How far do you agree that the revolutions within the Italian states failed because they were too localised? I acknowledge that to some extent localism played a role in the failure in the 1820’s and 30’s revolutions within the Italian states. However I also recognise that there were other factors that played major if not bigger roles, such as the minimal amount of public support or the lack of involvement from the French. However I do believe it was the involvement of Austria that played the greatest role in the failure of the revolutions. In the context of the question, localism played an irrefutably large role in the failure of the revolutions.
What debt, if any, did German Nazism owe to Italian Fascism? Analyse the similarities and differences between the two regimes. The First World War has resulted in revolutionary movements across the whole of Europe. The unstable situation did not omit Italy and Germany. In both countries the aftermaths of the war led to frustration amongst the society, economic and political crisis and as a result, to revolution.
A war was planned between Austria and a mixture of French and Piedmontese troops, with a hope for victory in favour of Piedmont. If this victory occurred, the Austrian territories in Northern Italy would join with Piedmont to form the Kingdom of Upper Italy. Cavour was successful in provoking a war with Austria in 1859 but things seemed doomed when Piedmont could only produce 20,000 men with Austria having an army of around 110,000. This is where Napoleon kept to his word, producing 200,000 soldiers, forming the majority of the army due to fight Austria. With French intervention, Austria seemed to worry after already being beaten at the battles of Magenta and Solferino.
Many historians argue greatly over the short term significance on Italy as caused by the Austro-Prussian war. It is largely accepted that the social and economic problems that already faced Italy before 1866 had been heightened – be it rising taxes for the already disgruntled population of Italy or Italy as a nation being humiliated as a result of the conflict’s armistice and the cession of Venetia. However there were some, albeit minor, benefits to society including the changing attitudes attributed to the feeling of nationalism within Italy as it can be seen that Italy ‘is able to set aside personal and party interests and form into one solid phalanx’. The cession of Venetia can be considered the largest area of controversy, whether Italy felt proud to have almost completed the unification process, or, conversely, whether Italy should celebrate this cession begrudgingly, as it was only due to the intervention of other powers that this acquisition even happened – after all the decisive battle was fought on 3rd July by Austria and Prussia at Koeniggraatz. Whether or not unification was slightly hindered for the duration of war, it should be known that only 4 years after the crushing defeats of the Austro-Prussian war, the Franco-Prussian war took place, enabling a finally totally geographically united peninsula of Italy.
However, the Prussian army managed to defeat the liberals who were then arrested throughout the whole of Germany. This weakened Austria’s influence in Germany for two reasons. Firstly, the fact that Prussia’s army defeated the liberals and stopped the revolutions showed that they were willing to take action and that they were actually quite powerful – strong enough to stop revolutions and uprisings throughout Germany. Secondly, the revolutions affected Austria’s political dominance in Germany because Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor had resigned and the new Emperor was more focused on revolutions outside of Germany, particularly in Italy. This showed that Austria wasn’t stable and was prepared to do as much as Prussia.
The Italians did not get what they felt had been promised at the Treaty of London and that caused resentment especially at the losses Italy had endured fighting for the Allies. The government came over as weak and lacking pride in Italy. In the years that led up to World War One, Italy had sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance. In theory, Italy should have joined in the sides of these two nations when war broke out in August 1914. She did not.
This proved a problem for the newly formed government as Italy was a predominantly Catholic country and many Italians were devoted to the Pope. The power of the Pope at that time was huge and though there would have been a few who didn’t listen to the pope, many would have done. The lack of support from the church was a significant weakness in the new liberal government and increased the government’s already minimal respect. Additionally the North South divide was influential on the lack of success for the liberal government. Italy was divided in terms of wealth; the south was poor and the north wealthy.
It can be suggested that Mazzini’s ideas were a contributing reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy in the years 1815-1848. However, it is clear that Mazzini’s ideas weren’t the main reason for the slow progress of national unity in Italy. Mazzini’s appeal may have been very narrow and idealistic because of its revolutionary nature; there are other factors that also need to be examined. The most important factor would be the powerful influence of Austria. Others that can be considered to be the reason for slow progress are the nature of the states at this time with reactionary governments and their leaders, regionalism, lack of mass support and Mazzini’s ideas.
One of the most important reasons as to why the early revolutions did not prove successful when uniting Italy was because each revolutionaries in the different states had different aims. There are many examples of this, e.g. in areas such as Naples, there were many financial difficulties after 1815. The Bourbon Monarchy had to pay for the Austrian occupations as well as reparations to Austria; moreover the treaty of Vienna meant that Ferdinand I had to pay for the compensation to the French viceroy which lead to cutbacks in the government spending. This undoubtedly led to widespread unhappiness in Naples.
How far were the divisions amongst its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist Rule 1881-1905 In the years 1881-1905 the Tsarist regime was faced large amounts of opposition from many people. The lower classes caused uprisings, their aims to remove the Tsar from power, while some educated middle class went on strike in an attempt to reform the regime. Many people were revolting and 3 main political groups emerged. The divides in these political groups were heavily responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule, however there were other factors responsible such as the repression in Russia, which lead to the eventual removal of all opposition groups, and the loyalty of the Tsars supporters, which meant that his power was still stronger than the opposition he was facing. One of the main reasons the Tsarist rule continued during the tome 1881 until 1905 was due to the splits in the political groups.