HIST 432 Final Exam Notes - Lecture Notes PDF

HIST 432 Final Exam Notes Going Back to Westphalia and Vienna Why so Eurocentric? ○ Discipline centered on Anglo-European world Thucydides & Machiavelli Dynastic Wars, Balance of Power, c. 1519-1789 ○ Inter-state wars, but not necessarily states as we understand them tod...

HIST 432 Final Exam Notes Going Back to Westphalia and Vienna Why so Eurocentric? ○ Discipline centered on Anglo-European world Thucydides & Machiavelli Dynastic Wars, Balance of Power, c. 1519-1789 ○ Inter-state wars, but not necessarily states as we understand them today ○ Westphalian Revolution that wasn't 17th & 18th C European Dynastic Wars Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars, 1792-1815 Congress of Vienna, 1814-15 ○ Metternich or Mastermind? Mindsets of individuals attempting to create a more stable European system Vienna settlement Discipline of IR quite Eurocentric, born in the Anglo-American world in the middle of the 20th C ○ Significantly shifted in the last generation or so; more pluralistic, diverse, less Eurocentric today Thucydides & Machiavelli Thucydides: Peloponnesian War ○ Realist attempting to study and analyze relationships between city states, motivations of rulers of those city-states ○ Concept of balance of power begins with Thucydides Struggles of city states against each other as well as the struggle against Persian Empire of the east ○ Thucydides trap ○ Ancient Greece perceived as the cradle of Western civilization As it existed in 20th C owed much of what it was to Thucydides ○ Tendency on the part of IR scholars to interpret Thucydides in a way that wasn't wholly accurate English translation of the text which did not do justice to the original Greek Tendency to play fast and loose with translation of words Put modern concepts and terminology into the work; made him sound like much more of a realist, erased nuances of language  Machiavelli: The Prince ○ Role of a sovereign in society and their exertion of power over the citizenry ○ Rulers should be merciless when necessary, merciful when necessary – for the good of city-state ○ Breaking with the past in his realism and advice to the sovereign Contemporary IR realists attempting to use him as theoretical foundation ○ Demonized during lifetime and afterwards as immoral individual because of his secularist views and anti-religious stances; influences of humanism when you look beyond his realism ○ Caricature, distorted version of what he was telling princes of Northern Italy to do Italy at end of Middle Ages fractured into city-states and monarchical systems ○ Arguably the birthplace of modern diplomacy in Italy Notion an exaggeration and distortion Development of a system that is somewhat similar to diplomacy as practiced in 20th and 21st centuries Envoys and ambassadors sent to royal courts Somewhat bureaucratic state apparatus to facilitate relations between states State not seen in the modern sense, however Deliberate bribery, threats, manipulations of power Dynastic Wars, Balance of Power, c. 1519-1789 Map of Europe c. 1495-1559 ○ Polities that bear some resemblance to states of Europe today Polities belonging to ruler, dynasties; not modern conception of state belonging to people ○ Increasing presence of bureaucracies somewhat similar today ○ Still quite different than conceptions of states today ○ Dynastic states vying for influence, control, wealth State not necessarily correct term to describe things on a map from 16th C to 18th C Thirty Years War ○ Westphalia marking the end of the war – Peace of Westphalia - 1648 Birthplace of the conception of sovereignty Idea that states should not interfere with the internal affairs of the state Breaking up of the Holy Roman Empire Emphasis on the conception of the secular state Importance of legal principles in governance Treaties of Munster x2 and Osnabruck  All individuals that were devout Christians, these documents are not the secular ideal individually that they are often conceived as Certain polities granted certain degree of sovereignty, but still contingent in nature Importance of pope, papacy still important in Europe Presented as birth of modern state system Doing away with quasi-, medieval state system into something more recognizable ○ Complicated conflict that involved a number of players jumping into conflict for differing motivations ○ Devastating for people of Europe, particularly within German states Huge death, displacement, etc. 1500-1814 marked by nearly constant warfare in Europe Result of dynastic ambitions that did not end with Westphalia 17th & 18th C European Dynastic Wars After Westphalia: not a bad war that breaks out for a while, but dynastic states still continue to wage war against each other Louis XIV, King of France (r. 1643-1715) ○ Waging war against his kingdom to make it more powerful and more influential ○ Waging war in more secular, realistic ways Waging wars for gloire, for himself and his family 18th C marked by dynastic wars by dynastic European players ○ Ending with conferences and congresses Repeating cycles of warfare Rarely see the emergence of a purely hegemonistic power ○ Balance of powers Some challenge this balance and gain influence, but then other powers band together and defeat it Final war leading to a great coalition: Britain leading + other European kingdoms By 19th C, balance of power a term that becomes common in usage ○ Dangerous: can appear as a deliberate strategy rather than series of historical accident, natural occurrence It was not this, but rather, a phenomenon to be observed from external lens French Revolution French Revolution breaking out in 1789 and changes things in fundamental ways ○ Brings about the birth of the nation-state Nationalism in its modern form emerges  ○ Brings the people into play, agents of change through the storming of the Bastille, sparking the Revolution ○ Elites, dynastic rulers, politicians weary of the people Want to use the strength of the people, but ensure that they do not grow to challenge their power Democracy a factor to be considered as we move into 19th C, but continuing to be complicated Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars, 1792-1815 Napoleon as leader of France Disruption of balance of power in Europe ○ Creation of short-lived French Empire ○ Old state system appears broken (but continues to function as it did) Britain and Russia, as well as certain Prussia and Austrian states come temporarily under French control, but later reassert themselves Congress of Vienna, 1814-15 Great Congress in some ways directly inspired by Westphalia Fixing the existing system, putting an end to war-torn Europe System based on compromise that make another war unlikely, if not impossible Matters more than Westphalia Interstate Conflict in the 19th Century Lecture Overview The Congress of Vienna, 1814-15 ○ Metternich or Mastermind? Metternich's System, 1815-48 More Revolutionary Upheaval, 1848-50 ○ Changed nature of int'l system; things decision makers had to keep in mind – nationalism and liberalism bleeding into conduct of int'l affairs and FP ○ People need to be taken into account Unifications in Europe: Not the Triumph of Nationalism, 1850-71 ○ Unification of Germany in 1871 Even though it may look like it, not a triumph of nationalism, but a result of something else Setting the stage for outbreak of war The International System, c. 1890 ○ The Dominant Position of the UK  Looms larger in int'l affairs than anyone from 1890-1914 – importance, power, wealth Strange entity of US that did not matter that extensively on world stage prior to WWI Perceived as interesting experiment, but not really something to worry about or take into account Latent power – US isolationism and protectionism in foreign policy ○ Heavily Eurocentric int'l system French Revolution and Napoleonic Era French and Napoleon had made a mess of Europe over 25 year period until 1814 ○ Started in 1789 with Bess Seat fall until Napoleon defeat ○ French Revolution originally domestic affair Challenging the absolute power of monarchs once Rev became more radical Declaration of France as republic and the execution of the king British elites originally in favour of revolutionary spirit until it became anti-monarchical Revolutionary France declaring war against its monarchical neighbours Attempting to paint it as moral, national war to liberate the oppressed of Europe from monarchical tyrants ○ Export the revolution by force through war Great war of liberation began to resemble dynastic wars it preceded 1792-93 to 1814 – the war continued (with brief pauses, shifting players) Napoleon, for a few years, was able to destroy balance of power For first time since Middle Ages – ability of one dominant power to extend its boundaries and successfully subdue other powers; exportation of by-products of revolution, including bureaucratic system ○ Prussia neutralized, Austria brought to a heel ○ Russia and Britain able to remain Spain: widespread, popular resistance to France; Iberian Peninsula resisting French government taking advantage of positions of other states to plunder the rest of Europe ○ E.g., stealing gold and wealth from churches, bureaucratic means of high taxes on wealthy areas, conscription of men into French army that became not all that French Napoleon behaving conqueror like those that came before him; Empire eventually fell ○ Decided to invade Russia, did not succeed  From there, beginning of the end Allies managed to defeat Napoleon comprehensively; Allyship essential One power too dominant, gang up on leader The Congress of Vienna, 1814-15 Bares some hallmarks we have seen with Westphalia; time has evidently passed Evolved international system, attitudes, mindsets, assumptions After Vienna: 100 years of relative peace (until outbreak of truly international conflict that has been worse than any other preceding war – the Great War; great evolution since Vienna, not the same actors as constructors of Vienna) ○ Wars of independence (e.g., Greece from Ottomans); interstate ears (e.g., Prussia vs. France, Prussia vs. Austrian Empire) ○ Because of relative peace, individuals gathered in Vienna evidently got some things right Uncertainty leading into Vienna –> what now after the fall of Napoleon? ○ Austrians, Russians, Prussians, Brits – 4 allies decide to hold Congress ○ Vienna as host demonstrates role of great power status of Austria (by 1914, that status slips; shadow of former self) Several months of Congress – based on conferences on peace that have been repeatedly held in Europe after great wars; largest since Westphalia Map of Europe in 1814 a mess ○ Napoleon, even before revolutionaries had redrawn map, polities big and small had been destroyed ○ Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist – abdication of las Holy Roman Empire, who feared Napoleon would claim it for himself What will we do with Central Europe? ○ Revive Holy Roman Empire? Create something similar but more modern? Different solution (number of smaller states)? What to do with Northern Italy, Belgium, the Low Lands Exile of Napoleon, abdication of his title as Emperor of France, then attempt at resurgence mid-conference that was squashed ○ Allies decided not to try or execute him – cut a deal to send him into exile ○ Return of Napoleon, many happy to see him return – army comprised and another war against Allies waged Led to less favourable terms for France than if he had not resurged a war Second exile as real punishment for Napoleon ○ 1814: Bourbon family replaces Napoleon, monarchy restored with King Louis XVIII (younger brother of Louis XVI) – France treated in an astoundingly good way  Allies had to consider what French people would do should they get screwed over Culture of elites, French-speaking leaders Belief that monarchical rule is natural and more orderly underpinning the mentality of Congress of Vienna ○ Not negotiating with Napoleon, but the Bourbon family & monarchical representatives Map: No gains for Britain, not interested in mainland Europe and territory across the channel – focus on colonial possessions – interested in European balance of power Austrians, Prussians, and Russians all gain territory ○ Austrians gaining territory in Northern Italy ○ Prussia, smallest of Great Powers, makes gains in Western part of what is now Germany to keep an eye on France Leads the way for later German unification German Confederation – loose confederation of sovereign states Simplified, streamlined version of Holy Roman Empire Prussia and Austria as larger members of confederation German-dominated polities that have not been getting along well - Prussian and Austrian conflict Eventually leads to Prussian victory and establishment of German unification in 1871 Bureaucrats, aristocrats involved in negotiation – small government still prevalent ○ Monarchs sending their underlings to represent their interests Metternich's System, 1815-48 Klemens von Metternich (Foreign Minister - 1809 to 1848 & State Chancellor 1821 to '48) - Austrian Emperor's right hand man – did important negotiating for Austrian Empire ○ Old, aristocratic family background Nature of military, foreign policy decisions – purview of aristocrats even despite increasing representative democracy Important for who makes decisions on foreign policy going forward ○ Representatives that have the authority to represent their state's interests Metternich a man of peace, horrified by happenings of the Napoleonic era and its war-mongering ○ Increasingly common, more humanistic view that did not have callous approach to diplomacy and warfare that saw casualties as expenses of warfare More Revolutionary Upheaval, 1848-50 Revolutionary upheavals in 1848 and 1849 force Metternich from office ○ Nationalist revolutionaries seeing him as too conservative Ideologies of French Revolution that were dormant are seemingly revived in the mid-century Nationalism unifies Germany Imperialism & Empire Old Imperialism, c. 1500-1820s A global, polycentric Affair: Europe, Russia, China, etc. Europe in the Americas, Russia in the Stepped Asian Empires Commerce & Trade ≠ Empire ○ World history that has almost always been imperial in nature ○ Commonalities among empires The "New" Imperialism, c. 1850s What it Was ○ More deliberate, more efficient (technology); larger in scope & intercontinental ○ In place by end of 19th C ○ Nothing inherently new about imperialism, yet historians often describe it as fundamentally "new" China and the Ottoman Empire on the Margins ○ Exceptions to European empires ○ Difficult to describe, conceptualize ○ Under partial control of rich, Western powers Beyond Europe: Japan's Own Imperial Path The British World System, Again ○ World's richest and largest empire The International System, c. 1870-1900 European-centered Imperial ○ Empires in Europe (Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany) ○ Transcontinental Empires, Colonial Empires (United Kingdom, France, Spain, Belgium, United States, Germany, Japan) Explicitly called empires by its peoples Americans argued that they were fundamentally opposed to imperialism, colonialism  American elites saw themselves as people who had broken free from imperial structure in late 18th C Territorial, land-based empires that are multi-ethnic Germany & Russia directly labelling themselves as empires ○ Value of colony not quite clear – not always economic value Wealth of Indonesia, India Often more prestige, not wealth as motivation for empire Hegemonic ○ UK enjoys dominant position, but challenged by other powers ○ Existential threats by end of 19th C Empire Empires historically default ways to organize territory, particularly to subjugate peoples that are perceived as peripheral, less than ○ Periphery brought under the scope of the empire Relationship between core and periphery can change and evolve ○ Changing status within an empire ○ Cooperation or collaboration of locals in the periphery Russian Empire ○ Core Russian territory West of Ural Mountains ○ Russian conquerors marching East to the Pacific, conquering territory, exploiting rich natural resources ○ "Unending frontier" – Siberia What we see happening in China during the Qing Dynasty can be perceived in the same way ○ Reversal of big imperial trends in Eurasia for centuries ○ Center sending conquerors to the periphery ○ Central Asia to East Asia, South Asia Dynamic shift – East Asia and South Asia conquering Central Asia Mongolia conquered and incorporated into Chinese Empire India ○ 16th-17th C – one large imperial polity enjoying golden age before relative decline ○ British dismantle it and conquer it in 18th C Ottoman Empire ○ 16th C – creating intercontinental European, Asian, and African empire Technology making new empire possible, allowing for granular control in empires ○ Group of empires continuing to be denounced today ○ Exert morbid fascination over us Recent empires still shaping world of today  Created unequal world in which we are living Emergence of human rights in late 19th C ○ Not as conceptualized today ○ European countries that are much more "humane" in their imperial ambitions ○ Recognition of certain fundamental rights that should be respected Not the case in practice often ○ Exploitation of colonial subjects ○ Individuals in metropoles – willful ignorance in the decree of orders being implemented by colonial officials on the ground Ordinary people did not have much of an idea of what their country's empire meant for other territories Ability to sub-divide most of the world using imperial framework ○ Latin America – sovereign independence declared from Portuguese, Spanish towards beginning of 20th C Not incorporated into new empires, but exist at the mercy of large, rich countries that continue to exploit them and their resources Independent, but not fully in control of their destiny Middle and Far East – old empires going through difficult period ○ Chinese Empire to fall victim to revolution early in 20th C Weakness and instability Zones of influence c. 1900 in China Neighboring and far countries attempting to influence China Spheres of influence ○ Ottoman Empire Replaced by number of smaller, successor states Shrinking empire Territory lost 1800-17; 1878-1913 Attempts to modernize, catch up with the West ○ Neither territory part of imperial, global system Unequal treaties in China and Ottoman Empire Istanbul – not allowed to control taxation, becomes controlled by a board Ottomans kept on life support by Europeans Fragile, vulnerable positions of empire Tantalizing and terrifying prospect – falling Take empire down, claim what was once there as a part of your own empire Treacherous geopolitical situation Empires Ancient & New at the End of 19th Century The "New" Imperialism, c. 1850s ○ What it Was More deliberate, more efficient (technology); larger in scope & intercontinental In place by end of 19th C Nothing inherently new about imperialism, yet historians often describe it as fundamentally "new" China and the Ottoman Empire on the Margins ○ Exceptions to European empires ○ Difficult to describe, conceptualize ○ Under partial control of rich, Western powers Beyond Europe: Japan's Own Imperial Path The British World System ○ World's richest and largest empire ○ What accounts for unique position Britain holds in the world in 1900 A World in Motion ○ Mass Migration Widespread phenomenon occurring on extremely large scale in many parts of the world Explains certain patterns and developments in international world "Global Development Project" ○ Back to British World System Imperialism in one form or another has essentially always been with us ○ Empires as fact of life for 1000s of years ○ Considerable continuity, yet something new about the type of imperialism we are seeing in action "New Imperialism" Not as though there was a sharp dramatic break with the "old" ○ Differentiating factors: Imperialism adopted as official state policy; empire building more deliberate, purposeful, centralized, thought out States having ability to act in ways unimaginable to pre-industrialization; state apparatus in Western countries that performs better, larger bureaucracies and administration Empire-building in late 19th C does not always occur as a well thought out master plan  Room for actors on the grand to do things and surprise political masters back home, leaving them to react E.g., Spanish conquistadors in New World– claims of doing things on behalf of Crown, yet doing things for themselves State dependent on private or semi-private individuals Corporate workers (some state-created), missionaries, self-funded explorers System in place in transition from old to new imperialism India in 1840s ran by the British East India Company acting as governing institutions, that even reigned over princes; British rule in India – many largely sovereign states that are entities under British influence/control East India Company fighting first opium war; governing Hong Kong Doing the bidding of the British government Public-private partnership More players than before Entities doing conquering and colonizing – big fish, little fish Britain, France, then everyone else European and non-European countries in the game GB, France, Belgium (private colony for Leopold II, public overtaking later), Germany, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, US, Japan Other players wanting to get in the game, have imperial ambitions – Germany ○ Different systems of governance in different territories ○ Indirect control, direct control; depends on resources available, value of colony, etc. ○ Conquest through force or threat of force – method of control More deliberate and systematic imperialism Justification of imperialism at home – evidently does not matter for indigenous peoples on the land; however, some imperialists motivated by more than lust for power (more than Machiavellian individuals blind to suffering), believing in some form of civilizing mission ○ Problematic!!! ○ Flawed discourses of civilization, Eurocentrism, racism ○ Pseudo-religious idea of conquering, civilizing ○ Perception of long-run "greater good" China and the Ottoman Empire  Two empires experiencing same difficulties in 19th C; both trying to adapt but unable to do so Defensive modernization, but both is not enough – not able to do what Japan is doing at end of 19th C ○ Hard to modernize a larger land mass; easier for state to establish control in smaller territory (geographical determinism not always true) ○ Slow reform, resistance to bureaucratic change; psychology of leaders, rulers Counter that with Meiji Restoration and swift development and change ○ Perception of superiority in China as middle kingdom Hubris of imperial courts in Beijing, Istanbul Perception of the "other" as "barbarians" Great Britain Britain in 1900 ○ Incredible wealth, power ○ British world system larger than empire – ○ Colonization as panicked, defensive measure after 1870 Feeling pressured by European neighbors ○ British industrial economy benefitting from international trade ○ Controlled 40% of world shipping, telegraphs (one British company) in 1900 ○ London as capital of the world Financial centre, entrepot ○ Great exporting power ○ Britain able to invest massively throughout the world, including outside of the Empire E.g., Argentina Nominally independent country enthralled to British capital Berlin Conference 1884-85 ○ Name of the game – getting your own agents in there and being able to claim territories as your own Order, not just free for all in grabbing territory Private companies sometimes used for this purpose ○ Location of Germany important – Germany up and coming power attempting to portray itself as neutral, not threatening British and French ambitions; attempting to get some territory for itself ○ Point for each of the states involved was to increase their own power and prestige Not every colony profitable – principle is rather having more territory, scale of empire ○ Had to do with personal ambitions, rather than carving up territory in Africa ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 09/23/2024 British World System Mass Migration "Global Development Project" British World System (ctd.) Britain in the context of beginning of 20th C should be thought of as hegemon, huge world power Britain heavily invested in the world before WWI ○ 40% global foreign investment in 1913 ○ Responsible for nearly half of foreign investment ○ US still in many respects as rich or richer, but not investing internationally like the Brits Latin America as high profile outlet of British capital looking for high rate of return No need for state-building, conquest, military machinery to enforce British rule Cooperative local elites strongly identified with British and their so-called "civilizing mission" Argentina very receptive to investment – by 1913, UK had invested about 360M pounds into railroads and other infrastructure, promotion if trade ○ British world system much more than its empire, even if it was extremely expansive still Fear that Britain would miss out if they were not investing in new territorial expansion Mass Migration 19th C to WWI and later – massive flows of people Large-scale migration – world in motion ○ 1900 – not that exceptional; world almost always in motion in migratory flows; however, the scale at which this was occurring was exceptional Technological change – transportation, communication, infrastructure, etc. ○ Over 2 centuries – 10s of Ms have moved far and wide between | ○ 1840-1940 – ~150M migrating ○ First wave of mass migration, c. 1850-1940 60M went from Europe to Americas 50M went from India and South China to SE Asia  50M from China, Korea, Japan, And Russia towards Siberia, Mongolia, Manchuria "Global Development Project" International research efforts ○ Based on power, unequal relationship between parts of the world, but increasingly a flow of information from one place to another that would be unimaginable years before ○ Ties nicely with Mazower themes in book – international research efforts, exchange of goods and trade, interconnectedness of peoples, transmission of knowledge, etc. Countries and people learning from each other ○ Missions sent to other countries (states sending delegations) to neighboring states or other parts of the world to understand what was going on Extensively undertaken by states seeking to modernize Japan, Russia, US, etc. ; farmers doing this on a large scale basis Looking to exploit agricultural resources at home and harness global knowledge Transnational mobilization of experience Massive global investment ○ Mainly from Europe to "developing" areas Resistance to project, or at least more brutal aspects ○ Wrapped up with imperial world order International Workers of the World ○ Encouraged to design labour cooperation across states ○ Socialism as ideology and organizing force growing more powerful even before the 1917 Russian Revolution Evolving and changing international system in place before WWI Response to early effects of industrialization Long-term & Immediate Causes of WWI The European State System in 1914 ○ Balance of Power ○ Alliances ○ Germany as Destabilizing Force? Germany the aggressor in attacking first Treats as such at Paris Peace Conference 1919 Existence of Germany as state making a European war more likely? Some Possible Explanation for the Outbreak of the War ○ Militarism  ○ Race for Colonies ○ The "Balkan Powder Keg" The European State System in 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary (heir to throne) ○ Murdered in Sarajevo, Serbia in July, 1914 by Gavrilo Princip ○ Assassinated by Serbian nationalists, a member of the Black Hand Assassinations of political leaders more common in Europe at the time than today; at the time, assassination was not to be thought of as spark Annexed region of Bosnia-Herzegovina "Origins" or "causes" – "why" or "how"? ○ Not just a single, monocausal explanation Still debated and discussed today How variables relate to each other, piecing together data points and pieces to the puzzle\ Importance in terminology – "how" vs "why"; "origin" vs "cause" Historians more open to exploring historical contingency Luck or happenstance may be a tangible reason ○ Tense diplomatic situations over empire, colonial holdings, etc. Players and Alliances Big players and ways in which they stacked up against each other 5 rich & powerful countries – great powers ○ Also have Italy, other countries aspiring to Great Power status but not quite there 1879: Dual Alliance – Germany and AH 1882: Triple Alliance – G + AH + It 1887: Re-insurance Treaty – Germany and Russia 1894: Dual Alliance – France + Russia 1904: Entente Cordiale – UK + France 1907: Triple Entente – UK + France + Russia ○ Two rival blocks in Europe by the time of the assassination of Archduke Encouraging war against each other ○ None of the existing alliances seemingly natural ○ Italy sits out, then sides with the Triple Entente ○ Alliances and treaties do matter, but careful not to exaggerate the extent to which they will limit the actions of states – ignorance when it suits them ○ Britain is a sort of free electron – close to France and Russia in 1914 (new development not true 20 years before)  British almost driven into arms of Russia and France due to German foreign policy that was seemingly aggressive Shocking that France and Russia would be favoured by UK Germans attempting to win Britain over, convince them to side with and support Germany Spectacular backfiring Germans moving closer to isolation because of FP sometimes conducted in a pretty clumsy way Leading up to WWI – amateur FP decisions that had exact opposite of results hoped for by Berlin German-British naval arms race – seeking to gain respect of Britain, but also wanted to prove its up and coming industrial power Seen more as race in London as direct challenge, maybe not the case in Germany Key position of British Royal navy and naval force led the buildup to be perceived as threat Simple miscommunication? Some Germans looking to seek recognition of great industrializing power by Britain; explicit naval buildup as proof Shocking Alliance Proximity of France and Britain astonishingly ○ History of conflict between the two powers – principal rivals, natural enemies ○ Centuries of fighting ○ Recent aggression and expansionism of Napoleonic Wars ○ 1860s – warring states Leaders in London and Paris that the countries need to support each other in the face of aggressive Germany Entente cordiale an agreement that solves existing races for territory, colonies, competition between powers Militarism Scholars have pointed to it in an attempt to explain 1914 Militarism in all the great powers of Europe ○ Countries tending to focus a great deal on military accomplishments Militaristic view of the world E.g., army taking a high rank, place in society and social standing Even in representative democracies like France, army plays vital role as institution defending the vital interests of the country  ○ Overt displays of militarism are eye-catching and indicate war-keen countries, we still tend to see militaristic displays and rhetoric today Ritualistic behavior, clearly part of enshrined ritual in national culture – e.g., modern France – ○ Used as lazy, catch-all category to find excuse for outbreak Military leaders did have an overstretched role in creating FP, but is that abnormal today? Not necessarily Helps to explain some of what was going on in 1914, but not a sufficient explanation Shaping Foreign Policy in 1914 Who Decided? ○ Monarchs ○ Ministers of FA? ○ Diplomats? ○ Chiefs of Staff? ○ No One at All? Chaotic decision making decision Hard to protect key decisions and decision makers July 5, 1914 July 23 July 25 WWI remains the case to which nearly every IR conflict theorist is drawn ○ Historiographical debates about origins parallel theoretical debates that are central to IR Structure & agency, importance of international and domestic sources of causation, causal role of individual personalities, rationality & coherence of decision-making process, and the dynamics of security dilemma, etc. War started with a crisis that most observers at the time would be successfully managed When looking at ways in which FP is shaped, we find something surprisingly free-flowing, decentralized Alliance Systems in Place in 1914 Two power blocs in place; rival alliances ○ Alliances pitted against each other that was in a way that was easy enough for individuals to understand Alliances shifted and evolved significantly and quickly during the late 19th C and into the 20th C  ○ Fluid alliances 1870s to 1880s – France as pariah ○ Being kept isolated by newly unified Germany, led by a leader who recognizes the precarious situation of his country ○ Security dilemma of being surrounded by France on one side and Russia on the other; alliance of Austria-Hungary to mitigate threat of Russia, Italy to combat France ○ Early 20th C – Germany isolated Allies, but to what extent are those allies useful, reliable, powerful? Austria-Hungary and Italy as problematic allies – small economies, Italy as up-and-coming (still trying to achieve great power status); perception of Austria-Hungary as great power in decline, lower industrial base, greater internal domestic challenges Large navies of British (monstrous), and France; Germany up and coming navy – Germans engaging in long-term armament of naval fleets Austro-Hungarian monarchy seems as being an inefficient, interesting system ○ Facing increasing problems – ethnic-based grievances based on increasing marginalization, Austria as industrial power, Hungary agricultural ○ Many ethnic groups able to declare independence post-war Britain Initial hesitancy in entering war; gets better offer from the Entente, shifts alliance away from Germany Brits claiming in retrospect that they were acting on behalf of ally Belgium, whose neutrality was violated through German invasion ○ Convenient excuse for Britain to go to war, something it did not have to do ○ Tensions existing in Europe – UK/German industrial superpower, challenging Brits Intrigue of the Entente Russia, France, and Britain have deep-seated, formal rivals/enemies now uneasily working together against a common German threat ○ Easy to focus on differences between these states rather than commonalities ○ Franco-Russian relations – Napoleonic War, France engagement in Crimean war against Russia Alliance of convenience rather than on political interests, common ideology  Franco-Russian alliance dating back to 1890s – homeland of human rights in republic of France versus tsarist, autocratic monarchy of Russia Even in FP goals, Britain and France as rivals as established democracies Mistrust and hesitancy among Entente powers Britain and Russia in imperial ambitions ○ Russia and Britain in rivals in certain parts of the world for longtime ○ Playing the "great game" in Central Asia vying for control and influence Britain worried about southward Russian expansion during the 19th C Security threat of Russia to Britain in early 20th C Threat of Germany greater Germany Country that may have completely destabilized state system in Europe when it came into being in 1871 Located exactly the wrong place on the map – existence to any kind of security arrangement you can conceive of Unification results in rapid industrialization – up-and-coming, modernizing power Wants to be taken seriously as a world power and economy Difficulty in challenging industrial leader, Britain Otto Von Bismarck able to put Germany in relatively safe position since unification ○ Chancellor of German Empire (+ Foreign Minister) (1871-90) ○ One person calling the shots – domestic and international decisions and affairs controlled by him Difficulty in retaining control of lower house Struggled in dealing with rest of Europe – successful in keeping France isolated, but not always the case in international affairs Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg ○ Chancellor of Germany (+ Foreign Minister) (1909-17) ○ Less knowledgeable and informed than Bismarck; less political capital Role of the individual vs the system in decision-making and international relations Individuals playing key roles in shaping events even when they do not entirely control them On the other hand, are individuals not just the siphons of public opinion, policy, administration July Crisis Most complicated place in Europe – Austria-Hungary ○ Odd geopolitical entity  ○ Adaptation to circumstances and politics of the time resulting in empire's composition ○ Dual monarchy – Austria East and Hungary West One ruling emperor and a few key gov positions were jointly controlled Foreign Minister + 2 Prime Ministers (Austria, Hungary) – István Tisza (PM of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen or Transleithania) & Karl Graf Stü 2 individuals did not have a direct role in July Crisis and shaping FP in general Because they were influential figures, could still attempt to move things in one way or another Authorization and approval of Hungarian PM, Tisza Very reluctant to engage in war Austria moves slowly and chaotically during July Crisis Ultimatum sent to Serbia ○ Getting to that point took a long time; had to do with government, shaping FP Divided over responses – hawks vs doves Conrad led hawks as chief of general staff – wanted war Anyone in his position among great powers representing military will be more in favour Tiszá as a dove – in favour of peace (foreign minister also more on side of peace) Franz Ferdinand played somewhat of a role as decision-maker in FP and domestically In favour of domestic reform – believed he could change those through nature of the empire Did not like the Hungarians and wanted to limit power of Hungarian monarchy and give that power to other groups United States of Austria, essentially Saw Austria-Hungary as fragile, could not go to war Do monarchs have a meaningful say in war? ○ Case of Great Britain – no; George V does not have the power to do much of anything Despite family connection of monarchies – blood ties b/w German, Russian, British monarchies Communicating with each other as monarchs, particularly Willhelm & Nicolas Some behind the scenes influence possible – we have to wonder ○ Germany – not so clear  Wilhelm loved to meddle and had the constitutional right to do so First act: getting rid of Bismarck as he saw him as too timid and conservative Constitutional ability to remove Chancellor Wanted Germany to be more aggressive as a power Read lots of documentation to/from German Foreign Office in Berlin Carefully read, annotations in margins of many historical documents Scribbled certain things that frustrated him Someone volatile, emotional, prone to mood swings – unpredictability as leader? ○ Wilhelm to Leopold: good idea to support potential invasion of France, Belgium could gain territory in French northeast Leopold said PM and Parliament would not be okay with that Evidence of one instance of Wilhelm saying rather unhinged things in private to leaders ○ Short attention span – dive into docs, then get bored and be inactive ○ Russia as well – Nicolas lacking knowledge and ability to intervene Quai D'Orsay Republican government without aristocracy dominating foreign office and diplomatic core Foreign office that is in many respects quite capable – learned people working there Sophisticated, highly-functional FP machine, but not always working hand in hand with the people who are supposed to be making FP decisions ○ For a lot of individuals in charge of FP, FP was just too important to leave in the hands of politicians, even the Ministers of Foreign Affairs or Foreign Secretary ○ Individuals in Quai D'Orsay often keeping ministers in the dark Gaps in knowledge Less collaboration than you would imagine Justified by people in Quai d'Orsay – 3rd Republic – political instability ○ High shuffling of cabinet, significant ministerial changes Newcomers beginning to figure things out, then replaced Quai D'Orsay therefore thought it was logical for them to be making the key decision makers More complicated when you look at French diplomatic core ○ Era of small government – embassies and consulates were tiny affairs compared to modern standards  Ran by a handful of individuals – home and office for ambassador ○ Elite group – informal aristocracy, coming from upper-class backgrounds ○ Cambon brothers – Paul Cambon (Ambassador to UK) and Jules Cambon (Ambassador to Germany) Great degree of autonomy and lwighweigh – saw themselves as decision-makers, having a role to play Cambon as English xenophobe, thought it a terrible idea to have French schools in GB Thought they would experience "mental decline" ○ Maurice Paléologue – Ambassador to St. Petersburg Pompous character Crossed the line – explained things in disingenuous and secretive ways Selective in what he would convey to both France and Russia Seen as his prerogative Raymond Poincaré President when July Crisis breaks out who is technically not supposed to play that much of a role in FP So experienced as a politician, former PM, able to shape events ○ Final decision makers in FP at time completely new to the job – Viviani as Minister of FA ○ Easy for Poincaré to start overshadowing him and bullying him Did not think much of him due to frequent emotional outbursts Sir Edward Grey (GB Secretary of State for FA) In charge of FP; great expertise in domain MP and Cabinet Minister, but did not think the rest of Parliament needed to know about FP unless a major crisis was ongoing Very aristocratic background, privilege ○ Still dealing with that old world, even while moving towards more meritocratic system The First Total War – Battle-Fronts Around the World "History doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes" – Mark Twain Who Decided? Monarchs, Ministers, Chiefs of Staff? No one at all? July 5, 1914: Hoyos Mission to Berlin, "Blank Cheque" July 23, 1914: Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia, shortly followed by reply July 25, 1914: Russian "pre-mobilization"  Global War ○ Theatres of War in the Middle East and Africa Europe's Struggles ○ Russia & Eastern Front ○ The Western Front: the trauma of the trenches ○ "Total War" ○ Home fronts: Union sacrée & Burgfrieden International system cobbled together Has changed the conduct of state actors over the past century and a bit, yet there is often great ignorance of rules they have create, as well as agreed upon norms of state conduct Who Decided? Monarchs, Ministers, Chiefs of Staff? No one at all? Willhelm II, Kaiser of Germany 1888-1918 ○ Belligerent individual who clearly enjoyed provoking people during his reign ○ Calamitous comments in today's diplomatic environment, but he was able to get away with it because the diplomatic establishment accepted that monarch's would sometimes stick their nose in global affairs ○ Extent to which he had ○ In July Crisis – not someone as much of a hawk as he wants people to see him as; gets scared when thing begin to appear as if they are Tsar Nicolas II – direct control over who is making decisions, therefore indirect control over decisions ○ In communication with Willhelm – trying to pull countries back from the brink of war ○ Attempting to bring about a peaceful resolution; yet telegrams are spoken in flamboyant terms, not carefully trying to look at what is happening in terms of diplomats and ministers and their conduct on the ground Monarchs often united through ties of blood – 3 cousins going to war with each other Raymond Poincaré + René Viviani – PM willing to defer to Poincaré in shaping foreign policy because of his own inexperience and Poincaré's PM experience prior – bolstering executive power Franz Conrad, Chief of General Staff in Vienna (1906-17)– military man whowas uncomfortable around aristocrats and elites; did not enjoy interacting with diplomats, monarchs, ministers; fell madly in love with a woman who was married to a wealthy industrialist (affair eventually after much persistence); hundreds of hidden letters that could never be sent to his married lover ○ More melancholic and reckless because of the affair?  ○ Get the opportunity to win glory if A-H attacked Serbia or a neighboring state; get the woman of his dreams if he became a great national hero All decision-makers men – crisis of masculinity in Europe at the beginning of the 20th C? ○ Anxious about ways society was evolving leading to a hawkish, conservative reaction from the elites E.g., rise of socialism and growth of trade unions, rise of women's organizing for legal rights (UK: suffragette movement) Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg, Chancellor of Germany (1909-17) ○ Almost absent during July Crisis due to the death of his wife a few months prior ○ Key actor distracted at exactly the wrong time? Individual agency more important than structural factors? ○ Structural factors often easier to understand, but when looking at decision-making process of countries, things are messy and fluid July 5, 1914: Hoyos Mission to Berlin, "Blank Cheque" Hoyos Mission: A-H sending delegation to Berlin at the start of crisis to see if they could count on German support ○ A-H envoys spending lots of time with Willhelm II, but not as much time with Bethmann-Hollweg New Palace in Potsdam, Germany – where Count Alexander Hoyos was welcomed by the Kaiser July 5, 1914 ○ Asked point blank by Germans what A-H would do with Serbia if they attacked A-H – Hoyos made stuff up; said that it would be jointly governed by A-H and other states – making things up on the spot Example of how minor players able to exert influence over decision making process Amateurish, half-cocked diplomacy of time; lack of latitude and ability to operate independently among diplomats Decision of what A-H will do in dealing with Serbia, whom they believed were behind assassination (Serbian gov denied this) ○ Check with senior partner of their alliance; needing the full support of Berlin Result: Blank Cheque ○ Do whatever you want and we will have A-H's back ○ Documentation reflective of the German gov's risks in supporting blindly July 23, 1914: Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia, shortly followed by reply Put Serbia in difficult position, robbing it of a portion of its autonomy and sovereignty to conduct investigation ○ Major European powers often violated smaller state sovereignty as exertion of power  Serbian government expressing amazement and surprise of what it was being accused of Small documents making A-H key in July Crisis and events of 1914 ○ A-H moves slowly, particularly in relation to the speed Germans want things to be done (e.g., A-H wanting to grab provisions of harvest) Quick war or quick peace Slow movement resulting in war? July 25, 1914: Russian "pre-mobilization" Modern militaries much more likely to start doing things before war began, pushing aside diplomats and avoiding peaceful resolution of conflicts Russians need to start mobilizing – calling up soldiers takes much more time because of more expansive geographic entity and less modern transportation infrastructure Early mobilization as having consequence of catalyst for war Global War Still disagreement that WWI was European civil war or a truly global war Different borders of Ottoman Empire succumbing to war Ottoman Empire as significant player in conflict that brought in other international actors Africa International conflict and a large-scale one that encompasses Africa Increasing historiography of last 25 years surrounding role of Africa in Great War ○ Focus on human cost of operations supported by a large number of Africans supporting colonial troops in one way or another ○ Not the trench warfare on Western Front, can seem insignificant in small-scale battles across Africa 100Ks of porters involved in conflict High death rates Africans often involved against their will in conflict Memory of war shaping international diplomacy when war came to an end The Great War as World Revolution: Russia Europe's Struggles ○ Russia & Eastern Front ○ The Western Front: the trauma of the trenches ○ "Total War" ○ Home fronts: Union sacrée & Burgfrieden Bolshevik Revolution  ○ The Misunderstood Marx ○ Imperial Russia and the Great War ○ Two Russian Revolutions: Causes and Effects ○ A New Russian/Soviet Foreign Policy? (Romanovs vs Bolsheviks) What actually caused it? Leading figures? How much of a change was it in the management of the polity's relationships with the rest of the world Revolutionary regime controlled by the people through revolutionary group of individuals Monumental shift, promise of change on fundamental level; terrifying development for elites, leaders that things could change drastically and quickly ○ Old state system challenged by new understandings of the nation-state and its powers ○ Understanding the revolutionary effects of WWI and its aftermath Int'l system shaken and profoundly altered by WWI Conflict in Europe in a Few Key Points: Beginning of war – Entente (Russia, France, GB) + Central Powers (AH + Germany) ○ Italy participated actively, paid high price, lose men, then not get much out of conflict – 1922 emergence of fascist dictatorship ○ Ottoman Empire to join the conflict early on among Central Powers Death nail of Ottoman Empire Great War turned Empire into a full-fledged disaster – Armenian genocide in north By end of conflict, on urge of collapse – carving up by Entente Powers Ottomans had the prerogative to pick Entente or Central Power alliance – debate in Constantinople Ottoman leadership (military dictatorship controlling country) knew what they were doing and deliberately joined the war Fears of war in Ottoman Empire – fighting on 4 fronts ○ 1917: Russia drops out of war after Bolshevik Revolution, America joins the Entente in the European conflict First time that US actively participates in major overseas conflict The Western Front: the trauma of the trenches "Total War" Different conflict than the ones Europeans and individuals around the world were accustomed to Impact on civilian populations and subsequent impact on decision-makers  Extremely serious, large-scale war that dragged on for a long 4 years ○ Everyone making meaningful sacrifice except for a small amount of aristocrats insulated by their wealth and privilege Large and small war impacts – indelible mark on Europeans Divide in histories – before war + after war Technical war – great advances in industrialization, new technology ○ Large-scale artillery and machine guns ○ Effective stalemate, deadlock on the Western Front Widespread environmental destruction, profound impact on witnesses of destruction War on Western Front characterized by trench warfare ○ Other theatres of war: Eastern, Middle East ○ For Western Europeans, the Great War would be remembered as trench warfare and regular casualties from repeated offensives Scars from memory of the war, trench-fought, total warfare Representative democracies where people are able to wield control over key decisions, or the key decisions of representatives Constrains foreign policy decisions later on Hints towards end of conflict that air warfare would become prevalent and central in future conflicts All major countries had to mobilize economies to produce military equipment and supplies to wage conflict For 4 years, power of the state being revealed to populations that never really suspected what a modern nation-state could do should it intervene ○ Prior hesitation of governments to get involved in economies and policy Nationalized war economies ○ Government takeover of industries, companies ○ Governments managing economy as a whole Ensuring raw materials are acquired for private companies with war contracts Prior to WWI: Century of Peace ○ Great War did not conform to expectations of war, superseded them Existential conflict framed as a matter of survival ○ Presenting enemy through propaganda as evil incarnate, with way of life different than own, someone who must be stopped Home fronts: Union sacrée & Burgfrieden Cooperation we see for a surprising amount of time at the beginning of the conflict Countries coming together – people within states on the same page, trying to do the same thing  ○ Unprecedented unity among countries fighting Elites beginning to be fearful of calls for greater representation and rights among working classes ○ Cooperation between bourgeoisie and proletariat in advancing the war effort and war industry Owners of capital and workers both making concessions in the name of unity Political disputes increases and become salient again around 1918 WWI as place of recollections, memories ○ – – –> transformational role in history Bolshevik Revolution The Misunderstood Marx What Marx did as a scholar contrasted with what he did as a revolutionary figure Marx was a revolutionary who ultimately hoped for overthrow of status quo as it existed in 1870s-90s, he never really fleshed out his revolutionary vision and what would be its replacement ○ Working of capitalist mode of production observed as scholar Version of Marxism that individuals presented with differed from Marx's original scholarship Imperial Russia and the Great War What the Russian Empire was at the height of its power as WWI got underway Authoritarian regime, much more so than Western Europe ○ Powerful monarchy able to exercise considerable control over many aspects of life in Russia ○ Serious challenges to monarchical rule and the Romanovs December 1905: large-scale uprising, failed revolution led by workers in the industrial hubs around St. Petersburg and Moscow, led by peasants, given a help by soldiers and sailors ○ Lots of individuals not happy with heavy-handed authoritarian regime ○ Some individuals wanted basic freedoms like Western Europe ○ Peasants wanting land – not mass ownership by wealthy landowners and small plot allocation Able to save themselves from uprising, punishment on large scale of individuals involved in uprising – terror, especially in countryside Nicolas II – Emperor of All the Russias (r. 1894-1917) ○ Dependent on many advisors around him, but he had final authority on all Russian matters  Hard legacy of single authority for Bolsheviks to shake Similar structure replicated by Bolsheviks? Russia undergoing rapid modernization, industrialization around big cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, in Ukraine, etc. ○ Majority of country did not experience benefits of modernization ○ Russian peasantry – very basic agricultural methods, extremely limited earnings Maintenance of peasantry even amidst active growth Dissent not tolerated within tsarist authoritarian regime – led to many actors plotting the downfall of the regime ○ Many groups fighting for this cause 1916-17 – Russia is not doing badly in the war, but individuals back home are increasingly angry due to shortages of basic goods, results of prolonged war ○ People stressed, anxious, desperate for change Two Russian Revolutions: Causes and Effects First Revolution breaking out in early 1917 Largely peaceful uprisings and demonstrations, no authoritarian crackdown ○ Romanovs decided that discretion important Result of first Revolution ○ Removed tsar ○ Provisional legislative assembly created Period of dual power – workers and military balancing power with legislative ○ Bolsheviks gaining more influence by promising an end to the war, solving of shortages, etc. Revolutionary regime able to come to power by promising to end unpopular conflict Will of the people shaping foreign policy A New Russian/Soviet Foreign Policy? (Romanovs vs Bolsheviks) Lenin and Bolsheviks know what Russians want – peasantry, land; end of shortages; food stability; end of war; etc. Revolution & Unrest Around the World Lecture Outline The Revolutionary Nature of the Great War ○ Unfinished Business: Two Russian Revolutions: Causes and Effects Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: Good Business?  Russian "Civil War": A Common Cause for Rest of the World External powers getting involved in conflict A New Russian/Soviet Foreign Policy? (Romanovs vs Bolsheviks) The Fire Spreads ○ An Age of Revolutions? American Foreign Policy Ideas as Revolutionary? ○ American exceptionalism ○ Wilson's Self-Determination Aspirational revolutionary Revolutionary Nature of the Great War 4 years that did not prevent further war in the future? ○ Catastrophic mistake that could have been avoided? Was nothing fundamentally at stake? ○ No one desperately wanting to go to war Importance of WWI: ○ Collapse of Old Empires, Birth of New Successor States Crumbling and vanishing polities – accelerating already ongoing process of falling empires One empire ––> success or states or Empire –––> name change, not necessarily transformed Part of larger global process in the first half of 20th C ○ Military Revolution? Technology Culmination of decades of industrialization, advancements in military technology Machine gun extensively used in American Civil War, Boer War 4 year of widespread, large-scale deployment of new technology Contending with new forms of warfare Difficult to regressing to small-scale, relatively bloodless conflicts after 1918 Deaths and Injuries Large death toll resulting from the Great War Going to war could be demographically catastrophic on populations Losing millions of men, extensive civilian casualties possible World leaders in Europe aware of price paid for participation in WWI  Even for winners, did not feel like much of a victory – e.g., France ○ Governmental/Economic Revolution Power of the State, Management of the Economy Understanding state intervention in the economy; justified intervention because of war showed the capability of modern state Managing the wartime economy "Sinews of War": Financing Total War European states begin flexing their muscles – heavier taxation to finance the war Works for a short while, then powers have to resort to other means Finding ways to pay for expensive conflicts; increasingly modern and mechanized warfare expensive ○ Indirect Spread of Actual Revolutionary Ideology Direct Threat to Ruling Elites Even in Liberal Democracies Ideas in circulation, fostered and fielded by international organization, but war facilitated spread Particularly revolutionary socialism Status quo threatened (aristocratic governing) Shaking of world order, international system to its core; shifts the decision-making and its considerations Russian Revolution Russian Empire characterized by frustration on the eve of the war from its population ○ Discontent only grew with the war Strong losses for the Russians from German aggression Strong agrarian economy prior to the war and revolution; rapid economic and social change; peasantry dominate the country ○ Lack of infrastructure to support agrarian production; booming railroad construction financed by French business interests in late 19th C, early 20th ○ Large geographic nature of country difficulty for trade Hunger Strike in 1917 staring February First Revolution ○ Anger towards elites; popular revolution ○ Peasantry frustrated over land ownership – land hunger; land owned by small number of individuals ○ Industrial class dissatisfied with inflation, poor working conditions Uniquely class conscious – weak unions, allowing for more direct organization among workers ○ Repeat of events of 1905 – Bloody Sunday and repression by the tsar  ○ Revolutionaries tapping into class conscious, Marxist politics Second Bolshevik Revolution of October/November 1917 ○ Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to out-manoeuvre the provisional government by pledging to remove themselves from the war and give peasants land (not just concentrated to wealthy landowners that leased it out) ○ Growing class consciousness ○ Attitude in running national government not that different than former tsarist regime Prolongation of the war; putting off dealing with access to land and food When provisional government did nothing to address these factors, people sought solution Populist strategy of Bolsheviks ○ October – plan to get rid of people in power and repolace them with people who have their interests at heart Blosheviks very lucky in taking that place; but also a broader strategy Luck – right place, right time; lucky German authorities released Lenin from exile, hoping to stir revolution 1917 Revolutions was caused by the same popular anger and fear as the uprisings of 1905: land-hunger among peasants, poor working conditions in the industrial centers, and resentment amond oppressed ethnic populations. *************************************** Bolsheviks do not want to be held hostage like provisional government, but are wielding authority over people through Soviets ○ Soviet government presenting themselves as extremely democratic – giving the people control over their governance ○ 1917 and 1918 – truth in representing the people ○ Through Civil War, Bolsheviks begin to do their own thing and represent their own interests, wielding dictatorial power Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Bolsheviks at time making key decisions Will not be necessary for revolutionary government to have a foreign ministry ○ Trotsky appointed, thinking he would make short decisions on FP then be done ○ Would have to conduct foreign policy in a more traditional way Lenin had promised "land, peace, and bread" for months, and his government was able to deliver on the first two (at least for a while). Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a disaster for Russia, but the Bolsheviks thought it was a worthwhile one… they also hoped, correctly, that this could be a temporary state affairs  Powerful elite Germans remembering short-lived Eastern European dominance Russian Civil War Different white forces attempting to undo revolution and bring Romanovs to power, Bolsheviks, ethnic minorities attempting to carve out autonomy or even independence Country experiencing revolution Russia inherently unstable in 1914 ○ Large, multi-ethnic empire – problematic ○ Recently acquired regions had ethnicities feeling marginalized; once tsar gotten rid of, attempting to assert their own authority Bolsheviks notice what Americans, British, French are trying to do – not endearing to leaders in Moscow ○ Foreign intervention in what they are appalled to be seeing in Russia – did not like the revolutionary current of Russia European monarchists, those that had connections to the Romanov family, relations to other monarchies Terrified that revolution would spread to their own lands; fear of contagion of socialism Uprising in Ireland in 1916 – foreshadows violence of post-WWI If this could happen in Britain, this could happen everywhere ○ American hesitancy to get involved (manifestation of American isolationism) ○ Hope to quickly squash Bolshevik Revolution, Russia could get back into the war under a non-revolutionary regime 1922 – Russia becomes the USSR ○ Nationalization of businesses ○ Reforming social relations ○ Redistribution of wealth ○ Ambitious revolutionary projects Russian Foreign Policy Sometimes, looks fairly revolutionary ○ New approach to foreign relations – creation of the Communist International ○ Exporting socialist revolution to other parts of the world Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria – short-lived, but present Playing a double game – foreign office that continues to negotiate with other countries in a very standard way + fiery, revolutionary rhetoric ○ Traditional diplomacy to ensure that Russia is not too isolated, but promoting revolutionary spirit simultaneously  ○ Double speak? Hypocrisy? Entirely cynical? Power politics at the heart – consider the possibility that individuals believed what they say; understand appeal of the salvationist message Foreign policy of USSR that different than tsarist empire? Grand Strategy and Bloody End American Exceptionalism ○ US FP before and during WWI Woodrow Wilson Self-Determination ○ Causing problems during Paris Peace Conference 1919 and after Grand Strategy ○ Who Was Making the Decisions? ○ Civilian Warlords and Military Men Civilian politicians and military men wielding outsized influence ○ What Were the War Aims of the World Powers? Was there a broader master plan? No The War Ends in Europe ○ German Revolution ○ Germany's Invisible Defeat? Assertion by Germans that they did not lose the war in a conventional sense Ways in which Germans experienced war at home American Exceptionalism and FP 1898 – Spain was not significant in European power rankings, not able to modernize or industrialize ○ Annexation of Spanish territories ○ 1898 Civil War won by US easily ○ Revolt against Spanish rule in Cuba that resulted in American intervention ○ End of 19th C – growing Cuban nationalism ○ 10 week war ○ USA acquires Cuba until 1902, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico US gaining major foothold in the Pacific US set up military dictatorship and wrote in ability to intervene in Cuban affairs at any time Written into constitution Protectorate Established military bases in country, notably Guantanamo Bay  ○ US traders dominated the sugar trade in Cuba and had vested interest in the region ○ Guerilla war continued in the Philippines 200K Filipinos died; 4K US soldiers Resistance to colonial imposition ○ President McKinley did not expect to annex Philippines ○ Religious dimension of American politics – politics of "saving," "civilizing," "doing God's work" Argument that their form of imperialism was fundamentally different than European powers Belief in a great American civilizing mission that survives through 20th C and beyond ○ Using Navy and Marines to impose its will on Latin America ○ Domination and exploitation through ownership in business Key owners Americans in natural resource markets of Latin America The US naturally behaved like any other regional, then world, power throughout history. But it was still possible for many Americans to believe that their country was morally superior to others and could rise about the squalid int'l system that existed at the beginning of the 20th C Monroe Doctrine (1823) ○ Beginning of full-fledged American imperialism? ○ Example of US role in its corner of the world and world more broadly ○ US government issuing grand proclamation that claims that European powers should henceforth remain out of North American affairs; nations of Americas are inherently free, embracing republicanism not monarchy Ideological aspect of doctrine important – grandiose moral imperative at work that becomes wrapped up with FP goals Ensuring America has access to enough of the continent as possible – expand the US further and further West Requires moral justification, appealing to moral authority Roosevelt Corollary (1904) ○ Roosevelt decides to push Monroe Doctrine further US has moral and legal right to interfere in the affairs of other states in the Americas if their vital, American interests are at stake US has become rich and powerful country Theodore Roosevelt an unabashed imperialist, elected in 1901 Determination to seize Panama zone from Colombia and build Canal  Committed social Darwinist, racist ○ Justification of American imperialism and colonialism Woodrow Wilson & Self-Determination 1913-1921 – President of the US His presidency suggested a change from what had come before (Taft + Roosevelt) ○ Roosevelt – moral justifications more blunt in his imperialist project With Wilson, we have a return to older justification of American expansionism and imperialism US President interested in a new world order, in a position to shape the world like no president before (unanticipated phenomenon with Great War and US participation) ○ Shaping world affairs without extensive knowledge of global affairs – previous comments on FP and lack of knowledge War aim: peace, love, togetherness? Said that US would be a good neighbor rather than quasi-colonial power in Latin America ○ In practice, this did not come to pass ○ US intervention significant in affairs of nearby countries (Mexico – civil war for example) US dragged into war by its president; Wilson has to justify American intervention ○ 1917: possibility that US will be fighting a long war in Europe ○ Speech to Congress in 1918 Fourteen Points Significant traction and buzz about them in colonized, occupied territories Open treaties and agreements – prevent secrecy Setting the stage of international relations; point 5 – self-determination for colonized peoples, ability to set their own terms of governance with regard to their own preferences and negotiations with imperial power / US context, not thinking of broader colonial contexts – not challenging existing colonial empires; various European geopolitical carvings, restoration of territory (most specific, articulated points); point 14 – creation of League of Nations Equality of trade conditions, reducing armaments, freedom of seas – open door policy for free trade benefiting America Setting up post-war institutions, through line in US FP goals ○ Often read as a decolonial document, but is this really the case? ○ Extremely open-ended document War Aims of Powers What were Americans trying to get out of the war? Wilson had a grand plan, but it was very vague Using victory to create a better, more stable world order? ○ Not concrete, lofty ambitions Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France, 1917-1920 ○ Tension between civilian government and military authorities throughout the Great War Inevitable result of total war being waged ○ Main war aim: territorial integrity of the Republic, including reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine, lost in 1871 War as extension of foreign policy, part of int'l system ○ Wielding power in an expansive way; allowed to because of war context Brute war thug, dragging country across finish line of war In 1914, no one has a grand vision or strategy ○ Over time, war aims become slightly more clear, but often only to a point E.g., protecting French territorial integrity & A-L reacquisition vital David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. (1916-22) ○ Able to shape foreign policy more than predecessors and successors ○ Granted power by Parliament ○ Head of coalition government ○ War aims: liberation of Belgium, solidifying colonial position in many parts of the world (consolidating territory) Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg ○ Civilian government that remains in place ○ Chancellor as key decision maker prior to the war ○ Increasingly limited power and influence as the war goes on Increasingly, military men begin to wield major decisions 1916-17 – establishment of quasi-military dictatorship in Germany Paul von Hindenburg, Chief of General Staff; Erich Ludendorff, Quartermaster General of German Army ○ Historians attempting to claim that Germany had huge, ambitious vision of gains September 1914 Program Germany wanting territory to the west and east, as well as exertions of its influence in other ways  Deliberately exaggerated plan to appease and satisfy German population? No clear plans in Berlin, Paris, London, Washington State actors with no clear master plan? Broad goals of power, territory, growing economies Broad aspirations German Revolution (End of WWI) Sailors' uprising Tumultuous political change, on the verge of full-blown revolution Great actor on world stage, the one that started Great War Paris Conference occurring amidst revolutionary Germany Paris Peace Conference Paris Peace Conference – Prelim So important in so many ways Many threads coming together over the course of a few months What the international world and system looks like at the time, as well as how it is being shaped and changing, as well as mired in past ways War Guilt Clause (Article 231) Shaping German ambitions and strategy heading into the interwar period and leading to WWII Handful of words having outsized effect on international relations Disconnect between intent of treaty and how it was perceived later on German reparation payments confirmed in principle (amount settled later on) ○ Usual interpretation – amount decided in 1921 excessive or unrealistic, having drastic consequences on German interwar economy; Nazis using reparations as a tool to paint Paris and London in a bad light and justify their ascendancy to power, playing into German victimhood Conference & Treaty of Versailles Treaty of Versailles and Conference to bring about an age of peace? ○ Despite shortcomings, could it serve as basis for long-term peace (we know today it did not) Revolutionary leaders trying to get included at Paris, take advantage of moment and powerful audience – young Ho Chi Min trying to get attention of world – old hierarchical world system  International conference– all sorts of states, entities represented – broad and inclusive international system in a certain sense; concerted effort by powers to make it appear as if the conference were democratic (reality, not so much); main events featuring few actors making decisions that affected 100Ks Wilson & Fourteen Points – self-determination and its effects General agreement that the conference was "dictat" ○ Conference followed by other things less dictatorial in nature ○ Inevitable lead up to WWII? Doesn’t make much sense, but popular imagination of events British, Americans, not just French pushing for punitive measures on Germany War Ends in Europe German Revolution Germany's Invisible Defeat? Paris 1919: A Peace Conference Followed Around the World The Key Players in Paris Wilson, the American Saviour? Clemenceau and Lloyd George, the European Reactionaries? War Ends in Europe German Revolution ○ German Empire experiences full-fledged revolution in the fall of 1918 ○ Change in regime in Germany ––> Empire to Republic in the making Constituent assembly to be elected and new constitution to be drafted Entirely different political entity Germany finding itself on the receiving end of terms of Paris Conference in Spring 1919 by regime that did not exist at time of Great War Perfectly reasonable to expect German delegation as the inheritance of old monarchy? People in Germany collectively responsible for something done on another leader's watch? Legitimizing or delegitimizing the Conference and its terms SPD (German Social Democratic Party) – by 1914, largest party in Reichstag Successful at winning over middle class and workers  Largely because of success, give Friedrich Ebert, leader of SPD power? (president, then chancellor) Problematic – SPD – reformist socialist party committed to legally changing status quo democratically, not through overt revolution Ebert and other party leaders still seeing themselves as revolutionaries – problem globally ○ Ebert relying on paramilitary groups to squash uprisings in Germany ○ Country in turmoil for the better part of 2 years – activism, uprisings, revolutions – socialist and communist in nature Ebert did not disagree with goals, but thought that trying to have a revolution in Germany at this time would be disastrous – take things slowly and focus on restoring stability to the public, negotiate successfully with Entente powers Did not have military means at disposal – turned to Freikorps – war veterans and young men People who were sympathetic to the right; ambivalent about democracy and the republic Many monarchists or considerations of alternatives Profoundly reactionary group of extremely violent men used by socialist president to suppress revolutionary socialist and communist movements Ironies Paris 1919: A Peace Conference Followed Around the World World leaders more or less knew what would come next – ritualistic nature of European post-war affairs ○ Major conflicts being followed by major negotiations, conferences, congresses ○ Fix broken international system – European leaders to redraw map of Europe and establish international order From Westphalia to Vienna & in between Truly international in nature while European affairs and problems were the focus of the conference 1919 Paris – conference followed by people around the world – made possible by mass media Other things going on in 1919 – Spanish flu, worldwide pandemic ○ Significant wars, civil wars, conflicts playing out in Eastern Europe, Russia (Bolsheviks vs Reds vs Whites), etc. Woodrow Wilson – President of the US (1913-21) in attendance  ○ A realistic utopian – big ambitions; thinking US could change the world for the better through American agenda ○ A lot of people receptive to message – Wilson perceiving himself as saviour and others believing him Feeling weight of responsibility, feeling his words had been misinterpreted (self-determination not on his mind for everyone) ○ Impatience, desire to do good and help often came off as naïveté or arrogance Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France (1917-20) ○ Experienced politician; needed sharp tongue and elbows to defend oneself in house of deputies (as was the case in British Parliament) "Punchier" than other French politicians; belligerent, aggressive ○ Defending what he saw as France's vital interests; security of France after the war Pragmatic national self-interest vs another understanding of what international relations should be David Lloyd George, Prime Minister UK () ○ More similar to Clemenceau in agenda, but more personable – middle between Wilson & Clemenceau? ○ Did not have to worry about national security in same way as France due to island ○ Thinking about the electorate back home and whether they would re-elect Liberal party ○ "Bring the bacon home" – protect British interests The Key Players in Paris Some Latin American, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Japanese delegations China more or less boycotts PPC due to concessions made to Japan Discussions involving both large, powerful and small countries 3 countries involved in all big decisions in Paris ○ 3 men rubber stamping and making all decisions (4th in theory with Italy, but lower weight class) Rapid industrialization of northern Italy, but poorer south Included due to role it played in Entente side Orlando treated as 4th wheel Lack of French- or English-speaking ability, refusal to use interpreters Sizeable delegations of diplomats, military leaders, civil servants ○ Provide political master with information and advice ○ Working against the clock at a time when information is not as readily available  Little information about the situation on the ground in Eastern Europe, rubber-stamping redrawing of map Myth of bad decisions at Paris – in many respects, we do see bad decisions ○ Why did the Entente powers do what they did? Being completely cavalier Sometimes, they did not care about certain groups of people, particularly those far removed from themselves Hubris and arrogance Time constraints and limited information made things more difficult, however John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of Peace (1919) ○ In attendance as part of British delegation ○ Firsthand account of Paris Peace Conference Scathing criticism – contentious of most of the key players Clemenceau and Lloyd George charged as incompetent, Wilson as worse Idiot or corrupt moral monsters Reparation Payments Completely unreasonable? $850B USD today, $200B USD then – reasonable for Germany to pay back ○ A bonds, B bonds, C bonds ○ 1921 – people in power in UK, France, US – C bonds likely to never be issued Misunderstanding and myths Paris Peace Conference: The Treaties The Paris Peace Conference: The Treaties Making war likely or inevitable? A large number of statesmen show up for the PPC, a fairly modern phenomenon. Lacked a lot of information and the conference was rushed, it was not clear what was going to happen – the first meetings were supposed to be a “pre” conference to discuss how a conference of the kind might go, and decided it was better to get things started right away since so many people were already there. The process was not all that productive A council of 10 was meeting outside of the major discussion with everyone. Included the leaders of the entente and Japan, as well as the foreign ministers of those countries. Not a lot was accomplished and eventually replaced by the council of 4. ?