BLOOD, FIRE AND STEEL, WORLD WAR 1; SPECIAL EDITION ; 29TH JULY 1914. RUSSIA AND THE WEST IN CRISIS

RUSSIA  AND THE WEST TODAY , ORIGIN OF UKRAINIAN CRISIS

  As a preview to this special edition which is meant to mark 100 years since WW1 started, this writing wishes to revisit the present tension between the West and Russia on the issue of Ukraine and the former Soviet Republics in particular. The crisis is a fallout of issues that have created a perception that predates even WW1. The present Eastern Europe is made up of countries that in the 19th century were largely part of and  under the control of the Ottoman Turkish Empire which was virtually in a perpetual state of war with Russia which sought to free the Slav population of Europe from the domination of an Islamic state and  a middle eastern Caliphate.

Russia effectively in the 19th century destroyed the power of the Ottoman caliphate liberating and bringing into fresh subjection to the Russian empire, the majority of the Slav people of Eastern Europe. The Austro- Hungarian empire also rivaled Czarist Russia in wasting the Ottoman Turkish empire and creating a fresh hegemony over Eastern Europe  particularly over the territories of Hungary, Romania and the defunct Yugoslavia. In fact the Crimean war of  1853 was fought by Britain and France to prevent Russia from completely destroying the Ottoman Turks and creating its own hegemony over Europe especially after Russia completely destroyed the Turkish fleet  in the Black Sea seized the Crimea and threatened to completely deny  access to the Black Sea  to the fleets of both France and Great Britain in its bid to completely dominate the Ottoman Turks in the 1850's

Britain, the world's greatest sea power then. felt it couldn't take the Russian intransigence any further and decided to launch a joint sea borne invasion with France to seize the Russian Black sea port of Sevastopol and teach the Russians an unforgettable lesson and also protect the rump of the Ottoman Turkish empire still remaining. In fact the survival of the Ottoman Turkish Empire came to depend on the benevolence of the British Empire which chose to guarantee its independence until WW1 when Ottoman Turkey switched sides and joined sides with the Central Powers against the Triple Entente of France , Russia and Great Britain .

With the commencement of WW1, the Russians were once more given free reign to waste the Ottoman Turks and seize their territories together with the Slav possessions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Russia's defeat in the hands of Germany changed the game plan as she was forced by the 1917 treaty of Brest-Litovsk to shed all her Eastern European possessions including modern-day Poland and the Ukraine to the victorious Germans in 1917. Germany's defeat in 1918 once more reversed the equation as She was also forced to renounce the Brest-Litovsk treaty and relinquish to Russia all the territory except for Poland she had taken from Tsarist Russia.

The Allies in 1918 only recognized the independence of Poland but not Ukraine . Ukraine was recognised ipso- facto as part and parcel of Russia later the USSR. The post WW1 era could have been the best opportunity for the Allied Powers ,the USA included to guarantee the independence of the Ukraine if it had been important to them , but the issue never even came up as the British and the American government then were more interested in the independence of Poland and the Baltic states. The issue of the Ukraine being an independent state never even surfaced in the crafting of the Versailles  treaty. 

To cap it all in 1940 when the Hitler dictatorship had become a threat to Europe , Joseph Stalin was given a free hand to overrun the independent Baltic states of Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania in his bid to create a buffer between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Interestingly it was Nazi Germany albeit deceitfully that fought for the 'independence' of Ukraine leading to many Ukrainians becoming sympathisers and collaborators of the Nazi regime. The world must not also forget albeit regretfully that many of the Nazi death camps in Eastern Europe were manned by Ukrainian guards including the famous Auschwitz and Sorbibor .Ukrainian units fought actively with the Third Reich and many served in the SS and were involved in atrocities against civilians particularly Jews and other minorities .

The activities of the Ukrainians in actively collaborating with the Third Reich against the Russians was largely responsible for the abominable treatment Stalin meted to almost all Russian POW''s liberated from Nazi Germany, as instances of  collaboration was widespread. Western Ukraine fought on the side of Germany as provinces of Hungary and Romania. Ukraine as a nation for the first time in over 300 years became one  nation when its eastern territories were detached from Romania and Hungary and joined to its eastern province domiciled in the USSR by Joseph Stalin in 1945 after WW2 . The Russians have this basic distrust for the Ukrainian people that has made it difficult for them to concede to their joining NATO and yet remain their immediate neighbor.

This is a long-standing distrust the West must come to understand as forming part of the reason why an INDEPENDENT Ukraine as part of the Western alliance system is completely detestable to the Russian people and not just Putin . It will have to take some time for the Ukrainians to build the trust of the Russian people that they will not connive with foreigners to once more threaten Russia in a future conflict . A Russian diplomat once told me confidentially years ago that the Ukrainian people have a long history of betraying Russia and that is where the problem lies.

WORLD WAR 1

This was the setting when on June 28, 1914, Garvillo Principe, a Serbian nationalist assassinated the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke and heir apparent Francis Ferdinand alongside his wife Sophie as they drove in a motorcade on a state visit to Sarajevo a province of Serbia.

Though Serbia made serious efforts at re-approachment and conciliation with the Austro-Hungarian government, King Charles II of Austro-Hungary felt that the time was now ripe to teach Serbia a lesson and stop it from meddling in its nation’s internal affairs particularly as it touched on the issue of its treatment of its local Slav population.

Meanwhile, Russia ever protective of the Slav nations made it clear that it would defend Serbia should any conflict arise. The Austro-Hungarian government was determined to crush Serbia and imposed a series of conditions for peace that were designed to humiliate Serbia.

Though Germany initially tried to pacify both sides and settle the dispute peacefully, Russia’s antagonistic attitude towards both Germany and Austro-Hungary created further tensions when the Austro-Hungarians finally chose to invade Serbia.

Soon after this, Russia ordered a mobilization against Austro-Hungary as well as against Germany too. In early August 1914, Germany mobilized against Russia declaring war on both Russia and France her partner in the Triple Entente to whose defense she was committed to by virtue of the treaty obligation. Since the German plan of war involved having to attack France through Belgium, it invaded Belgium on August 4, 1914.

Britain, having no interest in the ensuing conflict except for its commitment to the defense of Belgium whose neutrality Germany had brazenly violated, promptly declared war on Germany. Within a short spell, save for Italy and Turkey all the major powers in Europe were engulfed in the conflict which became known as the Great War. Neither Belgian nor Dutch neutrality was respected by Germany.

The war was initially, generally well received in Europe and both sides expected to win believing that the war would be over in at most six months. Nobody knew that the stage was set for a long conflict (four years) that would turn out to be the most extensive and bloody conflict in European history claiming the lives of more than 20 million combatants and civilians.

       

WORLD WAR I AS IT AFFECTED EUROPE

German Soldiers at the Battle of Ypres

German troops in gas masks man an antiaircraft gun in October 1917 during the Third Battle of Ypres (also known as the Battle of Passendale) in Belgium. The German army first used poison gas at the Second Battle of Ypres, in 1915, during World War I.

Keystone Pressedienst GmbH

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The onset of World War I saw the great powers of Europe divided into two rival camps, with the Allied or Entente powers comprising of France, Russia, Great Britain and Italy later to be joined by the United States and Japan. The Central powers comprised Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

In order to keep our focus on the war as it affected European history at the turn of the century, we are going to focus on the main battles and turns of direction of the conflict as it progressed, but will reserve most of our observations for the peace moves; particularly the Armistice of November 1918 signed in France, because of its critical role in shaping Europe’s future and its role in preparing grounds for the next conflict to ensue after the Great War of 1914-18.

THE BALANCE OF POWER IN 1914

In 1914 Great Britain had the world’s largest navy and the largest fleet of merchant ships which eventually in the course of the war came to be known as the merchant fleet after it was armed. Credit must be extended to the seamen for the critical role the merchant fleet played in Great Britain’s ability to survive the German submarine net drawn around the country.

Germany had made the opening moves of the war in attacking, France through an incursion into Belgium which brought the United Kingdom into the war on August 4, 1914.

 Germany’s Schlieffen plan of battle produced by its Chief of General Staff Alfred Graf von Schlieffen who was in office between 1891-1905 required that the main thrust of its attack upon France was to bypass the French fortifications along the Franco-German border and to strike France through its border with Belgium.

That required an attack on Belgium that violated Belgian neutrality and drew Great Britain into the war. That attack rapidly overran Belgium leading to the occupation of Brussels by the Germans on August 20, 1914 and soon German troops were pouring into France across the Belgian border and across the French border.

This battle involved over two million German, Belgian and French troops. This continued until September 6, when the French army fought the defensive battle historically known as the first battle of the Marne’s.

German Soldiers on the Way to the Front

German soldiers march through the streets of Berlin on their way to the battlefront at the start of World War I in August 1914. Both the Allies and the Central Powers expected quick victory and greeted the outbreak of war with enthusiasm.

Culver Pictures

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 Likewise, the French attempt to enter the province of Lorraine and wrest it back from German control was thwarted when its 19 divisions were driven back by the German 6^th and 7^tharmies in the battle of Morhangue-Sarrebourg  (August 20^th – 22^nd).

 This engagement had a telling effect on the capacity of Alfred Von Molten the German Chief of the General to implement the Schlieffen plan whose major plank hinged on outflanking France through an attack across Belgium.

This was done with a view to out flanking the French defenses on the Franco-German border while whittling down the capacity of the French to resist the double envelopment that would eventually ensue when the German army also attacked directly across its border with France.

The weight of the thrust through Belgium was diluted by the diversion of six newly formed (Ersatz) divisions that had been formed to bring pressure to bear on the right wing of the thrust through Belgium and now had to be diverted to stem the French incursion into Alsace Lorraine. The German imperial Princes who commanded the field armies were far more interested in seeking personal glory than in the co-ordination of their joint efforts.

At a time when their two armies were ordered to fall back in the face of the French assault, the two Imperial Princes in willful disobedience to the imperial Headquarters ordered a counter attack by the 5^th and 6^th armies led by Crown Prince William of Germany and Prince Rupert of Bavaria respectively.

The result was that the French were forced back to their fortified defenses from where they were able to remain in defensive positions while switching forces to stabilize their lines in the face of the German offensive in the first battle of the Marne’s.

 The German offensive through Belgium almost succeeded simply because the Allies greatly under estimated the weight of numbers that the Germans would employ in the flanking move. While the Germans employed over fifty divisions in this move, the Anglo-French- Belgian forces totaled about 37 divisions. Meanwhile in tactical reality, the German armies were better trained, led and motivated.

 The reality of the strength of the German flanking move was soon to hit the Allied field commander, French Field Marshal Joffre. He however reacted with cool and precision in formulating on the spot, a new plan of attack and defense to counter the Schlieffen plan.

In a series of tactical moves that ultimately became a tactical blunder, Helmut Von Moltke, the German Chief of the General staff on sensing that the original plan was not working like it should, decided to improvise a new plan. The original plan had not been faithfully implemented as it was intended because of distractions, re-deployments of armies and refusal of the top commanders to exhibit faith in the plan as it were.

Schlieffen Plan and Actual Troop Movements

During World War I, Germany’s war plan was known as the Schlieffen Plan. The plan called for German armies to invade Belgium and sweep into France, moving south and west to capture Paris before pushing the French armies east toward the German border. When the German armies invaded France in 1914, however, they did not follow the plan and instead drove north and east of Paris. As a result, they did not go far enough west to capture Paris. Failing to carry out the Schlieffen Plan, Germany did not quickly defeat the French, and the war lasted for four more years.

© Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As the French and British commanders began to discern the German battle plan, their ability to deploy and move men to check the German incursions also grew.

The German powerful right wing thrust through Belgium meant to outflank and destroy the Allied armies according to the schflien plan had not been faithfully followed as some units were withdrawn by Moltke and sent to the Eastern front while some were sent to strengthen the attacks of the two Imperial Princes totally uncalled for, that ended up diluting the strength of the armies thrusting through Belgium and leaving them vulnerable to the British and French counter thrusts that ultimately halted the Germans on the Marne River 40 kilometers short of Paris. That notwithstanding, the German armies advanced right close to the French capital and at a point were just 40 miles from Paris by early September 1914.

Taxicabs Bound for the First Battle of the Marne

Taxicabs line up to carry French troops to battle. During the First Battle of the Marne in September 1914, the Allies attacked the German armies and pushed them north and away from Paris. French troops were rushed from Paris to the battle by any available means.

Culver Pictures

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

In a series of brilliant moves and orderly co-ordination between the French and British armies operating under the norm of British Expeditionary forces, the Allies were able to switch forces, block the path of the advancing forces and actually begin a well co-ordinated counter attack by the beginning of September that caused all the German forces converging on Paris to enter into a general retreat that became known as the first battle of the Marne’s.

Forces involved on the side of the Allies were the French 5^th and 6^th armies and the entire B.E.F force. This retreat saved Paris and ultimately France. For the rest of the war, Germany could threaten but no longer capture Paris.

The reason for the Allies success in the first battle of the Marne’s stemmed from the utter exhaustion of the German infantry advancing into France from Germany through Belgium into Germany. Many of them had walked over 150 miles on foot as the retreating French had destroyed roads, bridges and rail lines that the Germans could have used to convey their troops.

The Germans were also surprised at the resilience and tenacity of the French under attack and even in retreat. This was evident in the small number of prisoners taken by the German army in its westward advance into Belgium and France. At about this time, the assault of the German 6^th and 7^th armies across the Franco-German border was halted in a predictable fashion as the French resisted from their entrenched fortifications.

The German attempt at a flanking movement past the French stronghold of Verdun was also halted, and this led to its armies digging in along the banks of the lower Aisne River and the Chemin des Dames Ridge. The subsequent Allied attacks were continuously repelled as it became obvious that the defense seemed to be prevailing over the attack in this war.

The first battles of the Marne’s thus began the process of trench warfare that was to become the dominant trait and character of the First World War. The only option left to the Generals was to try to outflank the opposition, with the result that a network of trenches stretching all the way to the coast of Belgium on the Atlantic west of Ostend materialized as each tried to outpace the other in the race to the sea.

Through Paris was saved from capture after this great battle, granting the French some reprieve, the loss of a big portion of industrialized northern France, where the bulk of the industries, steel and coal mines lay; created a daunting prospect for the French in their pursuit of victory in the war.

Meanwhile, the Germans succeeded in capturing Antwerp on October 10, after a heavy bombardment that began on September 10, 1914. A subsequent Allied effort to outflank the Germans near Ypres through the efforts of the British expeditionary force (B.E.F) was also similarly met with a counter thrust on the path of the Germans on the Belgian lines near the River Aisne.

  The subsequent first battle of the Ypres, October to November 1914 was brought under control only after the opening of the dams on the Ypres River which flooded the path of the advancing Germans and turned Ypres into a muddy flood plain. With the consolidation of the French lines and fortification along the entire line of battle, the war settled into trench warfare. For the next three years the Allies repeatedly tried unsuccessfully to breach the trench lines.

On the Eastern front, the greater distances involved, and the disparity in the abilities and quality of the opposing armies made it more difficult to tie down any side in sustained trench warfare, as the Germans had proven their capability in penetrating the Russian lines whenever they wanted to in major frontal assaults, in spite of their extensive trench lines and defenses.

When the Russian Commander-in Chief Grand Duke Nicholas was pressured into launching an attack against the Central Powers from the East by his French Allies, he ordered two Russian armies to attack East Prussia.  Generals Samsonov and Generals Rennekampf led the Russian 2^nd and 1^st armies respectively in the onslaught. Although outnumbering the Germans 2-1, the attack lacked proper coordination as both Generals had mutual dislike and disrespect for each other.

Battle of Tannenberg

German soldiers in trenches stand by their machine guns during the Battle of Tannenberg. Germany and Russia fought the battle in August 1914. German troops crushed the Russian army in what became one of the most decisive battles of World War I.

Keystone Pressedienst GmbH

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The Germans though inferior in number, read the situation well enough to gamble on the fact that if they concentrated all their forces on the 2^ndArmy led by Samsonov, Rennekampt could be trusted not to come to his aid and vice versa. By so doing, the Germans took each Army apart consecutively, completely enveloped each in full scale flanking attacks and decimated each of them in the historic battles of Tannenberg in August 26-30, 1914.

The Russians never quite recovered from this defeat, and the loss of morale involved. At about this time General Paul von Hindenburg was appointed as Supreme Commander over the German armies with Lt. Gen Erich Ludendorff as his Chief of Staff.

German Commanders Hindenburg and Ludendorff

Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff played a central role in directing Germany’s military forces during World War I (1914-1918). At German headquarters, from left to right, Hindenburg discusses war plans with German emperor William II and Ludendorff in January 1917.

SuperStock

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

To achieve these victories on the eastern front, the Germans had had to withdraw two Army Corps (seven divisions) from the Western front and this lessening of pressure helped to facilitate the French defensive victories in the first battle of the Marne.

William II of Germany

When William II became emperor of Germany in 1888, he abandoned Germany’s cautious foreign policy and began competing with other European powers. He announced that Germany would begin to acquire an overseas empire and build up its navy. His actions alarmed both France and Britain. William II is shown here in the uniform of the “Death’s head Hussars,” a cavalry regiment.

Woodfin Camp and Associates, Inc.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 On the Austro-Hungarian front however, the Russians were more successful as the combined attack of the Austro-Hungarian  armies were not only stopped, but a Russian counter attack subsequently developed that was so serious as to require German intervention to prevent defeat for Austro-Hungary.

A fresh Russian effort to invade Prussian Silesia was mounted with the combined strength of seven Armies. The planned offensive was so massive that the word around the media world was that the Russian ‘steam roller’ was on the move, raising Allied hopes of a decisive breakthrough in the East.

The ingenuity of the German High command played off well as both Hindenburg and Ludendorff used the German railway lines to send off an army into Prussian Poland to drive a wedge between the advancing Russian armies; and with the subsequent arrival of four German Army Corps from the Western front, the offensive was halted in front of Warsaw along the Bzar-Rawker (River) lines.

Francis Ferdinand

The assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife, Czech Countess Sophie Chotek, precipitated World War I. They were killed by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, Bosnia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Culver Pictures

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The Russian Armies operating in Austro-Hungary were also forced to halt their advance along the Nida and Dunajec Rivers when their supplies ran out. Austro-Hungary’s initial offensive against Serbia launched in early August was brought to a halt by the able Serbian commander and lack of tactical skill by the Austrian officer Corps (August 21-24).

The Serbs launched an offensive of their own, but had to call it off to contain a second Austrian offensive in the west on the Drina River. A third offensive launched by the Austro-Hungarian army broke the deadlock and brought Belgrade under Austrian occupation by November 30, 1914 ; however Belgrade was retaken by the Serbs on December 15, 1914 and the Austrians were forced to retreat.

Germany’s pre-war influence and investments in Ottoman Turkey’s politics paid off when Turkey under the control of the Young Turks declared war against Russia and subsequently Britain and France after ostensible acts of hostilities against the Allies which included Turkish bombardment of the Odessa sea port and the closure of the Dardanelles straits. Russia and the Western Allies declared war on Turkey on November 1 and 3, 1914 respectively.

Soldiers from the Ottoman Empire

Soldiers from the Ottoman Empire march through a town. During World War I the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary in October 1914. The Ottoman Empire fought Russian troops in the Caucasus Mountains and British troops in the area now known as the Middle East.

Imperial War Museum

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Allied and Central Powers of World War I

Countries

Date Entered the War1

Allied Powers
Serbia	July 1914
Russia	August 1914
France	August 1914
Belgium	August 1914
British Empire2	August 1914
Montenegro	August 1914
Japan	August 1914
Italy	May 1915
San Marino	June 1915
Portugal	March 1916
Romania	August 1916
United States	April 1917
Cuba	April 1917
Panama	April 1917
Greece	July 1917
Siam (now Thailand)	July 1917
Liberia	August 1917
China	August 1917
Brazil	October 1917
Guatemala	April 1918
Nicaragua	May 1918
Costa Rica	May 1918
Haiti	July 1918
Honduras	July 1918
Central Powers
Austria-Hungary	July 1914
Germany	August 1914
Ottoman Empire	November 1914
Bulgaria	October 1915
1 Some countries entered the war although they did not send troops. 2 Included self-governing dominions of the British Empire: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

THE EUROPEAN WAR AT SEA 1914-1915

BLOOD FIRE AND STEEL; EUROPE'S POLITICAL DIRECTION 1850-1890 Chapter 10

EUROPE’S POLITICAL DIRECTION- 1850-1900

In the late 19^th century the politics of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom began to shape and define the politics of Europe. Nationalism had become a major force in Europe and political thinking began to alternate between socialist and conservative thinking.

The socialists began to represent progressive thinking particularly one which took into account the interests and welfare of the working class like happened in France towards the close of the 19^th century.

The collapse of the monarchy and the setting up of the Third Republic in France reverberated with consequences throughout Europe.

 The stage was thus set for the era of free elections, sovereign parliaments, emergence of political parties with both left and right leanings, universal male suffrage which was already being accomplished in many countries particularly Britain by 1880.  Belgium, Italy and Austria took a longer time in the granting of universal suffrage to men in 1914 before the outbreak of The First World War.

In Germany, Bismarck was at a continual loggerhead with the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Center party during the 1870s and did not come to terms with them until much later in the decade. His attempts to outlaw the socialist party was only rebuffed and overcome after he left office in 1890.

In France, the Dreyfuss affair involving the trial of a Jewish French officer called Colonel Alfred Dreyfuss charged with treason pitted the conservative Catholics and military establishment in a struggle over what direction France should take and the need to separate the authority of the Church and State.

 The entry of the radical Republicans and the socialists in the mêlée charged the polity and led to a heated debate as to the future of the Third Republic. The pro-Dreyfuss forces won the struggle and forced the separation of Church and State by 1905 reducing the influence of the Catholic Church on the French government and the involvement of the Church in national politics.

This era of reform also saw the rise of Church based groups that tried to mitigate the effects of extreme capitalism on the less endowed by investing in social causes such as charities, orphanages and social welfare causes.

Groups such as the Salvation Army arose in Britain in 1878 to engage in social missions with a view to practicalising the virtues of the gospel. Pope Leo XIII proclaimed new policies to encourage Roman Catholics to come to terms with the new political order, whereby institutions like parliaments, a free press, and universal suffrage were fast becoming the order of the day.

The ordinary people were encouraged to persevere in the face of the excesses of capitalism and a political liberalism that Europe had never experienced before. The period 1870-1914 saw the alternating swing of power between moderate conservatives and liberal forces that were more concerned with the effect of the government policies on the lives of the individual rather than on the pursuit of Grand National aspirations as was associated with the moderate conservatives.

Both groups however, tended to mute their differences when confronted with bigger and more demanding national issues. The pursuit of reforms, liberalization of the political system and safeguarding of the rights of individuals and workers was one platform that the contending parties tended to agree upon.

As the emerging groups began to find a more common platform to fight national and social issues, (except for a small group of radical politicians who came to view parliamentary rule with great suspicion), the next big challenge emerged from the growing socialist movement that anchored its program on the right and need for workers to take over the means of state planning and production through whatever means they deemed necessary including revolution.

As the 19^th century came to a close, even the radical wing of the socialist parties in the main European states, began to realize that their vision was best harnessed through participation in the political process. The ideas of violent change as founded in the doctrines of Karl Max were beginning to be muted in favor of an evolutionary process of change and reform.

The socialists in furtherance of their Marxist beliefs had taught that the working class and the ruling class were locked in a great class conflict that could be resolved only with the working class seizing the instruments of state power, establish proletarian control and unseat the forces of capitalism from the realm of political power.

The rise in universal suffrage gave the socialist parties in Europe the platform they needed to win mass support and introduce their beliefs into the political system. This in itself played down the need to agitate for violent overthrow of government in the bid for reform at any cost.

As dialogue, collective bargaining and the electoral process continued to make political changes possible in a civil manner, many of the leading socialist groups and reformers began to embrace the idea of change through dialogue and the electoral system. Newspapers, mass literacy efforts and social activities helped to push the message forward.

By the 1880s, Germany’s socialist parties had begun to win wider support for their policies in the face of the anti-socialist stand of the Bismarck years. By 1900, the socialists had become a major political force gaining over two million votes in key elections and holding onto a considerable minority of seats in the German parliament as deputies. By 1913, the German socialist party pulled four million votes to emerge as the largest political group in the country.

Socialist parties in Austria, the Scandinavia and the Low Countries made similar gains. France and Italy, where the socialist parties were more fragmented and ideologically incompatible saw a slower growth in number; though by 1899, a socialist became a cabinet member shocking orthodox Marxists who forbade collaboration between socialists and bourgeois politicians. By 1913, France had more than 100 socialists seated in parliament.

In Britain, the socialist movement though strong from the start was less ideological and found expression in the new labor party that emerged to carry the socialist inclinations along.

Though labor had its roots in strong trade unions in the 1890s and saw its base grow among the working class, its inherent defense of the working class against the extremes of capitalism naturally bequeathed to it the mandate to carry the socialist flag. Though labor did not win any national election as it lagged behind the liberal party, yet by 1914, it came to rank as one of the major parties.

In many countries, the socialists became a sizable minority winning municipal and parliamentary seats which gave them the opportunity to implement welfare policies among the urban poor and also enforce their ideologies and policies in all the places they controlled. They were able to put the social question on the political map ahead of the constitutional issues that had hitherto reigned.

As the reactionary forces of conservatism came to dread the spread of socialist ideologies, the success of the movement also began to soften the pressure put on society by the leaders.

 By the end of the 19^th century, Germany began to be visited by revisionist thinkers who argued that socialism could be accomplished without revolution while encouraging accommodation between the socialists and leftist-leaning workers and political groups believing that gains could be achieved piecemeal and gradually without rocking the political boat.

REFORMATION OF THE 19^TH CENTURY SOCIETY

As the political spectrum experienced changes and the effects of the new industrial society began to re-order the priorities of governments in the 1890s, the need for universal literacy and enlightenment became a major issue in the public domain.

 It became the norm in Europe for governments to insist on universal basic primary education in order to inculcate the skill of writing and reading across the entire populace. Mass education and universal literacy became a major plank of government policy and investment. It was obvious, the industrial society was being driven on the twin planks of literacy and specialized skills acquisition that required serious investment in basic education.

It was also obvious that a government with an educated populace could more easily sell its programs and build on the nationalistic goals it needed to set. Nationalism became a vital ingredient of the new educational curriculums that were set. The use of national languages to create a national orientation of the populace became the standard practice.

Together with mass education, was the widening of the scope of military training and conscription that gained wide acceptance all over the continent with the exception of Great Britain? The victories of Prussia in its European wars fought in the second half of the 19^th century lent a handy agreement to this view. The state bureaucracies were also expanded to give governments more direct control of the civil populace.

Government control of schools, hospitals, industries, economic activities, border patrols, issuance of travel documents, regime of visas, introduction of tariffs and levies, control of national borders, pension schemes and elaborate welfare schemes became the order of the day bringing government closer and in more direct control of the populace.

As the scope of education, checks and controls, welfarist policies and the civil service brought a new definition of nationalism, stateism and central control became more of the norm in European politics bringing a new concept of the state, an unparallel development in European history.

PRE WORLD WAR 1 DIPLOMACY AND POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS

By the end of the 19^th century, the political map of Europe had been roughly drawn along a system of alliances, power groupings and blocs. This complex system of political alliances and groupings divided Europe into two power blocs, armed and ready to defend its nationalist interests. The idea of one Europe had not yet crystallized.

Germany at about this time had begun to construct a large navy designed to guarantee its place in the comity of nations as a great imperial power. This together with its rapid pace of industrialization left Great Britain feeling threatened. France sat astride a huge colonial empire but its nationalistic aspirations especially in the face of the humiliating loss of Alsace-Lorraine were yet to be fully pacified.

In the rise of Japan in the Far East, Russia encountered a major opponent determined to check Russia’s expansion into China and Korea and the Orient in general. This state of affairs precipitated the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 resulting in defeat for Russia and Japan’s ascension in Korea and predominance in China. This turn of events forced Russia to gaze once more at the Balkans as a theatre of expansion while turning its gaze away from Asia.

The fragile and tenuous peace in Europe was further compromised with the forced removal from power of Europe’s major stabilizing force, Otto von Bismarck in 1890 as the Chancellor of Germany by Emperor Wilhelm II who on coming to power sought to rein- in and curb the power and prestige of the very influential Chancellor.

The exit of the experienced Bismarck in the hands of a young, inexperienced but ambitious Emperor, placed the political situation in Europe in the form of a tinderbox waiting for a spark to ignite. To compound the situation, Germany failed to renew its alliance with Russia upon the expiration of its treaty of 1887 in 1890 and France seized that opportunity to reach an understanding with Russia in the late 1890s.

Britain equally fearful of Germany’s increasing naval power chose to swallow its pride and come to an understanding with its long standing rival and competitor France when the triple Entente with Russia, France and Britain was formally signed in 1907, leaving Europe  in the grip of two mutually hostile rival political camps.

In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina causing tension between it and Russia as well as Serbia who particularly felt that the two annexed territories rightly belonged to her. In 1912, Russia supported an attack on the Ottoman Empire by a loose confederation of the Balkan states that were resolved to free themselves from the domination of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and win over Macedonia.

Though the Balkan states won, they were soon engulfed in internal strife and discord following the second Balkan war in 1913. The situation further intensified the hostilities between the Balkan states particularly Serbia origin.

                

BLOOD, FIRE AND STEEL; ELEMENTS OF THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY CHAPTER 9 ygically, the social structures too began to change. The peasant class though evolving continued to yield and adapt to the new and more modern structures coming up. In the Scandinavia, peasants began to be organized along the lines of co-operative societies while marketing their goods in the urban areas, thereby strengthening and improving their marketing strategies while still holding on to their lands on an individual basis. As the level of awareness and education grew, more peasants began to practice better and more modern farming techniques, alongside newly introduced crops, improved seedlings and fertilizers. This trend also helped them to organize better unions that helped to fight for improved rights and government protection. As the standard of living of the peasantry continued to improve, the social order began to be defined in terms of the working class rather than as factory hands and farm workers. The growing and more complex economic structures began to create its own idiosyncrasies in terms of white collar and blue collar jobs. The blue collar ranks produced a class of workers who though educated were still different in orientation from the factory workers though facing the same innovation in working tools that were gradually becoming more complex and sophisticated. The division between blue and white collar jobs also reflected in the divide in the pay structure between the two groups and their affiliations in terms of trade unionism. At the top of the social order was a new aristocracy that began to take shape in the form of an upper class of industrialists, corporate magnates, Entrepreneurs and Estate holders. This new class dominated and controlled most of the political and economic processes in the agro-industrial sector alongside the heavy industries that churned out coal, steel and armaments. Big corporate structures founded around individual and family profiles began to be monopolistic in nature, creating such controlling concerns as to warrant government intervention in preventing completely monopolistic entities like the Krupp steel family in Germany etc. These big time business barons also tended to strengthen the power base of the ruling class whether autocratic or democratic as their weight and contributions became so immense as to make it almost impossible for any individual, group or party to attain to political power without their support and financial backing. The rise of organized labor and mass protests increased. As the 19th century progressed and workers enjoyed more income, prosperity and leisure, a class conflict ensued as the rapid pace of work and production forced the workers to adopt measures to protect their collective interests. As the corporate structure and management style were designed to extract as much profit and labor from the workers as possible, the workers likewise began to come together in groups and unions to strengthen their collective bargaining power. Unionization became more common as society and parliaments began to adjust to the pressures for liberalization of working conditions, improvement in conditions of work and living and pressure for the upholding of fundamental human rights even in the places of work and manufacture. Political hindrances to unionization and better labor practices were removed as parliaments all over Europe began to make laws protecting and upholding the rights of the working class. Parliaments were under pressure from the growing political power of the working class that was being entrenched by the adoption of voting rights for the working class all across Europe. The women suffrage movement also gained momentum all across Western Europe and the rights of the ordinary people increasingly strengthened over and above the rights of governments. Following the failures of the 1848 revolutions, the 1850s constituted a period of relatively calm labor relations. In Britain, skilled workers formed a union known as new model unionism that promoted peaceful dialogue and respectability. This movement gave rise to a number of durable unions that innovated and improved strategies for bargain and negotiation. The move towards national unions also increased at this time as more workers gained skills and experience in trade union matters. The economic down turn in the 1870s exposed a lot of workers to the hardships and uncertainties that existed without a bilateral arrangement with management in terms of protection for workers in times of difficulties. Mass unionism spread all over Europe as workers and management bargained for a collective and stable policy designed to safeguard the interest of workers in times of difficulty. The power of strikes became evident as dock workers, coal workers and other classes of workers came together to press for better working conditions and wages. In 1892 French workers embarked on a strike 261 times against 500 companies. By 1906, the year of the greatest pressure before 1914, 1309 strikes took 438,000 workers off the job. In Britain, more than 2 million workers were involved in strikes between 1909 and 1913. These strikes revealed the growing power of labor unions which played a major role in shaping the political landscape of Europe. The trend in labor union formation was such that mass unions and trade federations ballooned and spread all across the continents and groups such as the British Trade Union Congress and the French and Italian general confederations of labor emerged. The unions also endeavored to cushion their members materially and socially apart from engaging in strikes. The role of the unions in shaping the face of organized labor in Europe was unprecedented. The scale of union membership was overwhelming as practically all trades and skills came under the umbrella of one trade federation or union. With so many people aligned with unions, the threat of withdrawal of labor and strikes became the key weapon in conduct

ELEMENTS OF THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY

As societies progressed socially and technologically, the social structures too began to change. The peasant class though evolving continued to yield and adapt to the new and more modern structures coming up.

 In the Scandinavia, peasants began to be organized along the lines of  co-operative societies  while marketing their goods in the urban areas, thereby strengthening and improving their marketing strategies while still holding on to their lands on an individual basis.

As the level of awareness and education grew, more peasants began to practice better and more modern farming techniques, alongside newly introduced crops, improved seedlings and fertilizers. This trend also helped them to organize better unions that helped to fight for improved rights and government protection.

As the standard of living of the peasantry continued to improve, the social order began to be defined in terms of the working class rather than as factory hands and farm workers. The growing and more complex economic structures began to create its own idiosyncrasies in terms of white collar and blue collar jobs.

 The blue collar ranks produced a class of workers who though educated were still different in orientation from the factory workers though facing the same innovation in working tools that were gradually becoming more complex and sophisticated.

 The division between blue and white collar jobs also reflected in the divide in the pay structure between the two groups and their affiliations in terms of trade unionism.

At the top of the social order was a new aristocracy that began to take shape in the form of an upper class of industrialists, corporate magnates, Entrepreneurs and Estate holders. This new class dominated and controlled most of the political and economic processes in the agro-industrial sector alongside the heavy industries that churned out coal, steel and armaments.

Big corporate structures founded around individual and family profiles began to be monopolistic in nature, creating such controlling concerns as to warrant government intervention in preventing completely monopolistic entities like the Krupp steel family in Germany etc.

These big time business barons also tended to strengthen the power base of the ruling class whether autocratic or democratic as their weight and contributions became so immense as to make it almost impossible for any individual, group or party to attain to political power without their support and financial backing.

The rise of organized labor and mass protests increased. As the 19^th century progressed and workers enjoyed more income, prosperity and leisure, a class conflict ensued as the rapid pace of work and production forced the workers to adopt measures to protect their collective interests.

As the corporate structure and management style were designed to extract as much profit and labor from the workers as possible, the workers likewise began to come together in groups and unions to strengthen their collective bargaining power.

Unionization became more common as society and parliaments began to adjust to the pressures for liberalization of working conditions, improvement in conditions of work and living and pressure for the upholding of fundamental human rights even in the places of work and manufacture.

Political hindrances to unionization and better labor practices were removed as parliaments all over Europe began to make laws protecting and upholding the rights of the working class. Parliaments were under pressure from the growing political power of the working class that was being entrenched by the adoption of voting rights for the working class all across Europe.

The women suffrage movement also gained momentum all across Western Europe and the rights of the ordinary people increasingly strengthened over and above the rights of governments. Following the failures of the 1848 revolutions, the 1850s constituted a period of relatively calm labor relations. In Britain, skilled workers formed a union known as new model unionism that promoted peaceful dialogue and respectability.

 This movement gave rise to a number of durable unions that innovated and improved strategies for bargain and negotiation. The move towards national unions also increased at this time as more workers gained skills and experience in trade union matters.

The economic down turn in the 1870s exposed a lot of workers to the hardships and uncertainties that existed without a bilateral arrangement with management in terms of protection for workers in times of difficulties.

 Mass unionism spread all over Europe as workers and management bargained for a collective and stable policy designed to safeguard the interest of workers in times of difficulty. The power of strikes became evident as dock workers, coal workers and other classes of workers came together to press for better working conditions and wages.

In 1892 French workers embarked on a strike 261 times against 500 companies. By 1906, the year of the greatest pressure before 1914, 1309 strikes took 438,000 workers off the job. In Britain, more than 2 million workers were involved in strikes between 1909 and 1913.

These strikes revealed the growing power of labor unions which played a major role in shaping the political landscape of Europe. The trend in labor union formation was such that mass unions and trade federations ballooned and spread all across the continents and groups such as the British Trade Union Congress and the French and Italian general confederations of labor emerged.

The unions also endeavored to cushion their members materially and socially apart from engaging in strikes. The role of the unions in shaping the face of organized labor in Europe was unprecedented.

The scale of union membership was overwhelming as practically all trades and skills came under the umbrella of one trade federation or union. With so many people aligned with unions, the threat of withdrawal of labor and strikes became the key weapon in conducting trade relations and negotiations.

The activities of the trade union soon began to take on a political dimension, as in some cases workers unions soon snowballed into major political parties like the labor party in Britain. Many of the unions also adopted socialist policies and doctrines and went to the ideological left, where they found themselves romancing with socialist/communist doctrines and ideologies.

In Germany and Austria, the Socialist movements were fanned more by the leftist- leaning trade union movements. In other places like France and Italy a growing syndicalism ideology began to blossom as trade union leaders began to see the rising power of the unions as a political tool that can be used to change political leadership and transform the basis of political and economic direction.

The competing trend was to see the power of the unions in terms of struggles for better wages and shorter working hours. The leadership of the unions was quite pragmatic in their demands, and eventually did not yield to the push for a change to the social and political order.

 The pressure for reform also led to its own excesses as labor unions also became platforms for pushing through less- holistic practices like antisemitism which blamed the Jews for most of the labor issues associated with ownership and control of the big companies, and this was particularly so, in countries like France and Germany.

The struggles of labor also culminated in a women’s rights movement that took inspiration from the success of union- labor negotiations. The social condition of women did not greatly change in the second half of the 19^th century except for the noticeable decline in the birth rate.

Universal basic education of women at primary levels had brought the female literacy levels to comparable male levels by 1900. A growing percentage of women had secondary education and a number made it through the universities and professional education.

Women’s colleges were also founded in Oxford and Cambridge and a few women survived the hostile terrain to emerge as doctors, lawyers and even professors. A larger percentage however were able to gain access into new job cadres as telephone operators, primary school teachers and nurses which many entered into before marriage.

These trends however did nothing to change the social attitude that a women’s place lay primarily in the home. However, a women’s feminist movement arose, that began to press for equal rights for both sexes, particularly the right to vote.

This movement in Britain snowballed into the women’s suffragette movement that became a mass movement involving millions of women whose pressure and agitations began to change the social order, societal thinking and government policies by the close of the century.

Massive demonstrations, petitions, strikes and sit-ins by women came to dominate the political landscape of Europe which experienced drastic changes at the close of the 19^th century.

EUROPE’S POLITICAL DIRECTION- 1850-1900

BLOOD, FIRE AND STEEL 150 YEAR OF EUROPEAN HISTORY; Conditions in South East Europe in the twillight of the 19th century; chapter 8

CONDITIONS IN SOUTH EAST EUROPE IN THE TWILIGHT OF THE 19^TH CENTURY

The conditions of workers in Eastern and Southern Europe differed significantly from the conditions of their counterparts in the west, in that the spate of industrialization in the west was far ahead of Eastern and Southern Europe; coupled with the yawning gap in the standard of living. The gap that spawned in the early and late 19^th century is yet to be bridged till date.

Indeed there were significant improvements in the welfare and future of the middle class and upper class in these parts of Europe as industrialization belatedly caught on. For instance, in Russia, women and men were able to find opportunities that were fast becoming available in the economic and educational sectors.

In the area of local arts and crafts as well as printing and other related professions, the level of growth was just about the same as in the rest of Europe. However, while agricultural mechanization was becoming prevalent in the West with the subsequent emancipation of peasants in the East and South, conditions in Eastern Europe remained just about the same. Peasants and farm workers remained in the East and South in fairly squalid conditions.

Rapid population growth left many peasants and workers with little to live on as pressure on land both for agricultural and industrial purposes grew. The result was mass emigration of those classes of workers from Eastern Europe, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy to the New World particularly the United States and Canada.

This was also accompanied with serious issues of political and economic unrests as strikes and demonstrations became rampant. These challenges were felt more acutely in Russia where the defeat experienced during the Crimea war in the hands of the Great Powers drove Russia into a heightened pace of modernization and industrialization.

The Russian monarchy and government embarked on radical reforms that included the abolition of the manorial system by Alexander II in 1861 whereby the Serfs were allowed to own the land on which they grew crops. This was accomplished through the issuance of the Emancipation Act and Manifesto.

This Act sought to deregulate the labor market while protecting the landed interests of the nobles. As a result, the nobility still retained most of the best lands and were compensated for the loss of the servile labor of the serfs. The serfs on the other hand, while technically owners of the land still paid dues and levies to the State on the profit from their labor.

This arrangement while strengthening the peasants and increasing production in these lands also led to many of the peasants moving into the cities and urban places in search of non-agricultural work in the factories and shops available. The taxes and levies imposed on the peasants continued to remain a source of unrests and concerns.

The Russian government in 1870s also started a program of industrial growth and expansion. The height of it was the expansion of the railway tracks to cover Siberia running across the entire country. Factories were built and property ownership was encouraged even in foreign hands while a few local industrialists also emerged.

The pace of industrialization however did not match the pace of economic returns and this led to many violent protests as workers detested their poor working conditions. The unrest strengthened a group of men who were increasingly becoming vocal and forceful in the idea that the working class should unite and endeavor to take over the reins of control of labor and production.

 The agitation for a working class-ruled and dominated society increased tension and led to violent agitations for the end of aristocratic and autocratic rule. These tensions coupled with the rising spate of industrialization created an impetus for reform and liberalization of the political process, which were not granted.

 Czar Nicolas II was not a man with vision and understanding. His half-hearted measures of parliamentary and economic reforms coupled with his strong autocratic tendencies did not go down well with the Russian people.

The measures he embarked upon instead helped to swell the ranks of agitators for political and economic reform. Soon the rank of these agitators was made up of the intelligentsia, lecturers, students, civil society, members of the armed forces and politicians including some elements of the aristocracy.

These agitations were led by a notable Marxist known as Vladimir Tillich Lenin whose revolutionary tactics and strategies were built around the need to overthrow the ruling class and entrench a political system where workers controlled the government and the instruments of labor and production.

This novel direction reached its climax at the beginning of the 20^th century, with Russian industrialization on the one hand moving side by side with political divisions and instability.

THE EMERGING INDUSTRIAL STATE

During the second half of the 19^th century, the rising spate of industrialization coupled with increasing political awareness began to change the way society operated and the expectations of the people from the political process.

The trend towards participatory democracy and improvement in the lifestyle of the working class began to make a major demand for change on societies that had remained rigid, inflexible and stratified for centuries.

The emancipation of the peasant class through a process of increased knowledge, acquisition of new skills, exposure to new industrial ideas and practices led to a heightened demand and expectation for reform in the political class and institutions that governed Europe.

The wind of change blowing across Europe in the second half of the 19^th century was met with stiff resistance on the part of the political leaders and the Roman Catholic Church who fought to preserve the status quo.

 The emergence of a conservative government in Prussia at this time coupled with the efforts of the papacy to strengthen the existing governments against the palpable wind of change were to end up in only strengthening the resolve of the people for a new direction in European affairs.

The proclamation of papal infallibility in 1870 could not stop the agitation for changes in the political and economic conditions of the people, particularly the working class. The defeat of the revolutionary moves in 1848 was seen by many as an opportunity to make changes without necessarily changing the existing social order.

Among the statesmen then, was voiced the need to make liberal reforms designed to strengthen the economic base of the workers without liberalizing the process of governance.

Thus in Britain, the conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, pushed in 1867 a bill through parliament that granted most urban workers the right to vote in order to soften the pressure for more drastic political reforms that included the agitations for  universal suffrage.

His aim of course, was to expand the popular base of his political party. In France, Napoleon III while starting on an autocratic note began to yield to the pressure to liberalize the political system by granting wider press freedom, increasing parliamentary power and increasing the freedom of thought and speech.

In the Prussian government, attempts were made to mediate with the leading nationalist movements by promoting a freer and more efficient bureaucracy. In Austria, the creation of separate parliaments for the purposes of sustaining the Dual monarchy temporarily eased tensions among the major nationalities while putting the Slavs under greater pressure to press for reforms and freedoms for the Slav-speaking peoples of Serbia Montenegro.

The pace of reform-minded conservative rule was particularly noticeable in Italy and Germany. The Italian state of Piedmont in early 1850 was led by an able Prime Minister Camillo de Cavour who promoted a system of social reforms that included conciliatory liberals by sponsoring economic development programs coupled with the granting of personal liberties.

His nationalist endeavors triumphed with the defeat of Austria in 1858 where Piedmont allied with France, drove Austria from the province of Lombardy. The resulting nationalist sentiments helped to unite the Italian states under a new Italian nation under King Victor Emmanuel. The new state had a parliament and was able to fend off the attacks of the Roman Catholic authorities by uniting the nationalist agitation under new political groups that emerged thereby.

The events in Italy partly motivated the young chief minister in Prussia, Otto Von Bismarck who similarly began a campaign for political reform and nationalist stirrings with a view to uniting the German states into one German nation under Prussia. This was achieved in the 1860s after the defeats of Austria in 1866 and France in 1870.

 This had been preceded by the defeat of Denmark in an earlier conflict that saw the restoration of the German provinces of Holstein-Schlesinger previously under the control of Denmark. The victories recorded led to the uniting of the German states under the Prussian King Wilhelm I. A new parliament was instituted with both lower houses with universal suffrage, and an upper house dominated by the Prussian nobility.

Although the appointment of ministers was still vested in the crown, freedom of speech and the press were expanded alongside religious liberties which were also extended to the Jews, whilst government retained the ultimate right to political freedom and direction.

These developments radically changed the political map of Europe creating a new direction in state nationalism and an impetus for a reform of the monarchical system. Power was gradually but finally flowing to the people, the working class and the peasantry through a system of reforms of parliamentary and voting rights.

 The reforms were also to lay a basis for a new definition of nationhood across Central Europe and produce a passion for nationalist sentiments that would cut across to the middle of the 20^th century. The new passion for nationalist sentiments over and above royal and monarchist sentiments would define the future of Europe for decades to come.

 It was becoming quite clear that the evolving modern states were distilling a process whereby political freedoms were being channeled into nationalist sentiments that still stressed the divisions rather than the unity of the European polity laying a foundation for a destructive nationalism that was soon to engulf the continent in two major wars in the 20^th century.

In France, defeat in the war of 1870 coupled with the rise in nationalist sentiments led to the fall of the monarchy, the rebirth of Republicanism, the emergence of a free parliament and the empowerment of the working class. The collapse of the empire soon gave birth to new crises as the pro- royalist forces were dispersed after the fall of the Paris commune system in 1871.

The birth of the Third Republic in France helped to change the constitutional structure in Europe as free parliaments, voting rights, free speech, free press became the norm of the day.

The doctrine of separation of Church and State was also vigorously enforced and the institutions with state power began to be more controlled by secular forces particularly in the guise of political parties that looked more to the people particularly to the ordinary people for direction and support.

The rise of personal freedom set a new direction for European politics as the powers of the state were increasing wrested from the Crown and Church and placed squarely in the hands of the people in an increasingly democratic fashion.