Download Main characteristic of 19th century European international relations:

SLIDE: INTERNATIONAL POLITICS IN THE 19th CENTURY
SLIDE: OVERVIEW
SLIDE: INTERNATIONAL HISTORY AND TRANSNATIONAL HISTORY
We will stress formal diplomacy, governmental decision-making, geopolitics, and
the making of war and peace. International Relations history, however, is not just
about this. Other topics have entered the historical discourse: non-governmental
organizations, international movements, transnational cultural interactions. I’d
like to briefly allude to some of these phenomena.
SLIDE: PRECURSORS
From the mid 19th century, societies increasingly interlinked on a transnational
basis. To be sure, this was not a new phenomenon. Examples are the older
“republic of letters”, merchant capitalism and expansionist states had created vast
political and economic empires stocking European markets and furnishing the
European imagination with the exotic. There existed sophisticated means of
marketing goods and monetary transactions, and an increasing number of people
fed into a stream of migrants, both free and unfree.
SLIDE: DIFFERENCE: OLD AND NEW
What was different now was the conscious creation of international movements
and the cross-national dissemination of people, commodities, and culture from
Europe.
SLIDE: EXAMPLES OF INTERNATIONALISM
• Increase of world trade by 400% during 1850 and 1914
• Creation of universal standards for weights and measures, money, and time
– attempts to transcend local, regional and national borders
• Creation of regimes to supervise these standards
• Development of a world news order which accelerated communications to
such an extent that physical proximity lost its advantage. For instance, by
the end of the century, news from Paris reached New York before it got to
provincial France
• Worldwide migration movements
• Pedagogical reform concepts: Friedrich Fröbel
SLIDE: FOCI OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Foci of international cooperation and early international organizations:
1
• Communication and transportation
• War
• Public health and social hygiene
SLIDE: CONGRESS OF VIENNA
Congress of Vienna: held meetings for 9 months. Established a consultative
system of international conferences.
Decisions which transcended territorial issues:
•
Freedom of shipping on rivers on which more than one state bordered.
(principle of the internationalization of waterways, model for Danube commission
1856, international river regime on the river Congo, late 19th century)
•
Ban on the trade in slaves
SLIDE: EXAMPLE: THE SPREAD OF THE METRIC SYSTEM
Devised during the French revolution, finalized in 1799. After 1815, traditional
weights and measures were reinstated. By government decree, it became the sole
system of measurements in 1840 (France). From then on, the French government
promoted it vis-à-vis the European governments. This promotion was facilitated
by the fact that the formerly French-occupied territories of Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Germany had kept this system as well, sometimes in addition to
traditional measurements.
The new international forums provided by universal exhibitions and international
congresses were vitally important for the emergence of the metric movement.
Statisticians, economists and government officials met at various congresses in
the 1850s and 1860s and promoted standardization. Pragmatic reasons:
comparisons of statistics, international trade. By the 1860s, the metric system
gained wider acceptance. In its first session, the parliament of the North-German
federation (1866) passed a law introducing the metric system. Finally, since the
early 1870s, a permanent commission of experts and scientists argued about the
perfect size of the meter, litre, and other measurements. Eventually, a meter
convention (1875) was signed by governments, and a research institute was set up
(by some 20 countries), to determine these questions, called the International
Bureau of Weights and Measures (Paris, early 1880s).
SLIDE: OTHER FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONSS
International health policy: beginnings: founding of the Supreme Health Council
in Constantinople in 1839. Regular conferences since 1851. Emphasis in the early
years: how to combat cholera and black death. Gradual extension. Forging of
networks of doctors, politicians, experts who dealt with hygiene and social
hygiene. Establishment of a western hegemony on medicine and public health.
2
Development leads to the founding of the Office international d’hygiene publique
in Paris 1907.
•
1865: International Telegraph Union: first international administrative
union
•
1876: International Committee of the Red Cross: provided a model for other
forms of cooperation between national actors and actors of the civil society, bound
together by international norms – alleviate the side-effects of war, create norms
•
1874: Universal Postal Union (common postal area, freedom of transit and
uniform postage)
•
World Intellectual Property Organization (founded in 1974 under the
umbrella of the UN). Goes back to two international conventions of Paris (1883)
and Berne (1886) by non-state actors. Dealt with patent rights, inventions, trade
marks, copyrights, industrial design, intellectual property. Establishment of an
office in Berne
From the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, this became more pronounced. The
functions of diplomatic services around the world became much more
heterogeneous. For instance, the American diplomatic service now demanded
knowledge not only of French, the language of the diplomats, but also other
languages. Prospective diplomats needed knowledge about raw materials,
industrial resources, and knowledge about the history of the world since 1850.
International conferences dealt with issues of international order.
SLIDE: THE HAGUE CONFERENCES
A prime example are the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907. Here,
diplomats and experts of international law assembled. They concluded a set of
treaties on such issues as:
•
The Hague convention on land warfare
•
Recognition of the Geneva conventions of 1864
•
Ban on certain weapons
•
Establishment of an international court of arbitration
•
The Hague convention on maritime warfare
Other conventions and norms dealt with international social policy (international
norms on working conditions), agricultural issues (conventions which dealt
broadly with agriculture, conservation and raw materials)
Europeans focused on the measurement of nature and of the globe. Europeans
defined norms, and this facilitated the dominance of Europe over other regions.
During the second half of the 19th century, the whole world became a space of
interaction of competing territorial states.
SLIDE: MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
3
• Long periods of general peace among states (1815-1854 and 1871-1914)
• While the correlation of power changed over time, more or less the same
actors dominated international relations
• But the absence of prolonged Great Power wars did not mean that all
interstate conflict came to an end. The European (and North American)
wars against Non-European peoples intensified, and were in many ways the
military concomitant to the economic penetration of the overseas world.
SLIDES: MAPS OF EUROPE 1815-1913
Before we begin discussing the course of 19th century international relations
history in Europe, let us have a look at the individual powers in terms of
capabilities and resources. I will comment on Britain first, then on Prussia,
Austria, and France. We will discuss Russia in connection with the Crimean War.
SLIDE: GREAT BRITAIN
Why Britain first?
• Great Britain was the chief victor of the wars against Napoleon, and it was
the only country in Europe whose territory had not been a battleground
• Great Britain, as we have heard from last time, was the first industrializing
country, and the question arises whether this affected Britain’s role and
position in the international state system of the 19th century.
• To put it more succinctly: did economic development, progress and
superiority over the other powers translate into military superiority and into
efforts to dominate the European state system?
Between 1760 and 1830, Great Britain was responsible for around two-thirds of
Europe’s industrial growth of output, and its share of world manufacturing
production rose from 1.9 to 9.5%. Between 1830 and 1860, when Britain reached
its zenith in relative terms, Britain accounted for 20% of the world manufacturing
output. In 1860, it produced 53% of the world’s iron and 50% of its coal, and it
consumed about 50% of the raw cotton output of the globe.
Its energy consumption from modern sources (coal, oil) in 1860 was five times
that of either the US or Prussia/Germany, six times that of France, and 155 times
that of Russia. In 1865, the British economist William Jevons wrote:
SLIDE: ECONOMIST WILLIAM JEVONS
The plains of North America and Russia are our corn fields; Chicago and Odessa
our granaries; Canada and the Baltic are our timber forests; Australasia contains
4
our sheep farms, and in Argentina and on the western prairies of North America
are our herds of oxen. Peru sends her silver, and the gold of South Africa and
Australia flows to London; the Hindus and the Chinese grow tea for us, and our
coffee, sugar and spice plantations are in all the Indies. Spain and France are our
vineyards and the Mediterranean our fruit garden; and our cotton grounds, which
for long have occupied the Southern United States, are now being extended
everywhere in the warm regions of the earth.
SLIDE: GREAT BRITAIN
While Britain did strive, through diplomacy and the movement of naval
squadrons, to influence political events along the vital periphery of Europe
(Portugal, Belgium, the Dardanelles), it tended to abstain from intervention
elsewhere. Defense spending was kept to a minimum, and military capabilities
were reserved for the non-European world and for the navy. During much of the
19th century, the Royal Navy was probably as powerful as the next three or four
navies combined in actual firepower. Apart from the occasional alarm about
French moves in the Pacific or Russian expansion in Turkestan, no serious rival
remained. It is therefore safe to say that in the period between 1815 and 1880
much of the British empire existed in a political power vacuum. The empire
continued to grow in the period between 1815-1865 by about 100.000 square
miles per year. There were some strategic or commercial acquisitions like
Singapore, Aden, Hong Kong, Lagos, the Falklands. Other acquisitions were the
result of land-hungry white settlers, like in the Canadian prairies, the Australian
outback, or South Africa. Britain, until 1880, was a class of its own.
SLIDE: PRUSSIA
In contrast to Britain, Prussia in 1815 was an industrial pigmy. Although Prussia
was the undisputed leader of the German Customs Union which developed from
the 1830s onward (the Austrians could not join because of the protectionist
pressures of their industrialists), the balance of political advantage in Germany
lay in Vienna’s favour until about 1850. Prussia’s kings realized that Austria was
stronger. Moreover, Prussia took pains not to upset the tsars which were, in terms
of numbers, even more powerful than the Austrians. Prussia, until the 1860s, was
the least of the Great Powers in Europe, disadvantaged by geography,
overshadowed by powerful neighbors, distracted by internal and inner-German
problems, and quite incapable of playing a larger role in international politics.
SLIDE: HABSBURG EMPIRE
Strategic weaknesses are, however, relative, and compared with the Habsburg
empire, Prussia’s problems were manageable. At the end of the Napoleonic wars,
5
all the states greeted the reestablishment of Austrian power. The Empire would
act as
• the central component of the European balance,
• would check French ambitions in western Europe and in Italy,
• would preserve the status quo in Germany against both the nationalists and
the Prussian expansionists, and
• would pose a barrier to Russian penetration of the Balkans.
In the half-century until around 1850/55, these tasks were supported by one or
more of the other Great Powers, depending on the context. One could say that the
general peace which did prevail in Europe for decades after 1815 was due chiefly
to the position and the functions of the Habsburg Empire.
When, therefore it could gain no military support from the other powers to
preserve the status quo in Italy and in Germany in the 1860s, it was driven out of
those two theatres. When, after 1900, its own survival was in doubt, a great war
of succession – with fateful implications for the European balance – was
inevitable.
The Habsburg weakness was concealed as long as the conservative powers of
Europe were united in preserving the status quo. But by opposing any stirrings of
national independence in its empire, in Italy, and in Germany, Austria quickly lost
the sympathy of its old ally, Britain. Its repeated use of military force in Italy
provoked a reaction among all classes against their Habsburg “jailors”, which in
turn was to play into the hands of Napoleon III in the 1850s and 1860s, when the
ambitious French monarch was able to help the Italians in driving the Austrians
out of northern Italy. Equally, its stand vis-à-vis the German Customs union
helped to antagonize many German liberals and nationalists, who then began to
look for Prussian leadership. In an age of increasing national consciousness, the
Habsburg empire looked more and more like an anachronism.
To put this into perspective: Everywhere in Europe, a majority of the citizens
shared a common language and religion. By contrast, the Austrian Emperor ruled
an ethnic mishmash. He and eight million of his subjects were German, but twice
as many were Slavs of one sort of another (Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ruthenians,
Slovenes, Croats, Serbs), five million were Hungarian, five million Italian, and
two million Romanians.
SLIDE: ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE ARMY
The most important institution within the Habsburg Empire was the army. And
the army reflected this motley crowd of ethnic groups. In 1865, the army had
about 128.000 Germans, 96.000 Czechs and Slovaks, 53.000 Italians, 22.000
Slovenes, 20.000 Rumanians, 19.000 Serbs, 50.000 Ukrainians, 38.000 Poles,
6
32.000 Hungarians and 27.000 Croats. This created all sorts of disadvantages
when compared to the much more homogeneous French or Prussian armies. The
armed strength of the Empire in no way corresponded to the wars it might be
called upon to fight.
In terms of the economy, Austria, Czechia and Slovenia advanced, but taken as a
whole, the Habsburg Empire fell behind Britain, France and Prussia in terms of
per capita industrialization, iron and steel production, steam-power capacities etc.
SLIDE: HABSBURG EMPIRE
Despite all this, its staying power was quite remarkable. It had survived the
Reformation, the Turks, the French Revolution, it proved capable to overcome the
1848 Revolution, the defeat in 1866 in the war against Prussia, and finally, it
cracked apart only towards the end of the first world war. Reasons: monarchy
commanded loyalty of the German-speaking population, but also of the nobility
in other parts of the empire. The multi-lingual and multi-ethnic composition
allowed for a relatively high degree of divide et impera. Finally, it had the negative
advantage that none of the other Great Powers knew what to put in its place.
SLIDE: FRANCE
Despite the defeat in 1815, France’s position after 1815 was significantly better
than that of either Prussia or Austria in many respects. Its national income was
larger, its population was far bigger than Prussia’s, and more homogeneous than
the Habsburg’s Empire. It could afford a large army and a relatively big navy.
While Prussia acted as guardian to the Rhineland, Austria strengthened its
position in Italy, and British influence expanded in the Iberian peninsula, behind
all this lay a large Russian army, ready to move across Europe in defense of the
1815 settlement. There was thus no chance to expand dramatically. There was
also no possibility of forging an alliance with one power. Resistance to French
efforts to dominate the European state system were consistently repudiated and
met opposition. Moreover, France remained a classic hybrid power. It was
frequently torn between its European and its non-European interests, and this in
turn affected its diplomacy, which was already complicated enough by ideological
and balance-of-power considerations. For example: Was it more important to
check Russia’s advance upon Constantinople than to block British pretensions in
the Levant? Should it try to expel Austria from Italy, or challenge the Royal Navy?
Should it encourage or oppose early moves towards German unification? Given
the pros and cons attached to each of these policies, it is hardly surprising that the
French were often found ambivalent and hesitating, even when they were
regarded as a full member of the concert.
7
SLIDE: GNP OF THE EUROPEAN POWERS
SLIDE: MILITARY PERSONNEL OF THE POWERS
SLIDE: THE VIENNA SYSTEM
Reasons for stability
• Moderate territorial settlement which satisfied all actors
• No humiliation or undue terms of peace with regard to France
• All actors were interested in maintaining this system
• Security alliance of all actors to defend settlement against violation or
revolutions
This system was referred to as the European concert. It was novel not only in the
features mentioned above. New was also that the powers met occasionally at
conferences, that interstate conduct became more regularized, bureaucratized,
rationalized. This was a departure from previous state intercourses, where there
had been conferences, but only rarely. The old system had been characterized by
bilateral or multilateral negotiations.
SLIDE: TERRITORIAL SETTLEMENTS
• Germany: In contrast to the instable situation in Germany prior to the
Napoleonic era, there was now a relatively stable German confederation,
made up of some 30 states and dominated by Austria and Prussia.
• Italy: To the South, Austria now dominated the Italian states.
• Netherlands: enlarged by Belgium to contain France
• Swiss Confederation: neutrality guaranteed by the external actors of the
European concert
• Poland: maintenance of the partition of Poland by Austria, Prussia, Russia
SLIDE: FACTORS OF STABILITY
• Balance of power and common interest to uphold this balance
• Common threats: liberalism, nationalism, revolution
• Exhaustion after Napoleonic wars
• Dual hegemony of Britain and Russia. Operated nicely because hegemony
was latent, inactive, and conducive to actions of other powers (mainly
France and Austria)
The Vienna system was not a restoration. It built upon most of the social,
economic and political changes of the Napoleonic era. As we have already seen,
the eastern powers, once conservatism had triumphed, became real restoration
regimes after 1820. Thus, there developed a split between liberal western regimes
and illiberal/conservative regimes in central and eastern Europe.
8
SLIDE: PERSISTENCE OF RIVALRIES
Persistence of rivalries
• Anglo-French competition in Spain and the Mediterranean
• Austro-French in Italy
• Austro-Prussian in Germany
• Austro-Russian in the Balkans
• Anglo-Russian in Turkey and the Middle East
Difference to pre-Napoleonic order:
• Competition over spheres of influence, not territorial control
• Competition over dominance, not elimination of rivals, total control
SLIDE: THE CONCERT IN OPERATION
• Revolts in Spain, Naples, and Piedmont in 1820-21: Suppressed by Austria
in Italy and France in Spain with consent of European concert
• National liberation in Latin America. Spain was unable to regain colonies
because of a) British navy; b) internal weakness; c) inactivity of European
powers
• 1830s revolutions: Recognition of the new regime in France; support for
Belgian independence (nationalism), thus averting a war the Netherlands
could not win because of limited resources. The crushing of the Polish
revolt by Russia did not provoke dissent (because Austria and Prussia were
on the side of Russia, because France and Britain had no means and no
interests to interfere, and because the Polish revolt did not have – as in the
case of Belgium – a really popular basis).
• Internal revolts in various countries (Italy, Poland, Spain, Portugal): all
took place either in a) recognized zones of interests; or b) were just not
important enough for Europe as a whole
SLIDE: MAP: SYSTEM IN OERATION
SLIDE: DELACROIX
• Greek revolt of 1821-25: ethnic-religious-nationalist revolt against Turkey
threatened to cause war between Russia and Turkey. War was averted by
Russian constraint and European concert diplomacy
• Greek emancipation of 1826-29: After efforts to arrive at a peaceful
solution to the conflict, a French-British navy destroyed the TurkishEgyptian forces. This led to a Turkish-Russian war which the Turks lost.
But instead of occupying the Ottoman empire or dismantling it, the
Russians signed a peace treaty which increased their influence in
Constantinople (right of crossing straits, trade). Russia, France and Britain
9
signed a treaty with the Ottoman empire which secured Greek
independence under Franco-British influence.
SLIDE: WEAKENING OF THE SYSTEM IN THE 1840s
• A more pronounced ideological difference between liberal and
conservative regimes over the question of nationalism. But: ideological
differences did not directly affect the Vienna system’s capacity for conflict
control and resolution
• But: revolutionary energy helped to undermine and de-legitimize
authoritarian regimes and led to questions in more liberal regimes about
value of the system
• Revolution and Nationalism
The Dissolution of the Vienna System
Nationalism threatened Austria in particular. But it also threatened smaller states
in Italy and Germany. Result: nationalist movements calling for unity led to
conflict and disunity. Nationalist sentiments and revolts provided opportunities
for ambitious actors (leaders and governments) to pursue expansionist aims.
Examples:
SLIDE: MAP OF REVOLUTIONARY EUROPE
• Revolts in Italy against Austrian rule escalated when Sardinia-Piedmont
declared war on Austria. This threatened to bring in France. However,
before the conflict could escalate further, Austria crushed SardiniaPiedmont.
• Clashes between Danish and German nationalism occurred in 1848 over
Schleswig-Holstein. This crisis threatened to escalate when Prussia
supported German nationalism for a time. The crisis faded when Britain
and Russia forced Prussia to back down (which it readily did)
• Austro-Hungarian difficulties. After initial Hungarian victories, Russia
intervened on behalf of Austria, because it saw Hungarian nationalism as a
threat to its interests in the Balkans.
Thus, after a short but intense period of revolution and crises, all the pre-1848
treaties, international institutions and border remained intact. But underlying
tensions remained:
SLIDE: UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS
• German and Italian unification had not been achieved, but sentiments and
interests remained
• Hungarian nationalism remained an explosive dynamic for the Austrian
empire
10
• Old rivalries had been reinforced (Austria-Prussia in Germany, SardiniaPiedmont-Austria in Italy), and the potential conflicts between liberalism
and conservatism hightened.
• In France, the regime of Napoleon III was a novel entity, and one which
would soon cause trouble in the international arena.
SLIDE: CRIMEAN WAR: REASONS
Despite these troubling aspects, the structure of the international system remained,
for a time, stabile. There were, however, three causes which led to the Crimean
War of 1853-56.
Reasons:
• Russia attempted to gain formal acceptance of Russian dominance over the
Ottoman empire, assuming that no-one would care about the ‘sick man on
the Bosporus’.
• Sultan, confident that Western powers would support him, declared war on
Russia to relieve Russian pressure on the Ottoman empire in the Balkans,
the Caucasus, and the Straits. (At the battle of Sinope, Nov. 1853, the
Turkish fleet was destroyed)
• British domestic politics were anti-Russian, and there was a feeling in
Britain that the Russians had gone to far. Also at stake were spheres matters
of spheres of influence. Britain did not want a strong Russia in the
Mediterranean
• ‘social imperialism’: Napoleon III exploited external crises in order to
consolidate an popularize his rule as emperor. He also dreamed of a new
French leadership in Europe.
Before we look at the Crimean war in more detail, let us assess the capabilities,
resources and the power of Russia.
SLIDE: RUSSIA: CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES
After 1815, Russia’ power declined relative to the other powers of Europe.
Basically, its industrialization proceeded from a much lower level, and it
developed much slower than in the rest of Europe. Because of its far bigger
population, it had easily possessed the largest total GNP in the early 19th century.
By 1880, this was no longer the case.
By 1850, Russia turned ever more into a supplier of primary materials for
advanced economies. A general lack of capital, low consumer demand, a
miniscule middle class, vast distances and extreme climates, and the heavy hand
of an autocratic, suspicious state made the prospects for industrial take-off in
Russia more difficult than in virtually anywhere else in Europe.
11
For a long time, the negative economic trends did not translate into a noticeable
Russian military weakness. Moreover, the Russian army was successful, for
example in its frequent campaigns into the Caucasus and across Turkistan. Less
noticeable was the fact that the major part of the troops was frequently pinned
down by “police” actions in Poland and Finland or by border patrols. During the
Crimean war, however, the weaknesses of Russia would become all too apparent.
SLIDE: MAP: CRIMEAN WAR
War itself was fought mainly on the Crimean peninsular between France and
Britain on the one side, and Russia on the other side. It basically displayed relative
British weakness on land and Russian overall weakness – a gap between numbers
and performance of troops. But it took the Allies almost a year to capture the
fortress Sevastopol. Here, Russia’s defense was a remarkable feat. But there were
numerous problems. The Russian flintlock muskets had a range of about 180
meters, whereas the rifles of the British and French could fire effectively up to
900 meters. Russian casualties were thus much higher. Worst of all, the Russian
system as a whole was incapable of responding to the war effort. Army leadership
was poor and never able to produce a coherent grand strategy – this reflected the
general incompetence of the tsar’s government. Because there was not a single
railway south of Moscow, supplies and logistics caused a tremendous problem.
While the Allies were able to send supplies and reinforcements to the Crimean
within three weeks, it took Russian reinforcements to reach the front about three
months. Finally, Russia became near-bankrupt: it had to sue for peace to avoid a
catastrophe.
SLIDE: TOTAL FORCES AND DEATHS
Then diplomacy regained control: Austria and France persuaded Britain and
Russia to seek peace. At the Congress of Paris (Spring 1856) – which symbolized
Napoleon III’s new importance – the following aspects were settled:
• Russia surrendered special rights vis-à-vis Ottoman Empire
• Secession of small territory to Turkey (Bessarabia)
• Neutralization of Black Sea (British allowed to enter, no longer a Russian
preserve)
SLIDE: EFFECTS OF THE WAR
• France: increase in prestige and influence
• Russia: needed many years to recover and focused on internal reforms
(emancipation of peasants in 1861); perception that Britain is major
enemy; expansionist drive on Southern and Eastern borders
• Britain: focus on non-European affairs
12
• Ottoman Empire: remains ‘sick man on the Bosporus’
Impact:
• Demise of the European concert
• Austria: becomes enemy of Russia. Hope that concert could be revived and
alliance with western powers be prolonged. Policy aim: status quo.
Western powers did not want to assume the role of power-brokers. The Crimean
war offered the chance to restructure Europe along lines which would have taken
cognizance of liberalism and nationalism. This did not occur. Therefore, the field
was left to politicians in Italy and Germany who were eager to destroy the old
order of the Vienna system.
Austria, having in fact no clear direction of policy apart from the wish to keep the
status-quo, and left without any allies, had to face another setback in 1858/59,
when the Romanian principalities united and formed a de facto independent state.
This was at first opposed by Austria and Turkey, but both did not have the
resources to crush the drive for independence, all the more so because France and
Russia supported it. For Turkey, this meant not much: it lost its suzerainty, which
had been nominal in any way, and it perceived an independent Rumania as a
buffer against Russia. For Austria, it put pressure on Hungarian wishes for
autonomy and independence.
SLIDE: ITALIAN UNIFICATION
Another, more pressing challenge rose in Italy. Here, the kingdom of Sardinia and
Piedmont, and its two statesmen, Count Cavour and king Emmanuel II, embarked
on a policy of expelling Austria from Italy and on uniting Italy. The means:
• Encouragement of a broad movement of independence and nationalism
within Northern Italy and also within parts of Southern Italy
• Enlistment of sympathetic support by Britain, and a secret treaty with
France (1858)
After diplomatic manoeuvres by Prussia, Russia and Britain, however, Austria
declared war on Sardinia-Piedmont. This was a foolish act, because in the ensuing
fighting French troops gained victory over the Austrians. Napoleon III, however,
offered a truce (the war was unpopular in France, Austrian forces were still quite
mighty, and Prussia and the German federation threatened to intervene).
SLIDE: OUTCOME OF WAR WITH AUSTRIA
Sardinia-Piedmont gained: Tuscany, Parma, Modena, parts of the Papal State, and
Lombardy. Plebiscites by popular vote legitimized the take-over. In return for
French assistance, Sardinia-Piedmont ceded Nice and Savoy to France. The
13
Bourbons still ruled in Southern Italy, the Pope was still in the Papal State, and
Austria still ruled Venetia.
Austria was exhausted, Sardinia-Piedmont faced the enormous challenge of
organizing a territory which was now three times as large as before the war.
Moreover, Sardinia-Piedmont was little interested in Southern Italy
(particularists).
SLIDE: DRIVE FOR UNIFICATION: LIBERAL NATIONALISM
The drive for unification came from the nationalist Guiseppe Garibaldi. In May
1860, with some 1000 followers Garibaldi landed in Sicily to launch a revolt
against the Bourbon rule from Naples. Within weeks, he had expelled Naples from
Sicily and marched towards Naples. Here, the Bourbons offered more resistance.
At that moment, Cavour tried to somehow outmanoeuvre Garibaldi, because he
feared a united democratic and liberal Italy. He wanted to preserve the
prerogatives of the crown. Thus, he managed to sidestep Garibaldi, invade Naples
and the Papal State. In January 1861, a united Italy was proclaimed.
SLIDE: MAP UNIFICATION OF ITALY
The unification of Italy did not lead to a stabilization of the international European
system.
• Venice was still Austrian
• Napoleon III was discredited because of his wheeling-dealing in Italy. He
was not regarded as a reliable manager of the system.
• A united Italy claimed a great power status, but in fact was just too weak.
SLIDE: THE CREATION OF PRUSSIAN GERMANY
• Failed unification in 1848
• Unification from above and under Prussian dominance
SLIDE: THE UNIFIER
Count Otto v. Bismarck: after Napoleon, perhaps the single most important
statesman of the 19th century. Lived 1815-1898
SLIDE: STAGES OF UNIFICATION
SLIDE: WAR WITH DENMARK
Bismarck became Minister-President of Prussia in 1862. In the following year,
his first chance to make Prussia a truly great power came.
Schleswig-Holstein: here, a constitutional crisis occurred in 1863. A new Danish
constitution was applied to Holstein as well, but not to Schleswig and Lauenburg.
14
The new constitution ran counter to previous treaties. The problem was basically,
that the Danish king, as lord over Schleswig and Lauenburg, was also a member
of the German Confederation (as the Dutch king). This Prussia wanted to end.
Peaceful conflict resolution seemed impossible, because Denmark did not want to
go back to the status quo ante, and Britain and Russia were both distracted.
Bismarck persuaded Austria to jointly go to war with Denmark. Outcome:
Schleswig-Holstein became a joint condominium of Prussia and Austria.
This was a rather unsatisfying outcome for Bismarck, who did not want the
Austrians to have control over northern German territory, and he immediately
thought about ousting them from the North. The international arena was
conducive to this task: Britain was preoccupied with other issues, most notably
the American civil war, Russia was friendly towards Prussia, Napoleon III thought
that a war between Austria and Prussia would only help to consolidate his
dominance in European affairs.
SLIDE: WAR WITH AUSTRIA
The reason for the outbreak of hostilities was Schleswig-Holstein. Here, Prussia
had occupied Holstein without Austria consent. Austria in turn demands the
mobilization of the army of the German Confederation. Prussia declared
withdrawal from Confederation and declares war on Austria in June 1866.
After having concluded an alliance with Italy, Austria was faced with a two-front
war it could not win (Venice was still Austrian, and the Italians wanted Venice).
The smaller German states were on the whole on the side of Austria, but remained
ambivalent and were fearful of the whole situation, thus did not and could not act.
At Königgrätz, the Austrian troops were crushed, due to Prussian military
superiority. However, Bismarck quickly concluded a truce, because he feared that
an Austria which was even further humiliated would only help France.
SLIDE: MAP: UNIFICATION OF GERMANY
• Austria suffered no territorial losses, except Venetia
• Austria accepted the dissolution of the German Confederation, extensive
Prussian annexations in Northern Germany (Hanover, Schleswig-Holstein,
Hesse-Nassau, Frankfurt) and the creation of a North German
Confederation dominated by Prussia.
• Southern German states were tied to Prussia by military alliances
SLIDE: PRUSSIAN MILITARY REVOLUTION
Let me say a little bit about the impact of industrialization on military affairs. I
just mentioned that the Austrian army was crushed by the Prussian army. In effect,
15
what was at display here was a veritable “military revolution”. Let me explain
this:
The Prussian “military revolution” was based upon a number of interrelated
elements:
• Unique service system which involved three years’ obligatory service in
the regular army, four years in the reserve, and more years in the so-called
Landwehr. Such a system gave Prussia a far larger front-line army relative
to its population than any other Great Power.
• Emergence of the Prussian General Staff from obscurity to the brains of the
army in the 1860s. Previously, military staffs had been scrambled together
only when campaigns had begun. Now, there was a trained body of experts
who made war plans in advance. There were war games and maneuvers,
and a special department was created to supervise the Prussian railway
system and make sure the troops and supplies could be speeded to their
destinations.
• There occurred many blunders, and the system did not work as properly as
the theory. But: the real point about the Prussian system was not that it was
free of errors, but that the general staff carefully studied its past mistakes
and readjusted training, organization, and weapons accordingly.
SLIDE: IMPLICATIONS OF THE WAR
• Prussia finally became the only dominant power in Germany. But Bismarck
consciously embarked on a course of uniting a “small” Germany.
• Austria was weakened, but regarded as important by Bismarck to control
South-eastern Europe and the nine million Catholic Austro-Germans. The
defeat speeded up the compromise with the Hungarian nationalist nobility
– creation of dual monarchy Austria-Hungary in 1867.
• French politics and large parts of the population became sceptical about the
rise of Prussia
• Britain, Russia and Austria all wished to preserve the status quo of 1866 in
Germany and avoid further war.
SLIDE: THE WAR WITH FRANCE
Bismarck’s motivation: feared that the kingdom of Bavaria would ally itself with
Austria, thus creating for all Germans, especially Catholic Germans, an alternative
to Prussian dominance. Quarrels with France, which wanted to exploit this
situation, led to a French declaration of war on Prussia. This led to an eruption of
nationalist sentiments on both sides: Frenchmen fought against autocracy and for
liberalism, Germans fought because they feared a return of Napoleonic times.
16
The war of 1870:
Quick, because of superior Prussian strategy and military organization. Here it is
noteworthy to compare the strategic capabilities of the two contestants:
France:
• French army had gained experience; had the best rifles in the world, and
had a secret weapon, the mitrailleuse, a machine gun which could fire 150
rounds a minute.
• French navy was far superior
• French expected help from Austria-Hungary and from Italy. Most
Frenchmen had no doubts about the outcome.
Well, the magnitude and swiftness of the French collapse was a devastating blow
to these assumption. As it turned out, neither Austria and Italy assisted France.
Although both sides used their railway systems, the French mobilization was far
less efficient.
SLIDE: IMPACT OF THE WAR
Napoleon III abdicated, and a Provisional Republic was declared. However, this
was no match for the Prussian/German troops who occupied Paris. While a Peace
congress took place in London, Bismarck negotiated with Bavaria and other
Southern German states the conditions for entry into a German Empire. In mid1871, Wilhelm I was crowned emperor in Versailles.
Outcome:
• Unification of Germany under Prussian dominance and disappearance of
the smaller Southern German states – importance for European security as
a whole: the center was no longer weak
• Rather heavy French indemnity, cession of Alsace-Lorraine
• Thereafter: French-German antagonism, fuelled by fierce nationalist
sentiments, French insecurity vis-à-vis an enlarged and more powerful
Germany (solved only in the 1950s)
• To repeat a quip of the days then: Europe had lost a mistress and gained a
master. All roads, diplomats remarked, now led to Berlin
SLIDE: PROCLAMATION OF GERMAN EMPIRE
SLIDE: PRESSURING THE SMALLER GERMAN STATES
SLIDE: GERMANY – HEGEMON?
After 1871, Germany was the strongest power on the continent. But it was not
strong enough to completely dominate European politics or force other
governments to do as Berlin wished. Bismarck realized this, and until his downfall
17
in 1890 he tried to balance the various interests of the European powers and to
reconcile them with this enlarged and rather powerful Germany.
European politics 1871-1890
SLIDE: THE BISMARCKIAN SYSTEM IN OPERATION
Motivation: deter France from making war against Germany
Therefore: conclusion of the Three Emperors League in 1872/73.
• Revival of a conservative, monarchical alliance
• Idea: to reconcile diverging Russian and Austrian ambitions in the Balkans
This alliance was rather weak and was bound to fall apart as soon as the situation
in the Balkans changed significantly. This occurred during the so-called Eastern
Crisis.
SLIDE: MAPS OF SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE
The crisis erupted because of nationalist uprisings against Ottoman rule (BosniaHerzegowina 1875; Bulgaria 1876). The sultan reacted with brutal force. Russia
wanted to intervene and wage war on the Turks. Bismarck forced the tsar to
cooperate with the Austrians. Finally, Austria consented to a Russian declaration
of war against the Ottoman Empire, but under terms which made it highly
undesirable for the Russians to wage war. They did, nevertheless, because of
prestige and frustration. Russian advances against the Ottoman Empire were slow,
and in March of 1878 it concluded a peace treaty (treaty of San Stefano), which
violated earlier agreements with Austria. Now, it was time for Bismarck to
intervene. He invited all powers to a congress in Berlin (June-July 1878) to work
out their differences.
Outcome:
• Self-governing Bulgaria was made much smaller than the treaty of San
Stefano had designed. The other half remained under Ottoman suzerainty.
• Austria was allowed to administer Bosnia-Herzegowina under Turkish
suzerainty
The Berlin treaty was positive, because it had forced all the powers to
compromise, and it left open possibilities for change. But it left Russia frustrated.
SLIDE: RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
To reconcile the diverging interests of Austria and Russia, Bismarck created two
alliances: the defense treaty with Austria in 1879, and the Three Emperor’s
Alliance of 1881. The aim was to contain both Austria and Russia, and to make
Germany the honest broker. That worked for a time.
Other alliances of the time:
18
• Italy, which had conflicts with France over territory, trade and colonies,
allied with Austria-Hungary and Germany in the triple alliance of 1882.
• Romania, fearing Russia, concluded a treaty with Austria
• Serbian prince accepted Austrian protection in 1881 against Turkey
The high point of Bismarck’s efforts at being the honest broker, the manager and
the restraining component of the European state system came in 1884, when he
hosted the Congress of Berlin. There, he diffused Franco-British competition in
Africa, and the continent was divided by the colonial powers.
SLIDE: BULGARIA AGAIN
Bulgarian crisis of 1884-87:
Conflict with Russia led to serious disturbances in relations between Russia and
Austria-Hungary. This destroyed the Three Emperors’ Alliance and put stress to
an already conflict-ridden European state system (French and German
nationalism; Franco-Italian hostility; Anglo-French rivalry in Africa; AngloRussian rivalry in the Near East and Central Asia).
SLIDE: SYSTEM OF BALANCED ANTAGONISMS
• Anglo-Italian agreement for maintaining status quo in the Mediterranean
(Suez-Canal), which Austria joined later.
• Renewal of the Triple Alliance (Germany-Italy-Austria-Hungary)
• Secret reassurance treaty with Russia, which promised German neutrality
in the event of an Austrian declaration of war on Russia (1887)
This reassurance treaty did not technically violate the Dual Alliance with Austria,
but it somehow left open which side Germany would chose in the event of a war
between Russia and Austria. The treaty, moreover, was to weak from deterring
the Russians to look for other partners. Given the rivalry with Austria and Britain,
this could only be France.
SLIDE: THE EUROPEAN STATE SYSTEM IN 1890
• Intense rivalry and enmity between France and Germany
• With the demise of Bismarck, the master of the European state system was
gone, and it was not clear which direction the system would take
• Germany was allied to two weak partners: Austria-Hungary and Italy, Italy
being a rather dubious ally in any way
• The secret reassurance treaty did not attach Russia to Germany for long.
Soon, the French would enter into an alliance with Russia. This in turn
caused German anxieties about encirclement.
19