them into one strong Germany . In his book the Meinkampf of 1924 , Hitler outlined
his desire to bring all the Germans into the reich . There were many Germans living in many
countries eg Czechoslovakia , Poland , Austria . These were seen as superior race that had lost its
superior status .This incorporation of the Germans was going to be done together with their
territories which had to be occupied . This was going to be done in defiance of the League of Nations
and the Versailles treaty which itself had violated the rights of the Germany minorities and
nationalities to belong to their nation in line with the right to self determination . The Sudentenland
had coal,copper , power stations , good farming land , the biggest arms work in Europe . There were
many Germans living in Sudentenland . The Polish Corridor had 1 million Germans , Danzig had
40 000 Germans who had to be brought into the reich . The Polish Corridor divided Germany into two
. Austria had 8 million Germans who had to be part of the reich against the Versailles treaty . Hitler
was Austrian .
HITLER ‘S FOREIGN POLICY STEPS FROM 1933 -1939
1 . The non aggression pact with Poland 1934
The treaty with Poland is an example of cheating in Hitler ‘s forign policy. Poland was on the way of
Germany expansion to the east and had a Germany territory the Polish corridor .There is no doubt
Hitler in the long term aimed to deal with Poland. Hitler appeared a peace man and appeared closer to
the democracies of weatern European countries . The Pact was a sign that German was settling down
to normal diplomatic life but in reality he was deceiving. Germany territorial claims on Poland were
not abandoned but merely put in a cold storage until the arrival of a convenient time .In his book the
Meinkampf , Hitler had vowed to destroy Poland but here Hitler portrayed himself as a man who
hated war. He did not peace but made a meal out of it . He had shelved aggression against Poland for
a moment. He falsely advertised himself to the world as a man of peace.This destroyed the French –
Polish alliance since he had proved to be a friend.
2 .In 1935 Hitler reamarment , the existence of an airforce , soldiers increased from 100 000 to
500 000 men . Britain and France took no action . Hitler ‘s way for war was cleared . Rearmament
was a gamble by Hitler which was accommodated by Britain and France . It was evidence to Hitler
that gambling paid greatewr dividends than the careful negotiations . Hitler had once again
demonstrated his ability to deliver in preparation for a greater war .
3 . The naval agreement with Britain was the happiest time of his life . He was allowed to produce 35
percent of the British naval strength. Hitler was driving towards ww2 .
4 . The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was against the League of nations and the Versailles treaty .
This was another gamble by Hitler as he believed nothing ventured , nothing gained . It shows the
weaknesses of Britain and France. France could not act alone and it shows it had become a junior of
Britain . Goebbels remarked that the Fuhrer was beaming , England remained passive , France took
Gadze C Page 144

no action on her own , Italy was disappointed , America was uninterested , Germans had sovereighty
over their country again . The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was a crucial turning point and it
marked the transfere of power from the allies to Germany and the march towards ww2 as the allies
missed the chance to stop Hitler by military action . Britain saw the Rhineland as the Germany
backyard garden and the French security fears as unreasonable and militaristic . The French public
opinion did not see the need for war over a Germany territory and to them , it was time to avoid
human waste by war . However , the allies missed an opportunity to overthrow Hitler by military
action when he was still too weak . Hitler was prepared to do more while Britain and France ‘s
response was appeasement which allowed aggressors to get their way as they were afraid of another
war as they believed war was unnecessary . Hitler took advantage and the way was opened to the
disaster of 1939 , the outbreak of ww2 .
5 . In 1936 Hitler and Mussolini fought in the Spanish civil war on the side of the rebel Franco and the
bond grew stronger with the visit to Italy by Hitler and the return visit by Mussolini resulting in the
signing of the Rome-Berlin Axis , an aggressive Pact . For a major war Germany needed friends and
Italy was one such a friend . Hitler had expressed his friendship with Italy in his book the
Meinkampf . Hitler ‘s intervention in the Spanish civil war was meant to exercise the Germany air
men and their machinery . He was also making Spain through Franco a base for the eastern expansion
step by step and Mussolini was now on the side of power . Aggressors teamed up through the Rome-
Berlin – Tokyo Axis , Italy , Germany ,Japan , collectively they meant war
6 . In 1937 , Hitler called a meeting of the military leaders and the details of the meeting were kept
secret by Colonel Hossbach and what became known as the Hossbach Memorandum . what was said
at this meeting is the evidence used by historians that Hitler wanted to take eastern Europe . In the
meeting it became clear that Austria had to be taken Czechoslovakia invaded .
7 . The union of Austria and Germany of march 1938 was don e against the Versailles treaty of 1919 .
Italy the former defender of Austrian independence had become an ally of Germany . Austria was
invaded and the union between the two was announced . Austria had turned to the great powers in
vain . Britain disapproaved of the Germany bullying tactics but refused to help as it was felt that the
union between Austria and Germany were the wishes of the Austrian people ans was natural union .
France had her problems back home . The Austro –Germany unification was an attack by German of
an independent country Austria against the Paris treaties . 99 percent Germans and Austrians who
supported it was due to pressure and fear . Hitler even became more confident for more aggressions
which will cause ww2 . Hitler remarked that in Austria they were not met with rifle fire and bombs
but instead flowers were thrown at them . Hitler was putting the peace of Europe in danger .
8 . Hitler invaded Sudetenland a province of Czechoslovakia which had many Germans .
Czechoslovakia was formed in 1918 . It lied on Hitler ‘s path to the east . The invasion of
Czechoslovakia had the defence of the minority Germans as an excuse. This excuse received a boost
from the British French policy of appeasement where they wanted to settle Germany problems
peacefully because they did not want war , felt the Versailles treaty had been too harsh on Germany ,
felt Germany grievances had to be solved , felt Hitler was a reasonable politician who had limited
demands.The fate of the hundreds of millions dependewd on one man and he was half mad,the was
Hitler and Chamberlain of Britain appeased him more to avoid war and Hitler took advantage .The
Munich Conference of 1938 saw Britain and France putting pressure on Czechoslovakia to agree to
Germany demands to the taking over of Sudentenland . For the mean time , appeasement had bought
peace as Czechoslovakia was sacrificed for the greater good but the big price was paid by Britain and
France . They had surrendered to Germany and Hitler was the winner and he became stronger abroad
and at home . Hitler remarked that his enemies were like worms , he saw them in Munich yet
Chamberlain remarked that it was peace in their own time but Winston Churchill of Britain saw it
differently and remarked that that was not the end by Hitler but just the beginning . Hitler went on to
Gadze C Page 145

invade the whole of Czechoslovakia . Appeasement had failed to buy peace . Czechoslovakia was
occupied by Germany and died of Germaany occupation while Britain and France celebrated that
there was no war . Poland was next . The war which Britain and France hated was to become
inevitable . Czechoslovakia looked like a man with his head in the jaws of a lion . Hitler believed that
he must always demand so much so that they must never be satisfied . Hitler wanted to dominate
Europe . He felt he had the world in his pocket . He had no choice . He had to act .
9 . The Russo – Germany Pact saw Hitler preparing for the invasion of Poland , so a treaty with
Russia was meant to avoid war on two fronts in case the west responded to the invasion of Poland by
war . Hitler and Russia had a shared hatred of Czechslovakia. They both lost territories to the created
Poland in 1918 . Hitler did not love Russia either , the Meinkampf talked of Hitler expansion to the
east at the expense of Russia .The Russo – German Pact was a marriage of convenience in order to
lsolate Poland . Initially, Hitler’s actions looked justified . Germany lost Danzig and the Polish
corridor by the Versailles treaty with 40 000 Germans in Danzig , 1 million Germans in the Polish
Corridor . He persuaded Mussolini to sign the pact of steel with him where Mussolini promised to
give Hitler military support . Hitler through the Pact of Steel was responding to Britain’s conscription
policy . Hitler as usual claimed through propaganda that the Germans in Poland were being
discriminated against . Therefore , in attacking Poland , Hitler was convinced the Western powers will
not attack him over Danzig and the Polish Corridor . Britain and France did nit want to die over
Danzig . Hitler was now convinced that success could nolonger be attained without the shedding of
blood .The Czechoslovakia appeasement gave him more confidence to embark on more acts of
aggression . He was convinced that the type of men he saw at Munich were not the kind to cause
worls war . The Russo-Germany Pact had proved to Britain and France that Hitler was not a reliable
partiner against communism . Britain and France declared war on Germany .
ANALYSIS OF HITLER ‘S FOREIGN POLICY STEPS UP TO 1939
1.Hitler has been labelled a ww2 criminal. It is argued he had a clearly defined programme by 1924
in his book the Meinkampf and implemented it once he got into power . He wanted to reverse the
Versailles treaty , bring the Germans into the reich,get territories into eastern Europe for a living
space through force and eliminate Russia. In 1939 he attacked Poland , a gate way to the east and this
forced western powers to declare war on Hitler , the great evil . According to these historians , Hitler
‘s intentions caused war and this is a Hitler centred explanation . ww2 has been described as a Hitler
war ,no Hitler , no war , is evidence from the Germany archives , loading all the blame on the
shoulders of Hitler .
2.Hitler never made a secret on the fundamental aims of his foreign policy . When he came into power
in 1933 , he was moving with care because he did not have astrong army . When the army became
strong , he became careless to risk a war . Hotler was determined to army in defiance of the league of
nations and the Versailles treaty which were keeping Germany armaments under control while
allowing other countries to arm . It appears his apporoach was reasonable and it appears he had no
aggressive intentions . However , when disarmament failed , Hitler began to arm openly agaist the
Versailles treaty with greaty speedy . He wanted to create a great empire in eastern Europe in order to
get food producing regions . According to AJP Taylor , the Meinampf cannot be used as an argument
that Hitler wanted war . He argues that the Meinkampf cannot be taken seriously because it was
written well before Hitler came to power . AJP Taylor has seen the Hossbach Memorandum as day
dreaming . Taylor argues that Hitler never took the initiative in foreign policy but he rather took
opportunities who rather took advantage of opportunities . He was not a system maker who
deliberately prepared for war to make him the master of the world . Despite his violent talk , Hitler
was not aggressive but was a master in the game of waiting . Like Joshua before the walls of Jericho ,
Hitler preffered to wait until the forces opposing him had been sapped by their own confusion . Hitler
did not make plans to conquer the world . He assumed that others will provide opportunities and that
Gadze C Page 146

he would sieze them . The war of 1939 was not planned but a mistake and a diplomatic blunder by
both sides .
3.AJP Taylor has been accused of white washing Hitler his man by suggesting that Hitler alone was
not responsible for the outbreak of ww2 . Some see the outbreak of ww2 in other factors rather than
Hitler . They argue that the Nazi state officials had become extreme and radical by themselves not due
to the influence of Hitler .They argue that Hitler’s foregn policy was not planned but Hitler responded
to events . It has been argued that before ww1 , Germany had a drive to the East policy and when
Russia defeated Russia in 1917 , and through the Brestlitovisk fulfilled this dream and Hitler occupied
these territories in 1941 and Hitler was not different from the other Germany before him. However ,
historians accuse Hitler of having gone in the plans of the earlier leaders by creating Nazism , a
radical movement .
4.Hitler’s Germany foreigh policy is clear but the war was not caused by the aims of one man Hitler
or caused by the situation created by the Versailles which left Germany revengeful . One is tempted to
ask why Germay sought wra with the west when he was planning expansion to the east . If Hitler at all
meant war , one will be forced to ask why the western powers did not oppose Hitler until it was tool
late .
5.Hitler however knew where he wanted to go and this enabled him to take opportunities from the
mistakes and fears of the others . He was consistent in his foregn policy aims but thishas been
confused for a time table or a plan of action fixed in advance . He kept his options open to the last
possible moment and was never sure until he got there which of the several courses he would choose .
6.The war has been seen in the weaknesses of Britain and France which failed to take Russia on board
as they resisted Germany .To effectively resist Germany, Britain and France needed Russia yet they
hated her for her communism . They saw Germany as a dam wall raised against the Bolsheviks
floods . They felt , better Hitler than Russia . Hitler fully took advantage to drive for war when
Britain and France wre not prepared for it and also hated it .
7.The Czechoslovakia incident can be blamed for the destructive ww2 . The claim by Chamberlain of
Britain that the Munich Conference was peace was just wishful thinking . The Munich coference
shows the bankruptcy of appeseament as Hitler wanted to dominate the world by force .
8.The 1924 book the Meikampf which outlined Hitler ‘aims in foreign policy and defined it as
expansion to the east has been seen as nothing but day dreaming , a loud dream by Hitler . Whatever
happened in his foreign policy was not pre planned but coincidence and aweakness of his enemies
which he took advantage of to further his interests to the east .
9.While appeasement has been blamed for ww2 , appeasement was diplomacy meant to locate the
sources of the Germany frustration and then remove the danger spots one by one by negotiating
instead of allowing to go out of control as in 1914 . It was meant to reduce conflict since it was
believed Nazism was a political desease caused by the Versailles treaty . Once appeasement was
prescribed , it was thought the fevor and swelling would go . Britain thought Hitler could stil win the
revision of the treaty by negotiations if he could just lower his voice .
10.The larger view reflect short comings in human civilisation that could not settle its differences
without period blood baths . Nothing had changed since 1914 when countries fought for national
interests . The experimental league of nations had failed the war the same manner the alliances had
failed to prevent ww1 . It may be that no human groups have together avoided war for a long time .
The belief that war is unnatural and unavoidable was wrong .
ROLE OF OTHER FACTORS
1.USA isolation
Gadze C Page 147

It had taken the power of America to defeat Germany. It was always going totake the power of
America to keep Germany in check . America was rich , industrialised and powerful . She was the
father of the league of nations and without her the aggressive powers Italy , Germany and Japan had a
field day The decision by the American congress to withdraw from the world affairs into lsolation left
Britain and France exposed to Germany aggression .
2.The great depression
It started in agriculture in1928 before it spread to the rest of industry in 1929. It caused the untold
economic sufferings to which unemployment emerged as a top economic challenge . Thus to get rid of
unemployment , there was massive rearmament . This led to the growth of armies .The growth of
armies was a temptation to those who created them . They did not create armies so that they will not
use them . Diplomacy was overtaken by the use of military force .
3.THE WEAK LEAGUE OF NATIONS
It was supposed to be a world peace keeping machine . However , it had many weaknesses from birth
to death . It lost its father the USA to lsolation and could not operate without America .This left
Britain and France mainly to struggle with the aggressors Italy , Germany , Japan as members of the
aggressive Rome – Berlin –Tokyo Axis . They became more powerful than Britain and France that
dominated the League of Nations . The league of nations had other structural weaknesses eg meeting
once a year , agreeing on all decisions taken ,voluntary financial and army contribution . These and
many other problems rendered the league less effective as the world peace keeping body hence the
adoption to the policy of appeseament . NB-Look at other problems eg the versalles treaty , the failure
of the world disarmament conference , the policy of appeasement , the aggressive Italian , Germany ,
Japan foreign policy etc
“HITLER SIMPLY TOOK OPPORTUNITIES AS THEY PRESENTED THEMSELVES “ DO ES
THIS THIS EXPLAIN HITLER “ FOREIGN POLICY UP TO 1939 ?
If the above statement means that Hitler waited for opportunities to present themselves and then
pounce on them, then it is not true .Hitler had clear objectives in his foreign policy . However , he
took advantage of situations in his foreign policy for the benefit of Germany eg the lack of decisive
action by his opponents as seen in the policy of appeasement .
-Hitler had clear aims in his foreign policy eg the destruction of the Versailles treaty , the creation of
a living space for Germans and this was going to be achieved through war but Britain and France did
not want war as shown by the policy of appeasement . Hitler saw it . If Britain and France had willed
to defend the Versailles treaty by war as Hitler had wanted to destroy it by war , then there would
have been no ww2 . Thus appeasement gave Hitler good passage to acts of aggressions . Hitler took
advantage of the British and French weaknesses to further his programmes . It is important to note
that Hitler was alert to take opportunities as they came . He also created them through his initiatives .
-By as early as 1925 , Hitler had a detailed foreign policy as seen in his book the Meinkampf and went
on to implement them based on the situation on the ground but at the same time , the Meinkampf has
been seen as day dreaming .
-The weakness of the league of nations in the 1930s due to eg the great depression , gave Hitler an
opportunity to destroy the Versailles treaty , he moved out of the world disarmament conference so
that he will rearm and the league of nations so that he will be free to engage in the acts of aggression .
Hitler took advantage of the British friendship as seen in the Anglo – Germany Naval Agreement of
1935 which was critical to Germany naval rearmament , Hitler went beyond 35 percent Germany
naval strength tothat of Britain , increased on Germany trrops from 100 000 to 500 000 , introduced
Gadze C Page 148

an air force . Hitler was taking advantage of the British and French public anti war sentiments . He
also took advantage of the fact that Britain felt the Versailles treaty was too harsh on Germany .
-Hitler ‘s invasion of the Rhineland was a calculated risk taking advantage of the fall of the Stressa
Front , Britain and France ‘s involvement in the Abbsinian war against Mussolini . Hitler had given
orders to his commanders to surrender if they faced resistence from France but they faced no
resistence from France and they permanently occupied the Rhineland .
-It is important to note that from 1935 to 1936 , the league of nations had broken down and this
created a vaccum in European peace keeping missions .There was no restraining hand . Hitler took
further aggressive steps , Britain and France had differences on what to do with Germany , Mussolini
nolonger agreed with them due to the Abbysinian sanctions.Mussolini could nolonger act agaist Hitler
as he did in 1934 in defence of the Austrian independence . Thus Mussolini “s shift in loyality from
the league of nations to Hitler through the signing of the Rome-Berlin Axis in 1936 , strengthened by
their intervention into the Spanish civil war of 1936 , buttressed further by the 1939 Pact of Steel
served to strengthen Hitler as he went one step further to strengthen the Rome –Berlin to include
Japan in 1937 .
-Furthermore , the break up of the league is seen in the lack of consensus between Britain and France
and this forced them to choose appeasement hoping Hitler was going to be satisfied . Hitler invaded
Austria in 1938 in a bloodless aggression , Britain and France still felt their empires were not affected
and would rather not stop Hitler .The policy of appeasement gave room to Hitler ‘s aggressions .
-Hitler ‘s agressions in Czechoslovakia took advantage of Britain and France ‘s weaknesses to get
territories and he was strengthened by the policy of appeasement and wanted to risk the war for the
sake of creating a living space and he got it starting with Sudentenland .
-The Nazi –Soviet Pact of 1939 was a move towards war as Hitler sought to avoid fighting war on two
fronts . His foreign policy was not a mere response to events . He actively worked for territorial gains
resulting in ww2 after his invasion of Poland .NB-See your notes on the role by the other factors in
causing ww2
WHY WAS HITLER ABLE TO ACHIEVE DICTATORIAL POWERS IN GERMANY AFTER
1933
-People wanted a strong government and the Weimar had failed to give that strong government .
Hitler found the Germans ready for that strong government and took advantage to introduce
dictatorship .
-The personality of Hitler was critical . He was an orator , a political demagogue who appealed to
many people (NB-See your notes)
-The lack of serious opposition helped especially after the banning of the communist party in 1933
accused of burning the Reichstag and this justified the passing of a decree which lasted 12 years .
-The use of intimidation and violence by the SS,SA,Gestapo, the Storm troopers all led to the forced
support of Hitler’ dictatorship (NB-See your notes)
-The support Hitler got from Hinderberg and Von Papen
HOW CONSISTENT WERE THE AIMS OF HITLER ‘S FOREIGN POLICY FROM 1934 TO 1941
-NB- Look at his views in his book the Meinkampf , the rearmament , occupation of the Rhineland up
to 1939 .It seems from 1933 -1939 his policies were consisistent as he sought to fulfil his aims .
Gadze C Page 149

-NB-Some may argue that the policy of appeasement changed Hitler ‘s attitude and aims as it made
him more confident . He was an opportunist who took chances as they came .
-NB-Some argue that Hitler aimed at the expansion and domination. They look at events from 1933-
1941 proving Hitler had aims and followed them consistently as shown by events .
WHY HITLER WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE POLICY OF APPEASEMENT
-Hitler ‘s aims could only be satisfied by war as they involved making Germany a great
power ,destroying the Versailles treaty , building the army , recovering lost territories , creating a
living space for the Germans . Eventually Hitler wanted to invade Russia for his living space to get
the food producing regions . This could not be satisfied by the policy of appeasement because the
demands were too high
-Hitler saw appeasement as a sign of weakness (NB-See your notes)
-Hitler wanted war from the start (NB-See your notes)
WHY DID HITLER AND THE NAZIS ACHIEVE POWER IN THE 1930S THAN IN THE 1920S ?
-In the 1920s he wanted to make use of the coups eg the Munich Putch of 1923 which was suppressed
.
-The Nazi’s rise to power was linked to some economic problems (NB-See your notes}
-After the coup failure , Hitler wanted to take power legally . This was going to take long since it
depended on economic problems .
-There was the internal struggle in the Nazi Party until 1927 when Hitler persuaded Doctor Goebbels
and Strasser back . The coming back of Goebbels was important in the achievement of power in 1933
(NB-See your notes on propaganda)
-The great depression that started in agriculture in1928 and then the rest of industry in 1929 was
important in the rise to power by the Nazis (NB-See your notes)
HOW FAR WAS HITLER ‘S FOREIGN POLICY CENTRED ON THE DESIRE TO REVISE THE
VERSAILLES TREATY ?
-A full knowledge of the Versailles treaty is demanded here . look at the harsh terms hence the policy
of appeasement ny Britain and France
-The revisionist Hitler incorporated all the Germans into Germany when he invaded Sudentenland ,
Czechoslovakia , Poland , reoccupied the Saar , rearmament ,remilitarisation of the Rhineland ,
reunion with Austria .
-Other aims were for security eg when he intervened in the Spanish civil war , he wanted to control
Spain which was valuable for her security . The Rome-Berlin Axis , The Rome –Berlin –Tokyo Axis ,
the Nazi-Soviet Pact , the Anti- Communist Pact were for security .
-He aimed to expand eastwards for a living space as is shown by the invasion of Czechoslovakia ,
Poland and Russia in 1941 . Thus the revision of the Versailles treaty was used to tell the world he
was writing the wrongs done to Germany by the Versailles treaty . He achieved his aims using this
excuse . NB-Look at the other aims by Hitler in his foreign policy eg creating a living space for the
Germans , doing away with communism ,to recover the lost territories , to make Germany dominate
the world ,to bring the Germans into the reich , to rearm Germany . His foreign policy was also driven
by his desire to achieve these aims . Thus his foreign policy was not for a sole aim .
Gadze C Page 150

WAS HITLER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BRUTAL GOVERNANCE OF GERMANY BY THE

NAZIS ?
-The debate appears empty as it goes round and round but one has to accept the unique position of
Hitler in Germany from 1933 to 1945 . One should ask if it was possible for a terror state by the
police under Himmler and the SS to be erected without Hitler as the head of government . It is
difficult to think Germany would have engaged in a general war by the end of the 1930s under a
different form of authoritarian government .
-It is difficult to believe that the discrimination against the Jews would have led to genocide under a
different government and head of government. It seems highly impossible . However , in historical
explanation, leading actors and external factors are centrally important .The aims of Hitler were
important but they were aims operating beyond the control and manipulation of a single person
nomatter how great Hitler was .
-Hitler hated the Jews deeply. Spme argue it was partly because he was of Jewish origin although this
theory does not have a foundation .Another theory says that Hitler hated the Jews because a Jewish
Doctor had used gas to treat his mother . This is not strong enough because Hitler there after gave the
Jewish Doctor a present to thank him . Besides , Hitler had always hated the Jews . He read anti-
Jewish newspapers and loved anti-Jewish demagogues and orators . This sharpened his hatred of the
Jews and Zionism and their removal from Germany . Adolf Eichmann, a man put in charge of the
Jewish question master minded the brutal illtreatment of the Jews . The attack of the Jews was given
impetus by the Nuremberg laws of 1937 . It was enough to usher in a new wave of anti-Jews
violence . In the face of economic hardships ,the Jewish businesses were taken over . Hitler had given
the green light leading to the intensified violence against the Jews and their property . Jewish
synagogues were burnt , Jews killed ,Jews taken into concentration camps . Hitler himself had done
very little in the persecution of the Jews. What was required from was the licence to carry out tasks
for his wishes . Carrying the wishes of the Fuhrer had possibilities of promotion , personal
advancement , enrichment ,self aggrandisement taking advantage of the Fuhrer ‘s wishes . In 1939 ,
Hitler talke of the Jews with frightening manace on many of his passages in his spechees to the public
and to his friends up to 1942 . This was a time when the final solution to the Jewish problem came to
be implemented and the war gave the platform for the brutality in the genocide shape . The licence
was given from above for barbarism to the uniformed forces urging them to close their hearts to
mercy and to act brutally in the greatest of harshness as they saw fit and this led to mounting terror .
Hitler himself had not given much detail but the dirty work itself was willingly undertaken by others .
However , given the nature of the Fuhrer state , Hitler remained the key to whatever action was taken .
Hitler was the inspiration behind the final solution even when the ideas were coming from the others .
Goebbels called him an unswerving protagonist and advocate of radical solutions .In march 1943 ,
Hitler gave permission to Goebbels to remove the Jews from Berlin and the SS would deal with
them . Himmler met Hitler on several times a week but the minutes were kept a secret . Hitler was
reminding him that they were in it together and that terror was a prop to Hitler ‘s power .
-Hitler read during during ww1 Charles Darwin’s view of history as a struggle of races with the
victorious ones going to be the strongest . This seem to have occupied the centre of Hitler’s
brutality.In his speech to the SA in 1922 , Hitler emphasised that no Jew could be a people ‘s comrade
since they were the power behind the Bolsheviks revolution in Russia since most of the revolutionary
leaders were Jews .He saw Judah as a world plague . These ideas led to the savage and inhuman
torture of the Jews opposing the Aryan race .
-In Nazi Germany , it was the duty of every one to try and work towards the Fuhrer along the lines he
would work . The fanatical followers of Hitler went to the extremes . To an observer , it will appear a
government practice . However , Hitler’s successes depended on these radical groups .
Gadze C Page 151

-The violence destroying the opposition after 1933 was sanctioned by Hitler but not carried out by his
close direction of the terror action but was put in place by the political hooliganism of the SA . The
SA under Rohm spoke of the revolution and it even endangered Hitler ‘s position until Hitler
responded through the night of the long knives .
-The Minister of Justice in 1935 made complaints to Himmler about about the number of deaths
occurring in the concentration camps and requested the presence of the lawyers but when Hitler
consulted Hitler , Hitler told him that no lawyers were required in the concentration camps . Hitler had
therefore backed the brutality that occurred in the concentration camps .
-A week after the outbreak of ww2 , Himmler announced that he had ordered the execution of people
even before trial . Hitler had personally approaved the shooting agaist the Judiciary proceedings and
he continued to do this during ww2 .Hitler was therefore responsible for the brutality.
-Doctor Werner Best, the Deputy of the secret police , acting on behalf of Hitler , saw the duty of the
police as one of eliminating deaseases and germs that were in a fighting formation . He persecuted the
jews , homo sexuals ,communists ,Marxists who were Hitler’s enemies .
-The office of the Chancellor was responsible for euthanasia . Hitler always this feeling but felt it
could only be carried out in war time and worked to keep it out of the knowledge of the health
officials but worked with the ready cooperation of some Doctors who supplied the lists of patience for
euthanasia . This resulted in the death of about 70 000 mentally ill and deformed patience .
-In 1939, Himmler led a process of racial purification of the conquered eastern territories . Himmler
was able to put under him a system a system that saw massive deportations of the ethnic populations .
These were the spill over effects of the racial purification which had started in Germany .
-It was Hitler who replaced the law by force .Hitler’s personal bodyguards were promoted to the
position where they swallowed the state police . It was the most obvious example of the ultimate
lawlessness by Hitler . The mafia mob had taken over the state and it was towards what Fuhrer wanted
. Therefore , Hitler was responsible for the brutal governance of Germany .
-Hitler himself knew how to make people lose common sense through the use of propaganda that
destroyed reasoning . Repeated lies through propaganda on Germany enemies , these lies through
propaganda became mistaken for the truth . Some participated because Hitler had given them jobs and
they supported the brutality through and through . Some supported Hitler because Hitler had a place
for every body in the organisations he created for boys , girls ,women,old
women ,men .Therefore ,with so many benefits from Hitler , the German masses did not find it too
much a demand to persecute the so called enemies .
-However , in historical exolanation , leading actors and external factors are centrally important . The
aims of Hitler were important but his aims were operating beyond the control of and manipulation of
a single person nomatter how great Hitler was .
-The Germany genocide was far from being a one man’s doing but the readness of the wide section of
the society in working towards the Fuhrer .It will be a mistake to diassociate repression that was
witnessed in Germany from the masses and their consensus . To think that people were subjected to
tyranny and the Gestapo unwillingly might not be correct since there were very few police in
Germany and the Gestapo worked with the willing informers . Hitler and the police had wide support
from the people and without this support from within the population,the few police could nothave
been effective in terror but they were supported by the ordinary members of the society .
-Hitler was not involved in the daily business of government as he believed that many problems
sorted themselves out if one did not interfere . Access to Hitler was difficult except to a few favoured
ones . Hitler was not involved on the making of sensitive decisions and many issues requiring his
Gadze C Page 152

personal decisions could pile in his office before he gave decisions . Decisions were made by others in
the hope that it will work for the Fuhrer and this allowed a free rein in Germany .
-Powerful people like Goebbels , Himmler , Goering had their powers driven from their positions not
party or state.They carried a lot of atrocities using their personal powers. Of course they were looking
up to the Fuhrer but as already noted , it was not easy to get hold of Hitler for decisions . Thus these
made use of their personal power to make decisions hence the argument that they were also the brains
behind the terror state witnessed between 1933 and 1945 in the governance of Germany .
Gadze C Page 153

Lower 6 European History Notes (Masvodza)

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

Lower 6 European History Notes (Masvodza)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International History Paper 2 Handout

HIGH ORDER SKILLS

(1)…- make a claim or a line of

(3)… Make a judgement in relation to the

Question or a comment in relation to the question

(2)… factual evidence, illustrations, prove the claim or the

 Thus each paragraph is a small essay with full discussions of arguments in

Content- depth of factual knowledge

NEW SHIFT IN QUESTIONING

LANDLORDS OR THE NOBILITY

WORKERS AND PEASANTS

BOURGEOSIE OR THE MIDDLE CLASS

THE BACKGROUND SITUATION BEFORE THE REVOLUTION OF 1789

exisisting system of government lacked political representation and participation of

THE CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

AMBITIOUS NOBILITY (Economic, social, political)

PEASANTS AND THEIR BURDENS (Economic and social)

THE BOURGEOISIE OR MIDDLE CLASS [POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC]

THE QUEEN MARIE ANTONETTE

THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDIPENDENCE (Political and Economic)

THE INCOMPETENT KING (POLITICAL)

PHILOSOPHIES AND ENCYCLOPAEDISTS [POLITICAL]

POOR HARVESTS (ECONOMIC)

THE SUMMONING OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF 1789 (Immediate cause of the

Causes or why the meeting was called

EVENTS AT THE MEETING

Implication of the meeting or effects or how it precipitated the revolution

EVENTS OR FEATURES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789

THE STORMING OF BASTILLE, 1789

ABOLUTION OF FEUDALISM BY THE AUGUST DECREES OF 1789

THE DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND CITIZEN, 1789

THE MARCH OF WOMEN

NATIONALISATION OF CHURCH LAND, 1789

 The abolution of feudalism created financial crises for the National

THE CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY (CCC), 1790

THE FLIGHT TO VARENESS, 1791

THE END OF A PEACEFUL REVOLUTION AND THE START OF A

THE Formation of A COALATION AGAINST France.

THE 1792 WAR BETWEEN FRANCE, FOREIGN POWERS AND COUNTER

CAUSES OF THE 1792 WAR: WHO WAS TO BLAME?

ROLE BY THE REVOLUTIONARIES IN CAUSING THE WAR

ROLE BY EUROPEAN POWERS IN THE 1792 WAR

OTHER CAUSES OF THE 1792 WAR

THE REIGN OF TERROR 1793-1794

CAUSES OF THE REIGN OF TERROR

EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR

POLITICAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR

NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM THE RELIGIOUS TERROR

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE MILITARY TERROR AND ECONOMIC TERROR

JUSTIFICATION OR POSITIVE EFFECTS OF THE REIGN OF TERROR

THE ROLE OF ROBISPIEPRE IN THE REIGN OF TERROR

He respected the traditional worship and he declared the worship of Reason.

ROLE BY OTHER REVOLTUIONARIES

WHY THE REVOLUTION TURNED RADICAL UP TO 1794 OR ISSUES THAT PROVED

Reforms of the National assembly

Active and passive citizens

FINANCE AND CHURCH LANDS

The need for justice in law

The religious question

The flight to Vareness

The legislative assembly, Emigres, priests and war

War and the overthrow of the Monarchy