Download Europlans2-13-17-2017 - AP US and AP European History

European History
February 15-19-2016
 This week we will do a little mini-unit on Russian History leading up to World War One. You will
be doing a little work on a few book related assignments also on culture and society of the late
19th -early 20th century. You will have a series of bell work and quizzes on this material.
 The following week we will start our big unit on Imperialism leading to World War One (This
means you will have to start All Quiet on the Western Front very soon.
 Some of the material below (The Crimean War) we have actually covered but I pulled it forward
so that it would be in context
 By the end of the week we will transition into another mini-unit related to the rising tide of
racism and its relationship with nationalism
MONDAY
 Examine the modernization efforts to reform Russia 1830s-1890s (SP-4,7,14,18)
 Explain the causes and effects of the Crimean War 1853 – 1856 (already discussed)
Materials
Strategy/Format
Ppt
assessment, lecture-discussion
Introduction
 When we were last in Russia Alexander I was the Czar. After a brief flirtation with reforms in Russia he
became the arch conservative leader of the Holy Alliance after 1815. He, like many in Europe was pretty
freaked out by the perceived radicalism that came along with liberal nationalism.

Alexander who, once again like so many czars before and afterward became paranoid over palace intrigues.
By 1822 the aging czar was in ill health. On a trip to southern Russia he died after a bout with Typhus….or
did he? There are some who believe that he faked his death and retired to a monastery (as Charles V HRE
had done). There seems to be plenty of evidence for and against this. Ah, yet again we have another history
mystery.
The Decembrist Revolt 1825
 Upon the death of Alexander, Nicholas I was crowned but there was a dispute as to who should be the
rightful heir to the throne. Many liberals and members of the army wanted Constantine.
The officers were driven to revolt by many forces. To begin, they felt that Nicholas did not deserve
the throne. Nicholas's older brother, Constantine, stood to inherit the throne first, but when
Constantine chose to marry a Polish girl with no royal blood, he relinquished his claim to the throne.
But that did not matter to them. The tradition in Russia upon a coronation of a new emperor was for
the army to assemble to pledge its allegiance. The ceremony was to be held in Senate Square, outside
the Winter Palace, in St. Petersburg. Several officers started a mutiny in their regiments, and
approximately 3,000 men began open revolt against the czar. Reluctant to begin his reign with a
massacre of his subjects. Finally, the order to open fire was given. Lacking organized leadership, the
rebels soon fell to the tsar's superior military forces.
 The aftermath of what came to be known as the Decembrist Revolt was far-reaching. A few related
uprising occurred in southern Russia, but were also easily put down. Sixty to seventy rebels died, and
all that were captured were either hanged or exiled to Siberia. Czar Nicholas I blamed liberalism and
pledge to stamp it out and those who supported it.. Reminiscent of the future reign of Stalin, he
initiated a nation-wide censorship, placing tighter controls on all aspects of public life. The Third
Section, a network of spies and informers, was set up to enforce the censorship. The restrictions forced
the people's loyalty to the czar and the Russian Orthodox Church. A form of Russian nationalism
developed, but this later led to racist suppression of minority groups especially Jews. Nicholas lived in
fear of liberal revolts for the rest of his life.
Nicholas I (Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality)

Aggressive conservative nationalism accelerated under Czar Nicholas I of Russia. Like the Cavour and
Bismarck, this czar used nationalism as a rallying point but had no plans for liberalism. His command,
“Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism” was clear. His Organic Statute essentially annexing Poland and
his aggression toward the Ottoman Empire, led to the Crimean War. In 1855 his death led to the ascension
of Alexander II to the throne.
 This is a critical and some ways tragic period because if Russian reforms had been followed and up and
Czar Alexander II not been assassinated, the direction of Russian history might have been different.
The Crimean War (1853-1856)

Nicholas I decided that with his reign now secure that he would expand his empire at the expense of the
"sick man of Europe," the Ottoman Empire. The ultimate objective, as it had been for much of Russian
history was a warm water port access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This involved the straights
of Dardanelles, a strategic choke point to this day. Also, he hoped to pluck lands from Ottoman control in
the Balkans region. However, the pretense for starting this war actually involved a series of events between
the French and the Ottoman Empire.





Our old buddy Napoleon III, exploited Turkish weakness to secure concessions for the Catholic church in
Palestine, hoping to gain conservative support for his planned coup d’etat which occurred as you know
December 2, 1851 When Czar Nicholas I of Russia retaliated, sending a mission to recover Greek
Orthodox rights, the Turks simply gave way to both parties, and hoped the issue would go away.
In July 1853, Russia occupied the Danubian Principalities (Moldavia and Walachia) to pressure Istanbul,
but this threatened Austria’s economic lifeline - the Danube. For a ‘sick man’, The Ottoman sultan proved
remarkably dexterous and aggressive. Outwitting Austria, Britain and France, who still favored a
diplomatic settlement, they declared war in October 1853 and attacked the Russians. The sultan well
understood that especially Britain did not wanted to see a stronger and more bold Russia because they
could threaten their "line of communication with India."
After an ultimatum to withdraw from the Black Sea area passed, Britain, France, and Austria declared war
on Russia. At the outbreak of war, an allied army of 60,000 was already in Turkey to defend Istanbul.
Austria (though they did actively send troops) then joined French and British demands that Russia evacuate
the Danubian Principalities, whereupon Nicholas I actually agreed, thereby calling the allies' bluff. He was
wrong.
The first major battle was a series of attacks at Sevastopol in the Crimea. The Battle of Balaclava on 24
October, ended with the legendary British ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’, which was, although misguided,
an astonishingly successful operation of war, with relatively light casualties - only 118 killed out of 620.
The Russians were so frightened by the cold courage of the British troopers, they never again dared face
them in the open field. In the spring of 1855, the allies, heavily reinforced with French troops and
employing improved logistics, began to batter their way into Sevastopol, and British gunboats cut Russian
supply lines across the Sea of Azov. After a last despairing counter attack in August, the Russians were
resigned to defeat. One reason for this change of heart was the death of Nicholas I in 1855 and the new czar
Alexander II realized that the war would probably be lost.
The Treaty of Paris, signed on March 30, 1856, Russia returned southern Bessarabia and the mouth of the
Danube to Turkey; Moldavia, Walachia and Serbia were placed under an international rather than a Russian
guarantee; the Sultan promised to respect the rights of his Christian subjects; and the Russians were
forbidden to maintain a navy on the Black Sea. For Russia, the defeat was another stinging reminder of
their failures. For Russia, the loss of a million men mostly due to poor conditions and supply set the stage
for a wave of reforms. The loss for the French was about 100,000 men and the opposite of what Napoleon
III hoped for actually occurred. The French did not rally to him but started to question his worth. Britain
could be called the only clear winner. Though they lost 25,000 men, the" line of communication" was
saved. The main result of the war was the end of the Concert of Vienna from 1815. Not only did Austria
refuse to join, neither did the Prussians who, as we know, were just then making plans for their own
unification of Germany.
The Period of Russian Reforms
 The Russian Performance during the Crimean War and the death of Nicholas I (of pneumonia) heralded a
period of somewhat liberal reforms in Russia. His successor, Emperor Alexander II, ascended to the throne,
whose reign was a period named by his contemporaries the epoch of Great reforms. The most important
reform was the 1861 abolition of serfdom.

The peasant reform of February 19, 1861, was of special importance, because it not only resolved the
most painful problem in Russia, but also opened the road for an intensive economic development of the
country. From the first years of the reign of Alexander II society began to actively discuss the need for
transformations. In numerous political projects and deliberations, which were often distributed in handwritten form, the problem of the abolition of serfdom was put to the fore. This bolstered up the conviction
of the emperor that the transformations he was thinking about were really necessary. The abolition of
serfdom created a new class of Russian peasants called “kulaks” who managed to attain a small level of
wealth and landownership.



Alexander II also realized that the Russians could never advance as long as they were lacking heavy
industry. In all European nations they ranked near the bottom with the Ottoman Empire ahead of them in
production. So to develop the economy he took a cue from the Germans who were subsidizing the
development of railroads and other infrastructure. The Russians also capitalized on coal resources to
become a major exporter and a steel manufacturer. Of course, this will be hugely important because the
nature of industry will be worsening and the same time that it was improving elsewhere. The urban workers
though small at first, became the missing piece of the puzzle that made Marx believe that a revolution in
Russia was less likely**
Another important reform was the allowance of local government autonomy. These were called zemstovs.
This was an important step toward liberalizing the government but was regrettably short-lived. The Czar
also initiated civil law reforms similar to the Napoleonic Code.
Not surprisingly given the performance of the Russians during the Crimean War, important military
reforms were initiated.
A Turn in the Wrong Direction
 Alexander's reforms did not satisfy liberals and radicals who wanted a parliamentary democracy and the
freedom of expression that was enjoyed in the United States and most other European states. The reforms
in agricultural also disappointed the peasants. In some regions it took peasants nearly 20 years to obtain
their land. Many were forced to pay more than the land was worth and others were given inadequate
amounts for their needs.
 In 1879, an opposition grouped formed called Land and Liberty split into two factions. The majority of
members, who favored a policy of terrorism, established the People's Will.. The terrorist planned to blow
up the czars’ train but miscalculated and it destroyed another train instead. An attempt the blow up the
Kamenny Bridge in St. Petersburg as the Czar was passing over it was also unsuccessful.
 In 1881 The People’s Will now planned to attack the czar in his carriage using bombs. Initially the bombs
missed the carriage and instead landed amongst Cossacks guards. The Tsar was unhurt but insisted on
getting out of the carriage to check the condition of the injured men. While he was standing with the
wounded Cossacks another terrorist, threw his bomb. Alexander was killed instantly.
The Return to Conservatism
 It would perhaps surprise no one that the new czar would turn away from the liberalism of his predecessor.
After all, this was the pattern of Russian History up to that point. Alexander III embarked immediately on a
process that was known as “russification.” The primary aspect of Russification was to rid Russia of western
ideas that Alexander III believed had weakened the nation and reduced its national identity. Alexander
wanted to reclaim Russia’s ‘Russian-ness'. To achieve this he had to remove those people who had
imported into Russia alien ideas that were covertly undermining his position and the national identity of
Russia itself. Alexander saw no difference in what he wanted for himself and what he wanted for Russia.
Russification was not new to Russia. There had been isolated examples of when this was done before. What
made Alexander’s policy so different was the intensity of it after 1881 and the attempt to give it some form
of academic intellectual backing.
 This be carried out by the civil service and then by the governors in the regions who would use the police to
carry it out at grass-roots level. Those who opposed this were to be dealt with by the police. The most
central theme to ‘Russification’ was the power of the monarch. Alexander III believed that for this to be
unchallenged during his reign, the reforms of Alexander II had to be withdrawn. It was not possible to
reverse the emancipation of the serfs but it was possible to reverse the power of the zemstovs (local
councils) and under Alexander III, their powers were distinctly curbed and handed to the Ministry of the
Interior. Perhaps the most important advance was made by Alexander III was his appointment of Sergei
Witte to develop the economy. Witte created a blended system relying on old mercantile ideas of heavy
tariffs He instituted a gold based economy for the first time and one of the most critical decisions was to
encourage western investment in the Russian economy. This did not sit well with all Russians, believing
that the wealth would flow out and not into Russia.
 One aspect of Czar Alexander III that was maintained was the development of military strength. The czar
did not pursue a warlike policy however. However tensions were growing between the new German state
and the Russian Empire which would explode into war 20 years later.
Conclusion
In 1894 Alexander III died of kidney disease and was replaced by his son the last Russian Czar, Nicholas II. We will
see that the reign of Nicholas II while it started well, will be very turbulent. Next week (and Next unit) we will look
at the 1905Revolution . It will be a preview of the 1917 event that changed the world.
Homework for Monday
Read pp: Marxism and the Socialist Movement for bell work tomorrow pp:781 – 785 (This will include the primary
source)
TUESDAY
 Examine the causes and effects of the 1905 Russian Revolution
Materials
Ppt and video
Strategy/Format
Lecture-discussion
Introduction
 Today we will start a new and very critical unit involving the nature of European states at the turn of the
century but more importantly we will examine the nature of imperialism. But first we will revisit our look
at Imperial Russia
 Last week we saw the terrorist group known as the People’s Will had assassinated Alexander II and
attempted to kill Alexander III. In 1894 a new Czar and the last Czar ascended the throne. Nicholas II.
Unlike his namesake, Nicholas II understood that a return to autocracy would be difficult. Yet, he was also
unwilling to accede to the demands of the radicals and give up power. Such is the paradox of Nicholas II
and his reign as the “Czar of all of the Russias”. The background of the 1905 Revolution was, like the
attacks on the czar oftentimes difficult to understand especially since the end of serfdom should have been
seen as a remarkable reform.
 The emancipation was only part of a range of government, legal, social and economic changes from the
1860s as the country moved, ever so slowly, away from feudal absolutism towards a version of marketdriven capitalism. Very significantly the political system was almost unchanged while economic, social and
cultural structures had been liberalized to some degree. Political change was sternly resisted by the
monarchy especially after Alexander II assassination. Less than forty provinces had zemstvo (rural
councils) fifty years after the legislation was introduced. This raising of expectations and limited progress
produced frustration. A feeling that the demand for 'land and liberty' could only be truly met by revolution.
 The economic reforms of Russia continued under Nicholas II. Against this social stifling the 1880s and
1890s were marked by huge leaps in industrialization - although from a miserably low base. This growth
continued and intensified in the 1890s, with the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway and the "Witte
system". Sergei Witte was made Minister of Finance in 1892. Faced with a constant budget deficit, he
sought to boost revenues by boosting the economy. He worked hard to attract foreign investment and in
1897 put the ruble on the gold standard. The growth was concentrated in a few areas (Moscow, St
Petersburg, the Ukraine, Baku regions). Roughly half of all invested capital was foreign and foreign experts
and entrepreneurs were vital. This also meant that the half of the return on investment left Russia for
foreign banks. This became a source of unrest among the middle class.
Background Events
The Russo-Japanese War
 The Russo-Japanese War developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea
and Manchuria. In 1898 Russia had pressured China into granting it a lease for the strategically important
port of Port Arthur at the tip of the Liaotung Peninsula, in southern Manchuria. Russia thereby entered into
occupation of the peninsula, even though, in concert with other European powers, it had forced Japan to
relinquish just such a right after the latter's decisive victory over China in the Sino-Japanese War of 189495. Moreover, in 1896 Russia had concluded an alliance with China against Japan and, in the process, had
won rights to extend the Trans-Siberian Railroad across Chinese-held Manchuria to the Russian seaport of
Vladivostok, thus gaining control of an important strip of Manchurian territory.





Although Russia had built the Trans-Siberian Railroad (1891-1904), it still lacked the transportation
facilities necessary to reinforce its limited armed forces in Manchuria with sufficient men and supplies.
Japan, by contrast, had steadily expanded its army since its war with China in 1894 and by 1904 had gained
a marked superiority over Russia in the number of ground troops in the Far East. After Russia reneged in
1903 on an agreement to withdraw its troops from Manchuria, Japan decided it was time to attack.
Though little today is known of this conflict today, the Russo-Japanese War was an important event with
some epic land battles that presaged the First World War. The Japanese had also settled down to a long
siege of Port Arthur after several very costly general assaults on it had failed. The garrison's military
leadership proved divided, however, and on Jan. 2, 1905, in a gross act of incompetence and corruption,
Port Arthur's Russian commander surrendered the port to the Japanese without consulting his officers and
with three months' provisions and adequate supplies of ammunition still in the fortress.
The final battle of the land war was fought at Mukden in late February and early March 1905, between
Russian forces totaling 330,000 men and Japanese totaling 270,000. After long and stubborn fighting and
heavy casualties on both sides, the Russian commander broke off the fighting and withdrew his forces
northward from Mukden, which fell into the hands of the Japanese. Losses in this battle were exceptionally
heavy, with approximately 89,000 Russian and 71,000 Japanese casualties.
At sea the Russians did no better. The naval Battle of Tsushima finally gave the Japanese the upper hand in
the conflict. The Japanese had been unable to secure the complete command of the sea on which their land
campaign depended, and the Russian squadrons at Port Arthur and Vladivostok had remained moderately
active. But on May 27-29, 1905, in a battle in the Tsushima Straits, Admiral Togo's main Japanese fleet
destroyed the Russian Baltic Fleet, which had sailed in October 1904 all the way from the Baltic port of
Liepaja to relieve the forces at Port Arthur and at the time of the battle was trying to reach Vladivostok.
Japan was by this time financially exhausted, but its decisive naval victory at Tsushima, together with
increasing internal political unrest throughout Russia, where the war had never been popular, brought the
Russian government to the peace table.
Interestingly President Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a peace agreement as
the Treaty of Portsmouth. Within two months of the treaty's signing, a revolution compelled the Russian
tsar Nicholas II to issue the October Manifesto, which was the equivalent of a constitutional charter
Tensions Escalate
 Not surprisingly defeat at the hands of the Japanese was even more devastating politically for Nicholas II
than the Crimean War had been. The Japanese were seen by many Russians as racially inferior and yet they
had devastated the Russian fleet and fought the Russian army to a standstill.
 The middle and lower classes were also discontented. Witte’s reforms had been important but slow in
developing. The middle class was particularly angry about so much wealth flowing out of Russia. The
lower classes had two main gripes. First, rural peasantry was still in a state similar to serfdom because the
pace of reform had slowed under Alexander III. Second, the new urban industrial class that was growing
was also experiencing the same dreadful conditions as western Europe had seen almost 100 years before.
 Another key reason for the discontent was the result of Alexander III “russification” policy. This anger
many non-Russian ethnic groups. The policy tried to force Russian language and traditions on the almost
50% of the non-Russian population (Like Poles and those in the Baltic states like Lithuanians).
 With the rise of an urban working class, socialism and communism became influential for the first time.
1905 will become the real start of these ideologies in Russia
The Spark
 A peaceful demonstration was led Father Gapon, an orthodox priest. Gapon was an interesting figure
because he had actually been seen by the Interior Ministry as a preferable alternative to the more radical
labor union leaders. As the mass demonstration grew and descended upon the Winter Palace, the guards
fired on the crowd killing hundreds. This event was known as “Bloody Sunday”
 Shocked by the spread of violence and particularly by the military joining the protestors (such as the
Mutiny of the warship Potemkin) and a massive general strike of all Russian workers, by October the Czar
seems to have gotten the message.
Results



The October Manifesto was something of a limited success that should be familiar to you by now. The czar
supported full civil rights for all Russians (despite ethnicity) and the creation of the Duma, a popularly
elected legislative branch. This had the effect of pacifying many in the middle class but did nothing for the
laboring classes. This is similar to what we saw with the French Revolution (the sans-culottes and Paris
Commune). In fact, some in the middle class now supported a military crackdown.
The resulting government resembled closely other more conservative-based governments in the late 19th20th centuries. The czar still had great power because he chose the higher house through his appointments.
Again not unlike France during the reign of Napoleon III, universal male suffrage yielded a more radical
lower house and in 1907, the czar had the constitution revised to strengthen the seats of the land owning
class. The zemstova were systematically weakened or completely ignored.
While the czar’s actions did end the Revolution, the tensions will be ever present. IN fact, Nicholas II
actually strengthened support for socialism and communism because the peasant and urban laboring classes
so no real gains from the October Manifesto. It will be at this juncture that the seeds of the 1917 communist
revolution were planted!!!!
Homework Tuesday Night
None (Book Tomorrow)
WEDNESDAY (Book Needed)

Examine secondary sources on impact of racism and nationalism in Europe
Materials
Text and guided questions
Strategy/Format
Close text reading/docs analysis
Instructions and Introduction
 The late 19th -early decade of the 20th century was a highly paradoxical period. All across Europe the
standard of living was rising and there was a general feeling of positivity. However, in certain parts of
Europe nationalism was taking a very dark and dangerous turn. One of the main reasons for this was the
desire of many nationalists to define race as it related to the nation. As such, there was a move toward
defining racial purity as a strength to the nation-state. Many of you hopefully know that where this will lead
in the 1930s-1940s. However, the sinister nature of the issue actually was a product of the late 19th century.
 Today using the text, we will do something like an overview of the topic and then dig into more detail
Thursday and Friday (plus the weekend)
Homework
Complete the questions of needed
THURSDAY


Examine the origins of race theory in the late 19th – 20th century
Discuss the origins of Zionism in the late 19th – 20th century
Materials
Strategy/Format
Ppt
Lecture-discussion
Introduction


As we have seen from our discussion of the French 3 rd Republic, anti-Semitism was once again rising in
Europe. In addition to the Dreyfus Affair, a series of pogroms erupted in Russia and Poland. To understand one
factor for this return we will look at the curious mixture that Darwinism and Positivism had upon the social
sciences and then society as a whole during this period.
In addition, and perhaps not surprisingly we will also see the development of Zionism as a political idea during
this same basic period.
The History of Race Theory
Social Darwinism (Herbert Spencer)

Like Comte Spencer developed his own stage theory of human development based upon
adaptation. Actually he published his first work on the subject two years before Darwin.
 His ideas were never meant to be taken for what they became. His actual goals were quite
progressive. How can humankind improve itself? Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social
darwinsim— the new, evolved society is always better than the past.
Eugenics (Francis Galton)

How can humankind achieve what Spencer called for? Eugenics - Galton argued that just as
physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental
qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social morals needed to change so that heredity
was a conscious decision, in order to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the
under-breeding of the "more fit" ones. In other words, this is a type of human natural selection
 Insane asylums and welfare were creating inferior social beings and if the course continued, they
would dilute the superior pool. In the U.S. the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell (1927) The Court
upheld a statute instituting compulsory education of the mentally retarded" for the protection and
health of the state."
Arthur de Gobineau


Gobineau believed the white race was superior to the others. He thought it corresponded to the
ancient Indo-European culture, also known as "Aryan"(Indo-Iranian race). Gobineau originally
wrote that white race miscegenation was inevitable. He attributed much of the economic turmoil in
France to pollution of races. Later on in his life, he altered his opinion to believe that the white
race could be saved.
Gobineau saw Jews as intelligent people who were very much a part of the superior race and who,
if anything, stimulated industry and culture. Apparently, Gobineau himself was not particularly
anti-Semitic. But, many of his racial ideas were cooped and then altered by later Nazis.
Houston Stewart Chamberlin


Wrote a text called The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Foundations would prove to be a
seminal work in German nationalism; due to its success, aided by Chamberlain’s association with
the Wagner circle, its ideas of Aryan supremacy and a struggle against Jewish influence spread
widely across the German state at the beginning of the century.
HSC essentially believed that a reverse misogyny could occur by efforts at racial purity.
Chamberlain developed a relatively complex theory relating racial origins, physical features and
cultural traits. According to Chamberlain, “the modern Jew (Homo judaeica) mixes some of the
features of the Hittite- notably the "Jewish nose", retreating chin, great cunning and fondness for
usury and of the true Semite- the Arab (H. arabicus), in particular the dolichocephalic (long and
narrow) skull, the thick-set body.”
Implication
With HSC you had the true foundations of the future Nazi idea of racial purity and efforts to weed out “jewishness.”
His theories were adopted by the most prominent Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg and Adolph Hitler attended
HSC funeral when he died in 1927.
The Zionist Movement
 It perhaps makes perfect sense that given the rising rate of anti-Semitism some Jews were
ready to depart. In 1897 Theodore Herzl was thought to have launched the Zionist movement.
Not unlike many other pan-movements that developed out of nationalism, Zionism was based
upon the simple precept that Jews deserved a nation just as others had strived for one.
 The Zionist movement which was formed at the latter part of the last century, sought to
endow the Jews with a nationalistic character which was heretofore strange to them. It sought
to deprive them of their historically religious character and offered in substitution of faith in
God and adherence to the Torah, and belief in their ultimate redemption by the coming of the
Messiah, a nationalistic ideology and the possibility of establishing through political media, a
Jewish national homeland in Palestine.
 The British government gave some credence to the possibility with the famous Balfour
Declaration , which recognized the eventual possibility of founding a Jewish national
homeland, in Palestine, was affirmed to be the British government. The Jewish Agency, who
then was the Chief representative of Zionist interests in the Holy Land, was entrusted with the
issuance of visas to the Holy Land, thus resulting in an increased Zionist immigration from
various parts of the world, which ultimately succeeded in superseding in numbers, the veteran
Orthodox dwellers in the region who had largely lived peacefully with Palestinians.
 Orthodox Jewry all over the world and the Orthodox Community in the Holy Land in
particular, immediately sensed in this stage of Zionist success, the threat of grave danger for
the religious future of Jews. The Arab inhabitants began to exhibit open hostility to their
Jewish neighbors. The British government failed to distinguish between the Orthodox
community, who for generations in habited the Holy Land, and the newly arrived Zionist
immigrants.
Conclusion
At this juncture, World War One would intervene. As we shall see, the fact that Ottoman Turkey became involved in
the conflict on the side of Germany made them an enemy of Britain. The British will try to quiet the Zionist
movement and sent mixed signals supporting Arab Nationalism at the same time. Much of the horrors of the modern
day Middle East grew from these mixed signals
Homework
FRIDAY
 Discuss the nature of politics in the 3rd French Republic
 Explain the causes and effects of the Dreyfus Affair (video with questions)
Materials
Ppt and video
Strategy/Format
Lecture-discussion
Introduction
 The Third Republic was a republican parliamentary democracy that was created on September 4, 1870
following the collapse of the Empire of Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian War. It survived until the
invasion of France by the German Third Reich in 1940.It has been said that the 3rd Republic was in many
ways an accidental and unloved republic that stumbled from crisis to crisis before its final collapse. It was
never intended to be a long-term republic.




In fact the republican nature of the Third Republic almost did not happen. Many French people and the
overwhelming majority of the French National Assembly wished to return to a constitutional monarchy. In
1871, the throne was offered to the Comte de Chambord, alias Henry V, the legitimate heir to the French
throne since the abdication of Charles X, who had abdicated in favor of him, in 1830. Chambord, then a child,
had had the throne snatched from his grasp in 1830 by the Revolution.
In 1871 Chambord had no wish to be a constitutional monarch but a semi-absolutist one like his
grandfather Charles X. Moreover - and this became the ultimate reason the restoration never occurred - he
refused to reign over a state that used the Tri-color flag that was associated with the Revolution of 1789 and
the July Monarchy of the man who seized the throne from him in 1830, the citizen-king, Louis Philippe,
King of the French. Although many in France wanted a restored monarchy, it was unwilling to surrender its
popular tri-color. As silly as this sounds, that is how the French ended up without naming a new monarch.
Instead a "temporary" republic was established, pending the death of the elderly childless Chambord and
the succession of his more liberal heir, the Comte de Paris. In February 1875, a series of parliamentary Acts
established the organic or constitutional laws of the new republic. At its apex was a President of the
Republic. A two-chamber parliament was created, along with a ministry under a prime minister (named
"President of the Council") who was nominally answerable to both the President of the Republic and
parliament. Throughout the 1870s, the issue of monarchy versus republic dominated public debate.
On May 16, 1877, with public opinion swinging heavily in favor of a republic, the President of the
Republic, General Patrice MacMahon, the Duke de Magenta, himself a monarchist, made one last desperate
attempt to salvage the monarchical cause by dismissing the republic-minded prime minister and appointing
a monarchist duke to office. He then dissolved parliament and called a general election (October 1877). If
his hope had been to halt the move towards republicanism, it backfired spectacularly, with the President
being accused of having staged a constitutional coup d'etat (which of course both Napoleon's also had
done).
Though France was clearly republican, it was not in love with its Third Republic. Governments collapsed
with regularity, rarely lasting more than a couple of months, as communists, socialists, liberals,
conservatives, republicans and monarchists all fought for control. In the ten years following the resignation
of President MacMahon there were fourteen different cabinets..ugh. The country grew weary of the
incessant change of ministries, and of the intriguing and wrangling in the Chamber. It felt that the best men
were not at the head of the state, and it conceived a profound disgust for parliamentary government, and a
good deal of contempt for politicians
The Boulanger Affair
 General Georges Boulanger was a popular officer who had become prominent as Minister of War from
January 1886 to May 1887. He won popularity in the army through various reforms (improvement of
soldiers' food and living conditions, and so on), heavy expenditures on the army, and his aggressive
hostility towards Germany. Boulanger talked of avenging the defeat that France had suffered in the conflict
with the Germans - always a popular theme - and he won some distinguished adherents by his denunciation
of party divisions and corruption.
 The general had gained considerable support by decrying the weakness of the Prime Minister Carnot
government In reality, Boulanger plot threatened to destroy the French commonwealth. General Boulanger
gained notoriety by his bold attacks on the government, his demands for the dissolution of the Chamber of
Deputies, and for a revision of the constitution. Boulanger was deprived of his command in 1888 for twice
coming to Paris without leave, and finally on the recommendation of a council of inquiry composed of five
generals, his name was removed from the army list.
 General Boulanger planned to stage a coup d’etat but lost his nerve and fled Paris to Belgium. Many of his
supporters were arrested and the affair came to an end. In 1889. However, this did cast serious doubts about
the conservatives in France. However, the Dreyfus Affair was the event that truly divided France.
The Dreyfus Affair
 From 1889-1906 one of the most serious scandals played out in the European (and American) media. In the
late 19th -20th century, a wave of anti-Semitism raged across France. Many modern scholars believe that it
did not spring directly from religious antipathy, but rather from jealousy of their commercial signaled the
rise of modern anti-Semitism, attacking Jews for capitalism and radicalism. Even though socialism
espouses a more cosmopolitan and internationalist view, many French socialists were anti-Semitic blaming





the Jews for advancing capitalism. Of course, conservatives and French Catholics also had attacked Jews in
the past. It is in this light that the Dreyfus Affair developed.
The pivotal event in the midst of these attacks, a series of newspaper and magazine articles entitled "The
Jews in the Army" appeared in the Paris May, 1892. For some time there had been intelligence reports that
elements within the army had leaked sensitive information. Suspicion fell upon Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a
Jewish officer. Churchmen attacked him as a Jew and as an enemy of Christian France. He was arrested in
1894 and charged with treasonable correspondence with a foreign power - presumably with Germany.
Dreyfus was sentenced to be publicly degraded, to be expelled from the army, and to be imprisoned for life
on Devil's Island.
The condemnation of Dreyfus was not the end of the case. Following his exile, more secret communiqués
were revealed that could not have been sent by Dreyfus. A groundswell of support developed to exonerate
Dreyfus. It became clear that nothing short of an appeal to public opinion and a full exposure of all the
iniquities that had been perpetrated would secure justice at the hands of the military chiefs. When the
Dreyfus affair was stirring all France, a new journal called L'Aurore, edited by Georges Clemenceau, made
its appearance. It was devoted to proving Dreyfus innocent. Clemenceau, the future President of France
during WWI thus got back into the active world of French affairs. Because of Clemenceau's tireless defense
of Dreyfus, Zola published in his paper his scathing denunciation of conditions, "J' Accuse." Zola, the
famous novelist, had come to the conclusion Dreyfus was innocent. He forthwith addressed a remarkable
letter to President Faure," in which he boldly accused the first court-martial of having illegally condemned
Dreyfus on secret evidence. On behalf of Dreyfus, Emile Zola, the eminent novelist, formulated the case
against the general staff of the army in an open letter to the president of the republic, which by its dramatic
accusations startled the whole world.
A re-examination of the documents in the case by Cavaignac, then Minister of War, showed that one was
undoubtedly forged. Some months later, Colonel Henry, who had succeeded Colonel Picquart as chief of
the military secret-service department, confessed that he had forged one of the principal documents which
had been privately used to convict Dreyfus. He did it, he said, "for the good of the country." A few days
after he made this confession he was found dead in his jail cell with his throat cut. It was given out that he
had committed suicide. In spite of this damaging discovery the war office still persisted in believing
Dreyfus guilty, and opposed a fresh inquiry. It was supported by three successive ministers of war, and
apparently an overwhelming body of public opinion.
On the 18th of July 1906, the court, all chambers united, gave its judgment. After a lengthy review of the
case it declared unanimously that the whole accusation against Dreyfus had been disproved, and it quashed
the judgment of the earlier court-martial . The explanation of the whole case is that Esterhazy and Henry
were the real culprits; that they had made a trade of supplying the German government with military
documents; and that once the Bordereau was discovered they availed themselves of the anti-Jewish
agitation to throw suspicion on Dreyfus.
On July 21, 1906, Dreyfus was presented with the decoration of the Legion of Honor in the courtyard of the
Ecole Militaire, where eleven years before he had been degraded. The affair was thus at an end, but the
effects of the controversy on the political situation in France could not be undone. It produced an alliance,
called the " bloc" among the republicans of all shades, including the socialists, for the purpose of reducing
the political importance of the army and Church.
Conclusion
In the aftermath of the affair, when the truth finally did come out, the reputations of monarchists and conservative
Catholics, who had expressed unbridled anti-Semitism were severely damaged. So too was the state by its
unwillingness to right what had clearly been a major wrong visited on an innocent and loyal officer. This event will
have a telling effect that actually lasted until World War II. France would remain politically fractured for decades to
come. However, all was not so dark in France during this period. The midpoint of the Third Republic was known as
the “belle époque” in France, a golden time of beauty, innovation, and peace with its European neighbors. New
inventions made life easier at all social levels, the cultural scene thrived, cabaret, can-can, and the cinema were born,
and art took new forms with Impressionism and Art Nouveau. But the glory of this turn-of-the-century time period
came to an end with the outbreak of World War One
Homework
Impressionism
Read the Synopsis, Main Ideas, and also the parts below that I copied from the website
You may make any notes that you like for an open note quiz Monday
http://www.theartstory.org/movement-impressionism.htm
Beginnings
Gustave Courbet and The Challange to Official Art
The Realist movement, championed by Gustave Courbet, first confronted the official Parisian art
establishment in the middle of the nineteenth century. Courbet was an anarchist that thought the art of
his time closed it eyes on realities of life. The French were ruled by oppressive regime and much of the
public was in in the throes of poverty. Instead of depicting such scenes, the artists of the time
concentrated on idealized nudes and glorious depictions of nature. In his protest, Courbet financed an
exhibition of his work right opposite the Universal Exposition in Paris of 1855, a bold act that led to the
emergence of future artists that would challange the status quo.
Exhibitions in Paris and The Salon des Refusés
In 1863, at the official yearly art salon, the all-important event of the French art world, a large number
of artists were not allowed to participate, leading to public outcry. The same year, the Salon des Refusés
("Salon of the Refused") was formed in response to allow the exhibition of works by artists who had
previously been refused entrance to the official salon. Some of the exhibitors were Paul Cézanne,
Camille Pissarro, James Whistler, and the early iconoclast Édouard Manet. Although promoted by
authorities and sanctioned by Emperor Napoleon III, the 1863 exhibition caused a scandal, due largely to
the unconventional themes and styles of works such as Manet's Le déjeuner sur l'herbe (1863), which
featured clothed men and naked women enjoying an afternoon picnic (the women were not classical
depictions of a nude, but rather women that took off their clothes).
Édouard Manet and the Painting Revolution
Édouard Manet was among the first and most important innovators to emerge in the public exhibition
scene in Paris. Although he grew up in admiration of the Old Masters, he began to incorporate an
innovative, looser painting style and brighter palette in the early 1860s. He also started to focus on
images of everyday life, such as scenes in cafes, boudoirs, and out in the street. His anti-academic style
and quintessentially modern subject matter soon attracted the attention of artists on the fringes and
influenced a new type of painting that would diverge from the standards of the official salon. Similar to
Le déjeuner sur l'herbe, his other works such as Olympia (1863) gave the emerging group ideas to depict
that were not previously considered art-worthy.
French Cafes and Diversity
One of the popular venues for the individuals that were to become the Impressionist to meet and
discuss painting and art were Parisian cafes. In particular, Cafe Guerbois in Montmartre was frequented
by Manet starting 1866. Renoir, Bazille, Sisley, Monet, Degas, Cezanne and Pissarro would come, while
Caillebotte and Bazille had studios nearby and would often join the gatherings. Other personalities
joined the creative group including writers, critics, and the photographer Nadar, and most notably the
writer Emile Zola that both added to the ethos of the group, and later championed their work in print.
Part of the interesting dynamics of the group was the variety of personalities, economic circumstances,
and political views. Monet, Renoir, and Pissarro had lower and working class backgrounds while Morisot,
Caillebotte, and Degas were from haute bourgeoisie roots. Mary Cassatt was American (and a woman)
and Alfred Sisley was Anglo-French. This diversity of personalities may be the reason so much success
arose from all these individual, and group, efforts.
The Impressionist Exhibitions
Though not yet united by any particular style, the fledgling group shared a general sense of antipathy
toward overbearing academic standards of fine art, and decided to come together in the group
themselves Société Anonyme des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc.("Artists, Painters,
Sculptors, Engravers, Inc."). In general, all the painters had very limitted success financially and had few
works accepted in the salon exhibitions in Paris. So they held an alternative exhibition in 1874 in the
studio of photographer Felix Nadar. It was not until the third exhibition in 1877 that they began to call
themselves the Impressionists. While their first exhibition received limited public attention and most of
the eight exhibition they held actually cost money rather than earned money for the cooperative of
artists, their later shows attracted vast audiences, with attendance records well in to the thousands.
Despite some attention, most members of the group sold very few works in all the years the exhibitions
took place, and some of the artists were incredibly poor through many of these years.
The Term "Impressionism"
The movement gained its name after the hostile French critic Louis Leroy, reviewing the first major
Impressionist exhibition of 1874, seized on the title of Claude Monet's painting Impression, Sunrise
(1873), and accused the group of painting nothing but impressions. The Impressionists embraced the
moniker, though they also referred to themselves as the "Independents," referring to the subversive
principles of the Société des Artistes Indépendants and the group's efforts to detach itself from
academic artistic conventions. Although the styles practiced by the Impressionists varied considerably
(and in fact not all of the artists would accept Leroy's title), they were bound together by a common
interest in the representation of visual perception, based in fleeting optical impressions, and the focus
on ephemeral moments of modern life.
Concepts and Styles
Claude Monet and Plein Air Painting
Claude Monet is perhaps the most celebrated of the Impressionists. He was renowned for his mastery of
natural light and painted at many different times of day in an attempt to capture changing conditions.
He tended to paint simple impressions or subtle hints of his subjects, using very soft brushstrokes and
unmixed colors to create a natural vibrating effect, as if nature itself were alive on the canvas. He did
not wait for paint to dry before applying successive layers; this "wet on wet" technique produced softer
edges and blurred boundaries that merely suggested a three-dimensional plane, rather than depicting it
realistically.
Monet's technique of painting outdoors, known as plein air painting, was practiced widely among the
Impressionists. Inherited from the landscape painters of the Barbizon School, this approach led to
innovations in the representation of sunlight and the passage of time, which were two central motifs of
Impressionist painting. While Monet is largely associated with the tradition of plein air, Berthe Morisot,
Camille Pissarro, and Alfred Sisley, among others, also painted outside in order to create their lucid
portrayals of the transience of the natural world.
Impressionist Figures by Degas and Renoir
Other Impressionists, like Edgar Degas, were less interested in painting outdoors and rejected the idea
that painting should be a spontaneous act. Considered a highly skilled draftsman and portraitist, Degas
preferred indoor scenes of modern life: people sitting in cafes, musicians in an orchestra pit, ballet
dancers performing mundane tasks at rehearsal. He also tended to delineate his forms with greater
clarity than Claude Monet and Camille Pissarro, using harder lines and thicker brushstrokes.
Similarly, other artists such as Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Berthe Morisot, and Mary Cassatt focused on the
figure and the internal psychology of the individual. Renoir, known for his use of vibrant, saturated
colors, depicted the daily activities of individuals from his neighborhood of Montmartre, and, in
particular, portrayed the social pastimes of Parisian society. While Renoir, like Morisot and Cassatt, also
painted outdoors, he emphasized the emotional attributes of his subjects, using light and loose
brushwork to highlight the human form.
The Women of Impressionism
Whereas the male Impressionists painted figures mainly within the public context of the city, Morisot
focused on the female figure and the private lives of women in late-nineteenth-century society. The first
woman to exhibit with the Impressionists, she created rich compositions that highlighted the internal,
highly personal sphere of feminine society, often emphasizing the maternal bond between mother and
child in paintings such as The Cradle (1872). Together with Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzales, and Marie
Bracquemond, she was considered one of the three central female figures of the movement.
Cassatt, an American painter who moved to Paris in 1866 and began exhibiting with the Impressionists
in 1879, depicted the private sphere of the home, but also represented the woman in the public spaces
of the newly modernized city, as in her painting At the Opera (1879). Her work features a number of
innovations, including the reduction of three-dimensional space and the application of bright, even
garish colors in her paintings, both of which heralded later developments in modern art.
Impressionist Cityscapes
Since the movement was deeply embedded within Parisian society, Impressionism was also greatly
influenced by Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann's renovation of the city in the 1860s. Haussmann's
urban project, also referred to as "Haussmannization," sought to modernize the city and largely
centered in the construction of wide boulevards, which became the literal hub of public social activity.
This reconstruction of the city also led to the rise of the flaneur: an idler or lounger who roamed the
public spaces of the city in order to be seen, while remaining detached from the crowd. In many
Impressionist paintings, the detachment of the flaneur is closely associated with modernity and the
estrangement of the individual within the metropolis.
These themes of urbanity are depicted in the work of Gustave Caillebotte, a later proponent of the
Impressionist movement, who focused on panoramic views of the city and the psychology of its citizens.
Although more realistic in style than other Impressionists, Caillebotte's images such as Paris, Rainy Day
(1877) depict the artist's reaction to the changing nature of modern society, showing a flaneur in his
characteristic black coat and top hat, strolling through the open space of the boulevard while gazing at
passersby. Other Impressionists depicted the fleeting impressions and movements of the metropolis in
cityscapes such as Monet's Boulevard des Capucines (1873) and Pissarro's The Boulevard Montmarte,
Afternoon (1897). Similarly, these works emphasize the geometrical arrangement of public space
through the careful delineation of buildings, trees, and streets. By applying crude brushstrokes and
impressionistic streaks of color, they evoke the rapid tempo of modern life as a central facet of latenineteenth-century urban society.