Oh, boy, Nationalism! It’s the number one motivator for every country in Europe, but especially in Western Europe. What it breaks down to is this:
Q. My country is better than your country in:
a) industrial output
b) colonization/imperialism
c) military strength and size
d) culture
e) ALL OF THE ABOVE
Obviously, they believed the correct answer is e. Chapter 23 discusses some key figures such as Napoleon III, Otto von Bismarck (the Franco-Prussian War was started by actual fake news, so that’s fun), Cavour and Garibaldi, Alexander II, Nicholas II (I am crushed that I am not able to have a class that I can dedicate to Russia), and Abdülhamid II.
There is a *lot* happening here.
For today, all I want you to do is watch the following videos and post one question in the comments. If anyone wants to do a classmate a solid in answering, feel free; if not, I will chime in. I already typed out half of 19th Century European history in an email with my thumbs. No question is to big. AMA.
I will post your assignment Monday.
Dr. Astorian's AP Consortium 
karinachatha
March 20, 2020
What was the deal with Russia being the protector of Christians and then losing the war? Was the Crimean War just a change for other European powers to take out Russia and its allies?
Laura Astorian
March 20, 2020
Good question! Russia tends to present itself as the big brother of Orthodox Christians – we’re going to see it again in WWI, as well, when they step in to protect the Serbians from the Austrians. In this case, it was easy for them to say that they were supporting the Orthodox in Ottoman territory because the Ottoman Empire was Muslim, so it was an us vs. them thing. Really what it was about for Russia – and the other European powers – was to try to get a hold of some land as the Ottomans fell apart. That eventually happens in the leadup to WWI but we still have about, oh, thirty more years before it completely disintegrates.
The other European countries wanted to support those of similar faiths in the region, but after a while figured out that Russia was mostly in it for territorial expansion, which made the European countries veeeery nervous. Europe “protecting” the Ottomans wasn’t to help them out, it was to protect the Europeans’ own interests. The Brits were kind of stuck in the middle since they were initially trying to broker peace until the Russians just went for it and attacked. The Russians decimated the British army but ultimately they were outstaffed and outgunned by the allies against them that they had to sue for peace.
The biggest upshot is that the war led Russians to self-evaluate and enact some more modern policies to catch up with Europe. The downside is… well… we’ll get to that. 😀
Vivek Raman
March 23, 2020
In the Crash Course, there was lots of discussion of the concept of “negative integration,” which Bismarck used to unite the German Empire. Why is negative integration so important? What can it lead to? Are there merits to this strategy of consolidation, or is it a poor way to unify people? How has negative integration been used by leaders today? Is Trump calling Coronavirus a “Chinese virus” an example of it?
Laura Astorian
March 23, 2020
It was basically Bismarck creating an us vs. them mentality by making minorities within Germany subject to particular laws – Jews, Catholics, Poles, etc. If that sounds familiar, well… it’s not the first or last time that something like that happens in Prussia/Germany. It’s an important strategy for Bismarck because it helps create a common “German” culture at the expense of others – we’ll see that again when Hitler cribs that idea for his idea of the “volk.” In theory it’s supposed to help create a united front that can overcome problems and contribute to national pride. What it usually winds up creating is a herd mentality that does what the leader asks, up to a point. It’s a great way to unify but the means and ends are usually pretty unpleasant.
It’s still used today especially in some of the more Nationalistic European Countries (Poland and Hungary does it a bit, and the new Austrian PM has a bad habit of doing it too). It’s still used in the exact same way that Bismarck used it. Anyone who has been criticized as nationalistic has probably gotten close to it at some point. I think that probably answers your last question.
dan kerik (@dkerik4)
March 23, 2020
Bismarck was all over the place politically. What was his ultimate end game? What was the reason for the industrial economic downturn in 1873? Although Europe seemed fairly even, what nation was the strongest/most powerful player in Europe in this time period?
Laura Astorian
March 23, 2020
His endgame was anything that made him and Prussia/Germany look good and benefit the army the power of the nation.. He was pretty wily, honestly. Germany had some hiccups in production because of an international economic depression that started in 1873 and lasted about a decade or so before stuff was righted. It mostly hit Western Europe and the US, and it’s for sure a side effect of having inter-connected economies and probably a sure sign that we’re in the modern era.
During this time I’d say Britain was number one, but Prussia/Germany and France were fighting back and forth for #2. After the Franco-Prussian War, France still had the largest land military in Europe but Germany was neck and neck with them with military might and getting close with the economy.
Neha Vennapusa
March 23, 2020
What were some of the changes that Russia made after the Crimean War? Did they look to Western Europe for inspiration yet again?
Laura Astorian
March 23, 2020
Absolutely! They decided that they needed to industrialize exactly like the West and have a military exactly like the West – and were about 25-40 years behind everyone else. It does not end well.