Unit 7 SAQs

a) Describe one cause of the Crimean War (1853–1856).

One cause of the Crimean War was Russia’s desire to extend its influence over the Ottoman Empire; however, Russia did not win the Crimean War which led to reforms and the end to the image of an invincible Russia. Since Catherine the Great in the late 1700s, Russia had been the protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and France had been the protector of the Roman Catholics. In 1851, the Ottoman Sultan gave control of more holy areas to the Roman Catholics and therefore France. This angered Russia as they were trying to take advantage of the weakening Ottoman Empire themselves. In 1853, Russia used the cover of protecting Orthodox Christians to occupy Moldavia and Walachia. Soon after the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia. This is important because even though Russia started the Crimean War, it did not win. This caused the previous image of an invincible Russia to disappear. Before this, Russia had been a war superpower starting and winning many wars to gain new territory and to protect existing territory. It was Russia who originally weakened Napoleon I in his invasion of Russia which resulted in his first exile. This time, however, this was not the case. This loss caused Tsar Alexander II to evaluate his country and make many new industrial and political reforms including the freedom of serfs.

b) Explain one way in which the Crimean War contributed to the breakdown of the Concert of Europe.

The Crimean War resulted in distrust between countries and new allies which contributed to the breakdown of Europe and a period of continued adventurism in foreign policy. During the Crimean War in 1854, France, Britain, and the Ottoman Empire with unofficial support from Austria fought against Russia. Prussia was neutral. Previously, Austria and Prussia had been allied with Russia; however, they failed to support Russia during the Crimean War. Britain also was supporting the Ottoman Empire and this was one of the first times that Britain and France were seen as allied together. This is significant because as alliances were broken, reorganized, and strained through the Crimean War, there was a lot of distrust and conflict in major problems such as the “Eastern Question.” Therefore, the Concert of Europe was no longer an accurate representation of alliances, and ultimately more countries were willing to fight against it. Once the longstanding Concert was destroyed, there was a lot of instability and adventurism in policy that is seen in the peak of imperialism that followed this breakdown.

c) Explain one effect of the breakdown of the Concert of Europe on European political developments in the second half of the 1800s.

One effect of the breakdown of the Concert of Europe on European political developments was that Austria was diplomatically isolated which made it easier for Prussia to exert influence over them and unify Germany without them. In the Hungarian Revolts of 1848-49, Austria did not support Russia as previously agreed upon. During the Crimean War, Austria also although officially neutral made moves against Russia. This caused a feeling of distrust between Austria and Russia as well as Austria and most of the Western Powers. This is important because therefore when the Concert of Europe broke down, Austria lost all connections and protectors. Because of this, in 1866 when Prussia declared war starting the Austro-Prussian War as part of the German unification process, Prussia was able to defeat them as they had no outside help.

“ The idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is a very old one: the restoration of the Jewish State. The world resounds with outcries against the Jews, and these outcries have awakened the slumbering idea…

Everything depends on our propelling force. And what is our propelling force: The misery of the Jews… We are one people…

Let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the reasonable requirements of a nation; the rest we shall manage for ourselves.”

–Theodore Herzl, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, 1904

a) Describe ONE cause that Herzl gave for his decision to advocate for the idea in this passage.

One cause of Herzl’s advocating of the Zionist movement was the Dreyfus Affair which brought antisemitism to light and proved to Herzl once again that the current liberal government could not protect the Jews. In 1894, Jewish Captian Dreyfus was falsely accused of passing info to the Germans. This caused him to be treated incredibly unfairly and thrown in prison. Although he was later released and pardoned in 1906, this affair provoked public debate across Europe. France was divided as never before and the radicals, republicans, and socialists all developed an informal alliance. This is important because it proved that the government did not treat Jewish people equally or justly. Not only did it prove this, but it proved this on a large scale. It was fought over and discussed across all social groups and all people, especially in France. Along with Herzl’s personal experiences of discrimination, this was the last straw for Herzl and proved to him once and for all that, the current liberal state and politics could not and would not protect Jews and make sure they were treated fairly, that something had to be done.

b) Explain how the idea in this passage was situated within the broader historical context of changing ideas in Europe in the 19th century.

The Zionist Movement was a reaction to the development of social thoughts on race and the retreat from rationality in politics which made it especially difficult for the movement to achieve its goals. In 1859, Darwin published On the Origin of Species which introduced the idea of survival of the fittest and natural selection. This idea was later used to explain the evolution of human relationships and to justify colonization and aggressive national competition by Spencer Herbert and given the name Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was later also discussed by Count Arthur de Gobineau in 1853 when he applied survival of the fittest to races and nations and then by Chamberlain in his Foundations of the 19th Century (1899) which was very anti-Semitic and aided the spread of anti-Semitism. This atmosphere of racism that was created in the 19th century is significant because as rationalism was taken out of politics, many terrible ideas and actions were justified through Social Darwinism. Europeans saw themselves as the superior people and therefore they deserved better. Because of this attitude, Europeans also refused to see the problem. They refused to assist or even allow an independent state to be created and therefore the Zionist movement had an incredibly hard time being heard and reaching their goals. This racist attitude and application of Social Darwinism can be seen in the Zionist movement and their work to create their state away from these ideas as well as the period of imperialism.

c) Explain how Herzl’s motives regarding the Jewish population were different than Bismarck’s motives regarding the German population.

While Herzl and Bismarck’s motives for their respective movements could both be seen as nationalism, the main difference is that Herzl’s motives were mostly social while Bismarck’s were mainly political and economic which affected how their requests were perceived. In 1896, Herzl published The Jewish State which called for a separate Jewish State. He was mainly called into action by the Dreyfus affair and other Anti-Semitic ideas that were spreading through Europe at the time. Because of these events, he was convinced that the liberal political system could no longer protect or support Jewish people in Europe. Bismarck, however, was a representative of the Prussian government and ultimately was the reason that Germany became unified in 1871. He was mainly motivated by economics as he saw the potential that Germany could have to be a major world power. This is important because it affected the impact of each man’s ideas and the way in which their goals were achieved. Because Bismarck was a high-ranking officer and his appeals were that of money and power, it was much easier to convince power-hungry leaders to go through with his plans. Contrastingly, there was much less sympathy for Herzl and his cause from the continent and people in power. While Bismarck was able to achieve his goal through war and strategy in under 10 years, an independent Jewish state was not established until long after Herzl in 1948 following the horrors of World War II.