Class Notes (836,128)
Canada (509,645)
History (3,264)
HIS109Y1 (536)
Lecture

Lecture Notes from Feb 1-end of semester

50 Pages
76 Views
Unlock Document

Department
History
Course
HIS109Y1
Professor
Kenneth Bartlett
Semester
Winter

Description
Nationalism (February 1) Carbonari; Panslavism; Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-77); Louis Kossuth (1802-94); Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859); Camillo di Cavour (1810-61); Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-82) th Note: Liberalism and nationalism developed simultaneously in Europe in the 19 century especially after the Napoleonic wars and the Congress of Vienna; nationalism took part in the revolutionary fervor; it is one of the great motivators of the European social and political system Nationalism is like a religion – a feeling/belief that you have; irrational; positive (modern, centralized Europe) and negative effects on Europe - The belief that some nations are better than others is a natural fact; those with same religion, language, geography, ethnic origins should in some way rule over themselves as a nation state - It is a very efficient instrument for the creation of political policy - Problem: it is mutually exclusive; linguistic/religious/etc. groups were scattered across Europe among other groups which caused instability in Europe The greatest stimulus to nationalism was the aftermath of the French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, and the Congress of Vienna - The ‚heir‛ of the Enlightenment: the enlightenment was hostile to foreign domination, rulers, etc. – believed that everyone had freedom to liberty which sometimes meant liberty over ourselves - The French Rev and Napoleonic Wars took these ideas of liberty, freedom and national self-determination with them as they crossed Europe. When Napoleon began dismantling the great empires of the continent, he put in their place unnatural structures based upon distant history; tried to connect people with their dignified past - Florence lost Hapsburg ruler and reverted to a republic briefly; Rome was also separated from the rule of Pope - Napoleon tried to build a new kind of empire, one based upon his family, these ideas of national self-determination, even under French rule, remained; he basically just gave the republics to his siblings (Westphalia, Spain, Naples, Italy); these were artificial, but still identifiable as a nation because there was a belief that there was something that held these groups together (geography) - He destroyed the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, by making the ruler of the empire, the head of the House of the Hapsburg, the ruler of Austria; he destroyed the myth that he was the continuation of Roman rule in the West/someone greater than national politics; this allowed nationalism to rise and challenge the Hapsburg ruler ofAustria as simply a ruler The French played upon elements of nationalism brilliantly; some failures: - The Congress of Vienna was very successful except for the fact that it did not address the issue of national self-determination; idea of legitimacy (returning the territory to the people who had it before the French rev) was the principle at work; - national self-awareness was treated like republicanism: something dirty violent horrible set of emotions stirred up by the revolution; only addressed national self-determinism in ways to suppress it Austria was given territory it owned previously and also land it didn’t have before the wars (ex. the Venetian Republic); no discussion with other nations – simply done by people who thought it would work to reward the victors and punish vanquished - It was obvious that the national feeling that gave Germany a new sense of energy would be seen as dangerous, and with the extinction of the holy roman empire, it was wise not to recreate that empire but Austria wanted some measure of influence over the German confederation so it could feel like it still controlled the German speaking nations - No consideration to take in account what napoleon tried to do; he put together a part of Germany as a new national state (Westphalia in the SW part of Germany) and also united Italy; both her stripped back to what they were like before the wars - Any recognition of self-awareness of self gov’t was completely missing from the Congress of Vienna There were minor incidents that reflected bigger problems: - 1830 Poles revolted against Russian overlords; it indicated that the national awareness that had been stimulated by the Napoleonic wars was not dead, just suppressed and would break out in 1848 again. - There were attempts to bring together people (culture, ethnic, geography), not to create a national state, just for complex political maneuvering  Ex. 1840s Prussia, trying to gain privilege over Austrian empire, began to organize the German speaking territories into a customs union; not a political union, just a union of German states that were willing to take down tariff walls between them and create a higher tariff wall around them to keep theAustrians out  Result: sense of nationalism within Germany grew; the role of Prussia in Germany grew; the role ofAustria declined The national feeling was dividing the politically unitedAustria; - Was a vast mosaic of states that was the leftovers of the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the Hapsburgs; it was home to Slavs, Czechs, Poles, Serbians, Italians, Croatians, etc. - Many of the people had great histories (ex. Poland once was a great power that fended off the Turks; Hungary too) and they felt that it was humiliating to be ruled by the Austrians; wanted to regain their former glory - The Austrians and the German Hapsburgs realized this and did not want their sense of national feeling to overpower their sense of ‚Austrian-ness‛ - Realized that the poor agricultural peasants on the vast estates of Poland and Hungary had no national awareness at all (they didn’t see themselves asAustrians or poles or … etc.)  They only saw themselves as peasants because they were scared of their landlords who treated them like animals. The Austrians used this and told the peasants that they would provide protection for them from the land lords. The Austrians warned the landlords that if they engaged in any kind of national uprising, they would send the peasants against them. - The creation of super-nationalists; most famous was Panslavism: the belief that the Slavic people were the descendants of the same group; they all spoke a Slavic language (some might be orthodox, Latin-Christian, polish, Ukrainian) and were under the protection of the only important independent Slavic kingdom: the Russian Empire;  Russian Tsars used this effectively for foreign policy: protect them from oppression of other nations (Germany, Prussia,Austria); protect their interests  It developed as a politically and culturally movements; Russians told Slavs were more important and superior to the Germans that were ruling over them  Protectors of Slavics – later in a position where they couldn’t retreat and it became one of the reasons for WWI National movements and feelings started to grow and began to create new senses of national identification; began to join forces with other revolutionary ideas like liberalism - Liberalists and nationalists banded together later in 1848; the overthrowing of King Louis Philippe sparked a revolution; created a republic; seemed like the beginning of a coming of a new better Europe  Revolution in Paris was copied throughout Europe in almost every major state (except for Britain, Russia, Spain) that temporarily or permanently altered their forms of government  Hungarians were brilliantly led by Louis Kossuth who became the voice of Hungarian nationalism; he resented the rule of the Austrian Hapsburgs; when revolution broke out, he dissolved union of the Hungarian and the Austrian crowns (since they were 2 separate kingdoms that shared 1 king); drafted separated constitution of a new Hungarian state that would be fully independent and would be under his full rule  In Vienna, liberal Germans saw this revolution spreading right across the Austrian empire and they joined in; liberal German students rebelled against their own emperor and especially against the Prime Minister Metternich; Metternich was driven out of Vienna, the imperial system was overthrown and the new emperor was developmentally challenged ; the gov’t fled Vienna and the ruler gave constitutions to Bohemia, German students, etc.; he essentially gave validity to the revolution that was tearing apart his empire; ultimately fragment the Austrian empire  In Italy, after hearing about other revolutions, they revolted against their Hapsburg rulers (Naples and Venice revolted); Rome, under Garibaldi, threw out the pope and created a new republic of 1848-49; the king of Sardinia joined the movement and declared war on Austria and defeated them in battle; At the beginning of 1849 it looked like the Austrian Hapsburg Empire would disintegrate and break into smaller constituent parts; it lasted another 60 years because: 1) Rebels didn’t know how to work together 2) Nationalist ambitions of some of the Italians, Germans, etc. threw other groups into a hostile position that made them feel that the Austrians were less dangerous than perhaps these new nations that were being created Realities of European politics showed that another person’s nationalism = another person’s slavery - When they all hated the Austrians it was easy to work together because of a common enemy; but when the enemy was weakened, the divisions between the revolutionaries was clear - Began in bohemia; it was going to be given a constitution and it was going to demand its own independency (it is now the Czech republic);  but for 200 years the dominate economic and the largely ecclesiastical class were the Germans;  the large powerful German minority would short circuit their plans by attending a meeting held in Frankfurt, called the Frankfurt Assembly, which was called in order to unite the German speaking territories into a confederated state;  when the Slav-Czechs saw that the economic and political leaders of German background were meeting with the Germans in order to bring bohemia into the federation, they panicked – they had been oppressed by the Germans for 200 years and they weren’t going to let it continue  their solution: have a bohemian kingdom that is going to be driven by Slavs (even though they didn’t have power or wealth, they were still the majority)  now have two mutually exclusive positions in Bohemia; violence broke out between the Germans and the Czechs in Prague and it became more and more dangerous; Hapsburgs came in and said that civil war is BAD and its easier and better to just stay under rule of Austrians; Bohemia was again added to the Hapsburg crown Similar situation in Italy; when hating the Austrians they identified themselves as Italians, but when they were deciding what kind of state would emerge and who would be ruling it, things fell out; divisions between the liberals, monarchists, anti-clerical etc. and it allowed Austrians to cross alps and reclaim Italy - Hungary almost undid the Hapsburgs, but the ambitions and super-nationalism of the Magyars (Hungarians themselves) against smaller Slavic minorities, meant that nothing could bring about an independent kingdom; there were many minorities in the historic kingdom of Hungary;  Louis Kossuth was a Hungarian nationalist moved the capital to a Hungarian speaking part of Hungary; required all business dealing with gov’t and military etc. to be in Hungarian, meant that the Slovak language was not legal; made the Slovaks terrified but they couldn’t do anything because they were mostly an agricultural group  Wealthy and powerful Croatians were angry because they were treated very well by Austrians; Austrians protected them against the Hungarians even though they were once one historic nation; the Croatians, led by Jellachich, revolted against the Hungarians and civil war broke out between Slavic’s people of Hungary and the Magyars; Louis Kossuth was defeated and the revolution of 1848 was put down by Jellachich and anAustrian army;  one national group felt like it could sacrifice other national group’s interests and the result was that everything would return to the composite empire ofAustria  it was easy for the Austrians to send an army to Vienna and to suppress rebellion and to recreate an empire that would last until 1918  new emperor was chosen: 18 year old Franz Joseph who would embody a new Habsburg ruler and empire the aftermath of the revolutions: the constituent kingdoms of the Austrian empire lost their separate status because they were kingdoms ruled by the same king; they were a single imperial system; - the serfs of Hungary and Poland were freed by the emperor which gave them the impression that their freedom depended on the house of Habsburg; all the laws of the Austrian empire were reformed into singular, united imperial laws instead of having Hungarian laws and Czech laws etc.; - roads and railroads were built to move soldiers quickly to put down revolutions - tariff wall was set up around the Austrian empire so that it would be dependent on itself; self-sufficiency united by an internal free trade organization allowed for the Austrianization of the empire where knowledge of German was required; seemed that the Hapsburgs were in a stronger position after 1849 than they had been before Revolution broke out in Prussia in 1848; initially very successful; a liberal constitution was granted by force from the king; representative assembly met in order to draft new liberal laws for Germany so they can stay united (because it would be a magnet for the German confederacy and Prussia would become the dominate state for them; - However they were real liberals and they realized the national desires of the poles; since Poland was divided by Austria, Russia and Prussia; decided to give Prussia-Poland self gov’t and autonomy within the German state; - Once again the large powerful German minorities in Prussia-Poland revolted; German army was sent in to impose calm - The Prussian army consisted of officers from east Prussia, nationalistic aristocratic who had no sympathy with any national desires; they had complete loyalty to the monarch so they did not just impose calm, they re-united the kingdom of Prussia-Poland with Prussia and they marched into Berlin and suppressed the liberal gov’t that operated there - Prussia authoritarianism had re-asserted itself Revolution of 1848-49 was a failure but it prepared Europe for the reception of nationalist ideas; people who were previously oppressed have tasted freedom and they wanted more - Germany’s unification:  Directed by ruthless but brilliant Bismarck, Prussia set out to unite Germany into a nation state exclusive ofAustria; 1) wanted to silence Austria; war broke out 1866 Austria defeated by the Prussians; allowed German states north of the river Maine to unite into the north German confederation ruled by Prussia 2) he gained support by creating a constitution within the state that had two houses: lower house was elected by men with suffrage; it united the liberals and the socialists behind the German nationalists and the Prussians; these groups saw a pro-Prussia census growing and that Prussia was going to be an instrument of not just German unity but also liberal desires and ambitions  Bismarck started a war against France - Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71; reason was to stimulate German nationalism in states outside of Prussian control (it worked ); after defeating Napoleon III, the Prussians, in the palace of Versailles, January 18 1871, proclaimed the creation of the German empire; the emperor was to be the king of Prussia; William I became the first Kaiser - Italian Unification  Happened at the same time as Germany and in a similar manner  Cause for unification was an old one: the need for a single Italian state was seen by everyone that went back to Machiavelli;  Unlike Germany, the urge created large mutually exclusive organizations that essentially had no desire to work together; they were all nationalists but they saw the Italy could be created into many different kinds of places and the methods for achieving it varied as well;  The peninsula of Italy had not been united since ancient times (since the fall of the roman empire); they had no political unity; they also realized that they were being oppressed by the Hapsburgs and others and they wanted to get rid of their foreign rulers  Among Italians, groups grew in power because of their natural attraction and the drama of their leaders; the most interesting was the Carbonari: founded in 1831 by Mazzini  He called for Italian unification but he was a republican; the middle class and liberal nobles bought his nationalism completely but were alienated by his republicanism; almost all of the Italians looked to one of the major states of Italy as an instrument by which the Italian kingdom could be created  Politicized roman Catholics wanted Italy to be ruled by the Pope in a confederation  Most Italians saw that the only way unification could happen was through the leadership of the kingdom of Sardinia, capital of Turin, ruled by the House of Savoy  It had a large state apparatus, had an army and had a parliamentary gov’t, it was relatively liberal and powerfully anti-clerical etc. – seemed attractive to those under bourbon of Naples, the church oppression of the Austrian empire  The king of Sardinia seemed like the person to unify Italy; he was led by a remarkable man Cavour; the failure of Sardinia to use the revolution of 1848 in order to drive out the Austrian permanently indicated to everyone that force would be the last resort; consensus was the solution (popular uprising by all people for a single solution to the house of savoy)  Sardinian started to lay long term plans: joined Crimean war together with the English and French against the Russians; France and England were then sympathetic of their position  1859 there was a suggestion to Napoleon III: if France wages war against the Austrians and drove them out of Italy, the Sardinians would repay France with territory: French Riviera (the city of Nice and the province of Savoy);  The war was too successful; Austrians were weakened and Italians supported the French; French roman Catholics and the pope began to lobby napoleon III by saying that the Sardinians were liberal anti-clericals; Napoleon III needed the support of the church in order to keep his throne stable  Napoleon III ‚chickened out‛ and the war was a stale mate  Parts of central part of Italy were united with the kingdom of Sardinia; by 1859 it was clear that the entire kingdom would be reformed even though Venice was still under Austrian control  The south was compromised by an adventurer Garibaldi; he was also a revolutionary; the kingdom of the two Sicily’s was ruled by a pious man: Francesco II of Bourbon; didn’t have the ability to withstand Garibaldi; within 3 months, Sicily fell to Garibaldi and his army; they marched to Naples and it was already in revolt; the bourbon king was driven from Naples and Garibaldi ruled the south; he turned the south, not into an independent republic, but gave it to King Victor Emmanuel  With the union of the south and the territories of north and central Italy, then Italy was created 17 March 1861 Italian kingdom was proclaimed and Victor Emmanuel was the first King of united Italy  Venice was taken in 1866 as a result of the Seven Weeks War; when Austria was defeated by Prussia one of the terms was that Venice was to be given to the new state of Italy;  The only one left was Rome; despite attempts to try and convince Pious IX, the Pope refused to cooperate; he was protected by the French army; the Italian army massed outside the walls of Rome and on 28 Sept 1870. they captured the city of Rome; the pope refused to recognize the existence of the Italian state and he locked himself in the Vatican; the gov’t of the Italian kingdom was anti-clerical and liberal and confiscated all church property and secularized education; made sure the church would not have any control within the kingdom of Italy at all  It was dangerous and lasted until 1929; separated men of conscious from politics; the church said that you were not a catholic if you held office or if you voted in elections; results were that many men of conscious felt that they were opposition to the state  Peace was finally made with the church in 1929 by Mussolini; said that without the church, Italy would always be unstable; Mussolini made the church part of the Italian state despite the fact that the papacy refused to recognize Mussolini; Today there are still elements of anti-clericalism February 13, 2012 | RADICALISMAND SOCIALISM Francois (Gracchus) Babeuf (1760-1797); William Godwin (1756-1836); Robert Owen (d. 1859); Henri de Saint Simon (d. 1825); Charles Fourier (d. 1837) Overview: Radical ideologies that shifted the perspective of Europe into one of structured confrontation: into classes; the confrontation is still apparent in today’s society (strikes, protests etcThis lecture: the roots of these things. Later, we’ll discuss how Marx put together a coherent theory of historical change based upon class conflict.  19 century was the century of isms; the political movements that we can associate with political actions and ideologies of the modern world  19th century and early 20 thcentury was a period of confrontation based on ideological perspectives; eco/pol/soc systems based upon on class identification; economic structures sometimes determined by others as constituting the basis of class differentiation th  A political competitive movement arose during the 19 century (statements of belief, articles of faith about how change was about to happen - brought about instability) - Two fundamental causes: 1. Heritage of the Enlightenment (age of reason in 18 century); Recall: those philosophes that looked at the problems of humanity in European perspectives and tried to find solutions; French Rev took many of these ideas and changed them into political action; the revolution could be seen as a dramatization of a script written by many of the enlightenment thinkers; some thinkers were very radical (ex. Rousseau) 2. The consequences of the Industrialization of Europe (+ Industrial Revolution) st Examination of the 1 cause (heritage of enlightenment):  Go back to Newton: father of modern perspectives and saw the world in terms of the inflexible laws of nature - With his laws physics, the west saw that there were two types of laws: a) Natural law: absolute, immutable, governs the universe, necessary, correct (ex. gravity) b) Positive law: made by man, mutable, subject to error, dependent on circumstances - One desire of the philosophes would be to find some mechanism to allow the perfection of natural law to be reflected in positive law  Rousseau, was a radical thinker; Social Contract 1762 talked about these things (nature, man, law etc.); wrote another book: - 1755 Discourse of on the Origins of Inequality: was a direct attack on John Locke who thought that the ownership, enjoyment, exercise of private property was an inalienable natural right - Rousseau said that private property was not a natural right; suggested that the unhappiness and unjust was the consequence of the ownership of private property; the unjust spawned from the fact that those that had property would try to keep it - He suggested that nature didn’t have this right; ex. people close to nature like aboriginals don’t have the European sense of private property and therefore private property is a perversion of natural law; it is, in fact, an instrument of oppression - Summary: private property is a problem, not a solution - Add concept general will to this theory; the role of the great mass of humanity and exercising the natural right to legislate on your own behalf rebukes the notion that privileged people should be able to legislate and determine the laws of the world; - Suggests that the laws will go against the general will in order to ensure their monopoly over private property is sustained; these laws that go against natural law are invalid by definition; these people are creating laws that are unjust because they are unnatural and people in society can overthrow the state  Radicalism: restructuring of society from the roots up; totally reorganizing society  Rose Pierre (French Revolution), the reign of terror that categorized it, tried to build a radical republic regime based on terror and force; it failed - One of the intents was to create a republic with virtue which required things like equality; - 1795 the directory and put the private property owning class back in control of govt of France, most of the experiments of the regime was undone and there was attempt to return France back to a stable society based upon idea of the right to private property - BUT his disciples built political movements around the ideas and attempted to continue and even to increase the radical revolution - These were radical thinkers who truly believed in ideas of equality and that the only way it would ever be achieved was through imposing it; people will never willingly give away property, must be taken from them - Saw status quo a problem and wanted more a more radical building of society based on radical ideas  Disciple of Rose Pierre and Rousseau, Francois Babeuf, was one of the most influential radical thinkers - He was a failed journalist; - 1795 he began to preach a doctrine that society had to be completely egalitarian and had to be consistent with nature and abide by natural law - Got the idea from Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ and ‘Discourse of the Origin of Inequality’ - Began to develop a system based upon imposed equality on all things; everyone had to be completely equal in rights, property, power, etc. and called it the Conspiracy of Equals - In the chaos after the fall of the regime of Rose Pierre, it attracted a number of radicals that believed that there was still more to do; they didn’t have particular power; they were lower middle class individuals and some workers who were left unemployed by the experiments of the republic - The French revolutionary govt had created high hopes amongst the most radical thinkers; they were shattered the fall of the Jacobins believing that the forces of conservatism had once more been victorious and the only way was to be even more radical and take direct action to makes sure the conservative values would not be implemented - Babeuf produced the Manifesto of Equals which called for more revolution (violent and radical); it called for the expropriation of all private property and all inheritance; to give them more power, it called for a dictatorship by the workers of Paris - The workers were full of zeal and saw that it was a solution; they tried to gain supporters and they essentially betrayed the movement and themselves - The directory wanted to re-establish stability; they didn’t want radicals to call for more revolution and take their property; - They found and executed Babeuf  There were others that were largely influenced by the revolution; they were not only in France  In England, we could see movement begin to rise because they were sympathetic of what happened in France (Ex. Edmund Burke who wrote his attack on the French revolution) - all of them believed they were rationalists - when they began calling for revolution, the govt suppressed them - the cause for radicalism was deep (not just property); the leaders of the movement generated interest in younger, subsequent leaders; began to draw connections between enlightenment th and intellectual and literary discussions of the time (early 19 century)  Most influential in the late 18 and early 19 century was William Godwin who became the voice of the new order - He was also closely associated with members of the romantic movement that there was almost a union of romantic search for perfection on earth and political/economic search for order - Son of a devout Calvinist preacher; he was also a circuit preacher as well - Converted into atheism and the enlightenment and republicanism later on in life - Came to the conclusion that reason and education lead to salvation, not God - Circuit preacher  radical propagandist to the point of anarchy (no govt needed!) - After reading Rousseau, he believed that mankind is perfectible and innately good; society and govt was corrupt - 1793 wrote a book called ‚An Inquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on General Virtue For Catholics‛; argued that:  religion is a device to ensure obedience among the oppressed; freedom of will was a fraud, men and women were driven by stimuli, sins should go through rehab instead of punishment; morally good (+ individuals happiness) was whatever promoted the happiness of the group [sometimes meant self-sacrifice]  no need for govt or religion; no need for contracts (considered evil slavery)  the difference between men and women were purely from differences in education and opportunity; if everyone had the same education and opportunity then everyone would be equal;  private property was permissible, but the group decides whether you need it or not;  believed that when people are educated and rational, there would be no need for govt or religion; anarchy was his ultimate goal - he thought anarchy could be fulfilled in England as long as you take reason and the principle of ‚for the common good‛ then all the problems would go away - he was very influential character because of his books and his family history  Malthus read his book and wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population as a response  Darwin read Malthus’book and wrote Origin of Species as a response  His daughter was Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein Examination of the 2 cause (consequences of Industrialization):  IR allowed for new ideology to bring some guidance and to restructure society to be more reflective of the new industrial world – ex. how the wealth should be distributed  Utopians believed that the world could be perfect based upon the operation of charity; they believed that they could create a new world - Those that believed that an application of the factory system to the econ/soc structure wouldn’t be like a continuation of the terrible conditions but would produce a new perfect world filled with rewards for everyone; just had to work out the problems - These utopian idealists weren’t just dreamers; the industrial society was before them and its continuing rapid growth was unpredictable; things could get better and people would be richer and richer - Progress would get us through it and things will be better  The appetite for labour in the economy seemed to be insatiable; no matter the increase in pop, there wouldn’t be unemployment, because the machines would require so much labour, the competition for labour would drive up wages, people would buy more which would require more machines and so on.  Utopia was just around the corner; the current misery was just temporary; believed that society wasn’t ready for the change that IR brought and that working out the problems would eventually lead to a better society; society was still constituted according to old principles and these problems resulted in unequal distribution of wealth in society; the need was to re-align the world of machines and things would get better  Group of utopians looked for solutions for problems  Robert Owen: cotton mill owner - 1800 turned factories into self-sufficient villages with great working conditions - It was like a modern utopia and wanted other factory owners to follow; instead, other owners thought he was crazy ; he quit and left Manchester to go to the US and created a new utopia in a new uncorrupted world - He built a new model community; it was a complete disaster - 1828 he was forced to abandon his industrial co-op in US and returned to England - He was an important figure because he brought about the idea that we didn’t have to wait for things to get better naturally; we could take action and build utopia now  Utopias that looked into the future were very different; many were dreamers but they still saw industrial problems and looked for solution  Saint Simon was a descendent from old nobility (charlemaine) - He gave away all his property and privileges because he said he didn’t need it because he was an ‚aristocrat of the mind‛ - Called for a new society where those who produced things would receive the most benefit; there should be nothing left for the unproductive people in society (clergy and nobility) - Technology, he thought was the solution or all problems, and increase in productivity would be the key to his utopia which would happen naturally - The more that was produced by machinery, the more that would be distributed - He attracted many disciples: workers, factory owners, scientists, etc; all who believed they were the essential producers that would lead the new world - Believed that it was the natural progress of society, while his disciples were like Robert Owen in that they felt they had a duty to solve the problems now; they fell into same trap as the other radical thinkers; they saw private property as the barrier - They took Saint Simon’s ideas farther than he would have imagined and advocated the abolition of all private property and the public collective ownership of all means production in order to ensure a just redistribution of wealth  As long as you have a productive power in private hands, the owners will take the money, but if the community has the power then the community gets to decide - Quasi-religious commune established in 1820s by his followers but was closed in 1833 because of immorality issues - The belief was that if you control the forces of industry and the productive elements of the economy then you can control politics and society which would allowed you to create a new world  Charles Fourier: - Didn’t believe in taking away all private property; felt that society would fragment if they did this - Began to look into structure of IR and saw the fundamental problem was the division of labour - Being a utopian, he believed the problem had the seeds of its own solution; if you address the problems then you will create a utopia - Answer: create a world where the worker is not alienated from his work;  He believed that the reason why people are unhappy was because they made things where they don’t get benefit, can’t ever own or they don’t understand because they make a part of it; there’s no sense of fulfillment - Believed the factory system should move into a kind of communal village of exactly 1620 people   Every worker should be trained to do every job in the factory; they would have regular rotations so that the worker would never be bored; they could work with different people and be happy   Everyone would attribute equally and receive equally - Problem: what about the children!?   Can’t alienate them! Since children like to play in the garbage (apparently), they should be trained to collect the garbage in the factories. They would have fun doing it… (apparently) - He said that human beings have natural desire to acquire property; therefore, those that had a more difficult job should get paid more; higher rate of pay for the more complicated jobs; however, to ensure equality, taxes (graduated income tax) would be designed to get money back from these ppl  They would be happy for receiving a higher pay, but the money would be taxed more and given to community - It was a world that should ideally work, but it didn’t - His followers took the plan to the US (which was considered a utopia at the time)  1844 built a Fourier commune modeled his ideas (even the 1620 people idea)  It totally failed because elements like jealously arose; Fourier believed that women should not be considered property but they should be able to express their own sexual freedom; charges in morality were laid  Also failed because there was a fire :O and no one could decide how to rebuild it so they abandoned it  The argument of all the people was that we have all the resources to build a utopian world; the industrialization and the industrial system is not the problem it is the solution; the problem holds the seeds of the answer provided we know what to do with it; we are just hampered by the world of the people that have property and privilege; must get rid of them in order for utopian society to operate Fourier was the ‚spiritual father of the 60s commune‛; communes in California now don’t have 1620 people but they otherwise operated in accordance to Fourier’s idea of a communal factory system (ex. people would rotate jobs etc.); when we think of these ideas, they are still very much alive today February 29, 2012 | FIN DE SIECLE Adolphe Theirs (d. 1877); Georges Boulanger (d. 1891); Alfred Dreyfus (case 1894); Jean Jaures (d. 1914); Kulturkampf 1873-1878; Wilhelm I (Kaiser 1871-1888); Wilhelm II (1889-1918; Franz Josef I (1848-1916) Recall: the fundamental cultural, intellectual challenges of rationalism and reason; the application of these ideas gave rise to the liberal bourgeois idea of the world that the world will continue to get better; but there were fundamental failures in statecraft and doubts that world would get better indefinitely forever  The events in the political movements that created the Europe after 1815 (after Napoleonic wars and congress of Vienna) were altered already by 1) movements of national unification (Italy and Germany); new dual-monarchy of Austria-Hungary (1867); - But the social economic and intellectual factors were effected by political events - Europe seemed to be stumbling towards WWI – they were unable Examine France first:  France seemed to have a sordid history after collapse of Napoleon III’s second Empire and the Franco-Prussian war of 1871; in the last great battle, Napoleon and many of his troops were captured and defeated; monarchy abolished and republic arose temporarily until a new constitution was drafted  The local govt of Paris (Paris commune) refused to acknowledge both the old imperial or the new provisional govt; as a result the people of Paris were cut off from the rest of France by a besieging large German army; they refused to surrender and held local elections; they elected the most radical leaders of France; radical socialists, Marxists, working class leaders that represented creepy underground thoughts; became a mini-city state (The Paris Commune)  After the Franco-Prussian war and the provisional govt yielded to the punitive demands of the Germans, the German army withdrew; the Prussian army left France and instead a French army arose; tried to bring the revolutionary Paris commune back into the French state and tried to impose order  The provisional head of state, Thiers, became the spokesmen for the troubled govt; he was faced with a capital that refused his authority; there was great violence and tensions in Paris at this time; require the city to be taken by force; the troops of the French provisional govt invaded the city; over 20000 were killed or imprisoned; - These events and the punitive imposition of Prussians on the French, one of the reasons why French were so ready to punish the Germans was because of the way the Germans behaved in 1871; French lost Alsace Lorraine and the humiliation they felt Bransick stone (?)  These two losses and the events of Paris commune, made the republic of govt that emerged after the war extremely unstable; the example of commune showed that people could rise up and take power in their own hands, but at the same time, the property owning people in the upper and middle class (French political classes) they didn’t want power near these people again; the new republic was unnaturally conservative (fearful of own citizens)  New French republic was going to have a difficult time; it was unnatural and unstable; no one wanted a republic; it was one of the most successful experiments in French history (constitution lasted 1875-1940); - Survived because the dominate political classes were monarchists; the majority of those that held office, wanted to return the monarchy but they couldn’t agree on which king; 1) Legitimists - Bourbon – wanted descendants of Charles X 2) Orealists(?) – wanted descendants of Louis Phillipe 3) Bonapartes - They couldn’t agree so they decided to remain a republic because it divided them the least  The parties in this unstable govt resulted in ‚revolving door‛ cabinets; no one could maintain a majority; seemed as though govt would fall any day; no strong leadership; scandals based on corruption snapped the authority of the state itself and took away the confidence of the political classes to solve these problems in the last quarter of the 19 century  Crises and rapid succession challenged the integrity of the state; people were waiting for someone on horseback (a hero of some sort) to impose order but no one came; - Late 1880-90s there was a hero who was recognized by most of the political classes; thought Boulanger would do what Napoleon III did – establish a military dictatorship and impose order or establish a new dynasty and be a new king; - Problem was that even though he was charismatic and was able to uniting the French military, but he was an obsessive republican; he didn’t have any plans to establish a military dictatorship & he was mentally unstable; when everyone thought it was the perfect time to overthrow the state (just had to march into Paris and take it), he instead killed himself in Belgium  The fall of Boulanger and the collapse expectation of coup d’état seemed to show that there was no solution to the situation in France  The situation actually grew even worse because of the anger of the polarization of the French public opinion - soon after 1894 arose one of the worst event in French history; reflected attitudes of two polarized sides of French society: young Jewish officer in French army, Alfred Dreyfus was accused of being a traitor who sold military secrets to Germans; and was convicted in a military court (nothing worse than working with the Germans) - sent to devil’s island for life after being humiliated; his conviction was considered an attack on a set of ideas; - used by the powerful voice of the anti-Semitic monarchists and military leaders of France as an example of the moral collapse of the republic - a few people realized that Dreyfus was a scapegoat – used by an example by those who wanted France to move farther to the right; they were famous journalists, novelists etc; some politicians also joined them: George Clemenceau was convinced that the whole affair was a cancer on French society - this groups of intellectuals and politicians used press to get a reconsideration of the case; they realized that Dreyfus was a symbol to the right wing of France; it was an opportunity to move against minorities (the Jews, socialists, those that challenged the extreme right); eventually, after letters were written about the govt working with the forces of evil, verdict was reversed in 1906  it was a great victory for the liberal rational left against the increasingly anti-Semitic extremely nationalist militaristic right; the radical republicans took the popularity of the victory and used it to weaken the right (especially monarchy, church and army);  1905-6 tried to reverse the work of the French revolution: the religious orders that were th re-established during the 19 century were abolished, the role of the priests and church were controlled and reduced, the role of the army was reduced by the early retirement of officers who were known to that right wing anti-Semitic views; mostly, it established France as a republic with true republican values: a separation between church and state (to this day!)  Because of the Dreyfus affair, France became completely secular state; no more religious participation in secular affairs (not in schools, public places etc.)  They moved against the right wing in the chamber of dariges(?); the monarchists were completely discredited; army was turned into a branch of estate and was pretty much an estate in an estate;  Another effect of the 1905-6 legislation: alienation of the most powerful groups of French society (govt and France itself) ex. monarchists, traditional roman Catholics, high ranking civil servants/officers, land-owning nobles were all considered as being sympathetic to the ______ (19:53) - They were considered problems; idea was to contain them because they could not be re-habilitated; they were disinfected from the new republic; the extreme ones among the group said that there needed to be a new order; after the WWI this group would rise again and try to change France into a fascist country in 1930s  The division was exacerbated by the growing success of the socialist labour movement especially after 1880; after the second empire, the power of the trade unions was somewhat neutralized and controlled even though employee spirit gave more freedoms to unions as time progressed;  Marxists and others believed there would be no negotiation with the first estate (bourgeois) ; they called for revolutions to improve the conditions of the working class (Paris commune excuse was used a lot: that if someone opposed, they would be sent to devil’s island)  Situation was solved by socialist leader, Jean Jaures ; he began to build a movement of democratic socialists rather than following Marxist revolutionary model, he wanted to move France from socialist to reformist democracy; this caused a divide between socialists (official socialist party) and the revolutionary Marxists (communists)  The govt of the third republic played against this attempt to integrate French social working class into society in a fundamental way; the fear of the commune, industrial class, and Dreyfus affair meant that the govt moved against the labour movement; they suppressed strikes, and culminated in suppression of railway workers; it made it clear that to the democratic socialists that the govt wasn’t interested in listening to their arguments; - By 1914, it looked like the third republic didn’t rep. anyone; only people that supported them were middle class bourbon intellectual republicans; Examination of Germany:  Very different from France  Bismarck with Prussia, after 1871, the Imperial Chancellor built a remarkable state dependent on former kingdom of Prussia, whose king became the first emperor: Wilhelm I  The empire that arose in the palace of Versailles after the defeat of the French in 1871 was federal and key things were granted largely to the Emperor himself and those who he chose to delegate power (ex. to Bismarck) - The emperor had the power to conduct foreign affairs personally, he was in charge of army and navy; but there was also a control: the lower house of parliament, the Reichstag, was elected by male suffrage - The imperial civil service was populated by highly well-educated classes made the German state run with efficiency; had accident security, and old age pensions  These things were done 1) to link Germany together with nationalism; and 2) to blend the attraction of the socialists because if the state could care of the workers and the poor then there would be no need for socialist party;  The paternalistic German empire was very popular and supported by all (aristocrats, civil servants, liberals, socialists); they would do anything to support it - It was partly due to nationalism that when ____ that were needed, after WWI, when monarchy and imperial system was wiped away by revolution; they didn’t have any experience with democracy, they left things to the emperor or the chancellor; couldn’t function on their own; the German empire was essentially a military dictatorship - Bismarck wanted the Imperial system was a source of nationalistic pride but also that it was unchallenged; no one in the state could challenge the authority/power/desire of the emperor and his cabinet; - he began 2 policies to destroy the influence of the only two groups in Germany that were united and organized enough to challenge the system: the roman catholic church and the socialist party  Bismarck first attacked the Catholics, but it was a cultural struggle; he wanted Germany to be more sympathetic to the Lutheran church: the church was willing to accept secular power without question; the Catholics wouldn’t do this though since they saw themselves as distinct;  Bismarck wanted to destroy Catholicism; 1873 legislation required the state (not church) control of education; priests were not trained by seminaries but by state colleges; influence of Jesuits were curtailed; catholic marriages were not considered legal – all citizens had to have civil marriages; any churchman who spoke against this would be exiled  These laws had effects beyond Bismarck’s expectations: - He thought the nationalists would work against the Catholics and silence them; NOPE; - The Catholics created a political party and it attracted many supporters - Lutherans from Prussia also rallied to Catholics; Bismarck was shocked because he was one of them, or so he thought; they did it because they saw Bismarck attacking German traditional and the rights of their fellow catholic aristocrats (many of their leaders were catholic aristocrats  The most pathetic causality was Kulturkampf did: essentially destroyed liberal Germany; liberals didn’t want to be seen as unpatriotic, they wanted a liberal anti-clerical regime; - the result was destruction of liberals nd their political movement; this explains why ther was no liberal reaction to the rise of extremist parties after WWI because lierals were discredited by their yield to Bismarck during Kulturkampf and later to Hitler - no german who was nationalist would acceot the removable of their civil rights of 14% of their fellow germans; but liberals agreed to this which was a failure to statecraft and they paid the price for it  The attack on the socialists was very different; it was political rather than culture in nature  We’ve already seen the formation of the German social democratic party and their argument with Marx to actually participate in govt; the party decided to work with the German state and they realized that nationalists would be part of the German state and the SDP was also nationalist; they saw the state as an instrument by which reform could be delivered and Bismarck’s social legislation would reinforce this and they agreed to it, which was an error in judgment on Bismarck’s part because he removed one of his supporters with a powerful voice;  Bismarck used excuses: - There were two attempts to assassinate the Emperor by anarchists, but Bismarck blamed socialists for it; he tried to suppress socialist organizations; after 1878 he enacted legislation monitor their meetings, to silence their newspapers and the state adopted paternalistic social legislation that we’ve discussed in order to make the socialist party irrelevant - It didn’t work despite the fact that they were restricted, people, especially the working class continued to elect them into office; they demanded that some of these restrictions be overturned; Bismarck didn’t do it and made another error in judgment and weakened the ability of the German people to withstand totalitarianism; - a voice that was supposed to be strong for the popular govt was driven underground; the socialists couldn’t have meetings or newspapers formed clubs instead; they hid their socialist role behind these athletic, nature clubs; their purpose was to instill democratic Marxism in the youth; the group survived and managed to sustain Marxism and socialism in the youth, but they also separated socialist Marxism from political action because it was no longer legal; it was secret underground position that would rise after the WWI;  Bismarck was never able to suppress nationalism; they became more extreme when socialism was linked with nationalism; it provided a breeding ground for totalitarianism; many of these groups that started as Marxists became many fascists and Nazis would be recruited  In general, the imperial govt worked best for land owning nobility, great industrialists, military, civil service  Economically the empire was exploding and the standard of living was great; 50% population increase between 1882-1902; the working force was also growing (second to England)  This caused trouble that was unnoticed: many people were alienated; those that were not experienced with the modern world were dislocated and looked for someone to lead them; they left their roots behind to work in factories; authoritarian german govt gave them a standard of living which they recognized as amazing; it gave them extreme nationalism because they believed that the advantages were given by the German state (paternalistic distraction that Bismarck created)  When the empire was stripped away in 1918, the people only had nationalism left; they looked for a new leader that would give them a sense of security and well being and pride; it would be Hitler;  When the Wilhelm II came to the throne in 1889, the character of the German empire changed dramatically; he dismissed Bismarck in 1890 so he can become his own first minister; he was really young and should not have risen to throne until much later; he was an extreme nationalist and wasn’t very smart :\  The condition of AH after 1867 (when Hungarians were given equal authority as the Austrians) was complex; the empire was a mix of nationalities (Serbia, Poland, Czech, Slovenia, parts of Romania etc.) - The national question was how to deal with the huge amalgam of nationalities; the lack of coherent policy alienated everyone (not the nationalists nor theAH) - After 1870, AH went through a huge industrial expansion mainly in Bohemia; cities were growing to attract industrial working class rather than agricultural laborers; - Problems that other countries faced because of IR happened: new social classes with new deamands and ideologies; for the first time, the dominant groups (high classes) were challenged by socialists; socialists demanded male suffrage, social programs, labour legislation; it had nothing to do with nationality, only social class; it was a good opp, but they missed it - Imperial govt responded by suppressing the reformist tendencies; the authorities were more comfortable with nationalist problems; uncomfortable with political and economic problems from a new challenge (social and other groups); they saw the problems as anti-clerical liberals, and socialists with Marxist solutions; by suppressing these class based movements that extended across empire (based on class and occupation, not nationality), the AH empire lost their chance to unite their state - They also pushed everything back into nationalist solution; every problem was discussed through nationalist views; - Habsburgs could no longer speak for their empire after 1867 and they ahd made more errors; 1914 the war that united the countries: the peasants, workers etc felt no connection to the Habsburgs anymore - WWI caused the disintegration of the huge empire and created many problems where nations were created with little experience with policies. March 5, 2012 |WORLD WAR ONE Franz Ferdinand (d. 1914); Sarajevo; Gavrilo Princips; Alexander Kerensky (1881-1970); Brest-Litovsk; Woodrow Wilson (d. 1924); David Lloyd-George (1863-1945); Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929)  Between Vienna and WWI was one of the most peaceful periods in history of Europe; relatively peaceful; false sense of peace  WWI was the greatest destroyer of human life in entire history of Europe; people wandered towards it; it seemed inevitable  The immediate cause was the assassination of the Hungarian throne by Serbians; (Franz Ferdinand was assassinated)  The old emperor Franz Josef was about to step down so the assassination of his heir seemed like a direct attack;  It was generally believed that Franz was more liberal than his uncle; he wanted to unite the Slavics to theAustrian-Hungarian Empire into a triple monarchy;  It seemed like the Serbian govt was behind the attack; the Austrians gave Serbia an ultimatum but the conditions were extreme  Russians complicated the situation because of their Pan-slavic views; informed the Austro-Hungarians that they would protect the Serbs; therefore, Serbs thought Russia would help them if they didn’t agree to the ultimatum  France thought that Russia shouldn’t yield to Austro-Hungarians because the Triple Entente would be compromised  By this time, Europe was divided into Triple Entente (Russia, France, England) and the Triple Alliance (Germany,Austria-Hungary, ____________)  Wilhelm II (Germany) didn’t want conditional support because Russia would enter the situation; didn’t want enemies on both sides; if they went ot war, they would be fighting two fronts (against france and Russia)  Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914; Russia partially mobilized; Germany declared war on Russia; Germany declared war on France on Aug 3, 1914; England on Aug 4, 1914 declared war on Germany because they wanted to protect neutral Belgium;  Germany had to act immediately or the plan wouldn’t work  Soon after, Italy refused to join the war until 1915; Japan joined the Entente and Turkey joined Germany  The countries used media/propaganda to justify the violence and bloodshed - Germans said that it was a war to struggle against Russian autocracy - Belgium said it was a war against subhuman (Germans)  Everyone believed the war would last only a short while because technology would speed things up; but they were very wrong; in France, open war changed to open trench war across Europe  There was a stale mate; liquid fire, tanks, poison gas, machine guns, etc would cause massive numbers of casualties but not much was accomplished due to stale mate  The battle of the Somme, French won and moved only a few km forward but 65M people fought and 10M were killed and 20M were badly wounded; Germans stopped counting because the numbers were too large; didn’t even count those that died from starvation  The Entente could probably last longer because of their larger population and reign over the sea; if it was just a war of attrition the Entente would win  US joined the war in April 1917 because of the sinking of Lusitania cruise that killed American lives by Germans  Germans made a huge tactical errors by going to Mexico and trying to get them to go to war against US; but when US found out, it was the last straw and US joined  When war broke out socialist parties rallied to the flag and everyone became nationalist; seemed like Marxism was wrong and nationalism trumped everything  The Russian monarchy was totally inept seemed to be cut off from the war; Tsar Nicholas II was losing almost every battle and the state was breaking down; there was growing dissatisfaction in the cities collapsed; March 1917 revolt forced him and his son to step down and there was a noble attempt to turn Russia into a constitutional monarchy; felt obligated to continue war because of the lives that they already lost and alliances; it was suicide  Russia was exhausted and the Germans realized this opportunity; sent Lenin to St. Petersburg so that he could take over the revolution and take Russia out of the war; this is exactly what happened; the October revolution resulted in the assassination of the Tsar and his 4 daughters and son and the collapse of the Russian military; Russia replaced one brutal totalitarian dictatorship with another; - The Bolsheviks promised bread, land and peace; they were going to do anything so that their revolution was the one that survived - 1918 Russia gave Germany: Russian-poland, Ukraine and Finland  The war in the western front continued; church and other wanted to stop the war but England and France wanted total victory because they lost too many lives already; the US Woodrow Wilson said they would not entertain any peace until …  Wilson was increasingly becoming the voice of justice for the allied cause; it was a fresh perspective that would cut through European baggage and create something good; he had identified 14 points until the US would assign any sort of peace; - ex. 5: the impartial adjustment of colonial claims for the interest of those involved - 9: the adjustment of Italian frontiers along clear lines of nationality - 10: the autonomous development of the - 12: ‚ for the Ottoman empire - 13: independent Poland with access to the sea (this would be impossible to achieve without other problems)  Entente agreed with these points;  By 1918,Austria-Hungary armies and Germany were shattered  The points became harder because it called for the independence not just autonomy  It also required Germany to pay reparations of the war; there was nothing the Germans could do; Nov 11 at 11:00 the war ended  1919-1920 the treaties were brutal in punishing the Germans; nationalism and democracy had demanded that Germans be punished because of good vs evil; everyone wanted to contain and humiliate German so they could never do it again  The Treaty of Versailles determined by 3 people: Wilson (US), Clemenceau (France) and Lloyd-George (Brit) - Wilson indicated that he cared less for European affairs and he rejected certain treaties that caused Entente allies to break promises - Lloyd-George wanted a secure Europe where Britain would be dominant and the money lost would be recovered - Clemenceau was the hero of the Dreyfus affair; a republican; he carried a deep grudge against Germany since he was a politician during Franco-Prussian war and remember the hard conditions (i.e. loss ofAlsace Lorraine); he was able to influence Wilson too - Germans had no say in the Treaty and they were horrified at the conditions; England gave ultimatum and said that they had to sign or be invaded; the signage was under duress;  Conditions: give Alsace Lorraine back to France, West Prussia was given to Poland; Poland was given a corridor to the sea which caused Germany to be divided into two; territory of the Czar was given to League of Nations which would supposed to last until 1935 when a referendum would be considered; army only 100K volunteers, no army, no one near Rhine Valley; the War Guilt Provision: forced Germany to admit they caused the war and they were forced to pay all reparations (33B $US)  Treaty of Saint Jermaine: Austria had to recognized the indpeendece of almost all of the former habsburg territories (Poland, hungary, czechoslavkia); the former Austrian empire lost 3/4 of its terrotiry and population; large german populations were given to Czech and Italy; Austria emerged as an insignificant tiny landlocked state;  Wilson had hoped that the destruction of Germany’s military means would mean they would never come into power again; said that war was the result of the failed diplomacy; he wanted only diplomacy;  He suggested the League of Nations where countries would come together to solve problems through discussions; it was doomed from the beginning because: 1. allies didn’t want to admit Russia (b/c Bolshevik govt) and Germany; 2. the failure to reduce armaments in the world; Germany was controlled but the rest of countries were not 3. Wilson was unable to ratify the treaty and join the league himself  The League wasn’t very successful but it created a solid foundation for UN later on  Almost all the states and the former powers that emerged from the war, in 1919-20, began as liberal countries, but by 1939 only England, France and US remained democratic govts; Italy, Germany and Spain were Fascist dictatorships; Poland turkey china and japan were military dictatorships; russia was a totalitarian dictatorship;  The reasons for collapse of democracy after the war varied from country to country: (general) 1. class conflict increased dramatically: the poor and working class suffered the most in the war; they were slaughtered by the millions in the forefront; after these sacrifices they believed the world would be much better when they returned from war, but it was in even worse position that before 1914; shortage of food and jobs; lack of goods because everything was focused on war materials during the war; the Bolshevik revolution in Poland and ..., the democratic feared them and believed the only solution as to contain them; but the unstable states between the wars couldn’t alien the bankers, industrialists because those were the people that relied on to keep bolshevism in existence 2. the economic conditions were awful after war; the new nations created high tariff borders to protect themselves, they competed for tiny markets, but this caused many problems; the reparations by Germany caused huge inflation (had to print more money); money became useless because there was no way Germany could ever pay the reparations without causing inflation 3. the religion of nationalists which wasn’t weakened, it in fact was strengthened by the war; the desire of the ethnic minorities wanted to turn the clock back to 1914; the lack of unified purpose exacerbated by the inexperienced statesmen in 1920-1; the new states didn’t have a tradition in producing pro politicians which made the govt unstable  the energy and hope of the people were sapped in the 1920s; democracies of europe were failures waiting to happen; after 1914-1918 sacrifices everyone wanted peace and security, but nationalism and other problems pointed otherwise;  Europeans were questioning democracy as a solution at all and started moving t
More Less

Related notes for HIS109Y1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit