Syllabus:
(i) Rise of Nationalism in 19th century (ii) Nationalism: Italy; State-building in Germany
Comparison of Unification in Italy and Germany (i) 19th Century European revolutions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19th Century European revolutions
Congress of Vienna after defeat of Napoleon at Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The victors were fourth coalition and the leadership was of Metternich.
European or Vienna Order of 1815 (3 Principles) | Limitation of Vienna C | Consequences of Vienna C |
Balance of Power - France 1789 Piedmont Sardinia with House of Savoy | Anti-people (absolute regime) Anti-democracy (ancient regime) | European Rev of 1830 and 1848 - ideals of FR and Napo could not be wiped |
Legitimate Rule - F bourbon dynasty in F, Spain, Naples-Sicily; | Anti-national (foreign rule in Italy) | Political Unification of Italy - Piedmont Sardinia under I rule |
Victors Rewarded - Russia (<- Finland, Poland, Besarvia) Austria (<- Lombardy & Venetia + Rhine Confed.) | Unnatural union of territories | 1st Phase of process of German U - 39 Rhine states |
39 Rhine states (amalgamated by N) could not b restored to 300 states. |
|
|
“The characteristic motive of this period (1830-1871) was not so much Liberalism as Nationalism.” Comment. [1982, 20 Marks]
“The whole episode that is known as the July Revolution (1830) was fought and won not for the establishment of an extreme democracy but to get rid of the aristocratic and clericalist attitude of the restored Bourbons.” Critically examine. [2015, 10 Marks]
Charles X came to power in 1824 after the death of Louis XVIII. He was the younger brother of Louis XVIII, who upon the defeat of Napoleon I, and by agreement of the allied powers, had been installed as King of France.
Louis XVIII had adopted moderate policy to balance different factions but when Charles X came to power the reactionary policy prevailed.
He decided to restore the old regime by undoing the work of Revolution. He based his government on the pretensions of divine right and conducted it in the interest of clergy and the nobility at the expense of popular liberty.
Many privileges were restored to the clergy and a large sum of money was voted to indemnify the nobles for their losses during Revolution.
The Jesuits were allowed to return and penalties for sacrilege and blasphemy were increased.
Matters came to a crisis when he appointed a most reactionary ministry headed by Polignac. At Polignac’s insistence he issued four ordinances in July, 1830:
Suspension of Press Liberty.
Dissolving the Chamber of Deputies.
Changing the Electoral System.
Reducing number of Voters.
These ordinances effectively meant revocation of the Constitution. Protests and demonstrations were followed by three days of fighting, the abdication of Charles X, and the proclamation of Louis-Philippe as “king of the French”.
The July Revolution was by no means a widespread popular rising. It was more in the nature of a coup. Though there were sections who had demanded true democracy or Republican form of government, the revolution was precipitated mainly due to Charles X’s pro-clerical and pro-aristocrats policy and not due to any radical demands from the populace.
The July Revolution was conceived by the upper middle class, or bourgeoisie who did not want to lose the liberty and equality they got after French Revolution. After Revolution, the upper middle class, or bourgeoisie, secured a political and social ascendancy but there was no step towards the establishment of extreme democracy which could give political and social power to all, including lowest sections of society.
What is Metternich system? Assess its impact on Europe.
Metternich was an Austrian Statesman who dominated the politics of Europe from 1815 to 1848 so much that this period is called the “Age of Metternich” and his policies are called the “Metternich System”.
Metternich stood for ultraconservative and absolutist politics. He set up an oppressive police state within the Empire in order to maintain the old absolutistic monarchy. It was the age of censorship, bureaucratic interference, spies and occasional arrests for expressing revolutionary thoughts. This early dictatorship came to be known later as the Metternich system.
On the one hand, Metternich’s politics saved the Habsburg Empire from crumbling in the early 19th century. On the other hand, the Austrian chancellor became the most hated man of Austria-Hungary.
“For a tired and timid generation Metternich was the necessary man.” Comment. [1993, 20 Marks] - According to British historian Professor Alison Phillips.
At his time, Metternich was the necessary man for Europe in general and Austria in particular for the following reasons:
Metternich had many attributes of a great political leader, a brilliant and engaging presence, a cool head, a vast comprehension of diplomatic affairs, a firm and futuristic will.
At the crisis of Austria’s fortunes, (during the final struggle with imperial France during Napoleonic time), everyone was wavering and despairing. It was he who gave to Austria policy the vigorous and certain direction which enabled him afterwards to be called as “conqueror of Napoleon”.
Austrian intervention proved to be the decisive factor in the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 against Napoleon. Due to the decisive part played by Austria, under Metternich, the Vienna was chosen for Congress.
By Congress of Vienna, he established peace in Europe for 40 years. In his absence, Europe would have been enveloped by revolutionary wars which might have caused bloodshed.
For a long time, Metternich decided as to how events were to shape themselves in Europe and this was instrumental in preserving peace and stability. In 1824, he stated that, “they look for me as Messiah”.
Metternich’s policy was directed by the needs of preserving Austrian empire. It was held together by no constant principle expect common obedience to a single law. Metternich fully realised that the unstable equilibrium of the Austrian Empire would be upset by popular or nationalist agitation. So from the Austrian point of view, the maintenance of status quo became of supreme importance.
Metternich knew fully well that democracy and nationalism were not likely to succeed as an integrating policy. Therefore, he sought to base Austrian stability on the status quo and an international alliance of like-minded rulers.
In Foreign affairs, Metternich sought to achieve his main aim of preserving status quo in Europe and of checking revolutions. He had supported France in crushing Spanish revolt. His reactionary policy brought stability during his tired and timid generation.
Shortcomings of Metternich System:
British historian Prof Alison Phillips says, “Metternich failed to recognize that while he himself was growing old and feeble, the world was renewing its youth”.
His status quo and reactionary policies had hostility to the desires and aspirations of the people. Metternich set the desires an aspirations of the people. Metternich set himself to suppress the nationalist and democratic movements of Germany and Italy, to counter the aspirations of the people of the Balkans for independence.
If he never came to terms with the new age it was not because he failed to understand the seriousness but because he disdained it. Metternich was in a real sense the victim or prisoner of his age.
His genius was instrumental, not creative: he excelled in manipulation, not construction. He was merely and intriguer and opportunist. Napoleon said of him that he confused policy with intrigue.
His policies were only temporarily successful in saving old regime. He himself had to admit that he was fighting for a lost cause. In spite of the efforts of Metternich the old regime was doomed and could not be saved.
“Most of the European Revolutions of 1848 were nationalist as well as popular insurrections against foreign rule and repressive policy of Metternich.” Comment. [2008, 20 Marks]
The first is the overall discontent in Europe at the time. The second is the large tide of liberalism in Europe, and the third is the large sense of nationalism created by foreign rule and hopes of unification.
There's an old saying that goes something like this: 'When France sneezes, all of Europe catches a cold.' Although there are a few different versions of this saying, they all mean pretty much the same thing - if something starts brewing in France, it usually ends up affecting all of Europe. Perhaps never has this saying proved truer than in the bloody year of 1848. Not surprisingly, the first of this year's revolutions occurred in France as the middle class, also known as the bourgeois, grew more and more intolerant of King Louis Philippe and his aristocratic cronies.
Discontent at poor governance and life was a major cause of the Revolutions of 1848. Bad harvests and economic depression in the years leading up to the 1848 created massive discontent throughout all of Europe, and food riots were common. Unemployment was also created due to the economic crisis.
The Sicilian uprising in February 1848 gave hopes to all Italians who wanted one united Italy. They saw this revolution as a chance to unite the nation, and this caused revolutions to rise up in various cities, such as Milan, where bitter fighting initially forced the Austrians out of the city. Foreign rule was also a major cause of revolution in Hungary in 1848. Hungarians were unhappy at Austrian rule, and in March took to the streets demanding autonomy from Austria.
Liberalism was present in all places that experienced revolution during 1848. Firstly, in the Sicilian uprising, the revolutionaries, as well as revolting against the misrule of their leader, were revolting against the repressive society in which they lived, and demanded the installation of the liberal and democratic 1812 constitution.
The repressive nature of the French government and their decision to stop free speech was the major cause of the Paris Revolution. In Austria, the repressive system of Prince Klemens von Metternich, which can be seen with the exceptionally rigid Carlsbad Decrees of 1819, was despised by the masses, and after the Paris Revolution, the people took the chance to revolt. This forced the resignation of Metternich.
“The Crimean War was the most useless war ever waged.” Comment. [2000, 20 Marks]
In short, Russia was expanding into the Danube region – Romania today. This was under Turkish control. Therefore, Turkey and Russia went to war in 1853, and the following year Britain and France – fearful of Russian expansion – became involved.
Britain and France did not like to see Russia pushing down into the Danube region. They feared Russia would continue pushing down, and eventually come into British India through Afghanistan.
Religious tensions also played a part. Russia made an issue of the fact that the holiest sites in Christianity – Jerusalem, Bethlehem etc – were under Turkish control.
The Crimean War was an important event in the history of Europe after the Congress of Vienna.
But many historians and politicians have criticized the nature of this war and they have regarded it as a useless modern war of Europe. In the words of Robert Morier, "The Crimean War was the only perfectly useless war that has been waged."
As a matter of fact, the Crimean War did not prove to be a permanent solution of the Eastern Question. The war was followed by a treaty called the Treaty of Paris. The provisions of this treaty could not remain permanent.
The Sultan of Turkey never carried out the promise which he had given at Paris for improving the condition of the Christian population living in Turkey. C. D. Hazen remarks:
"As a solution of the Eastern Question, the war was a flat failure. The promise of the Sultan that the lot of his Christian subjects should be improved was never kept. Their condition became worse."
The main aim of the war was to weaken Russia for ever. She was insulted in the war and in the Treaty of Paris. Several restrictions were imposed upon Russia with a view to preventing her attempts to increase her influence in the east.
But Russia could never forget her humiliation. England and France also could not get any advantage from this war. The consequences of the Crimean War proved disastrous for the allies too.
It is, therefore, said that the Crimean War was quite useless and it might have been avoided. J. A. R. Marriot has expressed his opinion as follows: "If the Crimean War was not a blunder, it was a crime and ought to have and might have been avoided."
State-building in Germany
The characteristic motive of this period (1830-1871) was not so much Liberalism as Nationalism.
Assess the contribution of Bismarck to the unification of Germany.
“The political unification of Germany was accomplished solely by Bismarck.” Comment. [1999, 20 Marks]
Bismarck a product of Militarist Environment | Rise of Bismarck | Bismarck vision of German Unification |
Revolution of 1848 and German Unification
Failure of liberal methods in achieving German unification had disenchanted German Nationalist. This disenchantment of Nationalism with Liberalism had paved the way for emergence of Militarism. In Germany, Bismarck was the product of this militarist environment. | William I became full-fledged king in 1861 and was -
Bismarck had by now developed the reputation of a strong German Nationalist. | He wanted -
Thus, it is said, Bismarck did not fight his way to carry out unification of Germany but he used the issue of Germany to fight his war. |
“It is one of the ironies of history that Napoleon was the creator of modern Germany.” Comment. [1984, 20 Marks]
“Napoleon kindled the national sentiment, but German unity was achieved by Bismarck.” Discuss. [1981, 60 Marks] [2002, 60 Marks]
Was German unification achieved more by ‘coal and iron’ than by ‘blood and iron’? [2012, 30 Marks]
“The Unification of Germany was the one thing Bismarck was determined to prevent.” Comment. [1987, 20 Marks]
Napoleon and German Unification | Student Organisation and Philosophers | Zollverine (Customs Union) | Bismarck and German Unification |
In 1806, Napoleon had imposed the Peace of Pressburg (after defeating Austro-Prussian Forces in battle of Austerlitz) and with this peace treaty -
Napoleon introduced number of reforms in line with F.R.
It is one of ironies of history that Napoleon was creator of modern Germany. | Role of BURSCHENSHAFT
Role of German Historians and Philosophers
Note: German nationalism was largely an urban phenomena. Level of awakening among vast German people of rural areas was quite low. | Established 1819 by German state under leadership of Prussia. By 1834, all German states except Austria joined it.
Success of Zollverine resulted in significant economic progress in Germany -
Success of BISMARCK POLICY of BLOOD and IRON had depended to a large extent on forces of COAL and IRON (Economic strengthening coming from Zollverine). | Bismarck was a - Strong nationalist.
Bismarck was a Prussian first and German later. He wanted to carry out Prussianization of Germany and was strongly against Germanisation of Prussia.
Bismarck was greatest obstacle in way of German Unification and German unification was one thing he was determined to prevent. |
“Bismarck created a new Germany with the policy of ‘blood and iron’.” Comment. [2001, 20 Marks]
Bismarck is considered as the Architect of the German Unification who with his shrewd diplomacy and skills of war, played an important role in creating a new Germany. He was an autocrat and believer of war to decide upon the future of Prussia and Germany. His policy of Iron and Blood were rather suited to the circumstances under which the unification has to be carried.
At the time of Congress of Vienna (1815) which was supposed to redraw the boundaries of Europe after the Napoleon’s war, Germany was made a confederation of 39 states under the leadership of Austria, which was against the popular sentiments of the people of Germany.
In order to unify the various states, Prussia, who was the largest and strongest state among them took a lead with Bismarck as its prime minister. He took great efforts to strengthen the army (even at the cost of refusal from Landtag, the Prussian Assembly) in order to fight with Austria.
The strength of Prussian army was tested in war with Denmark when he not only procure the province of Schleswig but only trapped Austria for an inevitable war.
His diplomacy was best reflected in war with Austria when he made sure that France, Russia and Italy are either neutral or supporting Prussia in War. The Northern German confederation was complete with this war.
The war with France was the most decisive and winning the same completed the unification of Germany.
Bismarck though is called opportunist and a shrewd diplomat who thought nothing but powers of Prussia and Germany, his role in unifying Germany and giving it a new shape can’t be undermine. Sardar Patel, who after independence, played similar role in unifying India is rightly known as the ‘Bismarck of India’.
**Coal and Iron = Economic Unification; Iron and Blood = Political Unification. Both played role at different time.
Isolation of France constituted the keystone of Bismarck’s foreign policy. Elucidate. [1997, 60 Marks]
There were five powers in Europe: Germany, Britain, France, Austria and Russia.
France was bitter at her loss in the recent war and Britain did not wish to get involved in European affairs.
A resurgent France, powerful and allied to another European power haunted Bismarck. The main aims of Bismarck’s foreign policy were based around the need to keep France isolated and prevent this from happening.
To achieve this aim he needed to keep on good terms with both Austria and Russia. This would prevent a two-front war in the future.
In 1873 the formation of the Dreikaiserbund (the League of the Three Emperors) between Germany, Austria and Russia was an example of Bismarck’s policy of isolating France. This was an alliance of three conservative monarchies designed to stop the spread of revolution in Europe and preserve the status quo in Europe.
However the alliance had little substance. There were no military features to it as Austria refused to agree to any. It did however ensure co-operation among the three Eastern powers rather than rivalry which was Bismarck’s primary objective.
“To Bismarck the conclusion of the Treaty of May 20, 1882, was the culmination of this system.” Comment. [2004, 20 Marks]
Bismarck Negotiated and signed in May 1881, the Triple Alliance brought Italy into the alliance previously agreed between Germany and Austria- Hungary (in 1879) as a counterweight to France and Russia. Under the provisions of this treaty, Germany and Austria-Hungary promised to assist Italy if she were attacked by France, and vice versa: Italy was bound to lend aid to Germany or Austria-Hungary if France declared war against either.
Additionally, should any signatory find itself at war with two powers (or more), the other two were to provide military assistance. One of the chief aims of Bismarck was to prevent Italy from declaring war against Austria- Hungary, towards whom the Italians were in constant dispute over territorial matters.
The treaty was the result of Italy's isolation after the French occupation of Tunis and also a reflection of popular demand for security against radicalism and the prospect of intervention by other powers in behalf of the pope. The Italians wanted above all a treaty of guaranty, assuring them of the possession of Rome.
Although regularly renewed up until the outbreak of war in 1915, the Triple Alliance was essentially ineffective with regard to Italy's participation, for in 1902 (just five months after the latest renewal of the Alliance) Italy reached an understanding with France that each would remain neutral in the event of an attack upon the other.
“I shall not see the world war, but you will, and it will start in the near East”—-Bismarck. Elucidate.
Otto Von Bismarck one of the greatest statesmen and diplomat of Prussia and Chancellor of unified Germany from 1871-1890 took up the unique policy of ‘isolation of enemy’ for the cause of German unification.
His masterly display of "realpolitik" in creation of alliances coupled with isolation of enemy led to counter- alliances among major European powers of contemporary times indoctrinated suspicion,hostility among them and led to arms race finally building up the crescendo for the world war arising out of series of trifle issues in Balkan nations.
This policy aggravated the wounds of France and Russia who lost their territories due to the defeat in wars with Germany in the past. Bismarck was very well aware that this policy is going to cost heavy for the entire world.
Bismarck first wanted to eliminate major threat Austria for the unification of Germany. But after the war he turned friendly towards Austria. He supported the claims of Austria over Balkan states. The Serbians were against the Austria’s control over them. Russia supported the Serbia’s self determination. This in future became the prime factor for initiation of a war as a consequence of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand from Austria when he was on visit to Serbia, which turned into a world war.
France lost its territories Alsace and Lorrain in 1870, was eagerly waiting for taking revenge on Germany. Bismarck's continuation of isolation of France deepened this rivalry. With the formation of triple Entante by 1907 France, England entered the war from the Russian side against triple alliance (1882) -Germany, Austria ,Italy. The entering of major European powers into the war and with joining of USA war became a world war. By that time Bismarck had died.
Thus Bismarck‘s anticipation of consequences of his foreign policy proved right. His prediction “I shall not see the world war, but you will, and it will start in the near East” came true.
Nationalism: Italy
Trace the various stages that led to the Unification of Italy between 1848 and 1870. [1980, 60 Marks]
Trace the course of the movement for Italian Unification from 1848 with special reference to the contribution of Mazzini. [1983, 60m]
What were the obstacles to Italian unification till 1852? How and with what methods was the unification of Italy achieved? [1993, 60m]
These events can be broken down in five stages: Pre-Revolutionary, Revolutionary, Cavour’s Policy and the Role of Piedmont, Garibaldi’s Campaign in Southern Italy, and the creation of the Italian Kingdom.
I. Pre-Revolutionary Phase:
After the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon Bonaparte’s second defeat, the major powers that has resisted met at a conference called the Congress of Vienna in
1815. The topic of discussion was to limit France’s power, set limits on nations so no one nation become too strong, and divide up the territory conquered up by Napoleon. In its negotiations, the congress returned domination of the Italian Peninsula to Austria. Austria now occupied Lombardy and Venice and had considerable influence on other Italian states. One of the few places of independence was the Kingdom of Sardinia, which now controlled Piedmont, Nice, Savoy and Genoa.
II. Revolutionary Phase:
People with a passion for unification started to form secret societies, namely the Carbonari. The soul and spirit of the Carbonari and the revolutions was a man named Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini was an idealized who wanted not only wanted a united Italy, but an Italy with a republican form of government.
III. Cavour’s Policy and the Role of Piedmont
After the numerous failed uprisings throughout Italy, Camillo di Cavour became the prime minister of the Piedmont (Kingdom of Sardinia) in 1852. By the use of bargaining, putting great powers against each other, war, and political cunning, Cavour was able to unite Italy in a short time.
Cavour had a strong belief in scientific and economic progress, and was a firm supporter of unification. However, he did not share the same republic views as Mazzini and Garibaldi. In Cavour’s view, unification needed a strong state to lead, namely Piedmont. And Piedmont can only become strong with railroads, economic freedom, stable finances, and a higher standard of living.
In order to achieve his goals, Cavour needed the help of a strong ally, the leader of France, Napoleon III. France proved to be a good partner because it was a traditional enemy of Austria and any loss of Austrian influence would be beneficial.
IV. Garibaldi’s Campaign in Southern Italy
If Mazzini was the soul of the unification process, then Garibaldi was the hero. In early 1860, he started to gather volunteers in Genoa for an expedition to Sicily. Although the Garibaldi Red Shirts were less skilled and ill equipped, they were a tremendous success. They occupied Sicily within
two months and already Garibaldi was setting his eyes on mainland Italy.
In 1860, two thirds of the Papal States joined Piedmont and Rome was left alone. As the Piedmontese army bypassed Rome and the remaining Papal States and marched south, Garibaldi would surprise everyone with one of the most memorable gestures in history. On September 18, Garibaldi gave up command of his army and shook hands with Victor Emanuel II, signifying the unity and formation of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861.
V. Creation of the Italian Kingdom
The missing parts were Rome and Venetia. But an opportunity arrived and Venetia was annexed in 1866 post Seven Weeks’ War between Austria and Prussia. Austria promised Venetia if Italy stayed neutral and Prussia promised Venetia if Italy joined them in the war. Italy decided to join Prussia due to a previous agreement.
In October 1870 Rome voted to join the union and in July 1871, it became the capital.
“The unification of Italy completed…the destruction of the European order.” Comment. 20m [1997, 20 Marks]
According to A.J.P. Taylor, “The unification of Italy completed what the Crimean War had begun; the destruction of European order. Metternich system depended on Russia’s guarantee; once that was withdrawn, the system could be overthrown.
Mazzini was the spiritual fore of the Italian resurrection, the prophet of a state that was not yet. Comment.
About Mazzini - revolutionary nationalist philosopher of Italy. His ideas inspired emergence of modern Italian nation during 1860s. Contribution of Mazzini in creating that state = Italy. Worked for more than 50 years to create unified Italy. 1st effort visible in Revolution of 1830. This efforts failed.
When Rev broke out in Fr in 1848, again Mazzini inspired Italians to come together under Charles Albert of Piedmont Sardinia.
Ideas - Republican in character, Nationalist, Popularised common elements present among diverse characteristic culture. In 1831, he organized Young Italy. Thus spirit of sacrifice for cause of motherland was propagated by him. This efforts made by Mazzini awakened the masses. It was because of this awakening that Cavour's method of plebiscite could be successful.
"Mazzini’s conception of Italian nationality was not exclusive and his dominant ideal was the recreation of moral unity of mankind.” Critically examine. [2015, 10 Marks]
After the collapse of the Carbonari movements and the 1830 uprisings, it was Mazzini who most insistently preached the cause of Italian unity. His revolutionary society, ‘Young Italy’, founded in 1831, was the chief agency through which he sought to educate his compatriots.
Mazzini’s geopolitical thinking and activity revolve around three fundamental points: the Nation, the people and humanity.
Mazzini’s conception of Italian Nationality:
According to him, independence, unity and liberty – this last to be secured through a republic – must be the triple goal.
Through the republic the nation would be integrated by totality of citizens speaking the same language, associated together with equal political and civil rights.
For him nationalism was never divorced from liberalism, although its basis was partly linguistic. On that basis might lead him to say: ‘As far as this frontier your language is spoken and understood: beyond this you have no rights’.
Mazzini’s ideal to recreate moral unity of mankind: His conception of Italian nationality was not exclusive. He gave the idea of 3-fold unity:
Unity of Man – was to overcome the dispersion of modern man in an industrialized mass civilisation.
Unity of nation – was to bind all the free individuals of democracy into a community of liberty and equality.
Unity of mankind – was to assure the peace and collaboration of all nations.
Mazzini said: “Where France failed in not supporting the Italians in 1830, Italy would show men how to use their new-won freedom aright.” He believed that a free nation should help other to get freedom. This will create moral unity of mankind.
Mazzini was one of the first proponent of European unity: after the failure of Young Italy’s revolutionary attempt in Piedmont in 1833, Mazzini founded a still more ambitious society called ‘Young Europe’ which met on 15 April 1834 to draw up a pact of fraternity, a kind of holy alliance of the youth of the nations to fight for liberty, equality and fraternity.
According to Mazzini, ‘Every people has its special mission, which will cooperate towards the general mission of Humanity. That mission is its Nationality. Nationality is sacred’.
Like Young Italy, Young Europe was soon involved in unsuccessful revolutionary activity.
But although both societies were doomed to failure and Young Europe in particular was a typically utopian product of romantic internationalism, they set an example which was imitated far and wide, from the groups calling themselves Young Ireland and Young Serbs in the 19th century to the Young Turks or Young Chinese of the 20th Century.
So, Mazzini’s concept of moral unity of mankind was partially successful.
“They have stopped me from making Italy by diplomacy from the North, I will make it by revolution from the South.” Comment. [1985, 20 Marks] [2005, 20m]
The statement was made by Count De-Cavour, the Italian prime minister of Sardinia, while he was on his mission of the unification of Italy. He proved to be a great diplomat who used his skills in the international cooperation, European diplomacy and warfare in order to unite various parts of erstwhile Italy.
With the efforts of diplomacy and war by Cavour, France under Napoleon – III agreed to help Sardinia against its struggle with Austria who held the Northern areas of Lombardy and Venetia of Italy and certain other areas being ruled by Austrian royal family. The Southern areas of Silicy and Naples etc. were being ruled by Bourbon dynasty of France.
However, the struggle resulted in a unilateral ceasefire and treaty of ‘Villa Franca’ which only helped annexing Lombardy and not Venetia.
Frustrated by the failure of his Northern diplomacy, Cavour then supported the ‘Red Shirts’ of Garibaldi in helping the people of Naples and Silicy in throwing the yoke of Bourbon dynasty. He was the mastermind behind sowing the seeds of discontent and inspire the people for a referendum in order to merge themselves into North Italy.
Hence, Count De-Cavour, in his selfless pursuit of unifying Italy and shaped it an independent and sovereign state, used his diplomatic and militaristic skills fully supported by his king Victor Emmanuel II which paved the way for complete unification of Italy with the accession of Rome in 1870 and being declared as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.
“The comparison between Cavour’s and Bismarck’s achievements reveals ‘striking points of resemblance and no less striking points of dissimilarity.” Comment. [1990, 20 Marks]
The unification of Italy and that of Germany constituted a contrast in respect of the ways they were affected and impact they left on later international politics. Elucidate. [1995, 60 Marks]
“The language of narrow nationalism held at Frankfurt destroyed the German Revolution; as the fatal idea of aggrandizement of the House of Savoy destroyed the Italian Revolution.” Discuss. [2014, 20 Marks]
Here it says that Italian Revolution failed both times as the nationalism / republic was not ready. Piedmont was not strong enough to lead Italy against Austria. It was with arrival of Cavour that Italian Revolution / Unification could be complete.
0 Comments