THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
. . . in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. . . . 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. . . . 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State . . . 8. Equal liability of all to labour. . . .
- KARL MARX and FRIEDRICH ENGELS,
Manifesto of the Communist Party ( 1848).
Je suis un partisan convaincu de l'égalité éconamique et sociale . . . je pense que l'égalité doit s'établir dans le monde par l'organisation spontanée du travail et de la propriété collective des associations productrices librement organisées et fédéralisées dans les communes, et par la fédération tout aussi spontanée des communes, mais non par l'action suprême et tutélaire de l'État.
- MIKHAIL BAKUNIN,
Préambule pour la Seconde Livraison de L'Empire Knouto-Germanique ( 1871).
We are about to ask how it is possible to conceive the transformation of the men of to-day into the free producers of to-morrow working in manufactories where there are no masters. . . violence enlightened by the idea of the general strike. . . .
- GEORGES SOREL, Reflections on Violence (trans. 1914.)
Russia is declared to be a Republic of Soviets of Workmen's, Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the power in the centre and in the provinces belongs to these Soviets.
. . . private ownership of land is abolished, and the whole land fund is declared common national property and transferred to the laborers without compensation. Inheritance, whether by law or by will, is abolished.
- Decrees of the Soviet Government of Russia, 1917.
AFTER the middle of the nineteenth century the progress of socialism in Europe was increasingly rapid. It was spread abroad by the powerful writings of Karl Marx,
Progress of socialism in Europe
by the teachings of his associate Engels, and by the labors of disciples, notable among whom was the brilliant Ferdinand Lassalle in Germany. In 1871 it received a setback in the overthrow of the Commune of Paris, which Marx had hoped would succeed. Moreover, the socialists, in the presence of their own vast doctrines, began to split up into different creeds, and by the beginning of the twentieth century it was often difficult for outsiders and even for adherents to determine just what socialism meant. None the less, meanwhile it continued to go forward, especially in Germany and in France.
Failure the Paris Commune
In the course of this time other social doctrines had been preached, of which the more important made much progress. Some of them developed alongside of socialism or even in opposition to it; others were the outgrowth or extension of socialism itself. About the time when Marx began doing his work a Frenchman, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, revived and extended the teachings of predecessors in France, that government interfered with the liberties and thwarted the happiness of most of the people, and that property was acquired by plundering the mass of the people. His most famous work, Qu'est-ce que la Propriété? (What is Property?), published in 1840, declared that property was theft. He believed that man's happiness could best be obtained under anarchism, absence of government and governmental interference. Like many others who have taught extreme and subversive doctrines, Proudhon was a theorist, kindly and humane; but his doctrines were taken up by bolder and more violent persons, who undertook to accomplish great reforms by getting rid of existing governments, and who strove to destroy governments by murdering their principal officials. Under Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian, and his followers, anarchism spread horror and dread throughout Europe. In the course of a single generation a tsar of Russia, an empress of Austria, a king of Italy, a president
Other social doctrines: anarchism
of France, a premier of Spain, and even a president of the United States, fell victims to anarchist assassins.
Marx was almost from the first bitterly opposed to the teachings of Proudhon; and socialism and anarchism have continued to be widely separate, embodying very different theories of organization. The anarchists would destroy all authority above, so as to establish complete and extreme individual freedom. The ideal of the socialists was that the state, reorganized, should control all collectively or for the common welfare of all the people. Upon the great body of men anarchism never had more effect than to excite wondering curiosity or terror; and it never did much to affect socialist theories or methods.
Anarchism and socialism
But socialism was affected by a radical movement from within. In the course of the half century that passed after the time when Louis Blanc and Karl Marx began teaching, socialism gained in greatness and importance, and many of the more moderate reforms advocated by its adherents were slowly obtained. Great and obvious evils remained, however, some of which were not remedied because it was not known how to amend them. During this period many of the more moderate and practical socialists abandoned their extremer theories and took part in the politics of the states where they lived, hoping thus to better conditions by sustained and constructive effort. But it was obvious that after two generations many of the things foretold by socialist leaders had not come to pass, and slight prospect was seen of bringing them about as things for the most part were then going. Accordingly, as is ever the case, the bolder, the rasher, the more fiery and impatient, proclaimed that existing methods never could effect fundamental betterment, and that the important changes which socialists desired must be obtained by very different devices.
Discontent with the progress of socialism
In France, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, appeared leaders who proclaimed that the great goal of
socialism was to be reached not through slow, patient work and persuasion but through violence and force; not through efforts in legislatures, which were the creations of the middle classes, who always controlled them, but through direct action of the workers themselves. As parliaments had been devised by the middle class, so had the working people created an institution peculiarly their own, the trade union, which they really controlled, and which was their particular means of bringing desired changes to pass. The new movement was soon known as syndicalism, from syndicat (trade union). It spread rapidly into other countries, and across the ocean into Canada and the United States, where its adherents styled themselves Industrial Workers of the World (I. W. W.). "Direct action" by trade unions
Syndicalists proposed to render the workingmen's unions more powerful by making them larger and more comprehensive. They would organize into one big union all the workers employed in a single industry, and then make powerful alliance of the large groups. In time of need workers who resisted their employers could be supported by their brethren in gigantic strikes, or even general strikes, which would paralyze the transportation and industrial life of the nation. It was in France that these ideas were most strikingly carried out, though they were tried also in Russia and England. In the years 1906-9 several efforts, only partly successful, were made by French workers to paralyze opposition by means of great strikes, and in 1910 an effort was made to stop all railway traffic. But the railway strike failed when the government mobilized the strikers for military service on the railways, thus putting them in effect under martial law; and on other occasions not all the workingmen joined, and many citizen volunteers took the place of the strikers. Syndicalist workmen were taught that there must be no real peace even in the time when no strikes were going on, but that capitalism must be damaged and diminished by
Objects of syndicalism
Unceasing industrial warfare
secret, continual destruction; that laborers must do less work than they were paid for, and that they must injure the product and hurt the machinery whenever they could. Since on one occasion, it is said, certain French workmen beginning a strike had thrown their wooden shoes (sabots) into the machinery to ruin it, this destruction was known as sabotage.
The extreme views and often the violence of the syndicalists not only awakened great apprehension wherever they made themselves known, but aroused suspicion among some of the socialists themselves. Syndicalism really proposed to bring about some of the most important reforms which socialists had originally taught; but syndicalist methods and the results they strove for were very different from what many of the socialists now supported. In the early years of the twentieth century the syndicalist leaders in Liverpool, in Dublin, in Paris, in Barcelona, and elsewhere, hoped to bring about the suppression of capitalism and the taking over by workmen of property and the means of production, so that the railways, factories, and mines should be owned and managed by the laborers for their own profit and advantage. Some of them hoped for a new organization of the state, which should be but a group of industries or unions of workers, controlled completely by the laborers within them. All this, if necessary, should be done by revolution and force.
Socialism and syndicalism
In Germany socialism had been carried forward by Ferdinand Lassalle, disciple of Marx and son of a wealthy Jewish merchant. Lacking the profound mind and intellectual reach of his master, he nevertheless possessed such brilliancy and charm that he made friends of officials like Bismarck and attracted a large following among the workmen of his country. In 1863 he founded the General Workingmen's Association. Before much came of it he was killed in a duel, but in 1869 the Social Democratic Party was founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht and August
Socialism in the German Empire
Bebel. Socialists were regarded with suspicion and dislike by the government of the new German Empire, stern laws were passed against them, and presently some of the things they demanded were done by the state itself with the hope of lessening their influence and weakening their power. Nevertheless, their numbers grew rapidly until at last they had the largest following of any party in the country, though many who were not socialists, but merely liberals and moderates, voted with them. Shortly after the Social Democratic Party was founded it received more than 100,000 votes; in 1912 it had more than 4,000,000. The party was ably led by Bebel, who displayed great skill in the reichstag, and became one of the striking orators of his age. For a long time it could do no more than be a party of opposition and protest; but after the fall of the German Empire at the end of the Great War a German republic was established, partly upon a socialist plan. In Austria-Hungary also socialism made some progress; but not till the beginning of the twentieth century did a socialist political party attain any importance there. This was partly because Austria and Hungary, with respect to industrial development, lagged behind their neighbors to the north and the west, and partly because in no other great state was the population less homogeneous, more divided by race and religion.
In France also socialism had had rapid growth, though with more violent upheavals, which were followed by reaction and repression, so that development was greatly retarded. A socialist movement in 1848 had led to a fierce uprising in Paris, which was quelled after terrible fighting. The capture of Paris by the Germans in 1871 was almost immediately followed by the establishment there of a commune, which, had it been maintained, would have been a socialist community only loosely connected with the rest of France. But against it the conservative people and the peasants of the rural districts rose, and
Paris was again captured after a siege more terrible than that endured at the hands of the Germans. There was much destruction of property and life, followed by great and merciless vengeance. For a time the socialists were completely crushed, and socialism was entirely discredited in the eyes of most of the people of France. But after at while communists who had been sent into exile were allowed to return, and gradually socialism gained strength again. For some time French socialists were divided into parties, especially under Jules Guesde, who in Germany had studied the Social Democratic organization, and who was a follower of Marx, and under Jean Jaurès, the greatest and most accomplished orator of his time, who advocated gradually socializing the means of production. In 1904 the different factions were united, and ten years later the French Socialist Party received 1,500,000 votes. In France socialism was supplemented and extended by the syndicalist doctrines, which spread outward to neighboring countries, especially to Spain, to Italy, to Great Britain, and to Ireland. In Belgium, Italy, and in Spain socialist and syndicalist doctrines had considerable effect and got much attention.
Overthrow of the Commune, 1871
In Great Britain, where the Industrial Revolution had begun and attained greatest growth, where Robert Owen and his associates had taught some of the first of the socialist doctrines, and where Marx had spent the best of the years of his life, socialism developed more slowly than in Germany or France. This was due very largely to the temperament of the British people, long accustomed to slow change and improvement, and always distrustful of the usefulness of theories and general ideas. For more. than a generation in the British Isles socialism made scarcely any progress. In 1880 William Morris, the poet, and H. M. Hyndman, followers of the teachings of Marx, organized the Social Democratic Federation, which drew no large following, however. Three years later the Fabian
In Great Britain
Society was founded by a group of intellectual leaders, including the well-known writers on economic history, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the Anglo-Irish dramatist, G. B. Shaw, and the prolific minor novelist, H. G. Wells. They proposed to follow the "Fabian" policy of gradually getting political parties to accept and carry through social reforms. Presently socialism began to affect the labor organizations, and in 1893 a trade-union leader organized the Independent Labor Party, whose members hoped that socialism might be brought to prevail in their country. By 1914 British socialists, increasingly numerous and active, were advocating as a matter of course the abolition of capitalism and wages, the taking over by the state of the great industries, like mining and transportation, and the control of the lesser ones by the workers themselves. During the time of the Great War, confronted with the immense danger that threatened the destruction of Great Britain and the British Empire, these doctrines, though much talked of and written about, were by most of the workingmen of Britain thrust away into the background. But after the victory, when the enemy was powerless, in the midst of the want and discontent that followed the destructive conflict, socialism and syndicalism seemed to take possession of a greater part of the population than ever before. Accordingly, some observers declared that the Labor Party would in the future get control of the government and attempt to reform the state by the application of socialistic ideas. And there were not wanting those who affirmed that what was called bolshevism had much more chance of being established in Great Britain, where the majority of the inhabitants were an industrial proletariat, than in a country like Russia, where almost all the people were peasants, uneducated and not progressive. It was very probable, however, that here as elsewhere, what seemed like powerful tendency toward sweeping social changes was to a considerable
The Fabian Society
Growth of British socialism after 1918
extent merely the unrest and the ferment following inevitably in the wake of the war.
In Russia, likewise, socialist doctrines had been taught, but for a long time they had seemed to be of slight importance there, since in Russia there was little industrialism. Even after the Russian industrial revolution had done its work, the overwhelming body of the people continued to be agricultural workers, isolated, uneducated, conservative, and moved only by desire to obtain a larger share of the agricultural lands. Nevertheless, it was in Russia that the most complete and thorough-going experiment in socialism was tried. During the misery and confusion which overwhelmed that country in the latter part of the Great War, the old system completely collapsed. In 1917, after a revolution had overthrown the old government, certain socialists, led by Nicolai Lenin and Leon Trotzky, forming a group called the Bolsheviki, seized power and maintained themselves. They then decreed some of the sweeping changes which Marx had long before hoped would come to pass. Private property and inheritance were abolished; land, capital, transportation were nationalized; and it was decreed that all people should work. By this time all over the world radical leaders were loudly proclaiming that socialism was the hope of the future, and that bolshevism was destined shortly to overthrow what they called the outworn systems. For the moment it appeared to many that the Russian Revolution was the most striking event since 1793, and that bolshevism held untold possibilities for good or for evil in the future. But it is probable that this revolution in Russia was less the result of the advance and the power of socialism than of the destruction, the uncertainty, and the general unrest, which proceeded from the War of the Nations.
Application of the doctrines of Marx in Russia
Unrest of the period of the war
Perhaps no great struggle ever produced such mighty results in so short a time as the war which began in 1914. The conflict lasted little more than four years, but in that time the most powerful state in Europe, the German Empire, was overthrown, Austria-Hungary was broken to pieces beyond all hope of redemption, and the Russian Empire not only broke into pieces, but was the scene of a revolution more striking than any since that which long before had transformed France and Europe. The consequences and changes of the cataclysm are not to be estimated yet. But nowhere else in Europe was the old order so completely altered as in Russia.
Destruction resulting from the Great War
At the beginning of the Great War the Russian armies had much success, utterly defeating the Austrians; but their own losses were heavy, especially against the Germans; and after a while, as their military material was exhausted, they were forced to carry on the struggle with prodigal and hideous sacrifice of their men. In 1915 the Teutonic allies defeated them completely, drove them from the territory which they had occupied, and conquering Poland and part of the Baltic Provinces, drove deep into Russia itself. From this disaster the Russians never recovered. It was now seen that a great agricultural state, not well organized, could sustain no long conflict with an industrial state well organized for war and well equipped. Russian war supplies were exhausted; the transportations system was breaking down; vast numbers of men had been killed or wounded; the country was filled with miserable refugees from provinces taken by the foe. It is true that a great national enthusiasm had been aroused at the beginning of the conflict. Russians desired to help their kinsmen in Servia, and there was an outburst against all things German, the old name of the capital, St. Petersburg, being changed to Petrograd, the Slavic equivalent. But many of the officials and reactionaries had no desire to continue the war, and plotted to make peace with Germany as soon as they could. They feared that a continuance of the disastrous conflict would destroy their old privileges and position, and not a few of them
Russia and the Great War
Reactionaries plan to withdraw from the war
were of German sympathy or extraction. But the liberals in the duma steadily supported the war, believing that only with its triumphant conclusion could they obtain the changes which they hoped for; and the local zemstvos did excellent work in relieving distress and providing material of war. In 1916 the Russians made a last great effort, with much success, but at enormous cost; and after this they could do no more. By the end of the year the nation was almost completely exhausted; the inefficient government had nearly broken down, and thought only of making peace in time to save itself; and the people had suffered almost to the limit of endurance.
The end came with a suddenness that surprised the world. The poorer people in Petrograd were starving, and hunger now drove them to revolution, as once it had driven the rabble of Paris. Early in March, 1917, bread riots began, which increased until the whole city was filled with fighting and confusion, during which the troops deserted the government and went over to the mobs. The opposition in the duma was plotting to overthrow the government at this very time; and the duma was now suspended. The tsar acted with much weakness and indecision and the capital was lost. The other great cities of the empire joined the revolution, and at part of the duma now instituted a provisional government of the country. The abdication of the tsar was demanded. March 15, Nicholas II, "Emperor of all the Russias," laid down his power, and the dynasty of the Romanovs came to an end.
Beginning of the Russian Revolution, 1917
As after events were to show this was one of the momentous events in the history of Europe. For ages autocracy had maintained itself in eastern Europe. For a thousand years at Constantinople the Byzantine emperors had ruled absolutely, heads of church and state, and from their empire some civilization had gone up through the Balkans, and also into south Russia. Of this civilization the Russians had been principal heirs, and their government and
Fall of the tsardom their religion had in the course of centuries been spread over half of Europe. Under the Russian tsars lived a fourth part of all the white people in the world. While most of the other white people in Europe and the Americas had developed self-government and gone forward in material civilization, the Slavs had lagged far behind. Now, after supporting the old system for a long time or else passively enduring its evils, they suddenly overthrew it, and, as was evidenced very soon they overthrew it completely. Everywhere was the Russian Revolution of 1917 hailed as a great advancement for democracy, and rash expectations were cherished of the benefits immediately to follow.
A backward government and a lowly people
The provisional government attempted to effect liberal reform, set up a constitutional government after the model of the states of western Europe, restore order, and continue a vigorous prosecution of the war. This government was in the hands of the Constitutional Democrats led by Prince Lvov, and by Miliukov, assisted by Kerensky, a moderate socialist leader. An assembly was to be called to draw up a new constitution. Meanwhile, a general amnesty was proclaimed for political offenders, and freedom of speech was announced, and universal suffrage, for both men and women.
First stage: attempted moderate reforms
But the liberal leaders were by no means able to control the revolution now started. The extremists and radicals in both city and country joined forces, and soon proved to be the most powerful and aggressive body in the country. They began to be known as the Bolsheviki. Twelve years before, at the time of the earlier revolution, the Social Democratic Party of the industrial workers had split into two parts, a moderate minority, the Mensheviki (Russian menshe, less) and the majority of radicals, led by Lenin, the Bolsheviki (Russian bolshe, more). Now in 1917 the more radical peasants of the Social Revolutionary Party combined with the radical socialists of the cities,
Extreme Russian socialists: the Bolsheviki
THE BRITISH EMPIRE IN 1920
desiring a far more complete revolution than they thought had yet been attained, and caring less for mere political change than thorough social alteration. To bring this about they wished to end the war at once. Their leaders taught that the Great War had been brought about by capitalists and imperialists of all the countries alike, all of whom had as their chief interest the exploitation of the masses. Everywhere the proletariat and the mass of the people must compel the making of peace, after which the people must overthrow the upper class and the selfish bourgeoisie and capitalists, then usher in the great reforms of the socialists, which would bring real freedom to the masses of the world.
Social and economic alteration desired
Such were the Bolsheviki. Their teachings were not new, but to many of the hungry, disheartened, suffering people of Russia, most of whom had no political experience whatever, these doctrines came as a great new message or else made no difference whatever. All over the world the dislocation caused by the war had produced a stirring and unrest, and a willingness of men to hearken to strange revolutionary doctrines. The teachings of the Bolsheviki began to spread over the country, everywhere undermining the existing order. The Germans soon understood how greatly Russia would be weakened by this. So they helped some of the Russian extremists to return to their country, and assisted them as much as they could. The Russian soldiers holding the east front against the Germans were told that they need not obey their officers, and all discipline was soon at an end. They were likewise told that the land was being divided up among the people, and they, deserting to get their share, the. Russian armies melted away. The socialists demanded a "democratic" peace with "no annexations and no indemnities." German soldiers fraternized with the Russians, declaring that they also desired this, and military operations in the east came nearly to an end.
The Germans and the Bolsheviki
"No annexations and no indemnities"
Meanwhile, a provisional government of liberals was trying to rule the country and continue the war. In many places, however, the radicals took affairs into their own hands, the people choosing soviets (councils) of delegates of the soldiers, sailors, or workingmen. The most powerful and important was the soviet at Petrograd, which regarded itself as representing, in effect, the radicals of the country. In every way possible it opposed the provisional government, and was determined to get control of the government itself. It was not long before Miliukov and Prince Lvov lost power and Kerensky became the head of affairs; but he, who had formerly seemed a radical, was soon left far behind in the violent progress of the revolution. He strove valiantly to restore the armies, but the Germans completely routed the Russians and in September they captured Riga. Lenin, the bolshevik leader, was now in the country, as was Trotzky who had also taken part in the Revolution of 1905. Boldly and with great energy and skill they urged the workmen to overthrow the old system completely. More and more did disorder and anarchy increase as the old system went down in ruin, as Kerensky and other moderates lost hold, and as the Bolsheviki took their place. In November the garrison of Petrograd went over to them and Kerensky fled from the city. He strove to recover his power but was defeated, and fled from the country. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviki gained Moscow, Kiev, and other places, fighting fiercely, and putting down their enemies with iron hand.
Second stage: the Bolsheviki get control
Lenin and Trotzky
The Russian Revolution now entered upon another phase. The Bolsheviki abandoned the Allies, and began negotiations for a separate peace. The Germans, who had no more to gain by pretended friendship, threw off the mask, and at Brest-Litovsk, in March, 1918, compelled the Russian leaders to agree to a treaty of peace, which undid the work of Russian expansion and development for the past two hundred years and broke the Russian Empire
The Bolsheviki accept the Peace of Brest-Litovsk
into fragments. Finland, Poland, the Baltic Provinces, the Ukraine, were to be abandoned along with other territory, and Russia, paying a large indemnity, was to he left cut off almost entirely from the sea, in economic subservience to the German Empire. Germany now was completely victorious in the east. Lenin and Trotzky regarded all this without great concern. They had no desire for unwilling peoples to be held subject by Russia, and they believed that bolshevism among the German masses would soon overthrow German autocracy also. They turned with greater interest to domestic problems, which always they had most at heart.
The Russian Empire in fragments
They attempted to set up a political organization different from what existed in other countries. Lenin wished Russia to be a republic in which political power would be vested in soviets or councils of workmen, soldiers, or peasants. The state was to be socialized, taking over banks, railways, industrial enterprises, and land, to nationalize them and make them the property of all of the people. A series of decrees was issued to effect these designs, and to abolish inheritance and private ownership of property. Actually, while many changes were made, some of them in theory at least having much merit, a great part of the programme soon broke down. The peasants had already seized most of the land and divided it, and were little disposed to see it taken away and made the property of the nation. The new order in Russia was regarded with much suspicion elsewhere. The bolshevists announced their intention of overthrowing capitalism and the bourgeoisie in all countries; hence the Allies were hostile. Disorders broke out and numerous counterrevolutionary movements, in the course of which there were great cruelty and slaughter, and much destruction of property. Apparently Russia sank lower and lower in economic demoralization and confusion, but Lenin and Trotzky, who paid little heed now to most of the soviets,
The Bolshevist system in Russia
Disorder and destruction
ruthlessly crushed all resistance. Great numbers of the upper classes and more intelligent people were slaughtered, and in 1918 the tsar was murdered miserably at Ekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains.
In the autumn of 1918 Germany and Austria, exhausted by the length of the struggle, weakened by the influence of bolshevism in the east, and overwhelmed by their foes in the west, abandoned the contest and surrendered. But the end of the Great War brought no peace for Russia. By most of the people in the rest of the world the bolshevists were regarded with fear and suspicion, and Russia was not permitted to have communication with other countries. In the next two years several great counterrevolutionary movements were organized. In Siberia Admiral Kolchak, in south Russia General Denikin, along the Baltic General Yudenitch, all prepared to march upon the center of the country and overthrow bolshevist rule. At one time they all seemed near to considerable success, but by the end of 1919 Lenin and Trotzky were completely triumphant. Somewhat later the Poles, who believed that their new state was gravely threatened by bolshevist activities, suddenly invaded Russia and drove on until their armies captured Kiev. But the Russian people, whatever their attitude toward bolshevism and a socialist government might be, were filled with strong national feeling against their old enemies the Poles. They rallied to the support of Lenin's government, drove the invader out of Russia, pressed on across Polish territory and were stopped only at the gates of Warsaw. There they were held and defeated. While the tide of war was flowing and ebbing across this wasted country, and while Poland and Russia were both being reduced to the last stages of exhaustion, the relics of Denikin's forces, assisted by the British and the French, took refuge in the Crimea, and, under the leadership of General Wrangel, rapidly gained new strength. During such time as the Poles and the
War with Poland
Bolshevist armies were engaged in fighting each other Wrangel's forces moved north from their stronghold and for a moment seemed to have some chance of success. But no sooner had the Poles and the Russians made peace than the soviet forces were marched to the south, the narrow neck of the Crimean Peninsula was forced, and before the end of 1990 the counter-revolutionary movement had been everywhere utterly crushed.
All opposition crushed
Much obscurity continued to surround these events. It would seem that the efforts of Kolchak and Denikin, which were supported by the Allied governments, were in Russia regarded to some extent as outside aggression; and that the Russian people, with national spirit aroused, rallied to support the government in power, even though many of them had as little love for Lenin and his system in 1919 as some Frenchmen in 1793 had for Robespierre and a French republic. It is probable, moreover, that some of the strongest supporters of the counterrevolutionary leaders were members of the upper classes and dispossessed landowners, who hoped that the overthrow of bolshevism would make possible a return of the privileges and possessions they had lost. Accordingly, a great number of Russian peasants rallied under the Bolsheviki to defeat reaction. In 1920, therefore, it seemed that bolshevism had established itself firmly, for the time being, in Russia.
No event for a hundred years had aroused such strong feeling as this Russian Revolution, and such diverse opinions arose concerning it and such conflicting information that it was almost impossible to find out the truth. It would appear that the Bolsheviki were only a small minority, perhaps not more than 600,000 in a population of 150,000,000. They succeeded because they acted with the most vigor and determination in a time of distress and confusion. They were supported partly by Russian national spirit and partly by those who dreaded
Causes of the success of the Bolsheviki reaction. Furthermore, they maintained themselves by means of a reign of terror, and also because they held the chief cities and such railway facilities as remained. But it seemed probable that their extreme socialistic programme was a failure, and that they were doomed to fall. Most of the Russian peasants had no knowledge of socialism and no desire for it, and in most of the country bolshevism never took root. Nevertheless, it was certain that the old Russia was gone, even as the old France was gone by 1795. Perhaps later on, after exceeding misery and exhaustion, the Russians, without autocracy and with the lands in possession of the people, would go forward in the construction of a new and better state, more nearly on the model of the great democracies elsewhere.
The Russian people desire agrarian reform
Prospect of the future
Socialism: in addition to the volumes cited in the bibliography at the end of Chapter V, The Socialism of To-Day, edited by W. E. Walling , J. G. P. Stokes, and others ( 1916), contains documents and statements of principles; The Socialist Year Book and Labour Annual: a Guide Book to the Socialist and Labour Movement at Home and Abroad (published by the National Labour League, Manchester, 1913-); August Bebel, Aus Meinem Leben, 3 vols. ( 1910-14). abridged trans. My Life ( 1912); L. B. Boudin, The Theoretical System of Karl Marx in the Light of Recent Criticism ( 1907); Robert Hunter, Socialists at Work ( 1908); Karl Kautsky, The Social Revolution (trans. 1907), Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History (trans. 1907), The Class Struggle (trans. 1910); Edmond Kelly, Twentieth Century Socialism ( 1910); Émile de Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporaine ( 2d ed. 1883); J. Longuet, Le Mouvement Socialiste International ( 1913); Franz Mehring, Geschichte der Deutschen Sozialdemokratie ( 1904), best on the subject, by a socialist; T. G. Masaryk, Die Philosophischen und Sociologischen Grundlagen des Marxismus: Studien zur Socialen Frage ( 1899); S. P. Orth , Socialism and Democracy in Europe ( 1913); J. Rae, Contemporary Socialism (ed. 1908), excellent; Jane T. Stoddart, The New Socialism, an Impartial Inquiry ( 1909).
By critics and opponents of socialism: H. C. Day, S. J., Catholic Democracy: Individualism, and Socialism ( 1914), Catholic; Lucien Deslinières, Délivrons-Nous du Marxisme ( 1923); A. Schäffle , trans. by B. Bosanquet, The Quintessence of Socialism ( 1880); V. G. Simkhovitch, Marxism versus Socialism ( 1913); Maurice William, The Social Interpretation of History ( 1923).
Anarchism: P. J. Proudhon, Qu'est-ce que la Propriété? ( 1840), trans. by B. R. Tucker, What Is Property?, 2 vols. ( 1902); E. A. Vizetelly, The Anarchists (ed. 1916); E. V. Zenker, Anarchism (Eng. trans. 1898). Social problems: J. G. Brooks, The Social Unrest ( 1913); F. A. Ogg , Social Progress in Contemporary Europe ( 1911); Roger Fighiéra , La Protection Légale des Travailleurs en France ( 1913); Gabriel Hanotaux, La Démocratic et le Travail ( 1910); Paul Leroy-Beaulieu , La Question Ouvrière au XIXe Siècle ( 1888); E. Levasseur, Questions Ouvrières et Industrielles en France sous la Troisième République ( 1907), A. R. Orage, ed., National Guilds ( 1914); S. and B. Webb, Problems of Modern Industry ( 1898). Syndicalism: J. H. Harley, Syndicalism ( 1912); Robert Hunter , Violence and the Labor Movement ( 1914); Louis Levine, The Labor Movement in France ( 1912), best; J. A. Little, Industrial Warfare; the Aims and Claims of Capital and Labour ( 1912); Paul Louis, Histoire du Mouvement Syndical en France, 17891910 ( 2d ed. 1911), Le Syndicalisme Européen ( 1914); Bertrand Russell , Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism ( 1918); Georges Sorel, Réflexions sur la Violence ( 1909), trans. by T. E. Hulme, Reflections on Violence (1916); Philip Snowden, Socialism and Syndicalism ( 1913); J. Spargo, Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, and Socialism ( 1913).
The Russian Revolution: Claude Anet, La Révolution Russe, 4 vols. ( 1918-19); Otto Bauer, Bolschevismus oder Sozialdemokratie ( 1920); Catherine Breshkovsky, A Message to the American People ( 1919); General A. I. Denikin, Ocherki Russkoy Smuty (Outlines of the Russian Turmoil), vols. I, II ( 1921); Étienne Buisson, Les Bolchéviki (1917-1919): Faits, Document, Commentaires ( 1919); E. J. Dillon, The Eclipse of Russia ( 1918); M. S. Farbman, Bolshevism in Retreat ( 1923); A. F. Kerensky, The Prelude to Bolshevism, the Kornilov Rebellion ( 1919); Colonel V. I. Lebedeff, The Russian Democracy in Its Struggle Against the Bolshevist Tyranny ( 1919); F. A. Mackenzie, Russia before Dawn ( 1923); Paul Miliukov, Bolshevism: an International Danger ( 1920), Istoriya Vtoroy Russkoy Revoliutzii (History of the Second Russian Revolution), I ( 1922); Leo Pasvolsky, TheEconomics of Communism, with Special Reference to Russia's Experiment Economics of Communism, with Special Reference to Russia's Experiment ( 1921); Report of the British Labour Delegation to Russia, 1920 ( 1920); E. A. Ross, Russia in Upheaval ( 1919); Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism ( 1920); Mrs. Philip Snowden, Through Bolshevik Russia ( 1920); John Spargo , Bolshevism: the Enemy of Political and Industrial Democracy ( 1919); Leon Trotzky [Bronstein], The History of the Russian Revolution to Brest-Litovsk ( 1919).
The Bolshevist leaders: M. A. Landau-Aldanov, Lénine ( 1919); Nicolai Lenin [V. I. Ulianov], The State and Revolution ( 1919); L. Trotzky, Our Revolution: Essays on Working-Class and International Revolution, 1904-1917, collected and translated by M. J. Olgin ( 1918), for many of the ideas about suppressing the bourgeoisie and erecting a dictatorship of the proletariat, and The Bolsheviki and World Peace ( 1918).
The new system: R. W. Postgate, The Bolshevik Theory ( 1920). The constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, adopted by resolution of the F fth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, July 10, 1918, was translated into English and published in The (New York) Nation, January 4, 1919.
PROBLEMS AFTER THE WAR
Thus the year ended with a situation full of ominous uncertainty. In the occupied Rhineland, as in the rest of Germany, the . . . people saw only a plan for the piecemeal detachment of the Rhineland from the mother country, after the manner of Louis XIV. . . . The Annual Register . . . for the Year 1922, p. 169.
We do not . . . attempt any indictment of what is commonly known as the Capitalist System . . . at the present moment, that system, as a coherent whole, has demonstrably broken down. From one end of the civilised world to the other it has, at least among the young generation that is growing up, lost its moral authority. Whole nations have avowedly rejected it as a basis of their social and economic structure. . . .
- SIDNEY and BEATRICE A. WEBB, Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain, introduction, p. xi.
Il Fascismo, sorto per ristabilire l'ordine sociale sconvolto dalla predicazione leninista, rappresenta dunque il dinamismo ascensionale della Nazione muovente verso i suoi legittimi destini di gloria e di vittoria nella Pace e nel Lavoro. - PIETRO GORGOLINI, Il Fascismo nella Vita Italiana ( 1922), p. 255.
THE period of the Great War and the years that followed were a time of tumult, distraction, suffering such as for a hundred years men had not known. The era after the peace brought almost as much of sadness and doubt as the time of the conflict itself. Everywhere uncertainty, instability, scarcity, discontent. From the unparalleled destruction of the war, poverty and lack of materials and supplies prevailed in most parts of Europe. Money was cheap and where most plentiful it had least value. Everywhere prices were high and living difficult to make. The
The postwar era
waste of war time had first brought feverish industrial activity: there was difficulty in finding workers enough and generally wages were high. Shortly after fighting was over most of this came to an end. Exhausted nations could no longer buy; there was profound depression of trade; in industrial communities activity ceased. Prices continued high or dropped slowly, while wages more quickly declined, and great numbers of workmen had nothing to do. People starved in some parts of Europe, elsewhere privation and hunger; everywhere the standard of living lowered. As always, a few had gained much from the war, but most people found the times far less good than those before 1914. Activity followed by exhaustion
Many and widespread evils followed the woe of these times. Disease came on the track of misery and famine. Wild radicalism, madness, disorder followed hard after. During the struggle a virulent form of the old and longdreaded influenza swept over Europe and over the world. Long before the Spaniards had known this mysterious ailment, and called it the "influence" (influenza). Swept by such an epidemic the sailors of the Spanish Armada had gone to defeat. For generations afterward the Spanish influenza took its victims in various places. Now in the wet and the cold of the trenches, with millions huddled together in hard unsanitary living, it grew to a mighty plague, and after stretching all across Europe reached the farthest parts of the world. First and last--for it returned again and again, even after the conflict was over--it brought to death millions of people, and left more millions weak and forlorn. More terrible scourges were threatened meantime. In the filth and low living of Russia typhus long had preyed on the people. During the war prisoners and soldiers carried it west. Afterward fugitives and stragglers continued to bring it from the east. Far worse than influenza, if this disease were loosed on the war-worn, undernourished people of central Europe, untold disaster
Disease follows war
Influenza and typhus
might follow. Modern sanitary and preventive measures made it possible now to exclude it, but down the eastern frontier of Germany, of Poland, of Rumania, a grim struggle was waged.
As after all other long conflicts and times of disturbance there were general excitement and discontent, hope of alteration, desire for revolution. Of this always there is some. Before the Great War there was ominous unrest, and there were organized bodies of men and women who purposed to alter completely the existing system. Before 1914, however, the great mass of the people of Europe were content, for their condition was good relative to what they knew and what their ancestors had had. After 1918 there were not only millions of families with the man dead or disable, but many more millions of people, who, as far on as they could see, faced a future of high prices and heavy taxation, low wages and meager living. At such a time radicalism grows greatly. When such conditions widely prevail great numbers lose patience with what is established, seeking change in the hope of things better. Such times have ever brought opportunity for honest radicals and reforming enthusiasts, for demagogues and for false prophets. The war had been a period of wildest passion and of hatred fiercely burning. Passion did not quickly subside, and many things were now easily hated. For four years millions of men had taken part in destruction, while millions more had assisted and urged them on. So now everywhere there was strong instinct to pull down, overturn, destroy, and use any means of violence to accomplish the overturn quickly. Large hopes had been aroused through large promises made in the war time. Never had so great a struggle been waged; never had the assistance and coöperation of all the people in the states been so much needed. To secure this help and sustain the faith of the people as the struggle dragged on, all sorts of hopes had been raised and all sorts of pledges
Unrest and discontent
Passion and instinct for destruction
given. Some had been promised with best intention, their authors believing they could be met. Others had been rashly and foolishly spoken in the midst of stress and excitement. Often the ignorant and irresponsible promised most, while opponents demanded still more. Hence, vast and unreasoning expectations were raised. Many people believed or pretended that with the end of the war there would be speedy ending of all the worst ills of mankind. They expected complete alteration and amendment, various prophets now loudly proclaiming that their remedy would bring regeneration for the world. Some of what they hoped had been sought for ages, and some of it could probably not be accomplished. Now many people eagerly awaited fulfilment at a time when the more experienced and thoughtful perceived the difficulty of restoring even what the conflict had ruined.
Unreasoning expectations aroused
In all parts of Europe was radicalism seen, and the years after 1914 were an era like those after 1815. All eastern Europe was in the throes of alteration more sweeping and fundamental than that in France a long time before. In Prussia and in Bavaria, immediately following the German surrender, wild revolution flamed forth, as years before in the Commune of Paris. In 1918 the communist and radical elements in Finland, assisted by Russian Bolsheviki, seized power in much of that country. In Hungary during 1919 socialist and radical groups got control, a soviet system was established, and the leader, Bela Kun, became for a time the dictator. In Great Britain the trade unions, whose members were more and more tending toward socialism, and more and more hoping to overturn the existing parliamentary and capitalist system, bade fair to dominate the state. The so-called Triple Alliance of transport workers, railwaymen, miners, proposed to coerce the government by simultaneous strikes which they believed would paralyze opposition. In 1919 a great railway strike was accompanied by violence and destruction of property.
Radicalism and revolution
Strikes and destruction of property
In the autumn of 1920 a million miners ceased work, bringing temporary ruin to the industry that supported Great Britain. A British labor delegation returning from Russia had already recommended to the trade union congress and to the Labor Party that Britain give unconditional recognition to the soviet government of Russia; and during 1919 and 1920 not a few judges believed there was more chance of real success for bolshevism in Great Britain than in Russia. Meanwhile in Italy socialists and social radicals, to some extent financed and abetted from Moscow, openly proclaimed the near overthrow of the existing order, and attempted to set up the bolshevist system. In the summer of 1920 Italian industrial workers took possession of the plants where they were employed, and organized workingmen's councils to run them. For a time the weak Italian government was passive, and presently a National Labor Convention proclaimed that it favored the organization of Italian industry on a soviet basis. In Great Britain, in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Switzerland there were repeated proposals for a levy on capital--a confiscation or seizure of a portion of property owned--to pay for the war debts or for social reforms to be made. In 1922 and in 1923 the general elections in Great Britain resulted in gains for the Labor Party so large that it became the official opposition or principal minority party. The behavior of some of the labor members from Glasgow was so ruffianly and wild that orderly and decent parliamentary government was scarcely possible in their presence. Many now avowed that soon the Labor Party would control the government of Britain, and labor leaders were declaring that when they could they would make a capital levy, then abandon the present arrangement, and establish in England a socialist system.
The example of Russia
A capital levy
During this time of poverty, uncertainty, discontent, statesmen and leaders were confronted by problems so perplexing that no solution was evident for them. Russia
was cut off from the rest of Europe and mostly denied intercourse with other countries. Central Europe was broken into pieces. Turkish power seemed almost destroyed, but the Turkish question proved not to be settled. Upon the Germans a vast indemnity was assessed, but it seemed almost impossible to collect more than a little. Since 1904 Great Britain and France had been acting together in close understanding, and it was their entente that had saved them from the German Empire. When fear of Germany was removed, however, their different interests became more apparent, until by 1923 the Entente Cordiale seemed virtually ended, and the two nations were drifting, it sometimes appeared, into conflict.
The question of indemnity was one of the hardest to deal with, and so great were the difficulties that almost any solution could be justly assailed by opponents. Moreover, the vastness and complexity of the problem involved many factors about which there could be little more than conjecture; so that while some proclaimed from the first that they knew certainly what should be done, the more experienced and cautious were hesitant and often uncertain. The war had cost the Allies more than $120,000,000,000. From their point of view they had fought in self-defence in a war of aggression by the Germans. Half a century before the Germans had taken from France defeated an indemnity twice as great as the cost of the war to themselves. Now to France alone the cost had been about $30,000,000,000, while the ruin wrought in the French districts where the Germans had fought amounted to billions more. When the Peace Congress assembled at Paris in 1919, strong sentiment was generally felt that Germany should pay for the havoc as much as lay in her power; but it was not only evident that the total resources of the Germans could not make good the cost of the war to the Allies, but there was much doubt about how large a portion her resources remaining
The German indemnity
Germany's capacity to pay
would ever be sufficient to pay. In Paris it was soon announced that an indemnity of $55,000,000,000 would be asked for, but both the total and the time of payment were presently left for future decision. When in May, 1919, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were about to be delivered to the German plenipotentiaries, their spokesman, Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau, declared that Germany was ready to right the wrong done to Belgium and to assist reconstruction in France. A few days later the German emissaries offered to promise an indemnity of $25,000,000,000. In June, under compulsion, the Germans accepted the treaty proposed by the Allies. The reparation clauses in this treaty provided that twenty billion gold marks ($5,000,000,000) should be paid by 1921, forty billions more by 1926, forty billions more in such time as should later be announced, and further payments afterward as prescribed by an Allied Reparation Commission. Friends of Germany were already declaring that this was a monstrous burden, and that Germany now could pay little and should not be asked to pay much. Certain authorities asserted that she could perhaps pay $15,000,000,000. Many declared that a "reasonable" amount should be definitely settled at once.
The first German offer
Those who prophesied that a great indemnity could never be collected, that it would be merely wisdom to ask for such a small amount as could certainly soon be paid, shortly seemed to be justified in striking fashion. The Germans at first gave over their shipping, and did make considerable deliveries of rolling stock, cattle, and coal. At first also they paid in gold a considerable sum, though of the entire indemnity it was only a little. Soon, however, their payments fell in arrear, and were made with seemingly greater difficulty and under ever greater threats and compulsion. During 1922 they virtually came to an end.
The Germans pay a little at first
Many and various were the causes of this. There had just been a revolution; the German government was new and not strong. The country was largely exhausted; it was difficult for the government to secure what it needed and not easy for the nation to earn its living. Presently the government maintained itself to an increasing extent by issuing paper money. Often had this been tried by others in the past, and always the results were those that now followed Rapidly increasing quantities of money caused the value of the money to diminish. The mark before the war everywhere worth approximately $0.238 had by the end of 1920 diminished in value to $0.02, and in the next year it fluctuated between one cent and three. The great quantities of gold needed to pay the instalments of the indemnity could only be obtained by purchase in the markets of the world, and there were now seen gigantic operations of exchange in which Germans traded their paper money of diminishing worth for the gold needed to pay to the Allies. To obtain this gold more paper marks were constantly needed, and as the supply was ever more largely increased, the value as constantly fell. The real basis, of course, for such exchange was the work, the service, the commodities which the Germans had to sell at a profit; but it was much more difficult now for the Germans to make the profit formerly needed for support of their people. Before 1914 their vast manufactures and flourishing mercantile marine had yielded profits sufficient to maintain those of their population whom their agriculture could not support, and had left a surplus for the luxury or well-being of the more prosperous people. Now German shipping was swept from the seas. German factories were intact, but the coal of the Saar and of much of Silesia was gone, and abroad protective tariffs barred out German goods. Much of the world was too exhausted to buy, and each country desired to do its own manufacturing. The French and the Belgians proposed to repair their devastated regions themselves, paying the cost with
Decline in value of German paper money
Germany produces less actual surplus
the indemnity received from the Germans. Accordingly, it seemed to some that the Germans had no means of paying; and many who believed that they should pay came to think them unable to do so. Others declared that Germany was potentially rich and in time would be wealthy again, hence that a great international loan might provide the sums which Germany would repay later on. But the situation became so uncertain that international bankers would undertake no sum that met the expectations of France.
During this time there was no little sympathy for the Germans as pity for their great disaster followed the terror inspired by their might. Various were the reports about conditions among them, but there could presently be no doubt that there were the inevitable poverty and suffering that follow any great war long prolonged, and that the financial revolution while it raised a new upper class and in some way supported the lower, crushed to pieces the middle class--the best and most progressive of the Germans. All over Germany now professional men became paupers, and university students were starving. Hence there was in some quarters a disposition to forego the indemnity claims. Such feeling had something to do with the widening rift between Britain and France. In the general election of 1918 Mr. Lloyd George and others had rashly declared that Germany would be made to pay all the cost of the war. After some consideration, however, it seemed probable to many people in Great Britain that Germany could not be expected to pay the vast sums required, that such demands would bring endless suffering, and that it would be greatly to the detriment of Britain and the others to attempt to make Germany pay. Accordingly, the British soon abandoned hope of securing any substantial sum. Presently they declared that they would remit their claims. Then they tried to persuade France to make some abatement.
Changing sentiment concerning the Germans
Great Britain willing to forego her claims
France, supported by Belgium, with whom in 1920 she concluded a formal defensive military alliance, and to a lesser extent by Italy, would abate her demands not a whit. For this there were various reasons, but with respect to economic considerations alone France affirmed that Germany could pay if she would, that she was striving to create false sentiment favorable to her, and thus escape the consequences of what she had done. The Germans, she said, had fought the war almost entirely on foreign soil, wringing from the occupied territories all they could and working enormous havoc. Meanwhile their own fields remained untouched, their factories unharmed were enlarged. When defeated they had surrendered at once, and altogether escaped a conflict fought on their soil. Germany was still very wealthy, but the wealth was being hidden. Frenchmen declared, what many believed to be so, that the German government deliberately depreciated the value of its currency, to avoid the difficulties of increased taxation, to wipe out old indebtedness, and make impossible the payment of claims. They said also, what was doubtless so, that the moneyed Germans had sent their wealth out of the country, investing in foreign currencies or making deposits abroad. To them and to others it was inconceivable that the Germans should not be made to pay all that they could. Germany escaping indemnity for the ruin wrought in the war might greatly encourage some aggressive nation to begin another war in the future. For it would be possible to reason that the Germans had staked all on conquest, fighting for years to impose their will upon others, but having fought and having escaped invasion, were able to make men believe their resources exhausted and themselves unable to pay. To the French now it seemed that many of their former friends were disposed to be more considerate for Germany so lately dreaded than for France who had sacrifice much to bring victory to all of the Allies.
France refuses abatement
Alleged German evasion
Between France and Great Britain with respect to reparations from Germany there was increasing divergence also because of the very different situation of the two. Great Britain was essentially a trading and industrial state. The agricultural resources of the island supported only a portion of the population, the other inhabitants subsisting from the profits of manufacturing and commerce. But now with half Europe ruined and unable to buy, Britain could not sell enough. Industrial expansion continued for a short time after the war; then came depression and complete stagnation. In 1912 out of a population of 45,000,000 there were 4,000,000 unemployed, they being maintained through increased taxation paid by the rest of the people. Britain was now living on her capital, and this must not long continue. It was, therefore, of vital importance that British trade and industry be revived, and this could not be unless normal conditions were generally restored. To many Englishmen it seemed that the greatest improvement would come if Germany were enabled to recover. Accordingly, they were willing to remit British claims, and favored reducing the entire indemnity to an amount that could shortly be paid. On the other hand, France was essentially an agricultural country, normally prosperous and rich, and generally self-sufficing. Suffering and disaster near by might affect her, but not in a vital manner. If commerce languished and manufactures abated, she could wait. Greatly also she feared Germany, and desired not only that the Germans pay but that they be long weakened by making the payment.
Divergence Between France and Great Britain
For some time the good relations between the two countries continued, and in both was strong and sincere desire that the entente remain unimpaired. So there were many efforts to preserve understanding and accord. Fundamentally, the position of France in Europe was now stronger than Britain's, yet for a while France yielded much. Her military men had declared that she could
France patient for a time
in the future be safe only if German territory were taken to the Rhine, and the bridgeheads permanently held; and at Versailles Marshal Foch had formally protested that the treaty meant peril for France in the future. But in the negotiations in Paris President Wilson of the United States and Mr. George for England had persuaded M. Clemenceau, the French premier, to forego claiming this German territory, assuring him that future security would be guaranteed by a protective alliance of the United States, Great Britain, and France. Soon after it was evident that the United States would do nothing like this, and the whole scheme came to nothing. Now after a few years it seemed to Frenchmen that because it was difficult to collect from the Germans, there were many who would advise them to forego most of the indemnity also. They, for their part protested that the Germans never would pay unless forced, and they said that if it was necessary, they would later on apply force.
Yields to her allies
In January, 1920, the Peace Conference ended its sessions. Since several important problems still awaited solution, a Council of Premiers--the former Supreme Council under new name--was appointed to deal with them further. Important meetings of this council took place during 1920 with respect to various matters, but presently the dominant question concerned the treatment to be accorded the Germans. The United States had now virtually withdrawn from European affairs, so that decision concerning the enforcement of the Versailles Treaty lay virtually with France and Great Britain, Italy being consulted but having much less preponderant voice. At the Conference of San Remo in Italy ( April, 1920) the French were in favor of uncompromising enforcement of the terms of the treaty; the British favored some modification in the light of fuller experience; the Italians would have the treaty revised. After some discussion the French view prevailed and Germany was bidden to hasten her disarmament and comply
Various conferences and conversations
with the terms agreed to. At the Conference of Hythe, in England ( May, 1920), the premiers of France and Great Britain held further discussion. Here the British view partly prevailed, and France consented, that the total amount of the German indemnity should now be definitely fixed. Another conference was held next month in the same place, followed shortly by the Conference of Boulogne ( June, 1920), at which were represented other powers also. At the Conference of Brussels ( July, 1920) the Allies tentatively agreed to demand $30,000,000,000, of which $750,000,000 was to be paid annually for the first five years, and $1,250,000,000 each year thereafter. Principal and interest would probably make the total sum about $60,000,000,000. A few days later at the Conference of Spa in Belgium ( July, 1920), the allied premiers met the chancellor of the German Republic. He described the great perils besetting the Reich, begged for permission to have a considerable military force to cope with industrial disorder and monarchist attempts, and asked for more time to carry out the obligations of the treaty. The Germans were compelled to agree to dissolve two of the military forces they were striving to create, the sicherheitswehr (army of safety) and the einwohnerswehr (volunteer force), and make the reichswehr (army of the realm) a standing army of not more than 150,000 men. Germany asked that the total reparations be fixed at a definite sum, and that the payments therefor extend over not more than thirty years. She asked for allied help in the meantime, and proposed that an international syndicate rebuild the devastated districts in France, the Germans ultimately to pay the cost. She declared that with respect to the coal deliveries imposed by the treaty she could furnish to the Allies no more than 1,100,000 tons a month. They sternly insisted on 2,000,000 tons. At this conference the Allies reserved the right to occupy the Ruhr--Germany's great remaining industrial district--or
some other area, in the event of the agreement not being fulfilled. At the Conference of Spa also the Allies agreed about dividing the prospective indemnity: of the reparations France was to have 52 per cent., the British Empire 22 per cent., Italy 10 per cent., Belgium 8 per cent., the remainder in small portions to the others.
Thus far concord between Britain and France had been kept partly through the wonderful personal magnetism and dexterity of the British prime minister, Mr. George, but various other matters, like the Turkish question and the Russian question, tended to increase disagreement. With respect to Russia, to Poland, and to Turkey more and more now France was taking independent action. At the Conference of Paris ( January, 1921) France proposed that the total German indemnity be put at about $80,000,000,000. But this was nearly as much as all the estimated national wealth of the German Empire before the war, and Great Britain and Italy opposed such demand. Presently it was agreed that the sum should be $55,000,000,000, to be paid in installments during fortytwo years. The German government declared that it could not fulfil such terms. At the Conference of London ( March, 1921) the German government made a conditional proposal to pay an indemnity of $12,500,000,000--half as much as had been offered by the German representative at Versailles two years before--from which total was to be deducted $5,000,000,000 on account of alleged payments already made. To this the Allies delivered an ultimatum again requiring acceptance of their terms. When no satisfactory answer was received French troops occupied the industrial cities of Düsseldorf, Duisberg, and Ruhrort, and threatened to occupy the whole of the Ruhr district if on May 1 compliance were lacking. Great Britain as well as Italy was displeased at the action of France. They greatly desired to prevent occupation of the Ruhr, which would mean the impotence of Germany
and paralysis of her economic life. After a meeting of the premiers of Great Britain and France at Hythe, an allied conference was held at London ( April, 1921), after which another ultimatum was dispatched to the German government demanding promise to pay an indemnity of $33,000,000,000. Sinking fund and interest on bonds were to be provided by a tax of 25 per cent. on German exports. The French made ready to seize all the Ruhr, and Germany yielded again.
Hythe and London
There was more and more evident now a widening rift between Britain and France. A certain sympathy for Germany defeated and helpless, and as some now affirmed, greatly wronged, was more evident still. Everywhere friends of the Germans were carrying on propaganda, which recently all peoples had learned to use well. Whatever the difficulties of Germany were, it also seems probable that not a few Germans now cherished the hope that if their enemies divided, they themselves might escape very largely. So there were many who thought now that not much more indemnity would ever be paid by the Germans. Some outsiders considered collection an impossible task. Englishmen wished that as much be obtained as could be; but increasingly in Britain people doubted whether much more could ever be got. In France opinion remained unchanged: Germany should pay; Germany left alone would pay nothing; Germany would pay if compelled.
Widening rift between Britain and France
Efforts continued to preserve unanimity between France and Great Britain. In October, 1921, an economic agreement was made between France and Germany at Wiesbaden, providing for payment by Germany of reparations in materials or "kind." In December, however, the German government officially notified the Reparations Commission of the Allies that it could not pay the next indemnity installment. The matter was now discussed by Mr. George for Great Britain and M. Briand, the Conferences continued French premier, in London. Soon after at the Conference of Cannes ( January, 1922) Mr. George proposed an agreement between Germany, France, and Great Britain. France objected, requesting instead a military alliance between Britain and France. This was presently agreed upon, and a treaty drawn up, though not ratified, by which Great Britain promised full aid in the event of unprovoked aggression by the Germans. Here also was adopted the suggestion of Mr. George that a conference including Russia and the late enemy countries should be held to consider the best means for economic restoration of Europe. Immediately after M. Briand was succeeded by M. Poincaré, who had resolved on no receding from the French position. He was unwilling to take any part in the proposed international conference without definite assurances about Germany and Russia. France and England were now far apart, although cordial relations seemed reëstablished at a conference of the two premiers held at Boulogne. ( February, 1922). Here it was agreed to admit Russia to the conference only on condition that she recognize the old debts repudiated by the bolshevist leaders, and respect the rights of private property; and to admit Germany only on condition that she acknowledge all her obligations under the Treaty of Versailles.
At the Conference of Genoa ( April, 1922)--the first such meeting since the Conference of London in 1912-13--many large European questions were dealt with, but generally the plans of Mr. George came to nothing and no solution of the indemnity problem was reached. During the course of 1922 German payments were obtained with increasing difficulty, until finally the German government intimated that for the present it could pay nothing further. Great Britain strove vainly to moderate the policy of France, but obviously France was determined upon her own measures and her patience was nearly exhausted. In the autumn Mr. George resigned, and the government that
Germany ceases to pay
succeeded played only a passive part. No British government now could prevent France taking such action as pleased her. In January, 1923, a conference was held in Paris. Here a British plan that further leniency and delay be accorded was decisively rejected by France. M. Poincaré said that France had long followed the counsels of her allies, to be met only by German default and evasion; that France would give much for continued agreement with her friends, yet she was now prepared for action alone. Immediately after French troops began an "economic" occupation of the Ruhr, with the avowed object of compelling the payments that were being withheld. Some asserted that France had not the right to do this, and that she herself now destroyed the Treaty of Versailles. This was mostly said, however, by those who had all along maintained that the Treaty of Versailles ought to be undone. For the most part it was conceded that France had the legal and the moral right so to act, but that such procedure was a grievous mistake. It was said that Germany's capacity to pay reparations depended largely upon industrial activity, which rested mostly upon the factories and the coal of the Ruhr; that by force France might be able to take from the Ruhr a little, but probably thus she would destroy all hope of large indemnity later. The French merely replied that Germany had evaded payment, and would pay only if confronted with force.
The French occupy the Ruhr
Conditions were now greatly worsened. The Ruhr population were generally steadfast in sullen, passive resistance. The French succeeded in bringing about little more than cessation of work in the district. From one measure of severity to another they were drawn to proceed. Presently they severed all intercourse between the occupied area and the rest of the Reich. The economic life of Germany was stricken to the heart, and the Germans burned with a passionate hatred of the. French. German currency depreciated in headlong ruin, and by
Force and passive resistance
the autumn of 1923 the dollar once the equivalent of four German marks would purchase four hundred million. With steadfast persistence the Germans held out in a hopeless struggle. The end came in September with complete submission. The German republic was now prostrate and threatening to fall to pieces. For the time German strength was utterly gone, but what indemnity would be paid remained a question as baffling as ever.
In a Europe so largely prostrate and ruined France had come to be the dominant power. Her population of 37,000,000 was less than that of either Italy or Britain, but she was economically self-sufficing. Her standing army of 630,000 troops had now relatively greater power than the German standing army of 1914. Neither Spain nor Italy could contend with her for a moment. The Dual Monarchy was gone. The German might had been broken. Russia was hostile, but far off in anarchy, distance, and weakness. Great Britain was the only strong state left beside her, and for the present Great Britain had much less strength. Relative to the others she was mightier than she had ever been before, more powerful even than in Napoleon's time.
France now dominant in Europe
France now, like Germany after the Franco-German War, disclaimed further ambition and declared that her military forces were merely defensive. The League of Nations, the hope of so many in 1919, had been only partly successful. The military alliance promised France had come to nothing. So she frankly sought security by being able to protect herself through new allies and by military might. As a bulwark against bolshevik Russia and to have striking forces on Germany's eastern frontier, France loaned money to Poland, gave her military aid and advice, and strove to make her strong. In February, 1921, a defensive alliance was concluded between France and Poland. The interests of Poland were probably opposed to those of Germany and of Russia, and France strengthens her position
Alliance with Poland
France could count on her almost certainly as upon a dependent ally. The interests of the Succession States-the states that had arisen from the ruins of the Hapsburg dominion, or profited when it broke up--also closely coincided with those of France, in so far that they like France were vitally concerned to maintain the treaties of 1919-20. By skilful and persistent diplomacy France gained the principal influence with them. In August, 1920, CzechoSlovakia and Jugo-Slavia entered into a defensive alliance, which was joined somewhat later by Rumania. With this combination, known as the Little Entente, France had predominant influence, though not so great as with Poland. When it appeared that Turkish power was largely and steadily reviving, France concluded with the Turks a secret and separate treaty ( 1921). During 1922 France acted constantly with greater freedom and determination in respect of German affairs, despite the wishes and desires of Great Britain. When in 1923 she seized the Ruhr, and announced that she would not withdraw until the Germans had paid all the indemnity, she had not only taken away, so long as she chose to retain it, all chance of Germany recovering her power, but with the ore of Lorraine and the coal of the Saar and the Ruhr, France would have in the future, far beyond any one else, the basis of industrial development and of the military power that went with it. In 1923 she made a treaty with Czecho-Slovakia.
Influence with the Little Entente
Increase in the greatness of France was undoubtedly a reason for the worse relations between England and France. During 1919 and 1920 there were multitudes of people in England who had much affection and admiration for the French, and who were drawn to them by remembrance of common dangers and the sacrifices just made in common. Then slowly came greater understanding that the interests of France and of Britain were different, and that British interests apparently were being steadily sacrificed by France. The French constantly
Worse relations with Great Britain
referred to their devastated districts, ruined by the Germans, who, they said, must pay to restore them. But many Englishmen believed that this relentless pressure upon Germany, while it brought little gain for France, made impossible the recovery of trade on which support of their people depended. During the winter of 1921, when millions of unemployed perplexed the authorities in London, it was said that Britain also had devastated districts, made largely through the action of France. By 1923, £400,000,000 had been paid to support British people out of work. In controversies between France and Great Britain the personal ability and dexterity of Mr. George for some time brought yielding by the French; but after M. Poincaré became premier persuasion was possible no longer, and it was evident that Britain could not prevent France from doing whatever she wished.
Depression and unemployment in Britain
Actually the position of Great Britain was now fundamentally altered. Relatively she was weaker than before. During ages in the past she had been safe from invasion, protected in her island position by superior strength on the sea. The Spanish Armada had sighted the coast, but the winds, the tides, the northern style of fighting had frustrated a landing. Napoleon's army had looked across the strait, but the British fleet had never left chance for a crossing. In the Great War the British Grand Fleet had kept the German High Seas Fleet close to its base, while Britain held command of the seas; but during this contest maritime warfare developed new methods German submarines, acting in no great numbers, had almost cut Britain's lines of overseas communications, along which came the food upon which her population largely depended. This menace had just been countered; but no specific remedy was found; and it might be that if some enemy struck suddenly in the future with swarms of submarines at the start, Britain would go down and presently be starved to unconditional yielding. It could scarcely
Altered position of Great Britain
be doubted that in any future war an opponent of Britain would be tempted to strike with submarines. Nor was this the only danger. During the recent conflict bombing from the air, especially by means of airplanes, had been carried to terrible effect. So the Germans had bombarded London and other places, doing much damage and at times weakening British morale. This method of fighting had been developed with fearful efficiency as the conflict progressed. In the next war fleets of airplanes, not driven away by other aërial fleets, would destroy whole cities, it was thought, and work widespread and wholesale ruin. Thus the sea no longer made Britain safe.
However good were her present intentions, doubtless in the future France might in all these respects be Britain's most terrible foe. In a few hours airplanes from Paris could go far beyond London. Britain had allowed her air force to dwindle, while that of France was constantly increased, until some estimated the disparity at ten to one, and men realized that England could not even fight against France. Furthermore, the French set about building a swarm of underseas vessels. At the Washington Conference held for naval abatement in 1921-2, the French steadily refused to consider abandoning submarines as a weapon, though reproached at the time with desiring to use them in future war against England. It could not be doubted that a sudden attack with submarines from all the south shores of the Channel would be far more terrible to Great Britain than anything the Germans had been able to do. Thus, while relations were formally correct and still good, some said that as France in the past had been England's most dangerous enemy, so she would be in the future.
Possible Danger From France
Probably the greater leniency of England for Germany arose also from the wish--very proper from her standpoint --that Germany should be strengthened again to restore somewhat the balance of power. To preserve such bal-
The balance of power
ance had been a principle of English diplomacy since the fifteenth century. When France seemed most dangerous England made alliance with Spain; but in Cromwell's time she allied herself with France against Spain. In the eighteenth century, along with various coalitions, she opposed France, as she did in Napoleon's era. After 1904 she stood with France in opposition to the preponderant German Empire. Now, when France was the all-powerful military state. Great Britain following a sound instinct desired that German power be not utterly destroyed, but remain and recover. As in the past, she was against any state being so powerful in Europe as to be a menace to all of the others.
For the present this could be no more than policy and political instinct, for Great Britain had not the power to meet France in any collision. Upon France, nearest to Germany and fearing her most, had fallen the task of enforcing the Treaty of Versailles. For this and for future safety she was maintaining a powerful army equipped with the costly and terrible weapons that modern war had brought forth. So greatly did she fear the actual power and the future vengeance of the Germans that she did this though staggering under debt, owing much to Great Britain and the United States, and with her budget showing a deficit each year. On the other hand, the British, somewhat less immediately threatened by any new danger, perhaps, but also showing more confidence that new methods and better procedure might bring about an era of peace, had immediately allowed their armaments to decline. Their navy was lessened, their huge army was mostly disbanded, and their air force greatly reduced. By the sternest privation and the most heroic efforts the British presently balanced their budget. Then they began paying their debt to the United States, and reducing indebtedness at home. Thus they had not the money for great armies and for multitudes of new airplanes. Doubt-
The power of France
less they would after a while be in better financial position than any other great nation in Europe, but for war meanwhile they were far less powerful than their neighbor and rival, France.
The arrangements of 1919-20 undertook the solution of many difficult and complicated problems, some of which were unsettled soon after. In May, 1920, after the Council of Premiers had dealt with the Turkish problem, a treaty of peace was presented to the Ottoman delegation. Some, including President Wilson of the United States, had favored expelling the Turks altogether from Europe. In October 1918, exhausted, shaken by defeat, and with allies collapsing, the Ottoman Empire had asked for an armistice, and had been granted terms that amounted to complete surrender. It was assumed that Turkish power was destroyed. Presently, however, as a choice from numerous difficulties--some concerning Moslem populations in India and Morocco--the Allied statesmen had gone less far. Constantinople was left to the sultan in sovereignty, though it was to be occupied by an international force of Allied troops, while the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmora, the Dardanelles, and the island approaches were to be under a Straits Commission appointed by the League of Nations. Thrace and many of the Ægean islands would be given to Greece, along with Smyrna in Asia and a considerable district about it. Turkey was to acknowledge the independence of outlying Asiatic districts--Armenia, the Hedjaz, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria. She was to recognize also the British protectorate over Egypt and British sovereignty over Cyprus, the French protectorates over Tunisia and parts of Morocco, and Italian sovereignty over Lybia ( Tripoli and Cyrenaica) and the Dodecanese or group of twelve Ægean islands which Italy had occupied in 1911-12. An international Finance Commission would have final power respecting all Turkish budgets and financial laws. Thus Turkey was to
The Turkish question
The settlement proposed
be reduced to dependence. Ottoman territory, which in 1914 still included 720,000 square miles and a population of 23,000,000, would now be reduced to some 100,000 square miles--mostly in Asia Minor--with a population of 5,000,000--mostly Moslems.
The Turks refused to accept these demands, and strong nationalist feeling was revived. A French army in Cilicia --in the southern part of Asia Minor--was driven down to the sea, and the Turks showed surprising power of resistance. The Greek government, at the head of which again was M. Venizelos, friend of the Allies, offered to take the field against the Ottoman armies. The Turks insisted that they be allowed to keep Thrace and the Smyrna district, but in July the Allies allowed ten days for Ottoman acceptance on penalty of expulsion from Europe entirely. Thereupon the Turks yielded to the Treaty of Sèvres ( August, 1920). In the Near East the aspirations of Greece and of Italy were already in conflict, but after some negotiation a friendly agreement was made, by which the Dodecanese was to be yielded to Greece, excepting the outlying Kastelorizo and Rhodes, possession of which was to be determined by plebiscite fifteen years later.
The Treaty of Sèvres
Turkish opposition proceeded apace. Scarcely had the Treaty of Sèvres been signed when Ottoman nationalists under a leader, Mustapha Kemal Pasha, assembled at Angora, in the midst of the Turkish population of Asia Minor, denounced the treaty, and resolved to oppose it by force. The treaty had been accepted at Constantinople, but amidst much confusion there announcement was made that the treaty would not be ratified until the government accomplished national reunion. Meanwhile, France and Great Britain were drifting apart, and the Turks, like the Germans, began to hope for profit therefrom. The Kemalists declared the Constantinople government merely a tool of the Allies. In February, 1921, the national convention established at Angora proclaimed
Turkish nationalism aroused
44. EUROPE IN 1920
that it constituted the only true government existing in the Ottoman dominions.
Difficulties rapidly followed. The Allies had accepted the military assistance of Greece, but this accomplished nothing decisive. In October, 1920, died Alexander, king of Greece, son of the exiled Constantine, put on the throne by the Allies. In elections held shortly after Venizelos was repudiated, and in December, by overwhelming majority, the Greeks expressed desire for Constantine's return. The Allies issued grave warnings, and threatened to abandon Greece altogether, but Constantine was welcomed to Athens. France and Italy, already jealous of Greek pretensions, soon favored recognition of the nationalist Turks and revision of the Sèvres Treaty. This was opposed by Great Britain in the Conference of London ( December, 1920), and some said England would give Greece support to strengthen herself at Constantinople. On invitation Turkey and Greece sent delegations to a meeting in London ( February and March, 1921), at which finally the Allies proposed a considerable revision of the Treaty of Sèvres of including Turkish rule over Smyrna. The Turks were willing; the Greeks refused. Already the French had made a secret treaty with the Turkish nationalists, agreeing to withdraw from Cilicia in return for extensive economic concessions. When the affair presently became known it increased the growing suspicion between Great Britain and France. Just before the end of the London Conference Italy also made a secret treaty with the Turks: in return for economic privileges, she would assist them in obtaining Smyrna and Thrace.
Greece and the western powers
Proposed revision of the Treaty of Sèvres
In March, 1921, the new Greek government tried to enforce the Treaty of Sèvres. It was afterward evident that the Greeks had been rashly encouraged by England though England could not really assist them, while Italy and France were giving secret but effectual aid to the Turks. A Greek army of 200,000 men thrown into Asia
The Greeks defeated by the Turks Minor defeated the Turks and forced them far back, but was unable to destroy the nationalist army or accomplish a decisive result. During the summer of 1922 the resources of Greece were exhausted, while the Turkish armies were again equipped. The Greeks were presently compelled to withdraw. Then in September, suddenly attacked by the Turks, they were driven to the coast in ruin and rout. Most of their army was embarked and taken to Europe, but Smyrna was abandoned and partly destroyed, and the cause of the Greeks was utterly lost.
The effects of this occurrence were at once felt all over Europe. The patient and long-sustained efforts of the Greeks had brought only disaster. In the midst of fury and despair Constantine was driven from the throne, and Venizelos given the hopeless task of saving what could be saved. The Turks overran Asia Minor and marched on the straits. Too late Great Britain intervened. A mighty armada rushed to Constantinople, and a large British army occupied Tchanak, the region south of the Dardanelles. Flushed with triumph and filled with rising national spirit, the Turks scarcely refrained from attacking the British to force their way into Europe. For a moment it seemed that another vast and general conflagration might begin. France, at odds with Great Britain about Germany, looked coldly on. It was in the midst of this crisis that the government of Mr. Lloyd George at last fell. Its successors joined in calling a conference to be held at Lausanne. There, the Turks finding the Allies widely divided on eastern Europe as well as the west, demanded restoration of nearly all they had lost by the Great War, and during protracted negotiations continued to maintain their demands. Agreement long seemed impossible, but peace was badly needed by all of the parties. Settlement was finally made in the Treaty of Lausanne ( July, 1923), which undid the Treaty of Sèvres. Turkey submitted to the loss of certain detached mandated states--Syria, Meso-
The British at Tchanak
The Treaty of Lausanne
potamia, Palestine--but she kept all Asia Minor, and received back in full sovereignty Constantinople and the adjoining part of Thrace, while she was freed of the capitulations--agreements to allow foreigners to have their own courts--once imposed on her by the western powers and denounced when she entered the Great. War. Through vigor and skilful management, and from the usual divisions among the Christian powers, she had recovered beyond all expectation, and made herself important again.
During all this time the Russian problem ceased not to give trouble. At first it was supposed that the bolshevist government would soon collapse, or be overthrown by counter-revolution. Each counter-revolutionary movement, however, was broken in turn, and while Russia remained so cut off from the rest of the world that reliable information could scarcely be had, it was presently evident that whatever might be the fate of bolshevism itself, its leaders had built up a military force that easily defied their opponents. Not since the time of the French Revolution at its worst had the rest of the world had such horror and aversion in respect of a European country as most nations now had for Russia. By violent revolution the Bolsheviki had overthrown what people of substance elsewhere cherished. Like the French revolutionaries long before, Russian leaders boldly proclaimed that they would by propaganda, or by force, if they could, overthrow the old system and establish their new one in every part of the world. Hence Russia was presently ostracized and cut off from relations with other countries. Half the area of Europe and a great body of the world's white population was now outside of intercourse with what most people conceived to be the civilized world. To prevent the propaganda speedily launched the countries that had severed relations undertook to establish a so-called cordon sanitaire (health barrier) to hold back bolshevism within its own bounds. The Bolsheviki retaliated by establishing
Cut off from the rest of the world
relations with radicals and extremists in all states and stirring up political trouble wherever they could. In various parts of the British Empire--especially in India and in the countries near by--and in parts of the French colonial possessions, they incited Moslems to rise against alien rule. Presently this made considerable trouble for the British in Asia. When the Kemalists began their movement the Moscow government abetted and assisted, and in March, 1921, a Russo-Turkish treaty was made.
Meanwhile the radical and socialist elements in various countries, sympathizing more or less with the bolshevist system, demanded recognition of the soviet government and restoration of relations with Russia. In Italy this element gained such power that at one time they bade fair to gain mastery there. In Britain the Labor Party consistently demanded recognition of Russia.
Sympathy from radicals elsewhere
Among the great states of the world the most consistent opponents of the Bolshevist government were France and the United States. Poland, therefore, supported though she was by the Allies, was supported especially by France. The Poles considered that their eastern boundaries had not yet been determined. The French desired a strong, large Poland as a barrier against bolshevist Russia. During 1919 the Poles waged almost constant war against the Bolsheviki, hoping to regain all their forefathers had before the First Partition. By this partition Russia had indeed taken extensive areas from Poland, but they were largely districts peopled then by kindred of the Russians, formerly seized when Russia was weak. The Allies, accordingly, planned Poland's eastern boundary to be farther west; but the Poles, encouraged by France, determined to regain all that Poland once had possessed.
Ambition of Poland
In January, 1920, the Poles captured Dvinsk; in May Kiev was taken, and a large part of the Ukraine overrun. This rapid advance aroused strong national feeling in Russia, and the Bolsheviki were supported by many who
The Russians defeat the Poles
favored them little but who would not see Russians conquered by Poles. So the Russians brought upon the enemy overwhelming numbers, and the Poles were driven back rapidly in dangerous retreat. The Polish premier appeared at the Spa Conference in July to ask for Allied assistance. Great Britain suggested an armistice on condition that the Poles withdraw behind the frontier proposed by the Peace Conference in 1919. This boundary thus proposed, now first made public, was much to the west of the Polish eastern frontier of 1772.
In negotiations that followed, in which Great Britain came near to recognizing the bolshevik government as the de facto government of Russia, the Bolsheviki delayed answer while they continued to drive the Poles westward. The British proposals were presently rejected, and the Moscow authorities announced that they would deal with Poland direct. Towns and fortresses were taken in rapid succession, and fear arose that Warsaw itself would soon fall. An Allied mission, including one of the best of the French generals, now went to Poland; and arms were hurriedly dispatched. Toward the end of July Trotzky, the bolshevik minister of war, announced that Poland would no longer be a defence for western Europe, but would become instead a bridge over which the social revolution would be carried westward. A little later it was stated unofficially that Poland could have peace only by abandoning all the outlying territory which she claimed, surrendering her war material, paying an indemnity, and instituting a soviet régime. In the last days of July and the early part of August the fortified places near Warsaw fell in rapid succession, and a soviet government was set up in the conquered portion of Poland.
Triumphant advance of the Bolsheviki
Now, however, came a great national rising of the Poles, held fast against the Bolsheviki by their Roman Catholic religion and roused against the Russians by old and traditional hatred. All classes came out to volunteer. Pres-
Victory of the Poles
ently the Russians were twelve miles from Warsaw, with the situation like that of six years before when Germans saw the suburbs of Paris. Then the Poles struck in a great counter-offensive, and the result was more disastrous than what befell the Germans in the Marne campaign. The Russian right in the north was routed, their center was burst in, their forces in the south were crushingly defeated. Brest-Litovsk was retaken, and the Russians fled broken as they had fled before the Germans in 1915.
In March, 1921, peace was made by the Treaty of Riga. Russia was forced by the victorious Poles to agree to a frontier far east of that which the Supreme Council had proposed. The area of Poland was now 150,000 square miles, and its population about 30,000,000, two thirds of them Poles. In this disastrous war Russia had lost 87,000 square miles of territory containing 7,000,000 inhabitants, of whom very few were Poles.
The Treaty of Riga
The new Poland, apparently almost one of the great powers of Europe, was actually in dire straits. Hunger, poverty, unemployment were general. A powerful military force seemed necessary for protection against Russia, just as the French believed that they required a very strong army against the Germans. During 1992 Poland was engaged in disputes with Lithuania over possession of Vilna, which was later annexed. Disputes continued also with Russia. Meanwhile expenditure for the army exceeded the entire normal revenue of Poland.
Conditions in Poland
During all this time the Bolsheviki desired recognition by other governments and the opening of trade with other countries. In some places desire increased for resumption of intercourse with Russia. Both Italy and Great Britain favored this more and more, while France continued to oppose it. In November, 1920, an Anglo-Russian trade agreement was concluded; and commercial intercourse with Russia was resumed by several of the smaller countries.
Relations of Russia with other countries
Owing largely to the influence of Mr. George, France and Great Britain agreed to invite Russia and Germany to an international conference at Genoa in 1922. At the Genoa Conference the Russian question took most of the attention of the delegates. Against Russia the Allies had claims of 65,000,000,000 francs, largely for loans made to the old government--debts repudiated by the Bolsheviki. The Russian foreign minister, M. Techitcherin, countered with a demand for 300,000,000,000 francs to cover Russia's part in the World War, and for damage done by opponents of the bolshevist régime. Soon these counter-claims were greatly reduced, Russia asking, however, for a loan from the Allies. Great Britain, attempting to mediate between France and the bolshevist rulers, announced that the Bolsheviki must recognize the pre-war obligations of Russia, assume responsibility for the sums borrowed by Russia during the war, and make compensation for foreignowned property nationalized by the soviets. Scarcely had these terms been laid down when it was announced that Germany and Russia had concluded a treaty, providing for mutual renunciation of war expenses and damages, and mutual economic assistance. In the midst of the sensation that followed, the French were prepared to take drastic measures, fearing lest the treaty involved a secret military alliance and future destruction of the Treaty of Versailles. M. Poincaré declared that if by the end of May Germany had not met the terms of the Reparations Commission, France with or without her allies would proceed to coercive measures.
Russia and the Genoa Conference
A Russo-German treaty, 1922
Meanwhile it seemed that the Russians were being brought to acknowledge pre-war debts, and practically to agree to restoration of the nationalized property of foreign owners. But suspicion that Great Britain was obtaining undue concessions of Russian oil grove the Allies farther apart. Presently the Bolshevist emissaries rejected the terms that were offered, and so failed to obtain the recognition they so much desired. Mr. George had proposed a
Failure of the Genoa Conference
general ten-year non-aggression compact. France demanded that Russia recognize during those years all her existing boundaries; and this project also was abandoned. In the following year France maintained her position, though sometimes she was thought to be striving to reach a separate agreement with Russia.
The example of Russia contributed to radicalism increasing all over Europe. Everywhere a spirit of unrest made many desire to overturn, transform, overthrow; and what the Bolsheviki had done was sought by radicals in most other countries. In these countries meanwhile many liberals and progressives were affrighted at the prospect that threatened, and all over the world radicalism was followed by conservative reaction. In Italy this was especially marked. There began the Fascisti movement.
Radicalism and conservative reaction
More than some of the other combatants Italy was exhausted by the war. She had, indeed, realized some of her highest ambitions. She now held the old Italia Irredenta, the islands and cities of the Dalmatian coast, the towering rampart of the Alps with considerable districts beyond. None the less, she was greatly exhausted, and her finances were all but ruined. Bad as was the case of Great Britain, where population too great for the country's agriculture must be supported by industry and commerce, and where trade depression and industrial stagnation left many without means of support, Britain's position was far better than Italy's, where also was a much larger population than the arable land would maintain, while such coal and iron as Britain had were in Italy utterly lacking. Before the war Italy had obtained coal abroad, especially from England; but now with freights and costs very high, with adverse exchange, and in the midst of general industrial stagnation, this was for the most part impossible, and Italy entered upon a period of trade depression worse than that in Great Britain. The war had left huge national debt and crushing taxes, while
Italy after the war
Poverty and depression
it was difficult for many to gain a livelihood, hard for some to make a living at all. The glory of success seemed at once turned to ashes and dust. For many Italians bleak, long years stretched ahead into the distance.
This was the opportunity of the extremists of whom Italy long had had many. To the larger numbers who would listen now they taught that the existing parliamentary government could do little for most of the people, that the existing capitalist system involved oppression and slavery of the masses, that regeneration could come only by adopting a system like that which, they said, had just brought so much good to the Russian masses. The orators and youthful enthusiasts teaching these doctrines were assisted with money from Moscow, and bolshevist propagandists working from Switzerland urged the enterprise on.
Radicalism in Italy
In the terrible reaction and weariness of this post-war period it seemed for a moment that Italy would adopt the bolshevist teachings. During 1919 and 1920 all over the country officers and ex-soldiers were treated with contumely and insult, and people of property and substance were threatened when they traveled or appeared in public. On several occasions the flag of Italy was lowered and the red flag of socialism flown in its place. The government was reviled and the soviet system praised. In 1920 workingmen began taking over factories to be run by workingmen's councils, and though this movement speedily collapsed, the government had not interfered, and a labor convention had openly advocated the soviet system for Italian workers. There seemed now an excellent chance that bolshevism threatening to inundate Poland would leap across central Europe and be established in Italy firmly.
Attempt to institute the soviet system in Italy
At this time began a movement sinister to some and glorious to others, but remarkable to all who observed. The radicals believed so fervently that their system would
bring amelioration, that they advocated force and violence, and thought any means allowable if the end could only be accomplished. On the other hand, now in many parts of Europe, amidst the growing spirit of reaction, many who cherished what existed and feared the destruction that radicals preached, resolved to repress the threatened revolution with weapons that the revolutionaries themselves would employ. In many places this feeling was current: if the proletariat were led by agitators to destroy the existing system by force and violence, let the conservatives, people of property, the middle and the upper class, use violence and force in defence, rather than passively wait for destruction. In Italy, at this time, such a counter-movement went farthest.
Violence and force
Benito Mussolini, of obscure birth, a former socialist agitator and newspaper writer, was touched by rising Italian nationalism during the course of the war. Now in this nadir of Italy's weakness and discontent he resolved to fight against radicalism with the weapons that radicals were employing. If they threatened violence, violence should be threatened to them. If they used force, force should be used upon them. If strikes were declared for political purposes or so as to bring confusion, those strikes should be forcibly broken. He preached with fiery eloquence, and while his life was often in danger he acted with decision and personal courage. Remarkable ability as an organizer soon brought him a numerous following--the conservatives, the soldiers, the nationalists, and generally those opposed to a social revolution. He urged love for the Italian patria and bade people remember the old majesty and greatness of Rome. Since in ancient days the symbol of authority borne before Roman magistrates had been the fasces--bundle of rods about an axe-his followers called themselves Fascisti and the movement was known as Fascismo.
Origin of the Fascisti
During 1920 and 1921 the black-shirred followers of Mussolini waged a varying struggle with the socialists and bolshevists all over Italy. Strikes were broken; retaliation and threats were meted out. Many conflicts ensued in the Italian cities. The weak government looked on while the two factions were fighting it out. The organization of the Fascisti was enlarged and strengthened, and increasingly did the people of Italy follow or give it support. Struggle between Fascisti and communists
The decisive struggle soon came. In 1922 socialists called a general strike to intimidate the government. After fierce fighting the strike was ended by Fascisti, and for the time being the socialist movement in Italy was broken. The Fascisti were now more powerful than the government, and Mussolini had become the greatest man in the state. In the autumn, accordingly, the Fascisti marched on Rome, and the government yielding, the king invited Mussolini to take charge of the government, and he became practically a dictator. The tasks that confronted him were such that ultimate success would be very difficult to obtain. By unconstitutional methods and by force, however, he had probably saved Italy from bolshevist revolution.
Triumph of the Fascisti
This episode attracted the attention of conservatives, reactionaries, and those who disliked bolshevism and socialism all over the world. Various defensive conservative movements were planned; and it could scarcely be doubted that in the troubled times that faced other countries organizations like Fascismo, whatever name they might have, would rise up to defend the old order.
Effect outside of Italy
In these years of perplexity and trouble a constructive effort was made that some thought foolish and doomed to failure, while others believed it to contain the principal hope of mankind. The covenant or agreement for a league of nations had been brought forward at Paris especially by President Wilson of the United States. The French and others would have been glad to hasten the making of a treaty of peace and settling the German question, but
The League of Nations
President Wilson, all powerful then, insisted that the covenant be an integral part of the treaty. In April, 1919, at a plenary session of the Peace Conference, the revised covenant was read, and, with certain amendments, unanimously adopted. This was, in effect, the beginning of the League of Nations, which came into effect officially in January, 1920, after various ratifications of the Treaty of Versailles.
Of the thirty-two countries that had taken part in the negotiations preceding the treaty, all except China signed the treaty, and all the signatories, excepting Ecuador, Nicaragua, and the United States, afterward gave ratification. China later on signed and ratified the Treaty of St. Germain with Austria, of which the covenant was also a part. Hence the League of Nations had from the start twenty-eight members: The British Empire with six votes--Great Britain, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and South Africa; France, Italy, Japan; Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, Jugo-Slavia, Portugal, Rumania; various associated American countries--Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Peru, Uruguay; China, Hedjaz, Liberia, and Siam. During 1920 the European countries that had been neutral during the war--Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, and the neutral Latin-American states--Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Salvador, and Venezuela--were invited to join. All of them accepted the covenant and so became members of the league. Applications for membership were soon received from Austria and from Bulgaria, and many of the members favored the early admission of Germany. For the present the French would have no admission of the Germans; but in December Austria and Bulgaria were taken in, as well as four other states--Albania, Costa Rica, Finland, and Luxemburg. By the end of the year advocates of the League of Nations were boasting that it now embraced
Members of the League
Applications for membership
three fourths of mankind, and that even if the United States had not come in, most of the rest of America was included. Unfortunately, however, the assistance and coöperation of the United States seemed vitally necessary; and with Germany and Russia also not included a great part of the white man's world was outside. In 1923 there were fifty-two members, the Irish Free State having been admitted during the autumn of that year.
The government of the league had been vested in an assembly in which each member state had one vote, and a council, an executive body, in which the principal powers-France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and, as originally planned, the United States--were to have delegates representing themselves and the league at large, while there were to be four other delegates representing their own states, the others, and the league at large. The first meeting of the council was held in January, 1920. A permanent secretariat was organized, and publication of an official journal begun. The expenses, about $2,500,000 a year, were borne by the member nations. Various commissions were considered or appointed, such as the commission for the governing of the Saar. In November, 1920, the first session of the league assembly was held at Geneva. Further amendments to the covenant or constitution of the league were proposed, and speedily led to a struggle between the large and the small member states. Argentina and the Scandinavian countries wanted a world court with compulsory jurisdiction. The Argentine delegates proposed that all members of the council should be elected by the assembly for two years with complete rotation among the member states in thirty years, and that former enemy states should now be admitted without any restrictions. The Argentine delegates withdrew pending acceptance of these proposals. The Permanent Court of International Justice was instituted, with eleven judges elected by the council and the assembly; but although
The league organization
Amendments proposed to the league constitution
thirty-six of the member states desired that jurisdiction of the court should be compulsory, this was opposed successfully by Great Britain, Italy, France, and Japan, who were not willing to engage to submit all disputes to any court.
Numerous meetings of the council were held in various places. Much useful and difficult work was attempted. Effort was directed toward forwarding disarmament, but little could be accomplished for the present. A commission of the league was appointed to deal with the question of mandates, or orders committing certain districts to the care of supervisory powers, but this was reserved for the most part to be dealt with by the Supreme Council of the Allies. There was general feeling that the work of the league was largely formal and unimportant, and that the principal interested powers would not permit it to deal with, certainly not decide, important matters, which they themselves preferred to settle by force or older diplomatic methods. It was sometimes said that the league was really an organization of victorious powers to preserve and sanction what they had arranged. It was pointed out, for example, that the Commission of the Saar allowed the French to deal with that district much as they pleased. Perhaps in the beginning and in the midst of such great difficulties not much could be done. Yet the league did successfully decide a dispute between Sweden and Finland concerning the Aland Islands, and another between Jugo-Slavia and Albania concerning boundaries, and it undertook the preliminaries of settling the quarrel between Poland and Lithuania about possession of Vilna. Perhaps the most important thing, as in the early history of the parliament of England and of the constitution of the United States, was that the league continued in being, at no time ceasing to function. In 1923 its friends said that it was firmly founded and successfully working. Accession of the United States, they declared, was no
Work of the League of Nations
Criticism of the League
longer indispensable for its success. That summer, however, Mussolini defied the league completely, when Greece appealed following Italy's sudden seizure of Corfu. If adverse decision were given Italy threatened to withdraw at once. The dispute was settled by the ambassadors of the Great Powers.
Meanwhile in a smaller undertaking more striking results were achieved. In November, 1921, following the invitation of President Harding of the United States that Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan should send representatives to confer about reducing and limiting armaments, the Washington Conference assembled. America desired that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 should be brought to an end. Relations between Japan and the United States had become steadily more involved in suspicion and dread, and many believed that oriental questions would one day be settled by war between America and Japan. America attempted now to make her own contribution toward avoidance of war. The secretary of state proposed that Great Britain, Japan, and the United States cease building capital ships for a number of years.
The Washington Conference
The great issues here involved were dealt with frankly and with much apparent success. In December, 1921, the Four-Power Pacific Treaty was signed between Great Britain, France, Japan, and the United States, the parties agreeing not to disturb the sovereignty of the others in the Pacific, and that disputes relating to the Pacific should be settled by a conference called for the purpose. This treaty was to stand for ten years, and continue if not then denounced. On its ratification the Anglo-Japanese Alliance would come to an end. In February, 1922, the Washington Conference finished the Five-Power Naval Treaty between the United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. It provided for the destruction of much naval tonnage, limited the size of capital ships and
The Pacific Treaty
The Naval Treaty
the caliber of their great guns, and stipulated that the tonnage of capital ships for Great Britain and for the United States should be limited in amount and equal, with that of Japan also limited and in the ratio of three to the five of Great Britain and of the United States respectively, while the tonnage of France and of Italy was limited and smaller still. France, whose proportion was as 1.75 to the 3 of Japan and the 5 of Great Britain and of the United States, greatly objected, and consented finally only on condition that she be allowed to build numerous submarines. Great Britain desired that submarines be outlawed altogether, but here she was opposed not only by France, but by Italy, Japan, and the United States. What would have been the greatest advantage for the British was in this manner lost. Yet the gains from the Conference were large. For some time peace in the Far East seemed assured, and ruinous rivalry between Great Britain and the United States was prevented when Great Britain voluntarily abandoned her position of naval supremacy, at the same time that the United States as voluntarily relinquished her chance to become the greatest power on the seas in the future.
Limitation of naval power
Great Britain and the United States
For the most recent period bibliographies seem less satisfactory, since in many cases good books are still lacking, and dependence must be largely upon periodicals and annual compendiums of information. Of the Encyclopdia Britannica a supplement has appeared, 3 vols. ( 1922), for the years 1911-21. For annuals see the introductory bibliographical note.
Periodicals and newspapers. Newspapers were never more instructive and reliable than the best ones are at present: The New York Times, The ( Baltimore) Sun, The ( London) Times, The ( London) Telegraph, The Manchester Guardian, The Morning Post ( London). To a considerable extent these papers--especially such as The New York Times and The Telegraph--devote themselves to giving information and news accurately and fully.
Others--like The Manchester Guardian and The Morning Post, excellent as their news usually is--are also strongly journals of opinion. This, to greater or less extent, is the case with most of the periodicals. One cannot fail to be instructed and entertained by perusal of The Outlook ( London), The Nation ( New York), The New Republic ( New York); but he who reads these weeklies without fully understanding the point of view which they respectively represent so ably and so well may be misled on many occasions. Of periodicals the following will amply repay the reader's attention: The American Review of Reviews (monthly, New York), Foreign Affairs (quarterly, New York), The Fortnightly Review (monthly, London), The Journal of International Relations (quarterly, Baltimore), The New Statesman (weekly, London), The XIXth Century and After (monthly, London), The North American Review (monthly, New York), The Observer (weekly, London), The Political Science Quarterly ( New York), The Quarterly Review ( London), Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique (quarterly, Paris), Revue Politique et Parlementaire (monthly, Paris), The Round Table (quarterly, London), Zeitschrift für Politik (bi-monthly, Berlin).
General: Isaiah Bowman, The New World: Problems in Political Geography ( 1921); G. L. Dickinson, War: Its Nature, Cause, and Cure ( 1922); Viscount Milner, Questions of the Hour ( 1923); Francesco Nitti, L'Europa senza Pace ( 1922). Turkey and Islam: Joseph Castagné, Le Bolchevisme et l'Islam, 2 vols. ( 1922); Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color ( 1920), The New World of Islam ( 1921); A. J. Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey ( 1922).
Fascismo: Cipriani Giachetti, Fascismo Liberatore ( 1922); Pietro Gorgolini, Il Fascismo nella Vita Italiana ( 1922); Benito Mussolini, Discorsi Politici ( 1922).
The League of Nations: League of Nations official Journal, I-, ( 1920-); Societé des Nations, Actes, I- ( 1920-); Mrs. C. A. Kluyver , Documents of the League of Nations ( 1920); C. H. Levermore , What the League of Nations Has Accomplished in One Year ( 1921). Many pamphlets and small books have been issued by the World Peace Foundation ( Boston). The Far East: Sydney Greenbie, The Pacific Triangle ( 1922).
THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AFTER THE WAR
It should never be forgotten that the enemy of to-day may become the friend and ally of to-morrow. LORD AUGUSTUS LOFTUS, Recollections ( 1892), i. 267
Je demandais l'occupation de l'Allemagne jusqu'a l'Elbe, de facon à séparer . . . la Prusse des autres pays d'Allentagne, qiu sont, pour elle, terre de conquête . . . Je disais: si vous voulez faire une paix française, occupez le Rhin; si voulez faire une paix de portée universelle, occupez l'Elbe. GABRIEL HANOTAUX, Le Traité de Versailles du 28 Juin 1919 ( 1919), introduction, p. xvii.
Wir wollen bauen ein glückliches, freies, sozialistisches Deutschland. Männer und Frauen! Wählt sozialdemokraten! Wer billiges Brot, gesunde Wirtschaftspolitik, deutschen Geist, nationale Würde, schnellen Wideraufbau Deutschlands, völlige Revision des Vernichtungs-Friedens von Versailles will, der wählt am 6. Juni die Lersner-Liste! Deutsche Volkspartei. German Election Posters.
Nearly five years after the Armistice, the Ruhr plunge, that climax of impolicy, pursued in spite of every British warning, is making chaos worse confounded in political and economic Europe. Things cannot go on as they are. Agricultural France, almost selfcontained, an live on these terms. Industrial and maritime Britain cannot live on these terms.
The (London) Observer July 15, 1923.
For some time after the war things improved very little for Great Britain, and it seemed that as often as one problem was settled another as perplexing rose in its place. Most troublesome and distressing was the Irish Question. In the summer of 1914 many had hoped that this matter was virtually settled, but adjustment had remained in
The Irish Question
abeyance, and during the conflict matters hastened from bad to worse. One of the most extreme and striking enhancements of national feeling in the decade before the Great War had been the growth of the Sinn Fein movement. The struggle of the nations had everywhere further aroused nationalist feeling and fanned nationalism to a flame. During the time of the conflict promises of liberation and of "self-determination" had been freely held out, and vast expectations widely aroused. With the collapse of the Dual Monarchy and disintegration in the Russian Empire, many small peoples or nations had again achieved independence. The victorious states viewed with complacency enough the breaking of enemy states; and it was, perhaps, a matter for lament with the French that the German Reich did not fall to pieces. The victors were sorely perplexed, however, to find in their own dominions peoples who desired to break away and set up for themselves.
Desire for "self-determination"
In 1916 Sinn Feiners and Irish extremists had striven to effect a revolution and make Ireland a republic independent of Great Britain. The revolution had failed, but presently most Irishmen became ardent supporters of Sinn Fein. In 1919 Sinn Feiners proclaimed Ireland an independent republic. Then they appealed to America and to the Peace Congress at Paris for assistance.
An Irish republic proclaimed
The British desired to settle Irish affairs generously and justly, but they proposed to settle them with respect to their own interests as well as the interests of Ireland. Any settlement was by now very difficult since Ireland was virtually controlled by enthusiasts and fanatics, whose passions had been wildly aroused, until they would admit no compromise whatever. Absolute independence and complete separation were all they proposed to consider. For geographical and strategic reasons these might be vitally dangerous to the people of Great Britain, more than ten times as numerous as the population of Ireland.
Difficulties pertaining to a settlement
Moreover, the majority of the Irishmen of Ulster were determined not to be separated from the United Kingdom.
The avowed purpose of Sinn Fein had been passive resistance, but as the movement against the British government came more under the direction of social radicals and political extremists, the republicans undertook to drive the British out of Ireland by terrorism, assassination, and force. Magistrates, officials, and especially policemen were set upon and brutally murdered; much property was burned or ruined; and presently a horrible guerilla warfare was waged. Disorder and chaos spread rapidly over the country, and preservation of order became impossible. In December, 1919, an attempt was made to assassinate Lord French, the lord lieutenant. In the spring of 1920 the British government sent numerous troops into Ireland, and many ex-soldiers were enlisted in a reorganized Royal Irish Constabulary, the special policemen being known from their uniforms as "Black and Tans." Soldiers and policemen, though for the most part behaving with restraint, soon began retaliating for outrages against them, and horror was answered with horror.
Terror in Ireland
Under ordinary circumstances such a movement would have been hopeless, and such rebellion would soon have been crushed. It was no ordinary occasion, however. The British people were weary and sick of all war. The British Labor Party, constantly more powerful, was filled with new ideas not only concerning social regeneration but foreign policy as well. Socialists, radicals, and idaelists of all kinds convinced themselves that Ireland's cause was just, and that Britain should yield. Most people in Britain were opposed to such yielding, but mnay were swayed by another consideration. From recent gratitude and for many reasons of policy it had come to be the cardinal tenet in British diplomacy to preserve cordial relations with the United States.
The majority of Feeling in Great Britain
the Irish race now lived in the United States. Irish-Americans, largely from very widespread Sinn Fein propaganda, espoused the Irish extremists' cause, and not only supplied money and munitions for the struggle, but attempted to have America intervene. Despite the best efforts on both sides, relations between Britain and the United States grew increasingly embarrassed and embittered. Accordingly, after a mournful and terrible contest, in which the British always hesitated to use enough force to suppress the rebellion, but in which they were by propagandists everywhere denounced for the war they were waging, the Irish largely achieved the things they were seeking.
In 1920 the British government had brought forward the Fourth Home Rule Bill, to give home rule to Ulster-unwilling to follow Sinn Fein--and also home rule to the rest of Ireland. Each would have a parliament of its own. There was to be a Council of Ireland to bring about, if possible, harmonious action of the two. Toward the end of the year this was passed as the Government of Ireland Act. Sinn Fein Ireland would have nothing to do with the scheme. In June, 1921, the government of the northern jurisdiction was organized, and Ulster, once so bitterly opposed to home rule, was the first part of Ireland in which such a system was established.
Ulster and Sinn Fein
Anarchy and violence held sway in the rest of the island a little while longer; but in the summer of 1921 the British authorities made a final effort to come to terms with Sinn Fein, and presently Sinn Fein emissaries conferred with British officials in London. The negotiations, protracted until December, were very difficult. Sinn Fein was obdurate for a separate and independent republic. The British government would allow no withdrawing from the empire but offered a full dominion status, self-government, and complete autonomy in taxation and finance. Finally, when it seemed that resort must once more be had to
The Irish Free State established
decision by force, a treaty of agreement was made. Sinn Fein Ireland would no longer be part of the United Kingdom, but was to remain in the association of commonwealths known as the British Empire. There it would have the constitutional status of one of the self-governing dominions, and be known as the Irish Free State. It was not to be a republic, but have its own parliament with its own executive responsible thereto. The tie between Great Britain and Ireland thereafter was to be allegiance to a common king. Ulster was not included in this arrangement, but was to continue, so long as it would, with its own government--a part of the United Kingdom. There was to be no discrimination because of religion. Great Britain was to have certain naval bases in Ireland. and all necessary facilities during war.
A self-governing dominion in the British Empire
This agreement, bitterly disliked by some in Great Britain, was yet immediately agreed to there. In Ireland it was much less easily accepted. Most Irishmen and Sinn Feiners soon gave adherence to the Irish Free State, and the new government was shortly set up; but dreadful conditions followed, and peace seemed as remote as ever. The irreconcilable extremists waged a relentless campaign against Ulster, and opposed the Free State by all means that they could. There was a brief but terrible campaign of incendiarism and violence in the north in which the Ulster adherents were somewhat assisted by British troops. Soon this struggle died down as the Irish republicans devoted themselves to trying to destroy the Free State. The methods formerly used against the British were now employed against the Free State officials. Some were shot down from ambush, and all over the country property was seized and houses were burned. The Free State after a while applied far more terribly than had the British methods of repression and reprisal, and by the summer of 1923 the movement was broken. Ireland was now divided into two jurisdictions--Ulster and the
Civil war in Ireland
Terror and destruction
Irish Free. State--much hating each other; and there had been such wanton destruction of property as would requite a generation to repair.
The British government was beset by other problems almost as hard and harassing. It seemed, indeed, that the British Empire was now breaking up. In the Great War the parts of the empire had belied all expectations of England's enemies, giving magnificent assistance to Great Britain. During the struggle the outlying portions had contributed 3,000,000 men and £1,000,000,000 to the general cause, half the men and four fifths of the money being sent by the self-governing dominions. For the most part this was voluntary coöperation in a common cause. In another emergency it might be done again, but meanwhile the dominions felt freer than ever in the past, and some of the parts that were held in subordinate status desired self-government or even independence. One of the leaders from South Africa is reported to have said that the British Empire had come to an end. It was often asserted now that Great Britain was merely the principal partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations. Apparent disintegration in the British Empire
In 1917 dominion premiers had been invited to sit with the War Cabinet. It was presently resolved that an imperial cabinet, consisting of the prime minister of the United Kingdom and other British ministers particularly concerned with imperial affairs along with premiers of the dominions and a representative from India should assemble each year. In 1919 the war cabinet was discontinued, but two years later an imperial conference assembled in London. "The Empire is in charge of Downing Street," said Mr. Lloyd George at this time. Annual or frequent meetings were recommended. But while formally this seemed the beginning of a closer connection of the parts of the empire and establishment of a general self-government, there were strong tendencies working for disruption. It was, perhaps, of no great
Attempted development of an imperial system
significance that a little later Canada sent a representative of her own to the United States, though this caused some concern in Great Britain. During this time India was seething with discontent, and conditions in Egypt were almost as bad as in Ireland.
India, with an area of 2,000,000 square miles and a population of 300,000,000, contained more races and religions than Europe. In the past it had undoubtedly been exploited by English merchants and traders; but since the British government had taken it over from the English East India Company in 1858, it had on the whole been more prosperous and better governed than at any time in the past, and more order and security prevailed than its peoples ever had known. As always, however, better conditions made possible larger aspirations. Indian students learned of the western constitutional systems, and aspired to have them. It was properly answered that most of the people of India had no knowledge of or wish for such things, that as matters were their own interests were concerned in maintenance of British rule. In the Great War India made large contributions of money and men, and large promises were made to her during this peril. At the same time, in India, as elsewhere, discontent, radicalism, and unrest increased very greatly. In 1919 a (Government of India Act granted a limited amount of parliamentary self-government; but this was far from satisfying the aspirations of enthusiasts and leaders. The whole matter was further complicated because the Moslem part of the population of India--one of the largest and most aggressive elements in the country --was displeased at the attempts being made to destroy the power of Turkey, whose sultan was head of the Mohammedan world. Widespread movements of passive resistance and of non-coöperation with the British government alternated with sedition and uprisings. As world conditions slowly settled down in the years that followed
Rising discontent and unrest
the war, matters improved; but some observers believed that India would later be lost to the British Empire.
In Egypt matters went farther. In 1914 this country, so long occupied by the British, was declared a protectorate in the British Empire, and by the Treaty of Sèvres ( 1920) this had been recognized by Turkey. In Egypt presently a nationalist party strove for self-government and virtual independence, employing the methods of terror and non-coöperation that the Irish extremists were using. Here also stern measures of repression did not avail, and in 1922 the Declaration of Egypt terminated the protectorate over Egypt, and the sultan of the country shortly after became king. In the new Kingdom of Egypt Great Britain reserved certain rights with respect to defence and imperial communications, and virtual control of foreign relations. This agreement did not include the Sudan; and many of the provisions of the arrangement respecting Egypt were not at once put into effect.
The Kingdom of Egypt
In Great Britain the principal problems had to do with reconstruction, recovery from the waste of the war, and effecting many promised reforms. At the end of the Great War Britain seemed at the summit of her glory and power. Actually, her burdens and her losses were so great that some doubted whether she would ever be able to recover. The national debt was prodigious. The charges for government, for pensions, for the debt could scarcely be borne. Trade declined, revenue lessened, misery and unemployment were widespread. It was very difficult to make improvements and reforms. In 1918 an admirable Education Act had been passed. For lack of money it remained to a considerable extent ineffective. Building of houses had ceased during war time, and with increase of population there was now a very great shortage. The government had promised to do building itself. This was, indeed, started; but contractors and labor unions raised the costs so that soon it had to be abandoned.
Deterioration and reconstruction
Meanwhile larger and more extensive changes were demanded by the great labor unions, especially the miners, the railwaymen, and the transport workers, combined since 1913 in the Triple Alliance. They believed that they could by threats, or, if necessary, by general strikes, coerce the government into meeting their wishes, not only about social reforms, but also general policy and foreign affairs. The railwaymen desired state ownership of railways and higher pay for the workers. The miners insisted upon nationalization of the mines. In 1920 a great railroad strike paralyzed traffic. It was partly broken when volunteers from all classes assisted in running the trains; after which it was settled by a compromise, in which the strikers gained something. In 1921 there was a strike of the miners, bringing to industry enormous damage. A royal proclamation announced a "state of emergency", and the situation became very grave when the railwaymen and transport workers threatened sympathetic strike. This was only narrowly averted, and presently the strike was ended by another compromise. The most important result seemed to be the virtual disruption of the Triple Alliance.
Labor unions: the Triple Alliance
Many continued to teach that hours of labor ought to be reduced and wages increased, that people should work less not more, that standard of living must be largely raised. In essence the extremer advocates proposed to do this by fundamentally altering the social and industrial system and taking away the possessions of the propertied classes. Many others believed that the proposed amelioration could not be effected. Great Britain, they said, contained more people than its real resources sufficed to support; and far from being able to lessen work and raise standard of living, hard and more effective labor and a stern struggle would be necessary to keep part of the population from starving. England was now paying, they declared, for her too-great expansion in the earlier
Resources and standard of living
stages of the Industrial Revolution. A capital levy and plundering of the propertied classes might bring a brief respite but would certainly bring final ruin.
Meanwhile heroic efforts were made for recovery. The government refused to escape its difficulties for the moment by issuing paper money. The French franc declined to a fourth of its value, the Italian lira to a fifth, while Russian money became worthless and the German mark more worthless still. At one time the British pound sterling fell to two thirds of its value; but the government balanced its budget, and began to pay its debts, and by the beginning of 1913 the pound was not far below its old value. This was accomplished by great self-denial and courage. Englishmen taxed themselves more than any conquered people ever were made to bear. The incometax was six shillings in the pound (thirty per cent.) and higher, while the rates or local taxes added much more. Many gave up a third of their incomes to the state, some half, some three quarters. In 1923 the British began paying back the money borrowed during the war from the United States. It had been hoped by some that interallied debts would be regarded as sacrifices in a common cause, and that payment would not be demanded. But when America was seen to be not disposed to forego, the British, first of all debtors, made arrangements to pay. For two generations it would be necessary for them to lower their standard of living to do this. Such payment was equivalent to the profits they obtained from the sale of their coal, the principal export of Britain.
Finance and taxation
Repayment of the debt United States
Great change had come with respect to political parties. At the outbreak of the war a Liberal government was in power. After a while the burden was borne by a coalition. The coalition triumphed in the general election of 1918. After a while its parts began to fall asunder. The Conservatives became the principal element in the group, and presently the coalition was dissolved. On the fall of Mr.
George in 1922 the Conservatives won the general election by an easy, majority. The Labor Party gained in this contest, and became the opposition or party second most important. Between the two extremes the Liberal Party had nearly disappeared. It returned only at small number of members, and they divided between Mr. George and Mr. Asquith, who had bitterly quarreled. There were numerous predictions that the Labor Party would presently obtain control. In the general election of it polled 4,500,000 votes out of 14,550,000.
France was mostly engrossed in great questions of foreign policy, in attempting to collect the indemnity, in maintaining her position of primacy in Europe. Hence her domestic history was now less important and striking. For the most part her people were united behind their government in determination to make Germany pay and render France in the future secure. There was some socialist agitation; there were strikes; and there was not a little discontent from high prices and high cost of living; but generally the French government was little perplexed by difficulties like those in Great Britain. With respect to paying the sums borrowed from Great Britain and the United States, France courteously but firmly insisted that this should come only after Germany had made payment to her. This was, perhaps, the necessary consequence of a desperate financial situation. Staggering under an enormous national debt, the French government yet proceeded to rebuild the devastated districts by French labor paid for with money borrowed from French people. New loans were rapidly contracted and the public debt still further increased. The devastation was very quickly repaired, and France was alive with activity and seeming prosperity. None the less, while many of the people were prosperous enough, the government itself was now hopelessly bankrupt, unless Germany paid the great sums demanded. Abroad there was much sympathy for the
Domestic affairs in France
position and necessities of France, but there was also not a little stricture that France, in such plight and avowedly unable to pay her debts, was yet supporting the most powerful and costly army existing in the world.
The Clemenceau Ministry, which had brought the war to triumphant conclusion, resigned after the general election of 1919. M. Millerand succeeded as premier. He, becoming president of the republic in 1922, was followed after an interval by M. Briand. In 1922, during the difficult negotiations with Great Britain respecting Germany, the Briand Ministry fell and was succeeded by another under the resolute nationalist, Poincaré. The continuance of the Poincaré Ministry after a while seemed to depend upon the successful outcome of the coercion applied to the Germans.
In foreign relations France slowly drifted away from Great Britain, until by 1923 the Entente Cordiale, though not formally broken, seemed actually to be at an end. Relations with Italy, at first not good--in consequence of the disappointment of Italy at the Congress of Paris, and because of heightened rivalry now between Italy and France--were improved; though by 1923 with respect to Germany Italy was tending to accept the British point of view. Relations with Poland were drawn closer, an alliance was made, and Poland became almost an outlying dependency of France. Much interest was taken by the French government in the formation of the Little Entente ( 1920), and close relations were maintained with CzechoSlovakia, Jugo-Slavia, and Rumania, though these states went more their own way. With the Bolsheviki France would have nothing to do, hoping always that the French loans once made to the government of the tsar might be recovered in the future. With the Turks France presently made a separate treaty, agreeing to give up Cilicia. The French position in Syria was meanwhile maintained. Diplomatic intercourse with the Vatican had been re-
sumed, and cordial relations were presently established again.
In Germany, after the flight of the emperor during the collapse that came at the end of the war, a republic was proclaimed. There was much confusion at first, and in some places soviets were established by the social extremists; but in January, 1919, full adult suffrage for every man and woman over twenty years of age having been proclaimed, a general election was held for a national assembly which presently met at Weimar. Work was at once begun upon the drafting of a new constitution. In February a provisional constitution was submitted. It was adopted in July and by executive order became effective in August, without being submitted to popular referendum.
The German Republic
The Deutsches Reich, now understood to mean the German Commonwealth, was declared to be a republic, with all authority derived from the people. All Germans were equal before the law, sharing in a common national German citizenship, any state within the Reich being forbidden to discriminate against the citizens of another. Freedom of speech, of the press, of travel, sojourn, and settlement were all guaranteed. The principle was laid down that laws should be passed guaranteeing freedom of assembly and association, and right of petition, and for such social purposes as the assistance of families with numerous offspring, protecting motherhood and children. Freedom of religion was assured--no established church. There would be a state system of education, with a minimum of eight years' compulsory attendance at school. In this constitution a striking experiment or contribution was made in economic organization: the right of private property and of inheritance was guaranteed, but all natural resources were declared under control of the state, and all private economic enterprises adapted to socialization might be so dealt with; labor was placed under particular protection of the state; right of combination was
The German constitution of 1919
Socialistic and economic provosions
guaranteed; something like guild socialism was promoted by a system of workers' and employers' councils which were to share with the political organization of the government control of industry and labor. A national economic council might propose enactment of economic bills, and drafts of important laws relating to social and economic policy must be submitted by the cabinet for consideration by the national economic council before being sent to the legislative assembly.
The national economic council
In structure the government was modelled after those of France, of Great Britain, and of the United States. There were, as in the United States, the federal system and a president with real power. There was also the cabinet system, of a ministry directly responsible to representatives of the people. The legislative branch consisted of two parts: the reichstag or national assembly, and the reichsrat or national council, which replaced, in effect, the bundevrat or federal council of the empire now fallen. The reichstag, much the more important part of the legislative branch, was to be composed of representatives elected for four years, by universal, direct, secret, and equal suffrage, in accordance with principles of proportional representation. The suffrage would be possessed by all men and all women over twenty years of age. The reichstag was to meet each year; procedure was public; decision would generally be by majority vote. The reicksrat consisted of representatives of the various states of the federation. In it each state was to have at least one vote. No state should have more than two fifths of all the votes, but within this provision the larger states would have one vote for each million inhabitants and fraction thereof, provided the fraction comprehended as many people as the population of the smallest state.
The national legislature
The executive and administrative functions were vested in a president and in a cabinet. The reichpräsident would be elected directly by the people for a seven-year term and
The executive be reëligible. He was to be subject to popular recall on the initiative of the assembly, but in event of failure to recall, the assembly was automatically dissolved. The president was to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the commonwealth, he was to have the power of pardon, and the power to appoint some of the principal officials. All of his orders would require for validity counter-signature by the chancellor or a member of the ministry. The reichregierung or national cabinet (government) would consist of a chancellor (reichvkanzler) and various other ministers. The chancellor was appointed by the president. Upon his recommendation the other ministers were appointed or dismissed by the president. A member of the cabinet was to be chairman of the council (reichsrat) and a cabinet member was to be chairman of each of the council committees. The ministers, individually and collectively, were to be responsible to the assembly, resigning if the assembly withdrew its confidence. Chancellor and other ministers had the right to be present at sittings of the assembly or of its committees, at any of which also their presence might be required.
The cabinet and the chancellor
In national legislation all bills must be initiated either by the cabinet or the assembly. Introduction by the cabinet required concurrence of the council, though provision was made for such introduction even when concurrence was denied. A bill passed in the assembly might be refused in the council, but such veto was to be merely suspensive. If the council refused concurrence, the assembly might pass the bill again. If there were a two-thirds majority, the president must at once order a referendum. There might be a referendum on any law if so ordered by the president within one month after passage. Also in case one third of the assembly had asked that a law be deferred it might be submitted to referendum provided one twentieth of the voters so demanded. Measures might also be initiated by the people.
The making of laws
With respect to the judiciary, judges were to be independent, subject only to the law; extraordinary courts were illegal. Legislative powers not reserved to the federal government remained with the individual states, but the powers of these states were now much more restricted than they had been under the Hohenzollern régime, though each state was entitled to send plenipotentiaries to the reichstag to represent the opinion of the local cabinet or government (landesregierung) on the matters under consideration. The recent disasters had effected consolidation which the triumphs of 1871 had not been able to produce.
The president had much more power than a president of France but less than a president of the United States. He had not the power of veto, but he might submit a bill that had passed the reichstag and the reichsrat to a referendum. He might also dissolve the reichstag, though only once for the same cause. Thus he might make his office much like that of a British or a French premier. The first president, Herr Ebert, was chosen not by general election but by the reichstag. The abnormal conditions under which this government has worked make judgment difficult. At first ministries were not overturned by the reichstag, but cabinets were reconstituted as circumstances seemed to require, by displacing some of the ministers and in their stead associating new ones with some old ones remaining.
Meanwhile the number of states in the federation was diminished. The empire had been composed of twentysix states, including the Reichsland. Alsace-Lorraine had been taken by France. During 1919 Saxe-Coburg-Gotha split into halves, of which one, Saxe-Coburg, united with Bavaria. During the same time Gotha, the other half, took part in negotiations with several of the small states of central Germany, which resulted in the union of Gotha, Reuss, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-
States of the Reich
Weimar, and Schwarzburg in one larger district known as Thuringia (Einheitsstaat Thüringen), of which the capital was Weimar. Two other small states had been fused during the war, and the two principalities of Reuss had been united in a single state. The German federal republic therefore consisted of eighteen states.
The new government was beset with the gravest difficulties. The people had been weakened by heroic and prodigious exertions during the war. Hundreds of thousands had died from the effects of the blockade alone. There was now a vast national debt, and an enormous indemnity was called for. Not only were the power and proud position of the older Germany gone, but many could see before them only long servitude to foreign masters. Alsace-Lorraine had been taken; the fate of Silesia was doubtful; the Saar was in the hands of the French. Some Frenchmen desired to see Germany split up into a number of less powerful states, and France appears to have encouraged the Rhineland to separate and become independent under her protection. The French also strove to cultivate close relations with Bavaria, and at times Bavaria acted almost as an independent state. Meanwhile extreme socialists desired to overthrow the government and set up the soviet system of Russia, while others clamored for immediate nationalization of the mines. On the other hand, reactionaries called on the people to overthrow the republic and regain the older system and strength. In March, 1920, a certain Doctor Kapp headed a counter-revolutionary movement that drove the government to flight, but was itself soon broken by a vast general strike. A little later there were communist uprisings in the Ruhr, as there were in many places during 1921 and 1923. In the first general election, held in June, 1920, the socialist parties obtained the greatest number of members, but they would not unite, and after some difficulty a ministry was formed on the basis of the
Difficulties confronting the German government
Radicals and reactionaries
Catholic, the Democratic, and the People's parties, the system of bloc and several parties continuing as before. Under supervision of the Allied representatives disarmament was proceeding. In July the Reichstag abolished compulsory military service.
Throughout this period conditions remained so abnormal that it was difficult to understand the situation that existed. The government paid off its internal debt at the same time that it became bankrupt. This was done with huge and increasing quantities of paper money, of which the value progressively declined. Not a little was taken by creditors and speculators all over the world, bringing thus a considerable profit to the Germans. Meanwhile, however, the creditor classes in Germany--all those who held mortgages, bonds, and long-time obligations--were repaid in money of little and diminishing worth, and the middle classes and the intellectual classes were largely ruined. For the most part this merely involved transfer of property from one set of owners to another, no wealth being taken from Germany. Irrespective of the indemnity which the Allies demanded, Germany showed remarkable power of recuperation. There was enormous industrial activity; there was little unemployment; the merchant marine was rapidly restored, largely by government aid; and vast material additions and improvements carried out. It was partly this situation that caused the French and others to say that Germany was a fraudulent bankrupt; that Germans were constantly increasing their real capital while they protested inability to pay claims against them.
Currency and inflation
In foreign affairs for some time Germany was an outcast. She wished to join the League of Nations, but this was denied her. Soon many favored admitting her--especially the countries neutral in the Great War, the South American states, Italy, and presently England--but France steadfastly opposed. During the Genoa Confer-
ence, in April, 1922, Germany concluded a treaty with the other great European outcast, Soviet Russia. This aroused anger and the furious opposition of the French; but the treaty remained. Meanwhile the Germans had suffered a grievous loss. By the Treaty of Versailles the future disposition of Upper Silesia, desired by the new Poland, was to be decided by a plebiscite. In March, 1921, this took place, under supervision of the Interallied Plebiscite Commission and of numerous Allied troops. Altogether the Germans had in the voting a majority of 250,000. To the Supreme Council, however, had been reserved the right of dividing the region according to the wishes of the inhabitants of the various communes. Under the strong influence of France it was now proposed to give Poland about two-fifths of Upper Silesia, including certain German industrial districts. This decision was strongly opposed by Great Britain. Presently the richest parts of the territory were seized by Polish irregulars. Germany protested to the Allied governments, and a grave crisis developed between France and Great Britain. The whole matter was presently referred to the Council of the League of Nations. By its decision, in October, 1921, compromise was made: Poland retained part of what she had striven to obtain. A little latter the settlement was embodied in a treaty between Germany and Poland.
The Russo-German Treaty, 1922
Upper Silesia divided
For Italy this was a time of poverty, weakness, confusion. Like France, Italy had a devastated district to repair--in the northeast, and also in the newly acquired Trentino. The public debt was enormous. Taxation was crushing, and yet the government could with the utmost difficulty procure the revenue needed. A considerable part of the population, in the years immediately after the war, was unable to support itself; and the Italian government, like the British, had been forced to give assistance at heavy cost. Under these conditions radicalism and extreme communism developed apace, and
Italy: domestic affairs
avowed attempts were made to establish the Russian system. The socialist movement, however, was vigorously combated by the Fascisti. So wide and furious were the contests between the two factions that in 1922. Italy was virtually in the throes of civil war. By autumn the Fascisti had obtained the victory; and in 1923 the Italian government, under the king, was being conducted by Mussolini, the Fascista leader.
In foreign affairs Italy for some time held aloof from her recent allies, displeased at what she thought unfair treatment at the Congress of Paris, and also because of increased rivalry with France. Under Mussolini better relations were established with France, then presently with Great Britain, as Italy came more and more to adopt the British view of what should be done about the German problem. Respecting Russia Italy was less hostile than France, and some of her statesmen, like Nitti, favored Russia and condemned the Treaty of Versailles. The formation of the Little Entente was viewed with interest, for with one of its members Italian relations long remained bad. Italy had insisted on possession of Fiume, which the Jugo-Slavs regarded as their one outlet upon the Adriatic; and rather than consider yielding it, Italian delegates at one time left the Congress of Paris. While the matter remained undecided, D'Annunzio, previously best known as a poet, seized Fiume and held it with a volunteer force. The Italian government blockaded him, but the troops were loath to attack, and Italians gave him joyous acclaim. On Jugo-Slavia, meanwhile, he declared war. The Italian government maintained that the Peace Conference must decide the matter. A little later, however, Italy and Jugo-Slavia reached understanding in the Treaty of Rapallo ( 1920), by which Fiume was made an independent city, Zara and certain Dalmatian islands were retained by Italy, but the remainder of the Dalmatian coast--awarded to Italy by the Treaty of London ( 1915), made when Italy
The treaty of Rapallo
joined the Allies in the Great War--was yielded to the Jugo-Slavs. D'Annunzio was presently driven from Fiume, but shortly after the place was seized by Fascisti. The problem continued to concern both countries. With Turkey Italy made a secret treaty. To Greece she promised most of the Greek islands of the Dodecanese, occupied during the war with Turkey in 1912, but she continued to hold them. In 1923, on the murder of the Italian members of the Albanian boundary commission, Mussolini seized the Greek island, Corfu, at the mouth of the Adriatic, which Italy wished to possess. The unfavorable impression created was heightened when Italy defied the League of Nations about this. She presently yielded to pressure by France and Great Britain. It was now said that Italian nationalists hoped to obtain Malta from Britain and recover Corsica and Nice from France. During 1923 Italy and Spain seemed to draw together.
Compromise with Jugo-Slavia
In central Europe had arisen the new Succession States --Austria, Hungary, Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, Rumania, and Poland. The new, greater Rumania was a more powerful state than the Rumania of 1914. To the Servia of 1914 had been added Montenegro--no longer an independent state--and large territories peopled by Servians and Croats formerly subject to Austria-Hungary. Poland had been reborn. Reconstituted from territories formerly held by Russia, by Austria, and by the German Empire, it presently became as large as it had been before the First Partition. Czecho-Slovakia contained the old Bohemia and Moravia. It had suffered less, but like all other countries around it remained exhausted after the Great War. Austria and Hungary, shorn of most of their possessions, poor, exhausted, and surrounded by suspicious or hostile neighbors, drank deep now the dregs of defeat.
The Succession States
Austria after the Great War was a small inland state, with Vienna, built to be the great capital and center of exchange for wide districts, now left with a little territory
too small to give it support. The Succession States round about soon raised tariff barriers against their old mistress, and the position of the Austrian people shortly became desperate. A large part of the population, especially in Vienna, could find no support. The government was without resources, and obtained revenue by issuing paper money, which followed Russian money and preceded the German in decline to almost no value.
The Allies were not primarily responsible for the fate that had befallen Austria-Hungary. At the end of the Great War the Dual Monarchy had fallen at once into pieces before they touched it, and in respect of this the peace treaties recognized merely something already accomplished. Austria therefore accepted her fate with little repining, set about to gain the confidence of her late enemies, and, indeed, in her desperation threw herself upon their mercy, beseeching assistance. Some help was presently given, and after a dreadful period, in the course of which the old upper class and the middle class disappeared, Austria gradually in some fashion adjusted herself to the new situation. Conditions slowly improved, and by 1923 the new country seemed definitely on the road to rehabilitation.
In October, 1920, a constituent assembly completed a new constitution. Austria, now mostly a German community, was transformed from a unitary state into a federal republic consisting of eight states. The legislative branch of the government was vested in two chambers: the diet or national council, and the federal council, which together constituted the federal assembly. The federal assembly had merely the functions of declaring war and of electing a federal president. The diet was elected by universal suffrage on the basis of proportional representation. The federal council was composed of members chosen by the legislatures of the respective states. Legislative power was mostly in the diet, the federal council
The Autrian construction
having but a limited veto power over measures enacted. The cabinet was to be selected by the national council and was to be responsible to it.
With respect to foreign relations, Austria wished to join the German Republic, and such union was naturally desired by the Reich. This project, though undesirable to some of the powers in respect of the present European situation, was yet proper enough from the point of view of Austria and of Germany, and very probably will take place under happier auspices in the future. Meanwhile, however, it was absolutely vetoed by France, and was opposed by the Succession States near by. With Hungary Austria had for some time a controversy respecting possession of Burgenland, awarded to her by the peace treaties, but which Hungary refused to yield up. In October, 1921, the matter was settled by agreement between the two countries, Austria obtaining most of the district.
Hungary, also shorn of the greater part of her former possessions, was powerless, but sullen, and unwilling to accept her fate. Her statesmen declared this a foul reward for the old service of Hungarians when they defended Christian Europe from the Turks. During the war the sufferings and the losses of the Magyars had been very great, but disaster did not cease with the end of the conflict. In the summer of 1919, Rumania, dissatisfied with the western boundaries which her greater allies proposed to allow her, sent into Hungary an army, which made enormous demands and then enormous requisitions. From half-ruined Hungary now a vast amount of farm and rolling stock was taken, the Rumanians declaring that they only revenged their own fearful suffering from Hungarians during the war. Successive ultimata from the Allies in Paris had no effect for some time, and Rumania did not withdraw her troops until the next year. Meanwhile, in 1919, a bolshevist government had been established under a certain Bela Kun. After a short period of much confusion
Bolshevism in Hungary
this was overthrown, and the country came under the reactionary rule of Admiral Horthy. In 1921 Charles, formerly emperor of Austria and king of Hungary, attempted to regain the Hungarian throne, but opposition of the Allies and immediate hostility of the Little Entente caused him to withdraw at once. Later that year the ex-king made a second attempt, but this also immediately failing, he was by the Allies exiled to Madeira, where shortly after he died. Hungary continued to be held with an iron hand by the conservatives who had seized power. No new constitution has yet been adopted.
Czecho-Slovakia, embracing rich industrial and agricultural districts, was somewhat more fortunate than her neighbors. Here also there was much exhaustion from the war, much suffering and discouragement after it. Under able management, however, its affairs were capably handled and conditions rapidly improved. Gradually the budget was balanced and excessive depreciation of the currency prevented. After the autumn of 1920 foreign relations were managed by Dr. Benes, who was presently considered one of the able statesmen in Europe.
In 1920 a new constitution was adopted. The state was to be a democratic republic. There was to be a president but also a ministry responsible to the legislature. The parliament was to consist of two houses: the chamber of deputies, containing 300 members, elected for six years: and a senate of 150 members, elected for eight years. The suffrage was given to all men and women who had attained the age of twenty-one. Power was lodged substantially in the lower house, the upper having merely revising powers. The president was to be elected by the legislature for a term of seven years. He might prorogue parliament and also dissolve it. There was to be a ministry responsible to the chamber of deputies and dependent upon it. The new state contained a majority of Czechs and of Slovaks, but also a substantial number of Germans,
some of whom greatly desired to be under Austria. The Czecho-Slovak language was established as the official language of the country, but in districts where there was a racial minority containing more than one fifth of the local population, the minority might use its own language in public offices and courts, and have its own schools.
The German minority
In foreign affairs Czecho-Slovakia was mostly successful. The important district of Teschen, disputed with Poland, was by the Allies divided between the two. In 1920 she entered into defensive alliance with Rumania, then also with Jugo-Slavia, thus forming the Little Entente. She entered likewise into friendly understanding first with Poland, then with Austria, for commercial coöperation especially. In 1922 also she made a provisional treaty with the bolshevist government of Russia.
Rumania had been conquered and terribly plundered by the Teutonic allies during the Great War, and forced to sign the ruinous Treaty of Bucharest ( 1918). The triumph of her stronger allies a little later, however, enabled Rumania to undo this, and then acquire great gains. Immediately on the collapse of Austria-Hungary the Rumans of Transylvania voted for incorporation with Rumania, as did the Rumans of Bukovina, though the population of this district was mostly Ruthenian. A little later the Rumanians of the Russian province of Bessarabia also requested union. In 1919 Rumania attempted to take all of these districts. From Hungary she strove to seize more than the statesmen at Paris were disposed to allow, and invading Hungary grievously plundered that country. The Allies bade her desist, and warned her of the consequences of taking Bessarabia, but she gave little heed. At first Rumania refused to have part in the peace with Hungary, but she adhered to the Treaty of St. Germain with Austria. She now reorganized her dominions, dissolving the national councils of Transylvania, Bukovina, and Bessarabia, and dividing the entire dominion into
Centralization of the government departments under prefects appointed directly by the central government. Meanwhile she joined CzechoSlovakia and Jugo-Slavia in the Little Entente, and in March, 1920, under the influence of France, she joined Poland and Hungary in a defensive alliance against Russia. With respect to Bessarabia she felt much anxiety concerning what Russia might do later on. In October, 1920, a treaty was signed by Rumania, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, agreeing that Rumania should have Bessarabia, and that Russia should not be permitted to question the transfer in the future.
During the stress of the war extensive agrarian reforms had been proposed. Begun in 1917, they were now carried out by the government. All of the larger estates were to be distributed among the peasants. During a period of forty-five years payment to the former owners of the pre-war value must be made: 65 per cent. by the peasantry and 35 per cent. by the government. There were none the less much unrest and much discontent, with numerous strikes and considerable reaction and repression.
During the Great War the government of Montenegro had quickly yielded to the Austrians, and following a heroic struggle Servia was entirely conquered. After the downfall of the Dual Monarchy Servia, united now with Montenegro, profited greatly. Immediately on the breakup of Austria-Hungary a provisional Jugo-Slav government was established at Agram in Croatia, and it at once entered into a friendly understanding with the Servian authorities. In November, 1918, the Congress of Neustad proclaimed the union of the Jugo-Slav territories of the former Dual Monarchy with Servia and Montenegro. Thus was formed the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, the boundaries of which were recognized in the treaties made by the Congress of Paris.
The Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes
So Jugo-Slavia, as this kingdom was generally known, became one of the large states of southern Europe. For
some time relations with Italy were strained because of disputes about the Dalmatian coast and Fiume, but they were partly composed in the Treaty of Rapallo (1920), by which Fiume was proclaimed a free city, and the Dalmatian districts divided. Meanwhile Jugo-Slavia had joined Rumania and Czecho-Slovakia in the Little Entente, though Rumania stipulated that against Italy she would give to Jugo-Slavia no assistance.
Foreign relations of Jugo-Slavia
With respect to the administration of the state, there was for some time difficulty concerning Montenegro, a part of the population of which desired the old independence. Generally there were two parties in Jugo-Slavia: those who favored a large measure of autonomy for the respective districts of which the composite state had been formed, and those who wished for centralization and consolidation in a strong unitary state. Here, as elsewhere, also, there were grave disputes between conservatives and radicals. In 1920 a constituent assembly was elected to draft a new constitution. Next year a constitution was acecpted. It closely resembled the Servian constitutions of 1888 and 1903. Jugo-Slavia was to be a constitutional, parliamentary, hereditary monarchy. The executive and administrative functions were to be under a king. The kingship was in the royal house that had ruled over Servia. Legislative functions were vested in a parliament of one house, the members elected by universal suffrage, representation of minorities being provided.
Government and administration
Owing to the collapse of Russia and the bolshevist revolution, followed by the defeat of the Central Powers, it was possible, beyond almost all expectation, to reconstitute an independent Poland. The problem of the boundaries of the country was one of the most difficult matters before the Congress of Paris, and in the end it was found impossible to satisfy either the Poles or their former masters. At Paris it was arranged that Poland should be given access to the Baltic, though the corridor that permitted
Poland again independent
this divided Prussia into two parts. Possession of Upper Silesia, desired greatly both by Germany and Poland, was decided by plebiscite in favor of the Germans ( 1921), but the result being satisfactory neither to the Poles nor the French, the plebiscite decision was later on partly undone by decision of the council of the League of Nations. Thus part of the disputed country was awarded to Poland, giving her certain rich industrial areas and cities. The eastern frontiers of Poland were decided by a war between Poland and Russia, in which the Poles after some success were nearly overthrown altogether, but in which they finally defeated the soviet armies entirely. By the Treaty of Riga (1921) Poland obtained much more than the Supreme Council at Paris had proposed. In effect, the Poland of 1772 was now re-ëstablished.
Part of Upper Silesia obtained
During the Great War no country had suffered more than the Polish districts, now largely impoverished and ruined. Poland was also unfortunate in that she had been reëstablished contrary to the actual wishes of Germany and Russia, between whose territories she lay, and who might later crush her to pieces. Accordingly, from the first it seemed necessary to maintain a powerful army, the cost of which became greater than all the revenue of the state. Poland's interests did not coincide exactly with those of the Little Entente, and were sometimes in conflict with them, so that she entered into no close relations with it. She did, however, make a commercial treaty with Czecho-Slovakia and a defensive alliance with Hungary and Rumania against Russia. Her closest relations were with France, of whom she was the eastern partner, from whom she received powerful assistance and support, and who made alliance with her in 1921. After long dispute between Lithuania and Poland, Vilna was incorporated in Poland in 1922.
Position in Europe
An ally of France
A new Polish constitution was adopted in 1921. The result of many compromises, it was based especially upon the systems in France and the United States. The legislative was vested in a parliament of two houses: the sejm or house, and a senate. Suffrage was given to all men and women of twenty-one years or more. Executive power was vested in a president elected for seven years by the members of the two houses sitting as a national assembly, he having nearly the powers of a president of the United States--and in a cabinet, the ministers of which were to be appointed by the president but who would be individually and collectively responsible to the parliament. The judiciary was modelled after that of the United States. Catholicism was recognized as the principal faith of the country, but religious toleration was guaranteed. Every citizen might use his own language. Free, compulsory education was arranged for. Labor was to be under the particular protection of the government. During this trying time the state was sustained by the zeal of its people and by their intense national spirit. There was great suffering and some starvation, however, and Polish paper money sank in value almost as low as the Russian.
The constitution of Poland
Russia remained for the most part the outcast of Europe. The principal states refused to recognize the bolshevist government or resume relations. Some effort was made to end this situation at the Genoa Conference (1922), but while Russian delegates did meet the statesmen of Europe, there was no result beyond the Russo-German treaty which aroused such a furore. Meanwhile the bolshevist government had been assailed by a succession of counterrevolutionary movements, all of which in the end it crushed. During this time also various outlying parts of the old Russian Empire had broken away and established their independence, while in a disastrous war large western areas had been lost to Poland ( 1921). By 1922, however, save for Poland, Finland, and the small Baltic States, nearly all the old Russian Empire had been reunited.
Conditions have remained obscure, for there is no modern parallel to the complete separation and isolation of so vast an area from the rest of Europe. For some time to come, therefore, no satisfactory account can be written in detail. It is fairly certain that the Bolsheviki were originally able to seize power because they acted with much resolution in a time of death-like weakness and great confusion. It is fairly certain that they remained a small minority of the entire population--more than nine tenths of the people, perhaps, always knowing little or nothing of their doctrines, and sympathizing with them not at all. It seems almost certain that they continued to hold power through strong organization, the powerful army which they built up, and a reign of terror like that in France long before, which they carried through with many of the worst methods of the old tsarist régime. During this time higher civilization in Russia disappeared, save for the new system which the new masters were trying to impose. The peasants were benefited by appropriation of the great estates, not by the bolshevist regulations; but industry and commerce were almost entirely destroyed. In 1922 extensive areas were swept by famine. This was partly because railroad transportation had almost come to an end. By this time, though some of the more fanatical bolshevists held stanchly to the doctrines first proposed, others, including Lenin, had abandoned them largely, and seemed willing to compromise with the capitalist system. The Bolsheviki themselves might long hold power in Russia, but there seemed little chance that ultimately their system would be able to succeed there.
Conditions in Russia
Destruction of the old civilization
After the bolshevist revolution Russia had been proclaimed a socialist republic, with government vested in a series of soviets or elected councils. From this with certain amendments and additions had been evolved the bolshevist governmental system. The operation of the con-
The constitution of Soviet Russia
stitution could scarcely be judged, but from the text of the constitution issued by the soviet government it was possible for western critics to make some deductions.
While the government was based avowedly upon the votes of the people, it was only indirectly and remotely for the most part that the people had any control, and many of them were designedly debarred from voting. From the electorate were excluded not only lunatics and criminals, but all priests and monks, and all employers or any persons engaged in any private business. In the soviets, apparently, was vested altogether the power to make these exclusions. The electorate constituted thus elected nothing but the local town and village soviets. The elections were not conducted by ballot but in open meeting, almost by acclamation, as they had been in England two centuries before. The local soviets thus chosen had complete power over the people of the community, there being no appeal to any law court against them. The local soviet must appoint an executive official, who, rather than the soviet, governed the district. He was paid by the authorities in Moscow, and looked, it might be supposed, to them rather than the local electorate and assembly. Local executive and local soviet had almost unlimited authority in their district: they were to maintain the "revolutionary order," administer the compulsory labor service and compulsory service in educational work, and supervise the performance by the population of the universal military service. They were, however, entirely subject to "the superior organs of soviet authority." Their primary duty, said the constitution, was to carry out all the decisions of these superior organs.
Local executive officials
Above the town and the village soviets was a hierarchy of congresses or assemblies--rural district congresses, county congresses, provincial congresses, and regional congresses, of which the members were elected not by the people but by the congresses or soviets next beneath them,
Superior and central authority
members of the upper bodies being chosen very indirectly by the people. Each congress met once a year, choosing an executive official, whose salary was paid by the central government, and in whose hands most of the government of the jurisdiction resided. At the top was the AllRussian Congress of Soviets, composed of delegates sent by the town soviets and delegates sent by the provincial congresses. It contained about 1,500 members. Its principal function was to pass laws proposed by the executive committee of about 300 members which it appointed. This All-Russian Central Executive Committee was actually the parliament of Russia. In theory its powers were nearly complete. Actually government was mostly in the hands of a presidium--an inner committee of the Central Executive Committee--and especially of the small Council of People's Commissars, or heads of departments, whose president was Lenin.
The Russian "parliament"
Altogether, control of the government by the people was slight and very indirect. In reality, the power was exercised through an all-powerful central committee of the Socialist Party, giving its orders, appointing its officials, supported by its own great army, and enforcing its measures through a large and effective police organization, the cheka. It was probable that the real power in Russia would be exercised thus for some time to come.
A disguised despotism
In July, 1923, a constitution was adopted for the Federal Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, the union comprising eight states: Russia proper including Siberia, the Ukraine, White Russia, the Georgian Federation, Armenia, the Tartar Republic, the autonomous republics of Khiva and Bokhara. Over the whole federal union there was to be one law and one supreme court, but the respective states might have their own local courts and laws. Russian was to be the language of the union, but each state might preserve its own language as it desired. There was to be a federal legislature of two houses: the federal council, a body of
The Bolshevist constitution of the Russian Federal Union
371 members, elected in proportion to population: and the council of nationalities, consisting of five members elected from each state and one member from each autonomous republic. Each house was to choose its own executive committee (presidium). The two houses in joint session were to elect the five commissariats or federal ministries. The commissars were to constitute the supreme executive and administrative authority in the federal union.
Numerous states had been formed at first from the ruins of Russia. Some, like the Ukraine and the Tartar Republic, were presently reconquered, and later were made states in the Russian Federal Union. Besides Poland some others had maintained independence. They were Finland, the Baltic States, and Lithuania. All of them had been obtained by the Russian tsars through conquest, comparatively late, and for the most part never really incorporated in the great Slavic state. Their future could not yet be foretold. Some districts had become independent of Russia
Finland proclaimed independence when Russia collapsed in 1917, and her independence was recognized next year by some of the European powers. Almost immediately came a bolshevist revolution. Great confusion and disaster ensued until the revolution was suppressed by a middle-class organization, the White Guards, who for a. while ruled with iron hand. Then came a long struggle with the bolshevist government of Russia, and prolonged dispute with Sweden concerning possession of the Aland Islands. With Russia conflict was ended in 1920 through the Treaty of Dorpat, by which Finland obtained much of what it desired, including an outlet to the Arctic, while the Finnish district of East Carelia, which had sought to join Finland, was to be autonomous under Russia. A little later, a commission of the League of Nations awarded the Aland Islands to Finland. In 1922 the council of the League of Nations guaranteed the neutralization of these islands.
The Treaty of Dorpat
Lithuania had been overrun by the victorious Germans in 1917. They at once set about establishing a Lithuanian monarchy with capital at Vilna, dependent, through military and economic connection, on themselves. With the downfall of the Germans, the Lithuanians proclaimed an independent republic. This country was presently overrun by the bolshevik flood that inundated so much of Poland. In 1920 the soviet authorities recognized the independence of Lithuania. Two years later, after long dispute, Vilna, which had been seized by Polish irregulars, was annexed to Poland.
The Baltic Provinces had been conquered from Russia by Germany during the Great War. By the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) Courland, the nearest, was to be incorporated in the German Empire. Esthonia and Livonia, farther to the north, were to be independent. When a little later Germany was overthrown, these districts were held by German free companies, then overrun by bolshevik invaders, and then, after a struggle, they were able to win independence. Out of them presently appeared Esthonia, with the seaport Reval, and Latvia or Lettland, comprising most of Livonia and Courland, and having outlet at the great port of Riga. These states were shortly recognized by the European powers, and in 1921, along with Lithuania, they were admitted to the League of Nations. Meanwhile peace had been made with Russia. In 1922 a conference was held between representatives of Russia, Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and a common commercial policy agreed on. Later that year the beginning was made of a Baltic Alliance between Poland and the new Baltic States.
The Baltic States
After the war the lower Balkan states were, like most other European countries, exhausted and spent. Bulgaria was compelled to accept the Treaty of Neuilly (1919), by which she remained deprived of the districts she had so long hoped to obtain, and was constrained to disarm and
Bulgaria promise a large indemnity. Discontented, disheartened, exhausted, her people were unable to reconcile themselves to their fate, and continued to believe that certain Bulgarinhabited districts and an outlet to the Ægean Sea must be given them as their right.
The Greeks, although their king had prevented them giving much assistance to the Allies during the Great War, received very favorable treatment from the statesmen in Paris, and to the Greeks were given the Ægean shores of Thrace nearly as far as Constantinople, and a considerable district in Asia Minor out beyond the city of Smyrna. Presently, after the Greeks had sent large forces into Asia to compel the Turks to accept the arrangement, they lost the confidence of some of the Great Powers, and were later on defeated by the reviving Turks. Pursued into Europe, resources and finances completely exhausted after a decade of warfare, they were saved by intervention of the powers, especially Britain. None the less, they had to accept the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), losing almost all that had been given them in Paris. Constantine I had again been forced to flee from the country ( 1922).
In the autumn of 1918 the power of the Turks seemed utterly broken, and many believed that at last they would be completely expelled from Europe. The great difficulties that have always beset the Turkish question, however, caused a compromise to be made by which the sultan was allowed, under surveillance, to retain Constantinople, while the straits were internationalized. Otherwise the Turkish state was restricted to a part of Asia Minor, all the outlying provinces being taken away. A national revival followed among the Turks, however. Various reforms were made, and intense racial feeling aroused. In 1922 the Greeks were completely overthrown, and driven from Asia Minor. Despite the opposition of Great Britain, Turkish forces presently crossed into Europe. The Turks were able to take advantage of large differences be-
Revival of Ottoman power
tween the two principal European powers--Great Britain and France--and from their misunderstandings and suspicions large profits were presently drawn. By the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) Turkey gained all of Asia Minor and eastern Thrace along with Constantinople in full sovereignty. A little previously the Angora government, which had led the national movement, had deposed the sultan, and made Turkey substantially a republic, with the caliphate an elective office.
Those states that had remained neutral during the Great War had in the following years a history less striking than the others. All of them suffered from the general impoverishment caused by the war and from disturbed conditions in Europe. In the Scandinavian countries some people had profited from the conflict, others had been impoverished by the war's consequences and conditions. Such also was the case with Holland and with Switzerland, which had been able, in the midst of very trying conditions to preserve their neutrality, though Holland, especially, had suffered from the actions of combatants on both sides. All these countries were now beset with problems arising out of demoralization of European currency and trade. They were perplexed with radicalism and discontent, which they strove to allay with reform and adjustment. In 1922 a proposal in Switzerland for a capital levy was easily defeated. Portugal, long the dependent of England, had joined the Allies in the Great War, and had done some slight service. Perhaps she neither gained nor lost by this. The country remained poor and backward. Spain had been neutral. Her direct profits from the war were more than balanced by the indirect losses that followed. Spain also continued backward and poor, her government inefficient, weighed down by a bureaucracy corrupt and dishonest. Despite the personal popularity of the king, Alfonso XIII, monarchy was constantly threatened with overthrow. Barcelona was one of the most
The Scandinavian countries
radical and disturbed of all the communities in Europe. In 1923, following a disastrous defeat in Spanish Morocco, came another movement to separate Catalonia from the rest of Spain. Suddenly, in September, the army, under General Primo de Rivera, took control of the government much as the Fascisti had done in Italy a year before. This movement was directed not against the king, but against communists, separatists, and dishonest officials. In 1923 the Spanish sovereign visited the king of Italy, and a Mediterraneanentente between Italy and Spain was rumored. When France obtained most of Morocco ( 190511), Spain had been allowed the important district south of the Strait of Gibraltar, while the city of Tangier was internationalized. France now seemed to desire Spanish Morocco, though Great Britain opposed. It was said that Spain again hoped to obtain Gibraltar, Britain to take in exchange her city of Ceuta, opposite Gibraltar and east of Tangier.
Belgium, so long occupied by the Germans, astonished all observers by the rapidity with which she recovered. There was less of actual devastation to repair than in France, and the Allies in gratitude for her signal service allotted her the first payments made by the Germans. In foreign policy she now acted closely with France, with whom she made a military defensive alliance in 1920. Three years later she supported France in the military occupation of the Ruhr. Meanwhile in 1922 an economic union had been effected between Luxemburg and Belgium, by which each nation preserved sovereignty and independence, but with customs frontiers abolished.
General: H. L. McBain and Lindsay Rogers, The New Constitutions of Europe ( 1923).
Great Britain: Wilhelm Dibelius, England, 2 vols. ( 1923); C. F. G. Masterman, England after the War ( 1922). Ireland: R. M. Henry, The Evolution of Sinn Fein ( 1920); Mary Hayden and G. A. Moonan, A Short History of the Irish People: from the Earliest Times to 1920 ( 1921); W. A. Phillips, The Revolution in Ireland, 1906-1923 ( 1923). India: E. A. Horne, The Political Systems of British India ( 1922); Sir C. Sankara, Gandhi and Anarchy ( 1922); C. H. Van Tyne , India in Ferment ( 1923).
France: J. H. Clapham, The Economic Development of France and Germany, 1815-1914 ( 1921); Charles Gide, ed., Effects of the War upon French Economic Life ( 1923). Germany: M. Baumont and M. Berthelot, L'Allemagne: Lendemains de Guerre et de Révolution ( 1922); René Brunet, La Constitution Allemande du Août 1919 ( 1921); Alfred Niemann, Kaiser und Revolution ( 1922); Gustav Noske, Von Kiel bis Kapp: zur Geschichte der Deutschen Revolution ( 1920); Heinrich Ströbel , trans., The German Revolution and After ( 1923).
Italy: Giuseppe Prezzolini, Coltura Italiana ( 1923); Tommaso Tittoni , Modern Italy ( 1922); E. J. and C. G. Woodhouse, Italy and the Jugoslavs ( 1920). Austria, Hungary, and the Succession States: Henry Baerlein, The Birth of Yugoslavia, 2 vols. ( 1922); Marcel Dunan, L'Autriche ( 1921); Louis Eisenmann, La Tchécoslovaquie ( 1921); L. Marcovitch , ed., Serbia and Europe, 1914-1920 ( 1921); C. E. Maurice , Bohemia from the Earliest Times to the Foundation of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, 2d ed. ( 1922); Baron J. von Szilassy, Der Untergang der Donau-Monarchie: Diplomatische Erinnerungen ( 1921); Cécile Tormay, An Outlaw's Diary ( 1922), concerning events in Hungary; Count Louis Voinovitch, Dalmatia and the Jugoslav Movement ( 1920).
Russia: Édouard Herriot, La Russie Nouvelle ( 1922); E. J. Harrison , Lithuania Past and Present ( 1922); P. N. Miliukov, Russia To-day and To-morrow ( 1922); Andrew Rothstein, The Soviet Constitution ( 1923). Greece and Turkey: G. F. Abbott, Greece and the Allies:191422 ( 1922); S. B. Chester, Life of Venizelos ( 1921); Édouard Driault , La Renaissance de l'Hellénisme ( 1920); Djemal Pasha, Memoirs of a Turkish Statesman, 1913-1919 ( 1922); Lord Eversley , The Turkish Empire, continued from 1914 to 1922 by Sir Valentine Chirol ( 1922).
EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION SINCE THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
In order to estimate its full importance and grandeur . . . we
must compare it, not with any preceding century, or even with the
last millennium, but with the whole historical period--perhaps even
with the whole period that has elapsed since the Stone Age.
- A. R. WALLACE, The Wonderful Century ( 1898), pp. 1, 2.
But it seems to me that . . . we have here reached something
deeper than poetry. In the sense of illimitable vastness with which
we are oppressed and saddened as we strive to follow out in thought
the eternal metamorphosis, we may recognize the modern phase
of the feeling which led the ancient to fall upon his knees, and
adore . . . the invisible Power whereof the infinite web of
phenomena is but the visible garment.
- JOHN FISKE, Cosmic Philosophy ( 1874), part ii. chapter vii.
THE period between the French Revolution and the present was the most wonderful in the history of mankind. In no preceding epoch did such vast change or such wondrous advancement occur. It was, above all, an age of invention and brilliant scientific discovery; and men were able to make use of the elements of nature and change the conditions of their living more than had ever been so in the past.
The wonderful age
The fundamental problems of feeding, housing, and clothing people were solved as never before. Much better agricultural methods were gradually worked out, and the extension and systematic use of fertilizers made it possible to get much more food from the soil. It was during this period also that large new fertile areas were
Production and transportation
cultivated for the first time in North America and South America and other places to which Europeans had gone. Because of labor-saving machinery, prodigious quantities of food could now be produced and used to feed other men and women who, also working with labor-saving machines, were able to produce manufactured goods, and also great quantities of luxuries and of new things not before made. At the same time the making of better roads and canals, the introduction of railways and, toward the end of the period, motor transportation, made it possible for the first time easily to carry the products of great inland districts like Russia and the central plains of the United States.
In this way the materials for building were easily got from the forests and quarries to the places where the construction was wanted, and a greater number of buildings were quickly made than ever before. Construction was more and more carried on with gigantic labor-saving devices and by better principles of engineering, so that large public buildings and improvements were everywhere undertaken. What the Egyptians had long ago done by the slow, incredible toil of multitudes of slaves; what the Romans had once done by patient, intelligent labor; what Europeans bad occasionally done in the Middle Ages and the later centuries in their glorious churches for the service of God and in palaces for princes or guilds, was now everywhere easily accomplished in very short time where people accumulated wealth and used the machines of the Industrial Revolution. Magnificent public buildings were easily constructed, vast warehouses, depots, railway stations, and docks, and magnificent bridges were built on a scale seldom dreamed of before.
For the first time in the history of the world such reservoirs and aqueducts were built that a great many people had sufficient water and could, if they desired, keep clean. Some of the great Roman cities had had plentiful supplies of water through wonderful aqueducts; but during medie-
Supply of water
val times and the centuries following, even in the prosperous cities and towns most people got their water from wells or from cisterns; usually there was no water supply in houses, the generality of people seldom bathed, and not a few washed faces and hands only on rare occasions. Skin diseases, itch, and the various ailments ascribable to filth were much more common then than now, and there must have been, for most people, far less of the wholesome comfort that comes from clean mouth and clean skin. During the nineteenth century the great cities, and presently most of the large towns in the more prosperous countries, brought copious quantities of water from some distant and undefiled source, and carried it in small pipes into the houses of individuals, so that for the first time in the history of the world it was easily possible for many people to get enough water for washing, for bathing, and for cooking. During this same time, also because of great improvements in mining and because of the increased transportation facilities, it was possible to heat dwellings with coal in the winter, and an increasing number of people were now able to be comfortable in their houses in cold weather and get warm water for washing. Small bathtubs were made in increasing numbers, first of wood lined with tin, and much later of porcelain, while stoves and systems of heating by hot air or vapor or steam were used more and more. The best of these things were never extensively used except by the wealthier classes or in the most prosperous countries. In most parts of Europe the older tubs were used or else none at all, and the better-to-do people burned coal or wood in their fireplaces, while during cold weather the masses shivered or huddled in their thickest clothes, as their ancestors had long done before them.
In this period a marvellous revolution was effected in artificial lighting. For ages people depended almost entirely on the sun for their seeing. Torches, rushes, braziers, candles and lamps were much employed by those
able to afford them; but for most people these things were too costly, and it was inconvenient even to get fire in the first place, for this could only be done by flint and tinder or by keeping a coal alive. Few inventions have brought greater convenience to many people than the matches, or little splints of wood dipped in material easily rubbed and ignited, which certain Englishmen invented about 1827. At the end of the eighteenth century gas, made from coal, was just beginning to be used to light factories and homes, but in the next half century it was widely and successfully used, the gas being generated in huge containers and then sent through small pipes into the places where it was to be used. Meanwhile, in 1782, Argand, a Swiss inventor, perfected in England a lamp which gave better light than any such device had ever given before. Oil for illumination was now got in greater quantities, first from whales, then from the earth, until cheap good lamps, and petroleum or coal oil made it possible for fairly good lights to be had, even in small and isolated places. Gloomy and sombre enough this illumination was in comparison with what was to follow; but for the first time it became possible for many people to see at night. In the later years of the nineteenth century electricity began to supplant gas for lighting, and the small incandescent lamps in houses and the powerful arc lights in city streets made it possible to prolong the activities or amusements of the day into the night, thus, in effect, making man's life longer and more. productive than ever before.
In medieval times, and of old, good clothing and cover for the feet were difficult to make and expensive to buy. There were splendid and luxurious garments for the wealthy, but the masses of the people could neither produce nor buy many clothes; and many wore, until they could be worn no longer, garments which became greasy, filthy, tattered, and covered with patches, and either went barefoot or in wooden sandals or shoes. In the latter part of the
eighteenth century, to the wool and the silk once used were added great quantities of cotton, which in the later age became the principal substance used to clothe people. The new machines of the Industrial Revolution did the work of spinning and weaving with marvellous quickness. Then in 1845 an American inventor, Elias Howe, made a sewing machine which enabled people to do sewing more quickly than ever before. Machinery for making shoes was also developed, especially in America, and for the first time multitudes of people could get good shoes.
During this period there was a revolution in transportation and great improvement in means of communication. Down to the latter part of the eighteenth century most people never travelled, and few went far away from the place in which they worked or were born. The easiest travel and communication were on the sea in sailing ships, which went their course in what seems now leisurely way. Travelling on land was by horseback or stage coach; transportation by pack or wagons. There had been a magnificent system of highways in western and southern Europe during the greatness of the Roman Empire, but the Roman roads had mostly long since disappeared, and while there had been some excellent ones constructed in England and France in the eighteenth century, most of the roads were poor. Travelling and transportation were always slow, as it would now seem, difficult, and in rainy seasons they came almost altogether to an end. During all this time the best inland communication was by river or canal. Communication and transportation
Frenchmen and Englishmen had been developing the steam engine since the end of the seventeenth century, though it was not until about 1769 that an Englishman, James Watt, made such improvements in it that it became a very effective and powerful device. In 1808 Richard Trevithick built a railway in London, and in 1825 George Stephenson made a locomotive capable of drawing a heavy
load. In that year the first railway of any importance was constructed in England, the trains being exceedingly crude and uncomfortable and regarded as dangerous by the people who saw them. In the course of the nineteenth century all the great cities and seaports of Europe were connected by railway lines, so that it was possible to travel overnight from London to Edinburgh or from Madrid to Paris in a day and a night, and so that immense quantities of freight could be quickly despatched, though in Europe the rivers and canals continued to be used for freight transportation much more than in the United States. At the beginning of the twentieth century another great change in locomotion on land was brought about when certain Frenchmen perfected devices by which vehicles could be driven by power from motors which they carried, over ordinary roads and not railroads specially prepared for them. The coming of the automobile made it possible for people to move about more easily than ever before.
Several successful attempts were made to drive a ship by means of an engine, the most notable being that of Robert Fulton, an American, in 1807. During the first half of the century the stately old ships of an older time continued to bear most of the traffic on water, but gradually steamships took their place first because of greater speed, and afterward because they were cheaper, while the wooden vessels were displaced first by iron ships and then by ships of steel. In the eighteenth century one or two months was needed to cross the Atlantic; but in 1838 the Great Western went from Bristol to New York in fifteen days, and in 1914 some of the swiftest English liners could make the passage in six. Early in the twentieth century, as the result of much experiment and effort by Americans and Frenchmen, devices were made capable of carrying men through the air. Airplanes were among the principal instruments employed in the Great War, but their possi-
bilities for communication and transporting things can scarcely be estimated yet.
The result of all these things was that many people were able to go from one place to another quickly and easily on business or pleasure in a way never before conceived of except in the imagination of dreamers. And for the first time immense quantities of goods could be taken from the place of their origin to where they were wanted, cheaply and quickly. Large as the world may yet seem, it has, because of railroads and steamships and airplanes, shrunk very small, and it is not easy for most people now living to realize how distant and remote far places seemed in the days of old.
During the nineteenth century also enormous advances were made in getting news and disseminating information. There had been newspapers in western Europe since the first half of the seventeenth century, but there was not yet any great supply of cheap paper and there was no large reading public. Moreover it was not easy to get news. An English or a Dutch newspaper of the eighteenth century was generally small, with not more than eight pages, containing advertisements of quacks and patent medicines, political and literary essays, local gossip, and a small amount of news from abroad, often many weeks old. The cost of sending letters was high and delivery often delayed and uncertain, so that there was then no large and constant interchange of correspondence.
Communication of news and ideas
During the course of the nineteenth century paper was made cheaper and in much greater quantities. In 1814 the London Times began to operate a printing press by steam, and it was soon possible to do printing very fast. Books and newspapers gradually became more numerous, and cheaper. And during the time that this was taking place general systems of education began to be developed in some of the European countries, with the result that more people wanted things to read more than ever before.
Paper and printing
The improved facilities for travel and rapid communication which the railroad and steamboat afforded made it possible to get much more news more quickly, for letters were now rapidly sent long distances at slight expense.
Then a number of inventors began working on the problem of sending communications by means of electricity, and just before 1840 several successful results were achieved. Such telegraphic messages were first sent over wires on the land but soon men began to try to lay wires or cables under the water and so extend the system. In 1851 a submarine line was laid from Dover across to Calais, and in 1866, after many preparations and one unsuccessful attempt, the first ocean cable was laid from Ireland to America. After this time cables were placed under all the principal bodies of water, and by the end of the century it was possible to send messages over land or sea all around the world with lightning speed. Not long after the telegraph had been invented, by which electrical signals were transmitted, the telephone was developed, by which it was possible to hear the voice of one talking a long distance away. Then early in the twentieth century an Italian, Marconi, invented a method of telegraphy without any wires, by which the messages were sent through the air, and this method was soon applied to telephony also. As a result of these things it was possible for men to keep informed about the doings of governments and peoples in a way never dreamed of before. Indeed self-government and democracy on a large scale could scarcely have been possible except for these marvelous methods of intercourse, travel, and communication.
The submarine cable
Before the nineteenth century there were few pictures. Objects were represented in sculptures and pictures in the churches, in marginal illuminations in the old manuscripts, and afterward by rude wood-cuts in books or on broadsides. The wealthy could afford portraits, or pictures woven in tapestry, or paintings upon their walls; but until
a hundred years ago things were generally represented to people who had not seen them, not by some reproduction to be perceived through the eye, but by description in words to be heard or read and understood in the mind. It is probable, therefore, that imagination and ability to realize words were more highly developed in many people then than now.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century several scientists worked upon the idea of making pictures by the operation of light, and in 1839 a Frenchman, Daguerre, succeeded in obtaining beautiful portraits, which were afterwards known as daguerreotypes. This was the foundation of the art of photography, which was afterward perfected and cheapened, until in the twentieth century incredible numbers of pictures were taken and spread broadcast. Further developments were gradually worked out. After many efforts it was possible to photograph colors as well as shape and light and shade. In 1895 Röntgen, a German scientist, announced his discovery of the so-called X-rays of light, which penetrate through the spaces in opaque objects, and make it possible for pictures of objects on the other side or in the interior of substances to be taken. A few years afterward, Edison, an American, invented the cinematograph, by which pictures of an object in motion were taken so rapidly, that when they were afterward shown in succession the effect was a "moving picture." The "cinemas" or "movies" were soon improved and spread all over the world, affording entertainment and instruction to unnumbered multitudes, in Constantinople and Cadiz as well as New York and London. Edison had also invented the phonograph, by which sounds could be recorded and reproduced, and this presently brought good music to a multitude of people.
The result of all this was to make the lives of people full of a variety of things, which formerly they had not enjoyed, and had not been troubled with. If life had once been harder, it had also been simpler, quieter, more placid. Now it was richer and fuller, but far more rapid, feverish and troubled, and it could not easily be so deep and complete as once it had been.
In some of the great branches of organized human knowledge most of the advance ever made was achieved in this time. Such was not the case with mathematics, even though immense new fields were explored and great contributions made, for mathematics was already the oldest and most mature of the sciences. Nor was it true of astronomy which was also very old, and to which contributions of fundamental importance had already been made. Nevertheless, in the nineteenth century a multitude of studies with more powerful telescopes, with more delicate instruments, with mathematics more fully developed, and with the spectroscope and spectrum analysis, made further discoveries of which the total result made a revolution in men's ideas. Above all was this true of spectrum analysis, through which, by studying the composition of light, it became possible to know the material out of which other heavenly bodies were made and even to calculate their motions. The Greeks of Alexandria had thought of the earth as the center of things, with smaller sun and moon and stars going about it. By the end of the eighteenth century all this had been changed to the idea of the sun as the center with the earth going about it, and more distant planets and their satellites also revolving around it. But at the beginning of the twentieth century people thought of the sun and its attendants, even the outermost planet Neptune, 2,800,000,000 miles away, as only a small part of all things. So vast had distances now become, that they could only be measured by the stupendous unit of the light year, the distance which light, travelling 186,000 miles a second, would go in a year. From the earth to the sun light would go in eight
minutes, but four years would be required for passage from the solar universe to the nearest star, and a million years or a hundred million, perhaps, to another spiral nebula like the Milky Way, of which it may be the sun is a part. So is modern man overwhelmed by the immensity of things and the smallness and futility of himself, as in ancient days the Hebrew psalmist and king: "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars. . . . What is man?"
But most of the great work in two other branches of knowledge, physics and chemistry, was done in the period from the end of the eighteenth century. Previous to that time very little was known about sound, light, heat, almost nothing about magnetism and electricity, and scarcely a thing about the chemical elements, though in 1661 an Englishman, Boyle, defined them, and explained the necessity of determining what they were. About the time of the French Revolution an American, Benjamin Thompson, observed that the process of boring a cannon generated heat, and concluded that heat was not a substance, as most people had thought before, but motion or energy, and the Englishmen, Sir Humphrey Davy and James Joule, afterward made further experiments, which led to the theory of the conservation of energy. This theory, which became the fundamental law of physics, declared that energy was neither created nor destroyed, but transformed from one phase to another; that a body, for example, moving could generate heat, and that conversely heat applied to a body could make it move. This theory was fully worked out by Joule, by William Thompson, afterward Lord Kelvin, and by the German Helmholtz.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century it was generally believed that light was caused by the emission from a luminous body of tiny corpuscles or small pieces of matter; but this corpuscular theory of light gave way before
the wave or undulatory theory, as a result of the work of Thomas Young at the beginning of the nineteenth century and a Frenchman, Fresnel, a little later. Worked out in another way this presently led to spectrum analysis, one of the greatest of all the contributions of the period. A succession of English and German scientists, among whom were Wollaston, Sir John Herschell, Fraunhofer, Kirchoff, and Bunsen, observed that a band of light produced by passing light through a prism, was crossed by lines; and it was gradually learned that the different elements, giving out light waves of different lengths, produced the lines of the spectrum band.
At the end of the eighteenth century two Italians, Galvani and Volta, developed the electric battery and so founded electrical science, but the cost of generating electricity by their method was very great, and the using of electrical energy was postponed until other devices had been discovered. In 1819 a Danish investigator, Oersted, discovered the relation between electricity and magnetism, and a body of investigators, chief among whom was the Frenchman, Ampère, soon developed electro-dynamics, by which it became practicable to convert electricity into mechanical energy; presently electricity became one of the principal servants of mankind. Elictricity
Shortly before the French Revolution the Englishman, Priestley, and Scheele, a Swede, discovered oxygen, and shortly after the Frenchman, Lavoisier, who died on the guillotine in 1794, decomposed air and water into their elements and laid the foundation of modern chemistry. After this time the elements were gradually isolated, and many investigators carefully decomposed substances and studied combinations. Meanwhile John Dalton, an Englishman, formulated the theory that elements were composed of atoms or small indivisible bodies, and that in different elements the atoms had different weights; and his theory was strengthened by the discoveries of the
Swedish scientist, Berzelius, and the Italian Avocadro. Later investigations by many observers resulted in the conception of the atom, the smallest quantity of an element that could be present in a compound, and of the molecule, the smallest quantity either of an element or a compound that could exist in free state.
Vast extension of knowledge concerning matter and energy came with the electron theory of Sir William Crookes, of which the truth seemed completely demonstrated by J. J. Thompson in 1897--that the atom was made up of much smaller particles charged with electricity. It was further extended through the discovery of radium by the Curies in 1898, and the less celebrated discovery of actinium by another Frenchman, Debierne, the next year. Radium first appeared as a marvellous substance emitting energy at a rate hitherto deemed inconceivable. It was presently apparent that the radiations were electrified particles of matter moving at a rapid rate; that radioactivity was an atomic property, but that separation could be effected of radioactive substances from radium and kindred elements like uranium and thorium, different from these substances themselves; hence that the process was evidently the decomposition or breaking down of the atoms of the substance in question.
As investigations were continued immense consequences followed, of which understanding is still only beginning. On the one hand, new explanations of the source of energy were given. It had hitherto been conjectured, for example, that the energy and heat of the sun arose from combustion caused probably by shrinkage of the matter of which the sun was composed. Radioactivity now offered another and a simpler explanation. In consequence, the probable age of the earth and of the solar system was greatly extended, and some conjectured that the earth might be as old as 2,000,000,000 years. Furthermore, it was presently demonstrated that one element
could by radioactive decomposition break down into another, thus justifying at last the speculations of the alchemists of the Middle Ages. The atom now began to be conceived as a microcosm in itself, composed of vast numbers of electrons, rushing through the space of their little universe and revolving in orbits or following laws of their own. And finally different conceptions arose respecting what had formerly been called "energy" and "matter." It began now to seem that "matter" and "radiation" were both manifestations of one and the same existence; that "matter" was "energy" concentrated while "radiation" was "energy" spread through a larger portion of space; that either one was convertible into the other; and that "matter" was perhaps really identical with what had been called "electricity" in the terminology of the period preceding.
Atoms and electrons
The general result of all the advance made in chemistry and physics was that men learned, in a way scarcely dreamed of in previous ages, to understand the forces and things existing, and make use of them as powerful servants and assistants. In the old days alchemists and learned monks had toiled with alembic and brazier, discovering little but expecting much. The torch had then been carried by a long succession of workers, and learning was enlarged with progress increasing. Now in the twentieth century enthusiasts told of boundless additions to knowledge and much greater triumphs to come. Endless vistas stretched on, as before crusaders and humanists in the days past. To the greatest of them now who strove to seize upon energy or explore the structure of the atom there was much of the feeling that Columbus had with horizon fleeing before him, or Balboa when he saw the Pacific from the heights of the Darien mountains. In olden times the aristocracy, a small upper class, lived upon the labor of slaves. As a result of the scientific work of the ninetenth century, done mostly in Europe, a great Mastery of the forces of nature
Vast extension of the realm of the intellect
part of mankind had more leisure and lived easier lives, because of the work of the great forces of nature now employed for production and service. Social reformers declared that if administration and distribution were improved all men women could work less and be more able to enjoy the good of their civilization. In 1923 one of the greatest living masters of science predicted that in no long time four hours' work a day would be all that toilers need give.
Increase of luxury and leisure
Concerning men and women, their bodies and their welfare, there were great innovations not only in the art of conserving them but in the art of destruction. There were more terrible devices for warfare on sea and land, at the same time that unparalleled advances were made in physiology and biology, in surgery, in medicine, and in preventing diseases. Science promised to make things better but it threatened to destroy all better things. If there were peace many had hope that life would be longer, cleaner, easier and better. The devastation in the years 1914-18 was so terrible that Europe seemed scarcely able to recover; but more dreadful means of destruction were being perfected. If other great wars broke out, then with his old weapons and with new, devilish devices man might with no great difficulty annihilate all that was best.
Conservation offset by destruction
Great changes took place in the art of war on land, many of them being demonstrated for the first time by Napoleon and his generals. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Prussians first adopted as a permanent measure universal military service, which revolutionized war, making armies far larger and war more tremendous and costly. In the second half of the nineteenth century the rapidity of gun-fire was greatly increased. The Prussians defeated the Austrians at Königgrätz largely because their rifles could be fired much faster; and in the Franco-German War the French had even a better one. During the same time artillery, which had been so im-
The art of war
portant in the hands of Napoleon, came to be increasingly effective, firing explosive shells more than solid balls, and constantly being improved in range and rapidity of fire. In the latter part of the century American and French inventors developed the mitrailleuse or machine gun, which fired vast numbers of bullets mechanically; and by 1914 the French had developed, in their "seventyfives," field artillery which was practically rapid-fire cannon. All sorts of scientific discoveries and all sorts of technical devices were adapted to military use. Increasingly did war depend upon railroads, machines, chemicals, explosives, and gases. Such overwhelming forces were used at last that in a prolonged conflict men destroyed the wealth and civilization of ages, and might, indeed, succeed in destroying civilization entirely.
On the sea also warfare was greatly altered. Down to the middle of the nineteenth century there had been no fundamental alteration in sea war, except that sails had completely displaced oars, galleys giving way to frigates and ships of the line, and that the artillery was now cannon instead of bows and arrows. In the first half of the century steam partly displaced sails as the motive force, and more and more, shells were fired from the cannon. The great change, however, came at the time of the Crimean War when the French used ironclad vessels, and especially in 1862, when the appearance of the Merrimac and the Monitor showed that ironclads were invincible in a contest with the old wooden ships, and made evident the lines along which naval architecture would develop. All over the world now heavy ironclad vessels with turrets displaced the older frigates. At the end of the nineteenth century, inventors, especially in America, developed what had been tried for a hundred years, and perfected the submarine or under-water vessel which came near to determining the outcome of the Great War, in 1917.
War on the sea
These instruments of destruction did not give the predominating character to a scientific age which was principally constructive. In no preceding period was so much done to make men healthful and happier and better. Down the end of the eighteenth century only a little was known about the structure and working of the human body, and little about the diseases which beset man's life. Bleeding was still the general and sovereign remedy, and most people were disposed to believe that sickness was a visitation of the Lord, to be accepted and endured. In 1801 a Frenchman, Bichat, directed attention to the tissues of the body. Many investigators studied the appearance and action of organs diseased and in health, and presently a great deal was known about the heart, the lungs, and the kidneys. As the century went on an immense field was opened by observation and experiment, and many of the best students became specialists in medicine, devoting themselves to the study and treatment of particular diseases. A great revolution came in 1861 when Pasteur, a Frenchman, demolished the old idea that diseases originated spontaneously, and showed that they came from minute living organisms which he called bacteria. The science of bacteriology, carried forward with great brilliancy by Pasteur and also by the Germans Koch and Cohn and others, made it possible to determine not only the causes of many of the worst diseases, but also the means of preventing them; and by the end of the period it was possible by taking certain precautions to escape very largely from the fevers and diseases which had often scourged mankind as plagues. In surgery no less memorable results were attained. Not only was knowledge of the human body extended, with far greater certainty and skill than ever before, but about 1846, following the work of several experimenters, anaesthesia was introduced by an American doctor, and his methods at once being taken up everywhere, a great part of the Study of the human body
pain and horror of operations was permanently abolished. In 1876 an Englishman, Lord Lister, introduced antisepsis, by which, as the result of precautions taken and of care to kill the germs which the operator might bring to the patient, the danger of infecting the patient with disease was avoided.
The period from the end of the eighteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth was also an epoch in which literature, music, and the fine arts flourished as seldom before. In literature there had been no greater or richer period since the Renaissance. Never before had there been so much writing, and seldom so much good writing. In Spain, in Italy, in Holland, in Switzerland, and parts of central Europe, where the greatest periods of the past were not equalled, there were nevertheless many writers of distinction. In England the nineteenth century was the greatest of all periods in her literature except for the Elizabethan; and in France except for the classical age which began about the time of Louis XIV and ended about the time of the Revolution. It was the greatest period also in German literature and the foremost of her writers, Goethe and Schiller were at their height in the period of the Revolution and Napoleon. In the nineteenth century appeared the most important writers in Scandinavian literature. And this was the period when a body of great Slavic writers for the first time made Russian literature splendid and renowned.
There was no kind of writing that was not done and done well: poetry, prose, drama, novel, criticism, historical composition. But altogether the tendencies of this period conduced to prose writing rather than poetry; along with much fine original work, there was also a great deal that was critical and descriptive; and as the sixteenth century was the era of the drama, so the nineteenth was especially the time of the novel. During this time romanticism displaced classicism; afterward a balance was
struck between the two; then individuals followed their own ideals, and realism or naturalism presently gave the character to great pieces of fiction.
In the eighteenth century the literature of western Europe, notably in France and England became elegant, polished, careful, neat, and exact. The great masters of this in France had been Racine and Boileau, and in England, Addison and Pope are now the most famous. To the authors of this period the term "classic" is often applied. Certain of the great writers of Greece and Rome were in after-times justly considered as being in a rank or class by themselves, so that they themselves were called classic and their works referred to as classics. In their compositions had been especially developed the qualities of symmetry, proportion, purity, refinement and restraint; and when now these qualities were imitated or developed by writers in western Europe in the period after the middle of the seventeenth century, the term classicism was used to define the spirit of the writing of this age. Some of the finest writing in modern literature was done by these masters; but in the hands of a host of feeble imitators poetry and prose tended to become artificial and stereotyped, and the manner more important than the matter. Finally the writing became lifeless and artificial, and it seemed impossible any longer to do in this style great and original work.
In the second half of the eighteenth century, however, there was a great reaction from this. First in Germany, with Herder, Goethe to some extent, and Schiller, a little later in England with Robert Burns, Wordsworth, Byron, and Sir Walter Scott, and after the Napoleonic period in France especially with Lamartine and Victor Hugo, a host of writers began to break away from the rules and restraints of the classical school and give free rein to imagination and passion, using such forms as suited them best, often going to the Middle Ages for their themes, and writing
of the strange and the wonderful. This movement came to be. known as romanticism. Everywhere it was characterized by strength, exuberance, and daring, but was presently carried to excess, and provoked a reaction. Thereafter writers strove to use for their own purposes the best of the classic and the best of the romantic styles.
The French Revolution profoundly affected the literature of the time, stirring some writers to idealism, arousing suspicion and hatred in others. Robert Burns ( 1759-96), the beloved lyric poet of Scotland, remained outside the current of this movement. In England William Wordsworth ( 1770-1850) was filled with exaltation and joy, though the excesses of the Revolution soon caused these feelings to wane--all of which is imperishably commemorated in his Prelude ( 1805). Samuel Coleridge ( 17721834), best known now for his beautiful short poems-Kubla Khan ( 1797), The Rime of the Ancient Mariner ( 1798), and Christabel ( 1816) -- underwent similar change, which he recorded in his ode Recantation ( 1798). This was true also of their contemporaries Southey and Landor. In France little of note was accomplished during this time. André Chénier ( 1762-94), who perished on the guillotine, did work which often related to events in the Revolution, but of which the technique was unaffected by the turmoil about him. His various poems have a flawless beauty with the best of the old classic spirit. The Italian, Count Vittorio Alfieri ( 1749-1803), was an aristocratic republican, an advocate of revolution until he saw it in Paris, one who always held in veneration the Greek and the Roman heroes who overthrew tyrants. His numerous tragedies, written in the old manner with strict regard to the classic unities, are marked by a stern simplicity of style. Among them are Antigone ( 1783), La Congiura de' Paz (The Conspiracy of the Pazzi, 1787) and Timoleone ( 1788).
The period of the French Revolution
These years saw the greatest period of German literature, when the two greatest of the German writers gained their renown. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ( 1749-1839.) achieved highest excellence in the various kinds of writing that attracted his genius. He wrote numerous beautiful ballads and short poems. of them, like Erlkönig (The Erl-King) and Kennst Du das Land? (Dost Know the Land?) have been made more memorable by music since composed for them. His prose romances, like Die Leiden des Jungen Werther (The Sorrows of the Young Werther, 1774) and Wilhelm Meister ( 1777-96), were important in the romantic movement, though later he became one of the greatest exponents of classicism also. His dramas are the best in German and some of the greatest ever composed: Egmont ( 1778), Iphigenie auf Tauris (Iphigenia in Tauris, 1787), Torquato Tasso ( 1790), and Fausf-of which the first part, the portion more generally known, appeared in 1808, and the second, finer, longer, and more beautiful, in 1832--one of the principal literary masterpieces of the world. He was contemporary with Friedrich von Schiller ( 1759-1805), after Goethe the foremost figure in German letters. Schiller composed many prose works of considerable merit. His short poems and ballads rival those of Goethe: Der Handschuh (The Glove), Der Ring des Polycrates (The Ring of Polycrates), Das Lied von der Glocke (The Song of the Bell). His dramas are among the best and most popular in German: Maria Stuart ( 1801), Die Jungfrau von Orleans (The Maid of Orleans, 1802), Wilhelm Tell ( 1804)--a landmark in the development of nationalism in Europe. Greatest of all was his three-part drama Wallenstein ( 1800). The French Revolution was at first greatly approved in the German lands. The aged Klopstock thought of going to Paris to ask for French citizenship; and others were loud in praise. Schiller, an enthusiastic admirer of Rousseau, had already extolled social and political revolt in his early dramas, Die Räuber (The Robbers, 1781), and Die Verschörung des Fiesco (Fiesco's Conspiracy, 1783).
The great period in German literature: Goethe
Influence of the French Revolution
In the extraordinary mass of European writing that filled the nineteenth century there was a great body of splendid poetry, especially in England, in France, and in Italy. George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron ( 1788-1824), was for a while the most striking literary figure in Europe. His various short pieces were long popular, and his Childe Harold ( 1812-18), was the most widely read poem of the time. In the poetry of Percy Bysshe Shelley ( 1792-1822) --specially his Ode to the Skylark, The Cloud, and Adonais --greater beauty was attained than since the time of Milton, while his tragedy, The Cenci ( 1819), recalled some of the greatness of the Elizabethan drama. John Keats ( 1795-1821) in his Endymion and Eve of St. Agnes also wrote with finest and purest beauty. The Victorian period in England was illuminated by a host of poets. Robert Browning ( 1812-89) wrote with much obscurity but also with great. vigor, beauty, and dramatic force. Among his numerous poems were Sordello ( 1840) and the Ring and the Book ( 1868-9). Alfred, Lord, Tennyson ( 1809-92) was the favorite with English-speaking people in his time. Among his works were The Lady of Shalott, The Princess ( 1847), In Memoriam ( 1850), Idylls of the King ( 1859-85). Algernon Charles Swinburne ( 18371909) was a devotee of the old pagan beauty. In his numerous poems he made use of many new devices freeing himself from older conventions. In Germany Heinrich Heine ( 1799-1856), born at Düsseldorf of Hebrew descent, was not only a critic and a prose writer of distinction, but one of the principal lyric poets of the nineteenth century. Among his best known pieces were Die Lorelei, Du Bist Wie eine Blume (Thou Art Like a Flower), and Nach Frankreich Zogen Zwei Grenadier (To France Two Grenadiers Were Returning). In France Alphonse Lamartine ( 1790-1869) was the great founder of the romantic school, especially,in his Méditations Poétiques( 1820). Victor Marie Hugo ( 1802-85) was also one of the principal leaders of
Poetry in the nineteenth century: England
The Victorian period
the romantic movement. Among his poems were Les Feuilles d'Automne (Autumn leaves, 1831) and Les Contemplations (Thoughts, 1856-7). Alfred de Musset ( 1810-57)--Poésies Diveres ( 1831), Alfred de Vigny ( 1799-1863)--in various poems, carried French poetry forward. Pierre Charles Baudelaire ( 1891-67)--Fleurs du Mal (Flowers of Evil, 1857), the "Parnassiens," who reverted from the romantic to more classic manner and forms, and who included Charles Lecomte de Lisle ( 181894), René Sully-Prudhomme ( 1839-1907), and Paul Verlaine, ( 1844-9)--symbolist and decadent who wrote with a strange and haunting beauty, represented other phases. In Italy Vincenzo Monti ( 1754-1823), Ugo Foscolo ( 1778-1827), Alessandro Manzoni ( 1785-1873), Giacomo Leopardi ( 1798-1837)--one of the greatest of Italy's lyric poets, and Giosuè Carducci ( 1835-1907)-whose poems are filled with vivid strength, all recalled the greater days of Italy's past. In Russia Alexander Pushkin ( 1799-1837) and Mikhail Lermontov ( 1814-41) had part in the literature then rising of their country.
Admirable dramatic writing was done, but generally what men of the sixteenth century would have put in a play men of the nineteenth put into novels. Many--like Byron, Hugo, D'Annunzio, Hauptmann, and others--who gained distinction as dramatists, were also eminent as novelists or poets. In Spain José Echegaray ( 1833- 1916) recalled older glories of the Spanish drama with Ó Locura ó Santidad (Madness or Sanctity, 1876), El Gran Galeoto (The Great Galeoto [Go-Between], 1881), El Loco Dios (The Foolish God, 1900). A lesser and later contemporary was Jacinto Benavente. In France Victor Hugo wrote numerous dramas, among which were Hernani ( 1830), Le Roi s'Amuse (The King Amuses Himself, 1832), and Ruy Blas ( 1838). In Italy Gabriele d'Annunzio ( 1864-- ) not only had great distinction from his novels--like II Trionfo della Morte (The Triumph of Death, 1894), and
from his poems, but from numerous dramas, among which were La Città Morta (The Dead City, 1899), Francesca da Rimini ( 1901), and La Figlia di Jorio (Jorio's Daughter, 1904). The Belgian poet, Maurice Maeterlinck ( 1864-- ), was the author of several plays of distinction--written in French: Pelléas et Mélisande ( 1892), Monna Vanna ( 1902), L'Oiseau Bleu (The Blue Bird, 1909). In Sweden Johan Strindberg ( 1849-1912) wrote much in poetry and in prose. Among his dramas were Fadren (The Father, 1887), Fröken Julie (Countess Julia, 1888), Gustaf Adolf ( 1900), Carl XII ( 1901). Norway gained lustre from the plays of Henrik Ibsen ( 1828-1906), which contained intense, realistic portrayal of human conduct under modern conditions. Among them were Peer Gynt ( 1867)--to which additional fame was given afterward by the music of Grieg, Et Dukkehjem (A Doll's House, 1879), Vildanden (The Wild Duck, 1884) Hedda Gabler ( 1890). In Germany Hermann Sudermann ( 1857- ), celebrated also as a novelist, wrote the plays Heimat (Home, but generally known under the title Magda, 1893) and Es Lebe das Leben (The Joy of Living, 1909.). His contemporary Gerhart Hauptmann ( 1856- ), better known, perhaps, for his romantic and poetical writings, composed among other dramas Die Weber (The Weavers, 1891). In Great Britain, in a group of many lesser but worthy writers, George Bernard Shaw ( 1856- ), the Anglo-Irish dramatist, was preëminent. His plays, composed with admirable technical skill, embodied destructive criticism and brilliant but superficial satire upon the life of his time. Among his pieces, most of which had great success, were: Candida ( 1898), Man and Superman ( 1903), John Bull's Other Island ( 1904), Major Barbara ( 1905). Foremost in the Irish literary revival at the beginning of the twentieth century was John Millington Synge ( 1871- 1909) with his Riders to the Sea ( 1904), The Playboy of the Western World ( 1907), Deirdre of the Sorrows ( 1910).
The novel had its origin in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but it became the greatest of all literary forms in the nineteenth. In Great Britain Sir Walter Scott ( 1771- 1832.) was famous first as a poet, and some of his narrative pieces, such as Marmioin ( 1808) and The Lady of the Lake ( 1810) have long been favorites. After the appearance of Byron, however, Scott turned his attention to another field, and became the founder of the modern historical romance. Among the great number of his novels are Waverly ( 1814), Old Mortality ( 1816), Rob Roy ( 1818), The Bride qf Lammermoor ( 1819), Ivanhoe ( 1820). Charles Dickens ( 1812-70) carried on more directly the tradition of the great eighteenth-century English novelists. He depicted with great power, though with exaggeratted sentiment and pathos, scenes especially in the life of the lower classes: Oliver Twist ( 1838), David Copperfield ( 1849-50). His Pickwick Papers ( 1837) is one of the greatest masterpieces of humor in English. William Makepeace Thackeray ( 1811-63), humorist and master of satire, depicted in his novels scenes from life in the upper and middle classes: Vanity Fair ( 1846-8), Pendennis ( 1848-50). His Henry Esmond ( 1852) is an admirable historical novel. Mary Ann Evans, known by her pseudonym, George Eliot ( 1819-80)--Silas Marner ( 1861), Romola ( 1862-3), and Charlotte Brontë ( 1816-55)--Jaue Eyre ( 1847) won renown during this period. George Meredith ( 1828- 1909) wrote The Ordeal of Richard Feverel ( 1859) and Diana of the Crossways ( 1885). Robert Louis Stevenson ( 1850-94) finely revived the romantic amidst modern conditions: New Arabian Nights ( 1882), Treasure Island ( 1883), The Master of Ballantrae ( 1889). Thomas Hardy ( 1840- )--Far from the Madding Crowd ( 1874), Tess of the D'Urbervilles ( 1899.), George Moore ( 1853- ), the greatest master of realist fiction in English-- A Mummer's Wife ( 1884), The Brook Kerith ( 1916), and Joseph Conrad ( 1857- ), a Pole, whose writing about adventure The novel: Great Britain
and the sea has been done in English- Lord Jim ( 1900), Youth ( 1902), Typhoon ( 1903), remain the principal figures in the writing of British fiction.
In France Victor Hugo carried on the romantic movement in his novels as well as in his poems, especially in Notre-Dame de Paris ( 1831). Marie Henri Beyle, better known by his pseudonym De Stendhal ( 1783- 1842), represented an early phase of the psychological novel in such works as Le Rouge et le Noir (Red and Black, 1830) and La Chartreuse de Parme (The Carthusian Nun of Parma, ( 1839). Honoré de Balzac ( 1799-1850), chief of the realistic novelists of France, aspired to do with the novel what Molière had long before done with the drama. His principal works were include in the Comédie Humaine ( 1829-50). Gustave Flaubert ( 1821-80) was a master realist in his Madame Bovary ( 1857), while the strange horror of his story of old Carthage-Salammbô ( 1862) is never forgotten by the reader. The greatest artist in French prose who remains now is the aged Anatole France ( 1844- ). His numerous works include Thaïs ( 1890), L'Île. des Pengoiuns (Penguin lsle, 1908), and Les Dieux Ont Soif (The Gods are Athirst, 1912)--a very striking study of the French Revolution. In Germany among a host of novelists were Gustav Freytag ( 1816-95)--Soll und Haben Debit and Credit- 1855), Sudermann Frau Sorge Honie Care, 1887), Es War (It Was, 1894), and Das Hohe Lied (The Song of Songs, 1908), and Hauptmann --Die Versunkene Glocke (The Sunken Bell, 1897), an allegory in verse, and Emanuel Quint ( 1910), a novel concerning Christ in the modern world. In Italy Allesandro Manzoni's admirable novel, I Promessi Sposi (The Betrothed, 1825-7), was a romance concerning Milan in the seventeenth century. In Spain Benito Pérez Galdos ( 1843- 1920) wrote a series of historical novels concerning the struggle against Napoleon and later episodes, of which 7 de Julio (July 7) deals with the rebel-
lion against Ferdinand VII, while various novels, like Doña Perfecta ( 1876), embody realistic or psychological studies.
Russian literature reached its culmination in the nine-teenth century, and its greatness was especially in the novel. Nikolai Gogol ( 1809-52) wrote among other striking works Dead Souls ( 1841) of which the author destroyed the last part. Of Ivan Turgeniev ( 1818-83), the best known work was Fathers and Sons ( 1862). Feodor Dostoievsky ( 1822-81) wrote Memoirs from the House of Death also known as Buried Alive ( 1858), which relates to Siberia. Greatest, perhaps, was Count Lyev Tolstoy ( 1828- 1911), who served in the Crimean War and afterward interested himself in social reform. Among his work were War and Peace ( 186-8), Ana Karénina ( 1875-8), and The Kreutzer Sonata ( 1890). Russia
During this period critical writing was advanced. Charles Sainte-Beuve ( 1804-69) covered a wide range in his Causeries du Lundi (Monday Talks, 1851-7). Matthew Arnold ( 1822-88) wrote among other essays a masterpiece: On Translating Homer. Greorg Brandes, the Dane ( 1849- ), was one of the principal critics of his time.
Of historical writing there was much. Some of the older work was distinguished for eloquence and literary or rhetorical quality. Of such were Lamartine Histoire des Girondins ( 1847); the Histoire de France ( 1847-67), and Histoire de la Révolution Française ( 1847-53) of Jules Michelet ( 1798- 1874); and The History of England ( 1848-61) of Thomas Babington Macaulay ( 1800-59), which made good its author's boast that it would displace the most recent novel. Later on historical writing was less distinguished for literary excellence than scholarship and profound research. Modern historical writing, indeed, was founded about the middle of the nineteenth century by Leopold von Ranke ( 1795- 1886), whose most celebrated work perhaps is Die Römische Päpste (,The History
Popes of Rome, 1834-7), but whose numerous works relate especially to the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Ranke and his school--and from them in course of time historians everywhere learned--taught that historical writing should be based upon the sources, and that history should strive especially to tell about things as they had happened.
In music there were splendid achievements, in Italy, ill France, in the Slavic countries--Bohemia, Poland, and Russia, and above all in Germany and Austria. Music is the greatest contribution which the Germans have made to the arts, and their music is the greatest in the world. Of their foremost composers, Bach had written his glorious, stately music in the first half of the eighteenth century, and Mozart's work was done in the second half; but Beethoven, greatest of them all, composed his symphonies and sonatas in the early part of the nineteenth, while Brahms did his work two generations later. This music was distinguished not only by its beauty, but by the depth and vastness which have generally pertained to creations of the Tetitonic mind. In the nineteenth century also Germany and Austria gave to the world the greatest writers of song, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, and Franz. About the middle of the century Richard Wagner began writing that magnificent series of operas which place him above all others in this branch of art. Some of his music was crude, strange, and barbaric, but most of it had wondrous beauty and a depth and suggestiveness which altogether no other composer of operas has equalled. In Italy also there was splendid writing of opera, especially, by Verdi, as there was in France; while at the end of the century Russia took from Germany her old preëminence in musical composition.
Music in the nineteenth century
Primacy of the German
Music at the beginning of the period was in the classical style, and in it melody, a series of single tones, had become the striking characteristic. It was especially
Musica develpment: classicism
marked by a single melody or by one that was strikingly predominant. Often the form was more important than the content. In this period was done the work of Haydn, Beethoven, and Mozart. Beethoven, however, marked the transition over into a romantic movement in music, as in his Ninth Symphony, though he retained classical forms somewhat to the end. The romantic movement was much advanced by the songs and the instrumental compositions of Schubert and especially of Schumann, in which the content was now far more important than the form, and in which the form was sometimes much inferior to the best work of the age preceding. Still further was this carried by Chopin, in whose romanticism new forms were invented for the purpose of expressing more perfectly meaning, content, and powerful emotion. The Romantic movement in music culminated in Wagner. Whereas in such operas as Don Giovanni or Le Nozze di Figaro of Mozart the melodies were beautiful, simple, and brief, in the greater operas of Wagner, like Parzifal and Tristan und Isolde, they were long and not exactly balanced, as they would have been in the classical manner. Furthermore, Wagner gave great importance to harmonies, or combinations of tones, which were constantly made more and more complex. Meanwhile, however, Italians like Verdi and Frenchmen like Gounod, in such operas as Aïda and Faust, retained much of classical forms at the same time that they were filled with the Romantic spirit.
From the Romantic School came more modern composers, who developed harmonies still further than Wagner had done, using old ones in new combinations, which seemed strange and novel, as indeed Wagner had often done, or else introducing such novelties as the whole-tone scale, which was employed by the Frenchman Debussy, or, like Scriabine, making entirely new harmonies which seemed to the ordinary listener to be discords, and so in music accomplishing results not unlike what the futur-
Later development ists attained in painting, and some of the users of vers libre achieved in poetical writing. During the later period, however, the most striking work was often done in certain national schools, at a time when nationalism was becoming the most potent political force in Europe. Such was the work of Grieg in Norway, of Dvorák in Bohemia, of Sibelius in Finland, and of Tschaikovsky and RimskyKorsakov in Russia. These two last, along with others of their countrymen, who still carried on the Romantic traditions, took away from the Germans primacy in the world of music and put it in the keeping of the Slavonic peoples.
The great age of German music, which began in the eighteenth century, was carried forward down through the nineteenth. Franz Peter Schubert ( 1797-1828) of Vienna was greatest of the masters of writing of song. His years were spent in poverty and lowly living, his numerous compositions scribbled on such fragments of paper as chance brought to hand. Among his works were the music for Ave Maria--a song in Scott Lady of the Lake, Erlkönig-- Goethe poem, and Hark, Hark, the Lark--in Shakespeare Cymbeline. Ludwig van Beethoven ( 17701827), born at Bonn in Prussia but of Dutch descent, is reckoned by many the greatest name in the history of music. He was troubled with (defective hearing, which later became total deafness. In this perpetual silence he attained the finest beauty and the highest emotion embodied in musical creation. Among his principal works were the so-called Moonlight Sonata ( 1802), the Kreutzer Sonata ( 1803), the Eroica Symphony ( 1804), the Fifth Symphony ( 1808)--and, indeed, all of his symphonies, Fidelio, an opera ( 1805-14), and the Leonore Overtures written for it. Such work was carried on grandly by another great master, Johannes Brahms ( 1833-97), of Hamburg, who, like Beethoven and many other composers, spent much of his time in Vienna. Among his composi-
tions were numerous symphonies, shorter pieces of chamber music, and songs. Meanwhile Jakob Mendelssohn- Bartholdy ( 1809-47), of Hamburg--numerous songs, including the beautiful music for Heine Auf Flügeln des Gesanges (On the Wings of Song), oratorios, and pieces of chamber and orchestral music--and Robert Schumann ( 1810-56) of Saxony--numerous symphonies, overtures, and songs--had been doing their work. In the later period Richard Strauss ( 1864- ), who was born in Munich but whose career was mostly in Vienna, carried musical development far forward with increased complexity and strange new effects. Among his works were numerous tone poems, including Don Juan ( 1889), Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spake Zarathustra, 1896)--inspired by the writing of the philosopher Nietzsche--Der Rosenkavalier ( The Rose Knight, 1911).
In other countries also significant work was done. Franz Liszt ( 1811-86), a Hungarian, produced numerous "symphonic poems", oratorios, and pieces for the piano, with which he himself was a matchless virtuoso. Frédéric François Chopin ( 1809-49), son of a Polish mother and a French father, wrought many beautiful pieces for the piano. In France Charles Camille Saint-Saëns ( 1835-1922) produced much for orchestra and piano. In Norway Edvard Grieg ( 1843-1907) based his work upon the native folksongs and old (lance music, his best-known composition being the Peer Gynt Suite. In Bohemia Antonin Dvorák ( 1841-1904) was distinguished in many forms of musical composition, one of his best-known pieces being the socalled New World Symphony ( 1893). Jean Julius Sibelius ( 1865- ) gave distinction to Finland with his numerous songs and orchestral pieces. His Finlandia became widely known. In Russia Peter Ilitch Tschaikovsky ( 1840-93) was a master of symphony and symphonic poem. Music in other countries
The opera flourished in the nineteenth century as it had in the period preceding. Greatest of its masters was Wilhelm Richard Wagner ( 1813-83), of Leipzig. The production of some of his complicated and difficult pieces was first made possible only through patronage of Ludwig II, king of Bavaria, who founded for him a theatre at Bayreuth. Among his operas were Tannhäuser ( 1845), Lohengrin ( 1848), Tristan und Isolde ( 1859), the magnificent four-part series, Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung): Rheingold ( 1869), Die Walküre (The Valkyrie, 1870), Siegfried ( 1871), and Götterdämmerung (The Twilight of the Gods, 1874)--written in connection with the story embodied in the medieval German epic Das Nibelungenlied--and Parzifal ( 1882). In Italy Gioachino Rossini ( 1792-1868) wrote Il Barbiere di Siviglia (The Barber of Seville, 1816) and Guillaume Tell ( 1829). He was surpassed by Giuseppe Verdi ( 1813-1901) with numerous operas that became favorites all over the world: Rigoletto ( 1851), Il Trovatore (The Troubador, 1853), La Traviata (The Errant Woman, 1853), Aïda ( 1869), Otello ( 1887). In France Georges [A. C. L.] Bizet ( 1838-75) composed the celebrated Carmen ( 1875), Charles François Grounod ( 1818-93) the more celebrated Faust ( 1859)--dealing with the story in the first part of Goethe great work--also Romeo et Juliette ( 1867), with numerous other pieces, and Gustave Charpentier ( 1860- ) the opera Louise ( 1898), besides many works of distinction. In Russia Modest Mussorgsky ( 1839-81) produced Boris Godunov ( 1874)--recalling a memorable episode in the history of Russia, while Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov ( 18441908) was the author of Sadko ( 1897). The opera: Wagner
In architecture, in sculpture, in painting also a large amount of work was done, much of it excellent, though in architecture and sculpture the nineteenth century was not a great creative period. In architecture there was a series of revivals of old styles, Renaissance, Gothic, Romanesque, culminating especially in a revival of the
Italian High Renaissance, of which a good example is the Opera House in Paris. The great architects of this period modified the styles they copied so as to suit the circumstances with which they were dealing. They also worked from the plan of their structure rather than the front or façade, as had often formerly been done; they strove to express in the appearance of their buildings the purpose for which they were intended; and in such well-known structures as the Eiffel Tower and the Grand Palais in Paris they successfully tried to express Renaissance forms in the new materials, steel and iron, with which they were working. In all this, as in sculpture and painting, Frenchmen were the leaders, and Paris became the art centre of the world. But in the early part of the twentieth century the Germans ceased to copy and tried to express themselves in forms which they now developed. They portrayed their national character and ideals in such structures as the Bismarck Monument and the Victory Monument at Leipzig, which reveal stern, stark power and grim reliance upon force and strength.
Adaptation of earlier styles
The great sculptors at the beginning of the nineteenth century, such as the Italian Antonio Canova ( 1757-1822), and the Dane, Albert Thorvaldsen ( 1770-1844), were the leaders of a classical revival, seeking to copy exactly the forms used by the masters in ancient times. Thus, when Napoleon carried the statue Apollo Belvedere away from Rome, Canova executed his Perseus to take its place, seeking to reproduce in his creation the classical spirit of the statue just lost. From this classicism, as in literature, there was presently a great reaction, since the lesser classicists in time tended to expel from their art all passion and life. The great leader of the Romantic movement which followed was François Rude ( 1784- 1855), who, like Victor Hugo in literature, had extraordinary power in expressing energy and life, as in his group of the Marseillaise on the Arc de Triomphe. After a while again
The Romantic movement
reaction came, and presently individual sculptors strove to assert themselves as seemed to them best. The most important movements at the end of the century were realism, which attempted to portray objects exactly in their details, and naturalism, which tried to produce the effect of the truth without giving all the details. Here the great masters were the Frenchman Auguste Rodin ( 1840-1917) and Constantin Meunier ( 1831-1904), the Belgian, this latter an artist whose work expressed profound sympathy with the working classes. Realism and naturalism
At the end of the eighteenth century painting also was dominated by the classical spirit, shown particularly in the work of Jacques Louis David ( 1748-1825)--who took part in the French Revolution, but afterward became Napoleon's court painter--and the large group of disciples who followed him. They made drawing and outline the basis of their art, and their paintings were often little more than colored bas-reliefs, cold and artificial. Their work provoked a passionate reaction led by Jean Géricault ( 1791-1824), Ferdinand Delacroix ( 1799-1863), and others, who expressed tumultuous passion and emotion, depending upon color, light, and shade, rather than mere drawing. But the French spirit of moderation and good judgment again asserted itself, and after a while a balance was struck between the two forces. In the second half of the nineteenth century many particular schools arose. In this period landscape painting at last assumed a position of great importance. Poussin and Claude Lorrain in France, and great Dutch artists of the seventeenth century, had done excellent work, but landscape painting became one of the great movements in art in the nineteenth century, led especially by Constable and Turner in England, and followed by Théodore Rousseau ( 1812-67), Charles Daubigny ( 1817-78), and Jean Corot ( 1796- 1875) in France. In the same period Jean François Millet ( 1814-75) developed the portrayal of peasant life, and
Rosa Bonheur ( 1822-99) painted pictures of cattle. In the latter part of the century, in painting as in literature and sculpture, the naturalists tried to depict things as they are, this movement being led especially by Gustave Courbet ( 1819-77). Presently this movement became dominant. Impressionism, the portrayal of an impression and the essentials of the appearance of an object rather than the exact details, was also an important tendency. Of this the great masters were the Frenchmen Auguste Renoir ( 1841-1919), Edgard Degas ( 1834-1917), and Claude Monet ( 1840- ), and the American James Whistler ( 1834-1903). In their work there is particular interest in light and shade. The works of the old masters were generally dark and low in tone; but the works of these moderns are high in tone and bright. The period just before the war saw the development of post-impressionism, cubism, symbolism, futurism, all of which were revolts against the older art and against a mere imitation of the objects painted, and were a striving to discover new methods of expression, much as in literature the writers of free verse were trying.
The century of progress: F. S. Marvin, The Living Past, a Sketch of Western Progress ( 3d ed. 1918), deals with the principal changes from the ancient period to the time of the Industrial Revolution, The Century of Hope: a Sketch of Western Progress from 1815 to the Great War ( 2d. ed 1920), Recent Developments in European Thought ( 1920), edited by the same author; A. R. Wallace , The Wonderful Century: Its Successes and Its Failures ( 1898), The Progress of the Century ( 1901), by the same author and many others.
History of science: W. Libby, An Introduction to the History of Science ( 1917); Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science ( 1893); H. S. Williams, A History of Science, 10 vols. ( 1904-10).
Literature: G. Pellissier, Le Mouvement Littéraire au XIXe Siècle (ed. 1912); George Saintsbury, A History of Nineteenth Century Literature, 1780-1895 ( 1912); G. H. Mair, Modern Eng-lish Literature lish Literature ( 1911), an excellent brief account; H. Walker, The Literature of the Victorian Era ( 1913); Irving Babbitt, The Masters of Modern French Criticism ( 1912); René Doumic, Histoire de la Littérature Française ( 24th ed. 1907); G. Lanson, Histoire de la Littérature Française (ed. 1916); Kuno Franke, A History of German Literature as Determined by Social Forces (ed. 1901); F. Kummer, Deutsche Literaturgeschichte des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts ( 1909); German Culture: the Contribution of the Germans to Knowledge, Literature, Art, and Life ( 1915), by British writers, edited by W. P. Paterson; L. Collison-Morley, Modern Italian Literature ( 1912); H. Hauvette, Littérature Italienne ( 1906); A. Brückner, A Literary History of Russia, trans. by H. Havelock ( 1908); Vicomte E.-M. de Vogüé, The Russian Novel, English translation from the 11th French edition by Col. H. A. Sawyer ( 1914). Some of the critical writing of Lafcadio Hearn, especially Interpretations of Literature, 2 vols. ( 1915), contain admirable and luminous discussions, chiefly on English literature.
Music and art: Gustav Kobbé, How to Appreciate Music ( 1906), contains some simple but excellent accounts of the history of modern music; General History of Art, a series of volumes pertaining to the development of art in particular districts or countries, of which Louis Hourtieq, The History of Art in France ( 1911), is excellent.
SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHANGES
Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.
- HERBERT SPENCER A System of Synthetic Philosophy: I, First Principles ( 1862), paragraph 145.
Humana ratio, nullo prorsus Dei respectu habito, unicus est veri et falsi, boni et mali arbiter, sibi ipsi est lex et naturalibus suis viribus ad hominum ac populorum bonum curandum sufficit.
Syllabus complectens prcipous nostrae tatis errores . . . Pii pap IX ( 1864).
Make no mistake about it . . . Democracy is going to rule in these countries.
- MICHAEL DAVITT, letter to Freeman's Journal, January 22, 1906.
DURING the period between the middle of the eighteenth century and the years just prior to the Great War immense changes took place in the relations of people with each other, with their governments, with capitalists and employers, in the attitude of people toward the problems of the world in which they lived, and in their habits of thought. In no previous epoch of the world's history did so vast a number of people go through such large transformation.
An era Of change
At the time of the French Revolution it is probable that in the most progressive countries not more than a quarter of the people could read and write, and for all of Europe
the proportion was probably about one in ten; but at the beginning of the twentieth century the more advanced countries had developed excellent systems of general education and contained few illiterates, while altogether in Europe probably more than half of the population could read and write. In this manner one of the greatest and most important of all the changes of the period was brought about almost unseen.
During this period women were affected by changes relatively greater than those that touched men. From ancient times their position had been inferior and lowly. Among savage and barbarous people, though occasionally they possessed political power and were sometimes held in high respect, they were usually compelled to do most of the work. In the early civilizations they were generally the servants and chattels of men, though under the Roman Empire and its law they got the highest position which women ever attained before the nineteenth century. Christianity, which by its gradual refining and humanizing of people affected woman's lot in so many ways for the better, none the less assisted in keeping her in subordinate and inferior position. By the fault of the first woman, said the Jews and the Christians, sin came into the world and with it the fall of man. For this a curse was put upon women, and they were to be subordinate to their husbands. The Church assigned to them an honorable but inferior position, and the monks and the hermits, who were presently so powerful, taught that women were sinful things to be avoided. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages and down into modern times, not only physical circumstances pertaining to women but general conditions of society made it necessary for them to have the protection of men, and this was generally purchased by obedience and submission. It was seldom possible for an unmarried woman to conduct a business of her own or find any occupation outside of the home, and there she worked under
The position of women
the direction of the male relative who gave her support. Generally it was thought unnecessary to give women any education beyond what would make them attractive to men and fit them for domestic tasks.
During the nineteenth century men realized more and more that their own welfare and that of all people were inseparably connected with the welfare of women, and that the protecting and assisting of women and the improving of their position made one of the greatest of all social problems. Meanwhile the movements of the time were immensely altering the position of women. The Industrial Revolution brought them some economic independence. When marriage was no longer the only possible profession, women were able to marry better and insist on greater equality and a higher standard in men. The general education developed during the nineteenth century was presently shared by women, and for the first time in the progress of mankind did any large number of women enter the broader fields of human knowledge. At the same time increased knowledge of sex hygiene and venereal diseases was obtained by both men and women, with the result that higher moral standards were required, the difficult problem of social evil was increasingly considered, and a beginning made of efforts to lessen a hideous mass of evil which had been particularly terrible to women. In some countries, moreover, the higher standard of living brought by the nineteenth century reduced the size of families in the upper and middle classes, and a considerable number of women had larger leisure and a greater surplus of physical and mental vigor for other tasks than ever before.
Betterment of their position
As a result of the increasing democracy and humaneness of the times gradually civil equality and political rights were given, until the ideal was generally accepted that women were the equals of men. During the course of a long agitation for political enfranchisement and rights,
numerous laws were passed in the countries of northern and western Europe improving women's legal position, and at last in the early years of the twentieth century many women were allowed to vote and hold office. A beginning of this was made in some of the American states, in some of the self-governing commonwealths of the British Empire, and in Finland and the Scandinavian countries. Votes were granted to many women in the United Kingdom in 1918, and about the same time they were given in the new governments established in Russia and Germany, and in the new countries of central Europe.
During the time of these changes the great new inventions and industrial processes made it possible to produce far more of the necessaries and luxuries of life than in the past, and with much less of human labor. Accordingly, there came into being a larger leisure class than ever before, and a considerable part of all the population had more time to spare from labor for the enjoyment of life and participation in various things. Hence it was possible much more than previously for a great many people to notice and be affected by mighty intellectual changes.
Greatest of all the intellectual changes of this period was the altered conception of mankind and the world, their origin, their progress, the means and conditions of their development. After the second century of the Christian Era, it was long generally held that the earth was the center of the universe. In accordance with this belief Dante expounded the position of heaven, purgatory, and hell, and even Milton long afterward explained the structure and parts of the cosmos. According to this system the sun, the moon, the stars were all held to be relatively unimportant, and subsidiary to the earth. The world and mankind which possessed it were the center of things, the beginning and the end of creation. But in 1543 Copernicus, a Prussian, published his book, De orbium clestium revolutionibus (concerning the movements of the heavenly
bodies), in which he maintained that the sun was the center of the universe, and the earth only one of the bodies that revolved about it. At the beginning of the next century his teachings were verified and carried further by the German, Kepler, and slowly the results were accepted. When this took place it was no longer possible to attach either to men or their world such immense importance as before.
Since the rise of Christianity, and earlier among the Jews and others, it had been taught that the heavens and earth and the things contained therein had been created by God in six days, and it was believed that as they were suddenly made in the beginning, so they had continued to be unchanged. Things had been made for a purpose. Men and women must accept the conditions around them by which they were ruled. "In the beginning," said the first book of the Scriptures "God created the heaven and the earth . . . man in his own image. . . .Thus the heavens and the earth were finished." Literal belief in this was fundamental, and many a reader of the sacred books busied himself studying the chronology which they contained, laboriously counting how many years had elapsed since creation. One of the most notable attempts was made by Archbishop Usher, primate of the Anglican Church in Ireland, who in the middle of the seventeenth century declared that creation had occurred 4004 years before the birth of Christ. Thus the life of the world and of man seemed but short, just as previously the universe had seemed little.
For a great many people these older conceptions were completely changed during the course of the nineteenth century by the advance of scientific discovery and the formulation of the doctrine of evolution. In the first place, man and his world shrank smaller and smaller in thought as the bounds of the universe were extended. Not only, it was seen now, was the earth merely one of the
smaller planets revolving around about the sun, but the sun appeared to be only one of the smaller stars in the midst of an endless number travelling in a space without bounds. It became then increasingly doubtful to many people whether the universe and all it contained had been made especially with reference to man.
Furthermore, the very idea of creation or sudden making of things was slowly displaced by the idea that things had evolved out of other things by slow changes through long process of time. The idea of evolution was old, for it went back at least to the time of some of the Greek philosophers, from whose teachings it was taken by the Roman poet Lucretius and embodied in his matchless writings. In 1749 Buffon, the great French naturalist, began the publication of his Histoire Naturelle in which he showed how environment or surrounding circumstances altered animals, and suggested the possibility of the development of man and apes from a common ancestor long before. At the end of the eighteenth century James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, showed how changes in the earth's surface had been made, and declared that he could "find no traces of a beginning, no prospect of an end." About the same time the doctrine of change and slow development was carried further by the French astronomer and mathematician, Laplace, who undertook in his "Nebular Hypothesis" to explain the development of the solar system.
But the great contribution to the doctrine came in the following century. In 1830 Sir Charles Lyell began the publication of his Principles of Geology, in which he showed how the earth features had developed and were everywhere still developing. A generation later he showed how remains of primitive man were to be found under some of the later strata of the surface of the earth, and estimated that men had lived in the world for 50,000 or 100,000 years, an estimate which was presently extended by some scholars to 1,000,000 years, while it was not long before the
Lyell and Darwin
age of the earth was estimated as high as 200,000,000 years. Greatest of all was the work of the English naturalist, Charles Darwin ( 1809-82), who--influenced by Lyell's ideas of slow development and also by the teaching of the English economist Malthus, that increase of living things depended on supply of food--interpreted his own careful study of animals and plants. In 1859 he published his memorable work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and twelve years later his other famous book, Descent of Man. In these works he taught that the history of things had to do with long, slow development, and evolution of one kind or type from another; that the changes were brought about in the midst of a struggle for existence, in which some individuals or species survived because of peculiarities which especially fitted them to succeed or survive, and that such peculiarities increasing in course of time brought about variation of species. There had been a long descent of species, in which man could be traced back through the ape families to lower forms more distant and remote in time.
The ideas of Darwin and of A. R. Wallace, who shared in proposing the theory, became the most important intellectual force of the time. Among English-speaking peoples Thomas Huxley expounded the subject with such brilliancy and clearness that the educated the understood it, while Herbert Spencer ( 1820-1903) undertook to explain all branches of knowledge in terms of evolution. After a while the doctrine was generally accepted among educated people, and while afterward modified in important particulars--especially by the researches of the German priest, Gregor Mendel ( 1882-84), which are the foundation of modern ideas about heredity--it gradually came to be recognized as one of the bases of modern thought.
Spread of the doctrine of evolution
Half a century later general conceptions began to be largely altered with respect to a great many things by the advancement of the doctrine of relativity. Ideas about
Conceptions of time and space
man's surroundings had long been conceived in terms of time and space, both regarded as absolute standards for the judging and measuring of things. Conceptions of space rested largely upon the ideas expounded in the geometry of Euclid concerning a space of three dimensions. It is true, there had long been some who dissented somewhat from these conceptions. In 1733 Girolamo Saccheri, a Jesuit of Milan, published a treatise in which some of Euclid's propositions were questioned. Gradually others followed with increasing doubt; and in the nineteenth century a mathematics involving a non-Euclidean geometry was built up, especially by the German mathematicians, Karl Gauss and Georg Riemann, with presently a development of geometry until it concerned a space of four, five, or any number of dimensions. From these studies, intricate and profound, little understood save by mathematicians, and for the most part explicable only in terms of higher mathematics, was more and more developed the conception of a universe in which the old absolute time and space and the three dimensions did not solely exist. In place of it was now conceived a universe with time and space differing with respect to certain circumstances and relative to position, velocity, motion, and other factors. For example, in the universe was a vast number of bodies in motion. Hence, in respect of observers on such bodies time, motion, velocity, shape, would vary with respect to the position of any observer, with respect to the motion of the body on which he was placed, and also of the motions, velocities, and positions of the other bodies involved in the observing. Accordingly, time, motion, apparent velocity might well be different in different circumstances. So, there was no absolute truth; but only truth relative to the matter or person concerned. Many of these conceptions were dealt with profoundly by the Swiss-German Jew Einstein, whose researches led him to make definite predictions with respect to the passage of a Non-Euclidean geometry developed
No absolute time or space
ray of light past the sun and the position of the planet Mercury. During a total eclipse of the sun in 1919) complete verification was made of some of his predictions, and the doctrine of relativity suddenly attracted universal attention. The result of this doctrine and of some of the teachings of Einstein was a partial displacement of the theories of Newton, which for many had long been the fundamental explanation of the universe. It was now seen that the Newtonian Hypothesis was largely accurate, and for the layman a serviceable explanation; but that the Einstein Theory accounted for things not considered by Newton, and gave what mathematicians and philosophers held to be a deeper and a truer explanation.
Einstein and Newton
With respect to attitude of mind and intellectual outlook there had been other enormous changes for a great many people. For the learned and the well-informed there was less of dogmatism, less certainty about the absolute truth of anything, whatever it was. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries philosophers had pondered profoundly on what was known, how it was known, what could be known, what was "truth." Their teachings, more extensively diffused with time, had influenced numerous people. Then during the nineteenth century psychology--study of the human mind, its qualities, its modes, and its functions--taught more widely that understanding and knowledge could only be in terms of the senses through which the mind was aware of things outside itself. There was infinite variety of minds, no two the same. To many students of psychology there was no certainty that data pertaining to exterior things could be exactly and certainly known. So different must be knowledge and opinions held by different minds that it was futile to propose any belief as absolutely true for them all.
Philosophy and psychology
The results of all this were enormous. Not only did it completely modify the attitude of scholars and learned men, but it soon affected religious ideas. Where the
Bible seemed to declare that all things were suddenly created in six days, geologists taught that the world had been slowly evolving for more than 100,000,000 years; where most people had believed that man had existed for 6,000 years, scientists now asserted that he had been on the earth for more than 100,000; and many believed that human beings had gradually been evolved from lower animals, and these from reptiles, and these from fishes, and so on back to the lowest living forms in primeval times. Many people now felt that the very basis of their faith was being shaken, since they had long been taught to accept all the Bible as inspired and its declarations as literally true. Hence arose a painful conflict between science and religion, in which evolutionists and men of science were considered atheists and blasphemers; but after some time many people were able to adjust their beliefs and modify their conceptions, so that religion and science were reconciled for them.
For the churches, then, the nineteenth century was a strange, wondrous time. In the past, religion had been the greatest of all intellectual forces, embodying science, philosophy, explanation of the present, and hope of the future. In the Middle Ages the Christian Church was the most important of all the agents of civilization and progress. In the nineteenth century the three parts of Christianity in Europe met the changes of their time with varying fortune.
The churches and changing time
Least affected for a long while was the Orthodox, or Greek Catholic Church of the east, which counted among its adherents most of the Russians, the Greeks, and most of the South Slavs of the Balkan country. This church, largely controlled by the Russian government and working in obedience to the tsar, had long gone on unwavering course, with ancient ritual, and ceremonies of the past, little troubled by revolts from within, and untouched by influences from without. There had been no period of
The Greek Catholic Church
the Reformation in Russia; and there was no considerable body of communicants who had left it. As the Russian people had remained off on one side of Europe, out of the great currents which were steadily changing the other people, so had their church been remote and it remained unaffected. In the nineteenth century it was generally followed and obeyed by the people, whose national consciousness it fostered, and who were proud of its greatness and its past. The ideas of the evolutionists, like the teachings of liberals and social reformers, made no impression on the great body of Russian peasants, without education, and with the intellectual outlook of medieval times. Whatever might be the attitude of the upper classes, most of the Russian people continued to be simple-minded peasants, cherishing the ikons or images which they had in their homes, and crossing themselves devoutly as they passed by the shrines or the churches. Throughout the nineteenth century, as for a long time before, the Russian Church was powerfully supported by the state. But during the time of the Revolution which followed the Great War and overthrew the government of the tsar, the church went down with the rest of the old order, as in France during the French Revolution. Church lands and property were confiscated, and some of the priests and higher officials murdered or shamefully treated. But as the Orthodox faith had been the religion of the Russian people for ages, it was probable that the subsidence of the revolution would see it resume its place as the religion of Russia.
The Roman Catholic Church passed through vicissitudes much greater. In several countries it was deprived of its property; the territory of the popes was taken from them; one pope was carried off as a prisoner by Napoleon; and after 1870 the pontiffs regarded themselves as "prisoners" in the Vatican Palace. Moreover, the populations of central and western Europe, in the midst of which
The Roman Catholic Church
the church was established, were far more enlightened than those of the eastern lands, and its adherents were in much closer contact with the great changes in science and culture and much more affected by them. The Western Church, therefore, had to encounter new ideas which threatened to undermine and weaken its power.
The Catholic Church was affected by the French Revolution much more than the Protestant Churches, for the effects of the Revolution were greater and lasted longer in Catholic countries. During the Revolution the lands of the church were confiscated in France. A far more terrible blow was struck when the extreme revolutionists of the period of the Terror suppressed the Christian religion and closed the churches, and then proclaimed the worship of Reason. A reaction followed, however, and the care of Napoleon to respect Christianity and give it the protection of the government was one of the bases of his power in France. In 1801 he made with Pius VII the famous Concordat; but with this pope he soon came into conflict. After Austerlitz he was supreme in Italy and did there as he pleased. He soon required the pope to join in the blockade of England; after a bitter dispute, in 1809, he annexed Rome and the Papal States to his empire, and replied to an excommunication by casting the pope into prison. Napoleon then for a short time made good the ideal of the greatest medieval emperors, and did what the Protestant princes had done at the time of the Reformation; he considered himself to be head of the empire and superior to the church, with the pope subordinate and dependent. Not since the time of the Babylonian Captivity, in the fourteenth century, when the popes resided at Avignon, had papal authority been so much lowered.
The Revolutionary and Napoleon
But all this soon came to an end, and after the Congress of Vienna the church recovered. The ecclesiastical property which had been confiscated in France was not restored, but the gifts of pious people founded a new wealth
Recovery after 1815
for it. Everywhere in Catholic countries during this period of restoration and reaction people remembered that the church had been attacked at the same time that so many other venerable institutions were cast down, and the ruling classes believed that the worst excesses of the radicals and revolutionists would not have been possible except that religion and the church had been abandoned. So it seemed well for the priests to have their old influence with the people; education was put into their hands; and they were supported by the government, which, in return, got from them faithful support.
But after all, it was not so much the work of Hébert or Napoleon as the great ideas of the Revolution which were dangerous to the old faith and especially to the temporal power of the church. Civil and religious freedom and equality made people different from what they had been. During the years that followed, other great transformations also changed men's minds. The Industrial Revolution made different conditions of life and gradually different ways of thinking. Soon it produced socialism, which during the remainder of the century had greater and greater effect upon the outlook of people in the lower as well as in the upper classes, and from the first the teachings of the socialists made men ill-disposed to follow without question the old doctrines of the churches. During the same time also great inventions and strange discoveries laid the foundation for an entirely different way of looking at things, which made it impossible for some people longer to believe what their fathers had received without question.
Increasingly people were learning to read and write, and were thus brought more easily to a knowledge of the wonderful experiments and discoveries taking place and the consequent alterations in human knowledge. More and more they required reasons for what they were asked to believe, and asked for the proofs of what was submitted. Discoveries in the realms of biology, chemistry, and phy-
Skepticism and critical attitude
sics explained an immense number of things and promised to explain many more, and in course of time the people who understood the work of Lyell and Darwin, or read the explanations of Comte, Spencer, or Haeckel, came to conceive of things in terms of science, where before they had believed what was taught as a matter of faith. These people or their teachers began to subject the Bible to "higher criticism" just as they would examine the texts of Shakespeare or Virgil, to investigate the history of religion in the same manner that they studied the origins of feudalism or the rise of parliament in the Middle Ages, and to doubt or reject many things which the church had said must be believed.
All the churches of western Europe had to encounter this spirit increasingly in the century after the French Revolution, and all of them were shaken by it. The Roman Catholic Church met the situation as it always had in the past. The doctrines which it taught were considered to be divinely inspired and unalterably true. Circumstances in the world round about might change and science bring revelation and discoveries, but always the teachings of the church remained true as they had been from the first, and were to be entirely accepted by the faithful. Accordingly, as the gap widened between what had been of old and what the French Revolution was producing, between the old industrial organization and the results of the Industrial Revolution, between the teachings of the fathers of the church and the new ideas taught by the socialists, between the stories contained in the Bible and the conclusions of scientific scholars, Catholic populations generally fell into two parts: some of the upper intellectual classes, who either abandoned their religion or remained Catholics merely in name; and a larger body including not only the poor and the simple, but all those who continued to find in the church their best satisfaction and best consolation.
Rome and the new spirit
The Roman Catholic Church was far from remaining a passive spectator of the conflict thus going on. Generally speaking it supported the best of the old order and opposed revolutions and changes; it favored monarchies rather than republics; it opposed socialism, and set itself sternly against "free thinking" or attempts to compromise with the new knowledge. In 1864 Pius IX issued the encyclical (circular letter) Quanta Cura and at the same time a Syllabus (collection) of Errors, which upheld rigidly the old contentions of the Church and condemned all who tended toward free thinking, religious liberty, or any diminution of the authority of the Church by abolishing ecclesiastical courts, by making the clergy less subordinate to Rome, by establishing lay marriages, and putting education under laymen's control. Six years later, at the Council of the Vatican ( 1869-70), the first general council that had assembled since the Council of Trent concluded its sessions in 1563, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin was proclaimed, and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility announced. The Vatican Council declared it to be divinely revealed that whenever the pope spoke, as pope, with respect to the affairs of the church, he spoke without liability to error, and that whoever contradicted him was anathema, accursed. In an age when philosophy and science were making so many people increasingly doubtful about absolute truth in anything, such a doctrine seemed out of accord with the times, and some Catholics refused to accept it; but so far as they remained in the church their resistance was soon abandoned. At the end of the century the so-called Modernists, who strove to "modernize" to some extent the dogmas of the church and, as they thought, bring them more into accord with the knowledge of the times, were successfully opposed and also suppressed.
Syllabus of Errors, 1864
Papal Infallibility, 1870
In 1870 came the loss of the States of the Church. Pius IX opposed this to the utmost, but many Catholics came to believe that the papacy was strengthened rather than weakened by being free now to devote itself entirely to spiritual labors; and actually the beginning of the twentieth century saw the Roman Catholic Church, after having passed through the vicissitudes of a marvellous time, and after sustaining not a few great disasters and defeats, still great and respected, still strong in the affection of a multitude of people, and still continuing a great work which it had been carrying on for ages.
Continuing greatness of the Church
Of the Protestant churches during the same period there is less to be said. No one of them presented so striking or so powerful an organization as either the Greek Catholic or the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant creeds were professed in the most powerful countries of Europe, but the character and organization of their churches was such that they could not play the great part in politic and international relations assumed by the pope. The teachings of Luther and other Protestant leaders had been such that when the churches of the Reformation were established, they were put under the control of the state, and after that time the Lutheran Church in Prussia and the Anglican Church in England, had remained great and wealthy, but passive and obedient in their established position. In the nineteenth century they strove, like the Catholic Church, to hold to the privileges and the teachings they had long maintained. They also had to meet the changes in life and thought which arose during this time, and their adherents also were often torn by struggle between the old beliefs and the new revelations of science. Notwithstanding that many Protestant ministers regarded Darwin and Haeckel as atheists and accursed, and notwithstanding that the Protestant churches also regarded their own dogmas as unquestionably true and not liable to change, yet in the case of Protestants it was often less difficult to reconcile science with religion, for Protestantism, in spite of itself, had always tended toward freedom of
The Protestant church
thought. The early Protestants had no idea whatever of permitting religious freedom; but they had broken away from the Roman Catholic Church; what they had done others afterward did more easily; and not only were many new Protestant sects founded, but within the Protestant sects many individuals tended more and more to the belief that each person might be his own judge. A great many Protestants, therefore, were less under the authority of the heads of their church, and more in the habit of judging for themselves. Accordingly, after some struggle, many of them modified their religious beliefs so as to bring them, as they thought, in conformity with the new teachings of philosophy and science; and in course of time a considerable number of the ministers and leaders did this also. Hence, while the Greek Catholic Church had been little affected by Modernism, and the Roman Catholic Church had expelled the Modernist leaders or suppressed them, within the Protestant Churches a considerable amount of readjustment went on; old forms were changed or abandoned, old beliefs quietly altered or dropped, and many new ideas concerning the age of the earth, creation, miracles, hell, and other things accepted. Where Catholicism either held its adherents strictly or lost them altogether, Protestantism had less authority and control but also less trouble.
During this period a spirit of humanity and kindness developed further and more greatly than ever before in the history of the world. Never had there been so much desire to help people and make things better. Socialists strove for a completely new order and organization which would make all people happier, they said; but meanwhile there was more and more belief that governments should assist and protect their people, as they had done before the era of laissez-faire; and this doctrine bore fruit in many European countries in laws to protect workers, insure them against accident and sickness, and guarantee
Desire for Improvement
to them employment and minimum wages. In all of this the more advanced European countries were far ahead of the United States.
Meanwhile many old horrors had passed away and were almost forgotten. Down to the time of the French Revolution there was scarcely a European country except Great Britain where torture might not be employed and where death was not given with torment, as when men were broken on the wheel. Substantially the Revolutionary era brought an end to barbarous punishments and barbarous procedure. During this time also punishments were made less severe and the death penalty inflicted for fewer crimes. During the eighteenth century and earlier most prisons were loathsome and horrible places. Many of them continued to be terrible enough, but gradually there was considerable improvement. Finally, in all respects there was greater consideration from men for women, greater kindness to children, and even for animals greater kindness and mercy. Humanitarianism
It was in accordance with this spirit that while the nineteenth century saw the establishment of great armies and the rise of militarism as never before, it was also during this time that men made the most important efforts so far undertaken to mitigate war or end it completely. Tsar Alexander I sincerely hoped to bring better conditions when he proposed his Holy Alliance. In 1856, at the Congress of Paris, the signatories agreed to abolish privateering, and so lessened the evils of war upon the sea, and, until 1914, made sea war less troublesome to neutrals. In 1864 an international convention was held at Geneva, for the purpose of mitigating avoidable suffering in war, and as a result the Red Cross Society was established. Gradually the governments drew up codes or bodies of rules by which they would abide when carrying on war, and some of the greatest horrors and severities of the past were avoided by the more civilized powers, though the
Efforts to mitigate war
Prussians acted with great ruthlessness in France in 1871, as they did there forty-three years later. More important still, in 1898 Tsar Nicholas II invited the nations to consider the project of disarming. As he truly declared, increasing armaments and the expenses entailed threatened the destruction of European civilization. In the next year what was known as the First Peace Conference assembled at The Hague. The German representative declared that in his country the army was no burden; and it was not possible to agree upon any scheme of reduction; but a permanent court of arbitration known as the Hague Tribunal, was established, to deal, at the request of powers concerned, with differences which they had been unable to settle by diplomatic negotiation.
In 1907 a second Peace Conference met at The Hague.
There was a larger attendance, and stronger efforts were now made to substitute peaceable arbitration for war, and so make possible the reduction of armaments. Again there was no success, and it was afterward stated that from Germany came the most effective opposition. A body of conventions was drawn up to regulate the conduct of war and forbid certain barbarous methods and certain terrible devices, like poisonous gases. These conventions were adopted, but again Germany made no actual change in the stern and terrible regulations contained in her Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege (usages in war), which had been issued five years before. The Hague Conferences accomplished little, but they are the principal monument to the Russian ruler who afterward perished so miserably as a result of war. And they were afterward seen to have been preliminary steps toward the forming of a league of nations to abolish all war.
The Hague Peace Conferences
Education: H. B. Binns, A Century of Education, 1808-1908 ( 1908); R. E. Hughes, The Making of Citizens: a Study in Com-parative Education (1902), with reference to Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States.
The Women's Movement: E. R. Hecker, Short History of Woman's Rights ( 1910); J. S. Mill, The Subjection of Women ( 1869, new ed. 1911); Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women ( 1792, ed. 1891); Katherine Anthony, Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia ( 1915); Lily Braun, Die Frauenfrage ( 1910); Ferdinand Buisson, Le Vote des Femmes ( 1911); Millicent G. Fawcett, Women's Suffrage ( 1912.), excellent short account of the movement in Great Britain; B. L. Hutchins , Women in Modern Industry ( 1915); Ellen Key, trans. by M. B. Borthwick, The Woman Movement ( 1912); Emmeline Pankhurst , The Suffragette ( 1912); Olive Schreiner, Women and Labour ( 1911).
Evolution: H. F. Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin ( 1894), for a brief account of the development of the doctrine; G. F. Romanes , Darwin and after Darwin, 3 vols. ( 1906-10); Charles Darwin , On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ( 1859). The Descent of Man ( 1871), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by Francis Darwin, 2. vols. ( 1887); James Marchant , Alfred Russel Wallace, Letters and Reminiscences, 2 vols. ( 1916); R. C. Punnett, Mendelism ( 3d ed. 1911).
Rationalism and freedom of thought: J. T. Merz, A History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century, 4 vols. ( 18961914), excellent; J. M. Robertson, A Short History of Free Thought ( 3d ed. 1915); A. W. Benn, The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. ( 1906); A. C. McGiffert , The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas ( 1915).
Roman Catholicism: William Barry, The Papacy and Modern Times ( 1911); Joseph MacCaffrey, History of the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. ( 1910), by a Roman Catholic; Fredrik Nielsen, trans. from the Danish by A. J. Mason, History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. ( 1906), scholarly, but from the Lutheran point of view of its author; G Weill , Histoire du Catholicisme Libéral en France, 1828-1908 ( 1909); Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, trans. edited by J. J. Wynne ( 1903). Modern papal decrees, encyclicals, and bulls are to be found in La Civiltà Cattolica ( 1850-).
Protestantism: F. W. Cornish, A Higtory of the Church of England in the Nineteenth Century ( 1910), best on the subject; H. W. Clark, History of English Nonconformity ( 1913).
Religion and social development: William Cunningham,
Christianity and Social Questions ( 1910), Christianity and Politics ( 1915); Joseph Husslein, The Church and Social Problems ( 1914).
Social problems: É. Driault, Les Problèmes Politiques et Sociaux à la Fin du XIXe Siècle ( 1900); T. Ziegler, Die Geistigen und Sozialen Strömungen Deutschlands im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert (ed. 1911).
War: I. S. Bloch, trans. from the Russian by R. C. Long, The Future of War (ed. 1 90)?); D. S. Jordan, War and Waste ( 1913); D. S. and H. E. Jordan, War's Aftermath ( 1914).
Efforts to alleviate war: Clara Barton, The Red Cross ( 1898) Arbitration: A. P. Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences ( 1909), L. Renault, L'uvre de La Haye ( 1908); J. B. Scott, Texts of the Peace Conferences at The Hague ( 1908), The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 1907, 2 vols. ( 1909); G. G. Wilson editor, The Hague Arbitration Cases ( 1915).
L0UIS XVI, 1774-92
The First Republic 1792-1804
The Convention, 1792-5
The Directory, 1795-9
The Consulate ( NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, First Consul) 1799-1804
The First Empire, 1804-1814
NAPOLEON I, emperor
LOUIS XVIII, 1814-24
CHARLES X, 1824-30
LOUIS PHILIPPE, 1830-48
The Second Republic, 1848-52
LOUIS NAPOLEON, president
The Second Empire, 1852-1870
The Third Republic, 1870-
Government of National Defence, 1870-1
ADOLPHE THIERS, 1871-3
MARSHAL MACMAHON, 1873-9
JULES GRÉVY, 1879-87
SADI CARNOT, 1887-94
FÉLIX FAURE, 1895-9
ÉMILE LOUBET, 1899-1906
ARMAND FALLIÈR1ES, 1906-13
RAYMOND POINCARÉ, 1913-20
PAUL DESCHANEL, l920
ALEXANDRE MILLERAND, 1920
THE GERMAN EMPIRE :
WILLIAM I, 1871-88
FREDERICK III, 1888
WILLIAM II, 1888-1918
Prince Bismarck, 1871-90
Count von Caprivi, 1890-4
Prince Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, 1894-1900
Count von Bülow, 1900-8
Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, 1906-17
Georg Michaelis, 1917
Count von Hertling, 1917-18
Prince Max of Baden, 1918
The German Republic, 1918-
After 1800 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
GEORGE III, 1760-1820
GEORGE IV, 1820-30
EDWARD VII, 1901-10
WILLIAM IV, 1830-7
GEORGE V, 1910-
William Pitt, 1783-1801
Henry Addington ( Viscount Sidmouth) 1801-4
William Pitt (II), 1804-6
William Lord Grenville, 1806-7
Duke of Portland, 1807-9
Spencer Perceval, 1809-12.
The Earl of Liverpool, 1812-27
George Canning, 1827
Viscount Goderich. 1827
The Duke of Wellington, 1827-30
Earl Grey, 1830-4
Viscount Melbourne, 1834
Sir Robert Peel, 1834-5
Viscount Melbourne (II), 1835-41
Sir Robert Peel (II), 1841-6
Lord John Russell, 1846-52
The Earl of Derby, 1852.
The Earl of Aberdeen, 1852-5
Viscount Palmerston, 1855-8
The Earl of Derby (II), 1858-9
Viscount Palmerston (II), 1859-65
Earl Russell (II), 1865-6
The Earl of Derby (III), 1866-8
William Ewart Gladstone, 1868-74
Benjamin Disraeli ( Earl of Beaconsfield, 1876), 1874-80
W. E. Gladstone (II), 1880-5
Robert Cecil (Marquis of Salisbury), 1885-6
W. E. Gladstone (III), 1886
Marquis of Salisbury (II), 1886-92
W. E. Gladstone (IV), 1892-4
Archibald P. Primrose ( Earl of Rosebery), 1894-5
Marquis of Salisbury (III), 1895-1902
Arthur James Balfour, 1902-5
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 1905-8
Herbert Henry Asquith, 1908-16
David Lloyd George, 1916-22
Andrew Bonar Law, 1922-3
Stanley Baldwin, 1923-4
Principality until 1910; kingdom until 1918; then incorporated into Jugo-Slavia
PETER I, 1782-1830 DANILO I, 1851-60
PETER II, 1830-51
NICHOLAS I, 1860-1918
The United Provinces
WILLIAM V, Hereditary Stadholder, 1751-95
The Batavian Republic, 1795-1806
Kingdom of Holland LOUIS BONAPARTE, 1806-10
Part of the First French Empire, 1810-13
Kingdom of the Netherlands WILLIAM I, 1813-40 WILLIAM II, 1840-9
WILLIAM III, 1849-90
Ruled by the kings of Denmark until 1814; ruled by the kings of Sweden, 1814-1905.
HAAKON VII, 1905-
(See also Table)
Abdul Hamid, 392, 493.
Aberdeen, Earl of, 206.
Abyssinia, 288, 526.
Accident Insurance Laws, 367, 368.
Act of Union, 199.
Addison, Joseph, 760.
Adowa, Battle of, 526.
Adrianople, 484, 490, 496, 497, 498, 503 ; Treaty of, 487, 489, 500, 504.
Adriatic Sea, 289, 381, 554.
Égean Sea, 488, 496.
Affair of 1875, 424, 425.
Afghanistan, 518, 537.
Africa, 427, 515 -17, 522, 524, 526, 638, 639.
Agrarian Discontent, 506.
Agrarian Disorder, 48, 471.
Agrarian Reform, 660, 729.
Agriculture, in Great Britain, 122 ; after the Industrial Revolution, 128 ; decline of in Great Britain, 192, 442 ; in Italy, 287 ; in Spain, 320 ; in Germany, 359, 360. Agricultural Laborers, 442, 431.
Airplanes, 683, 747, 748.
Aisne, Battle of the, 588.
Aisne River, 585.
Aix-la-Chapelle, Congress of, 102, 212.
Aland Islands, 700, 736.
Alaska, 197, 514.
Albania, 488, 494, 496, 497, 547, 548, 635, 698, 700, 724.
Albert, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Prince Consort, 160, 187, 392.
Alexander the Great, 562.
Alexander, Prince of Battenberg, 507.
Alexander Couza, 504, 505.
Alexander I, King of Greece, 687.
Alexander I, Tsar of Russia, 81, 98, 99, 100, 239, 245, 296 - 301, 303, 306, 621, 795.
Alexander II, Tsar of Russia, 308 -15, 455, 456, 457, 506.
Alexander III, Tsar of Russia, 455 -63.
Alfieri, Count Bittorio, 761.
Alfonso XIII, King of Spain, 739.
Algeciras, Conference of, 536, 542.
Algeciras Agreement, 536, 545.
Algeria, 214, 381, 521, 522, 523, 526, 530, 544.
Ali Pasha, 488.
Allied Reparations Commission, 669.
Allies, The ( Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Rumania, and others), in the Great War, 574, 579 - 615. All-Russian Central Executive Committee, 735.
All-Russian Congress of Soviets, 735.
Almanach de Gotha, 473.
Alps, The, 596, 604, 605.
Alsace, 34, 232, 267, 347, 350, 372, 373, 581, 588, 629.
Alsace-Lorraine, 556, 623, 624, 719, 720.
Amadeo of Savoy, 323.
America, 200, 332, 364.
American Civil War, 183, 193, 204, 231, 577.
American Fleet, 595.
American Ideals, 607, 608.
American Revolutionary War, 41, 42, 199.
Americans, 12, 203 -5, 611, 612, 613, 614.
Ami du Peuple, L', 52.
Amiens, 611 ; Treaty of, 73, 79, 163.
Anæsthesia, 758, 759.
Anarchism, 314, 644, 645.
Anatolia, 394, 626.
Ancien Régime, 1 - 18.
Andrussov, Treaty of, 294.
Anglican Church, 175, 793.
Anglo-German Agreement ( 1890), 524 ; ( 1914), 403.
Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 399, 701.
Anglo-Russian Accord, 533, 537.
Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement, 692.
[ Previous | Main Contents ]