Revolution and Counter-Revolution

19TH CENTURY EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS

Liberalism was one of the great European doctrines to affect the world. Its central feature is the emancipation of the individual from class, corporate or governmental restraint. Liberalism and the rise of the middle class were closely related and it has remained essentially a middle class movement in its theory and source of support.

Liberalism developed in its classic form in Western Europe. The Liberal doctrines were clearly formulated and implemented for the first time during the English Revolution. These doctrines were primarily those of religious tolerance and security of person and property against the arbitrariness of the crown. The implementation of these doctrines involved the existence of independent political parties, parliamentary control of government and the recognition of the need for and the rights of opposition parties. However, there were certain limitations too. The franchise was limited by property qualifications, so that the lower, middle class and the workers who made up the majority, were left without votes. Thus, in 17th century England, liberalism served to advance middle class interest.

Liberalism got a more definite shape as the American Revolution brought about substantial advances in restricting slavery, extending religious tolerance, broadening franchise, and establishing constitutional government. Like the English settlement, the US Constitution, too, carefully protected the interests of the propertied class by limiting franchise by providing indirect election of the president and the senators for the election of the various branches of the government for different periods of time. These were part of a system of checks and balances designed to prevent a radical popular movement from getting control of the entire government at any one time constitutionally and introducing dangerous changes.

The French revolution which followed further advanced the principle of liberalism. Its 'Declaration of Rights' of Man is the classic statement of 18th century liberalism, proclaiming the liberties of the individual. French liberalism was a bourgeois movement. The Declaration and several other constitutions adopted by the French revolutionaries laid stress on the inviolable and sacred rights of property. Napoleon too in his famous codes, which proved to be the most durable and influential, forbade the formation of trade unions and the waging of strikes.

Thus, the liberalism that emerged from the English, American and French Revolutions took the institutional form of constitutional parliamentary government and stressed on equal civil rights, though not on political and social rights.

Like all historical movements, liberalism underwent an appreciable change in character as the 19th century came to an end. At a time when the masses were gradually beginning to assert themselves more and more as a result of increasing education and trade union organisation, liberalism could not continue to concern itself with bourgeois interests alone. As a result, focus changed from the early, classical liberalism to a more democratic type. Equality before the law was replaced by equality before the ballot box. By the end of 19th century universal suffrage for men had been adopted in most countries in Western Europe. The hitherto sacred principle of laissez faire too was gradually modified. Intervention by the government was, thus far, regarded as mischievous and futile, meddling with natural laws. This theoretical proposition, however, did not jibe with the facts of life as far as the workers were concerned. Civil liberties and the right to vote did not provide them any succour from poverty and the insecurity produced by unemployment, sickness, disability and old age. The workers, therefore, used their voting power and union organisation to press for social reforms. Under the force of these new pressures, a democratic liberalism developed which recognised the responsibility of the state for the welfare of its citizens.

Thus, developed another variety of liberalism in Western Europe, particularly Germany, wherein social reform programmes including old age pensions, minimum wage laws, sickness, accident and unemployment insurance, regulation of hours and conditions of work here adopted by the government. These reforms were the prelude to the welfare state that has become the hallmark of our age.

Liberalism, despite changing and adjusting to the needs of the times, has steadily lost ground since the end of the 19th century and the main reason seems to be its failure to win the support of the emerging working class. In the 20th century, the workers have, by and large, turned to various brands of socialism of the Marxist or Christian variety. Thus, liberals all over the world have been squeezed between the socialists on the left and the conservatives on the right.

What is Liberalism? Liberalism is based on the principle that there should be a symbiotic relationship between government and the community or between state and society, than existed under the dynastic regimes of the 18th century. Instead of being aloof from society, government and administration should be based on the organised consent of at least the most important sections of the community and they should concern themselves with the interests of the whole community. The main hurdles to a broader basis of government were the powers and privileges of the aristocracy and the church, and the absence of privileges of the middle classes. Thus, the torchbearers of the liberal attack against feudal rights and religious power were the underprivileged middle and professional classes.

The philosophy of European liberalism was derived from the rationalist movement of the 18th century, which has made a frontal attack upon inequality and arbitrary power. Its most salient feature was parliamentary government. It found in constitutional system and in the rule of law a means of expressing middle class interest and opinion. It was different from democracy or radicalism, in that it preferred ideas of sovereignty of parliamentary assemblies rather than the sovereignty of the people. Further, it demanded an extension of the franchise to include all men of property but to exclude men without property. Finally, it gave liberty greater importance than equality. To liberals, the French Revolution had damned itself by its excesses that had aroused the era of reaction and military dictatorship. The most preferable regime was either a constitutional monarchy, assuring certain rights equally to all citizens, or a parliamentary republic based on a restricted franchise but upholding the equality of all before the law.

What is Democracy? Democracy resembled liberalism; in that it derived its ideals from 18th century rationalism and was equally opposed to the inequalities of the old order. It differed from it in holding to the view that sovereignty lay not in constitutional system or in representative parliamentary assemblies, but in the consent of the whole paper. It favoured universal male suffrage, the subordination of parliamentary bodies to the will of the electorate as a whole, and even devices of direct democracy such as the plebiscite or the referendum. It was devoted to the ideal of equality of political and civil rights. In its more extreme forms, it again demanded social and economic equality. Like liberals, democrats demanded equality of all before the law and equality of opportunity for all, but unlike liberals, they wanted to secure their rights even at the cost of greater economic levelling. For these reasons, in the first half of the 19th century democracy, was treated as a more revolutionary and frightening doctrine than liberalism. The fear of Jacobinism which haunted the conservative governments of Europe between 1815 and 1848 was partly the fear of the resurgence of French power; it was even more the fear of radical democracy. To resist this menace, liberals were often ready to join hands with conservatives to crush popular movements and uprisings that favoured democratic ideals. The 20th century counterpart of this fear was the universal fear of Bolshevism after 1917. Democracy, even more than liberalism, was the central cause of change and revolution in the century after Waterloo.

There was enough common ground among liberals and democrats for them to join forces on the barricades at great revolutionary movements, such as in 1848 and 1871. Not only were both travelling for at least a certain distance along the same road and finding themselves obstructed by the same forces of conservatism, but both had the common desire to make government, in varying degrees, an organ and agency of society.

What is the Background and Impact of 1830 Revolution? Prince Metternich, the Chancellor of Austria, evolved a scheme at the Congress of Vienna for the suppression of liberalism and democracy. Though it succeeded for a time, it failed in the long run to contain these popular forces. The main factor responsible for the failure of the Congress was that 'the real purpose of the Congress was to divide amongst the victors the spoils taken from the vanquished'. Following the Vienna Congress, conservatism enjoyed a brief period of ascendancy.

Soon, however, the forces for the promotion of liberalism and democracy got mobilised. Liberalism could not be so easily wished away as the representatives at the Vienna Congress had anticipated. The rising tide of nationalism was another threat against the established order. The combined strength of these forces finally destroyed the citadel of conservatism. Liberalism persisted even in countries that were carefully supervised, such as Germany and Italy. Students in German Universities formed secret societies for the promotion of liberal ideas. Demand for constitutional government and national independence came from the educated men in Italy. Metternich was able to suppress the occasional uprisings in Italian states, but he could not stamp out the ideas. The Greeks revolted against their Ottoman oppressors and won their independence (1827) despite Metternich's passive resistance.

The French Revolution of July 1830, the first effective break in the settlements of 1815, was a real revival of the spirit of 1789. It drove out the Bourbons and placed on the throne a compromise candidate, Louis Philippe. The conservative powers feared a recurrence of the condition that followed the revolution of 1789 and in a measure, their fears were justified. The overthrow of Charles X in France was a signal for widespread revolt all over Holland. Outbreaks occurred in the German states also but they were quickly suppressed. Italy went through the throes of another outbreak, which Austria, after a bitter struggle was about to suppress. Liberals and democrats, in general, took courage and planned for further action.

In Great Britain, the reform of the electoral and parliamentary systems in 1832 helped to make legislative enactment the normal means of administrative and social changes. Just as the abolitionists succeeded in getting the reformed parliament to end slavery and just as the free traders induced parliament to repeal Corn Laws and Navigation Laws. So, a host of other zealous improving movements now concentrated upon Parliamentary action as the road to reform.

Most often, leaders of these movements were radicals of diverse hues, ranging from Chartists (seeking democratic reorganisation of the electorate and parliament) to 'philosophical radicals' like Edwin Chadwick and J.S. Mill and disciples of Jeremy Bentham (who sought to remodel public administration and the system of justice in terms of great efficiency and responsibility to the people). On some issues, these different movements would combine forces, on others they would fall into dispute. The common framework within which all worked was constitutional government and the purpose of most of their activities was to get a bill through parliament. Thus, they turned parliament into an instrument of social welfare.

The radical reformers succeeded in getting through parliament, in 1834, an Act to reform the whole system of 'poor relief'. Though the reorganisation did not work out as had been intended by most enthusiastic supporters, the effect in the end was to yield a system of 'poor relief' more efficient in its working and more subject to democratic control than the old. The principle of delegating tasks of national administration to specially created authorities subject to local representative bodies was imitated for subsequent reforms, most significantly for the protection of public health.

In France, the July Monarchy (i.e., the monarchy that was set up after the July 1830 Revolution) brought a move in the same direction of providing the minimum conditions of a civilised life. Just as the British Parliament in 1833 passed an Act regulating child labour, so in 1841 the French Parliament passed an Act on the same lines. Just as the English Whigs reformed municipal government, so the French liberals in 1831 set up general district councils on which elected members could sit beside the nominated members. These elected members were gradually entrusted with the care of certain social welfare activities. Though the French state undertook a general supervision of the work of local Poor Law authorities in 1828 itself, it was slower than the British to take any direct share in Poor Law Administration. In education, however, the opposite was true. In 1833, when the British Parliament granted a meagre sum of 20,000 for the promotion of elementary education, the French government passed its Education Act, planning to set up state-aided primary schools in every commune.

In Belgium, its wealthy bourgeoisie showed in these years even less concern for social problems, though conditions in mines and factories in Belgium were no better, nor effects of economic depression any less severe than in Britain or France. Liberal and Catholic parliamentarians, representing the same social class, were in agreement that social questions did not matter politically. Wages were determined by the laws of supply and demand, and the poor had no rights, save to appeal to charity.

In the whole of Germany, except Prussia, the relatively backward economic conditions were reflected in little effort to achieve social reform. Small firms and handicrafts traders persisted and governments were scarcely conscious of the pressure of more modern industrial problems. Similarly, elsewhere in Europe, no pattern of liberal reform could be detected. In Scandinavia, the Danish kings preserved their absolutist powers virtually intact; but the Swedish king had, by 1840, liberalised his government both in Sweden and Norway. In 1840, the king of Netherlands had so used his autocratic powers that he was forced to abdicate in favour of his more popular son. In general, the forces of conservatism remained dominant and usually repressive.

What is the Nature and Impact of 1848–49 Revolution? The liberal governments after 1830 were too inhibited by their dependence upon mercantile and manufacturing interests to handle effectively the social distress of their people. It became evident in one country after another that governments had still not been brought into sensitive enough relationships with the needs of the whole society to serve these needs efficiently. The inevitable result was a swelling demand for further liberal reforms and for immediate extensions of democratic policies. It were these pent up forces that brought about the almost universal revolution in 1848–49.

From West to East, Europe was threatened with outbreaks in 1848–49. As in 1789 and 1830, the spark was ignited in France; Louis Philippe was overthrown and a republic was established. Revolutionary fervour penetrated Austria, the bulwark of conservatism, so that Metternich was forced to seek temporary shelter in another land. Italy joined the army of revolutionists and Germany followed suit. The revolts proved to be premature, as France under Napoleon III slipped back to conservatism and Austria recovered, after initial failure, to drive the revolutionists out of Italy and the German states. Absolute governments had been challenged but not destroyed. Russia, Austria and Germany managed to retain their reactionary governments until the time of World War I. A government by the people was destined to rise gradually through evolutionary principles, rather than through spontaneous revolutions. England was an excellent example of how effectively this could be done.

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

The economic and social changes, combined with the new personnel and the new spirit of politics, made for important developments in the machinery of government and administration between 1850 and 1870. There grew up an uneasy feeling that parliamentary institutions, as they had developed by 1850, were inadequate for the needs of the changing societies of Western Europe. In Britain, these were decades of widespread popular agitation for improvements in the parliamentary systems, which the failure of Chartism had left unrealised. The Reform Act of 1867 for instance nearly doubled the electorate of England and Wales, mainly by giving the vote to all householders of one year's residence in boroughs and all farmers in countries paying an annual rent of 12 pounds or more for their farms. In effect, it admitted to electoral power the whole of the lower middle class and the more well-to-do artisans of the towns. In 1868, this act was followed by comparable reforms in Scotland and Ireland. Although this important measure of parliamentary reform was so long delayed, the decades between 1850 and 1870 were years of incessant agitation for other reforms of all kinds.

Meanwhile, Gladstone's first administration of 1868–74 made itself a landmark in 19th century English liberalism, because it put into effect many of the reforms which popular associations of the previous two decades had urged in vain. In 1872, it established secrecy of the ballot for all parliamentary and local elections. After 1870, it abolished patronage in the civil services and enforced recruitment by competitive examination; it carried out similar reforms in the army and greatly improved the conditions of military service; it reorganised the judicial system by the Judicature Act of 1873, remodelling both the legal system and the courts. By these reforms it equipped the state to perform more efficiently the increasing burden of work which the needs and demands of a more democratic electorate would soon impose upon it.

France offers certain striking parallels in these years, despite the superficially different course of her development. When Louis Napoleon, in December 1852 made himself Emperor of France by a coup, he reverted to a system of government, similar to that of his more illustrious namesake. He tried to mask and legitimise the usurpation by three devices: (a) by preserving the shadow of parliamentary government in the form of packed assemblies based on managed elections; (b) by popular plebiscites; and (c) by giving France, in his policy, what he thought would be most popular and beneficial to the nation. His rule became a strange mixture of authoritarian government with increasing concession to parliamentary power and popular demands. The final result was development of France's parliamentary institution which made the Third Republic of 1875 possible.

France came to be ruled by a centralised despotism tempered only by opportunism and necessity from 1852. Within the next 18 years, France recovered bit by bit a more genuine system of parliamentary government. Universal male suffrage, instituted in 1848, he never dared to infringe, though he manipulated elections. In 1860, he had to make important concessions to parliament. The press, despite continued control and censorship, was allowed to publish fuller reports of parliamentary debates. From 1860 until 1869 further concessions had to be made to the growing clamour of the republican opposition. Despite many setbacks and handicaps, a vigorous and eventually successful republican opposition grew up. The so-called 'Liberal Empire' which came into existence after 1860 was at last as real a parliamentary regime as was the constitutional monarchy before 1848.

During this period, Belgium was governed by the liberal party Charles Roger, with the Catholic Party in opposition. As in other countries, the liberals tended to fall into his wings; the more doctrinate liberals demanding constitutional freedoms and believing in an economic policy of laissez-faire, and the more radical liberals concerned with extension of the franchise and improvement of social conditions. As in France, this division become especially important from 1863 onward; and as in France, trade union organisation was prohibited under the penal code. Only in 1867 did it become legal to organise workers, though labour organisations remained severely hampered in all their activities except as friendly societies and mutual aid associations.

In the development of parliamentary government in Britain, France and Belgium, between 1850 and 1870, a certain common pattern can be discerned underlying the more obvious differences. In all three, the institutions of parliamentary government were undoubtedly more deeply rooted, more resilient and more fully developed by 1870 than they had been in 1850 or they were elsewhere in 1870.

The Northern European states shared, to a large extent, in this common pattern of evolving parliamentary system after 1849. Here, a strong liberal party alternated in office throughout these years with the rival conservative party. In 1866, Sweden instituted a bicameral parliamentary system. Universal suffrage did not come, however, for another 50 years. In South Western Europe (Spain and Portugal), less solidly based constitutional systems fared less well, and these were years of acute instability. In part, the alternations of reactions and revolutions in Spain and Portugal were due to the instability of the monarchs themselves. Instability came mainly from the backward social development of these countries, which meant that no strong liberal parties could take shape. They lacked not only traditions of constitutional government and the habits engendered by them, but also the economic and social foundations on which the parliamentary parties of other western countries were developing.

How did Europe Progress during 1870–1914? In almost the whole of western and central Europe, parliamentary institutions developed between 1870 and 1914. They varied widely in form and in effectiveness, in their electoral basis and in the extent of their control over governments. Since most states were still kingdoms (Switzerland, France and after 1910, Portugal, being the only republics in Europe), these parliamentary institutions were usually, as in Great Britain, the bridge between strong centralised government authority and demands of people for more direct representations and more general participation in the shaping of national policies. They were at last a provisional solution to the old problem, which had agitated European civilisation since 1815, of how to establish a closer mutual relationship between the state and society, between government and community.

France was ahead of all other countries in having effective universal male suffrage from 1871 onwards. The electoral laws of 1848, which were revived in 1871 and again in 1875, gave the vote to some 10 million Frenchmen. The electorate of Britain after the reform acts of 1867–68 numbered only between 2.5 and 3 million. In 1884, Gladstone passed a further act which extended the electorate to about 5 million or roughly one-sixth of the population. This made the rural electorate as democratic as the urban, and was the first clear recognition to the radical principle that the individual was entitled to vote. It was followed by redistribution of seats which established constituencies for all the universities and the larger towns (above 50,000 people) together with the secret ballot, which had been instituted in 1872. These reforms launched Britain on the broad road towards political democracy. In neither Britain nor France were women given the parliamentary vote before 1914, and in Britain nearly a quarter of even the adult male population remained vote-less until 1918. Since the general principles of universal personal suffrage had now won the day, it was to be only a matter of time before they permeated the electoral systems of both countries.

Other West European states, having instituted parliamentary systems in the years before 1870, developed along comparable lines. In Belgium, until 1893 property qualifications restricted the electorate to less than 5 per cent of the population, but a reform of that year established universal male suffrage with the addition of plural voting for men with special property or educational qualification. In Netherlands, reforms of 1887 and 1896 extended the electorate from 2 per cent to 1 per cent of the population, but universal suffrage came only in 1917. Spain introduced the universal male suffrage in 1890 and Norway in 1898 Finland and Norway pioneered female suffrage in 1907. In Portugal and Sweden, the electorate remained comparatively restricted until after 1900. The two great new states of Germany and Italy differed widely in those respects. Bismarck had permitted the Reichstag (Parliament) to be elected by universal male suffrage, but the decisive power wielded by the upper house, and still more by the Emperor and his Chancellor, ensured that government could be conducted without undue dependence on a democratically elected assembly. In Italy, on the other hand, the constitutional monarchy retained its mid-19th century restrictiveness, and even the electoral reform of 1882 widened the electorate to only about 2 million or 17 per cent of the population. Most Italian men gained the vote at last in 1912. While the age for voting rights was 21 in Britain and France, in most other countries it was more. In Germany it was as high as 25, and in Italy, even in 1914, it was 30.

What was the Outcome? Underlying all these happening in spite of many divergences and restrictions, there can be discerned a great tide of movement. Democracy was advancing everywhere in Europe, and by 1914 it was touching the frontiers of Asia. The symbol was the right of the individual citizen to vote increasingly buttressed from the 1880s onwards by secrecy of the ballot. The vote was often endowed, by enthusiastic radicals and frightened conservatives alike, with a magic power. Too many radicals expected universal suffrage to bring the millennium, while too many conservatives and moderate liberals took the radicals at their word, and feared that democracy would demolish monarchy, Church, religion, and all that they cherished. Therefore, the struggle for extension of the franchise and secrecy of the ballot was long and bitter, raising exaggerated hopes on one side, excessive fear on the other.

By 1914, nearly every state in Western Europe had a code of legislation governing the building of houses and the making of streets; minimum standards of sanitation, safety and conditions of labour in factories, mines and mills, regulating the entry of ships into ports; and enforcing standards of purity and cleanliness in food and drink. Every state, in this minimum sense, was becoming a welfare state even before 1914. Hence, a host of important consequences followed. Parliament became busier passing legislation that imposed upon governments new kinds of work and organisation; local authorities and officials blossomed into fresh life; and new sources of taxation were tapped to finance such activities.

Russian Revolution of 1917–1921

The Russian revolution was a time of socioeconomic reconstruction in the Soviet Union. It was an escalation of the process which had adversely affected the autocracy after its defeat in the Crimean War (1856) and in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05). While the revolution owes its origin to the incompatibility of the mystic authority of the Czars within increasingly industrialised society, the immediate cause was the inability of the prevalent system to manage a world war. In the short period of two and a half years, Russia suffered drastic damage – 5.5 million men died, the troops were short of ammunition and the civilians of food. To worsen the situation, in the last year of Czarism, there were four different prime ministers, three war ministers and three foreign ministers.

Among the revolutionaries there were two main groups – the liberal intelligentsia, who felt that Russia could win the war and become a democratic republic, and the Bolsheviks who regarded the 'imperialist' war as a lost one and preferred a drastic change to the economy. The second group was supported by social revolutionaries. The first group carried out the February Revolution while the Bolsheviks staged the October Revolution. (Russia was still using the Julian calendar in 1917, and was hence 13 days behind the West. Therefore, according to the West, each of the revolutions took place in the following months, i.e., in March and November respectively).

The first challenge the Bolsheviks faced after coming to power was that of creating the new socialist society which they had preached for so long. Soon they discovered that it was not an easy task. They had no examples to emulate in history and had to resort to experiments. Initially, there was no scope for experiments because the struggle for survival took precedence over everything else. The so-called 'War Communism' that prevailed between 1917 and 1921 evolved out of desperate measures taken to supply the battlefront with essential materials and manpower. Under this War Communism banks, lands, foreign traders and heavy industries were all nationalised. Surplus agricultural produce too was forcibly requisitioned to feed the troops and city dwellers. The original plan was to compensate the peasants with manufactured goods, but this proved impossible because all that was produced had to be sent to the front.

With the end of the civil war, the necessity for War Communism ended and it was promptly dropped. Lenin realised that concessions were unavoidable and this led to the adoption of the New Economic Policy, or NEP as it was popularly known, in 1921. It allowed a partial restoration of capitalism. Peasants could sell their produce on the open market and individuals were allowed to operate small stores and factories. The peasants and new merchants could employ labour and retain any profits.

However, Lenin ensured that the state retained control of title to land and banking, foreign trade, heavy industry and transportation. As Lenin saw it, the NEP did not mean the end of socialism but temporary retreat to prepare for a renewed march forward.

Why did it Take Place? Discontentment was growing among the various interest groups of Russia, such as the proletariat, the peasantry, and the bourgeoisie. Despite the slow pace of modernisation of the industry and agriculture, considerable progress was made in the economic life of Russia during the 19th century. In the early 18th century Peter, the Great, had opened the doors of Russia to foreign trade which was later continued by Catherine and Alexander II. In the last quarter of the 19th century considerable progress was made in establishing textile and metallurgical industries, and by 1900 about 269 foreign firms were operating in Russia. The introduction of all these reforms almost doubled her industrial output, but they also caused several new socio-economic problems.

The proletariat or workers in industrial centres had to live in pitiful conditions and worked in highly dangerous surroundings. Further, supply of labour was much more than the industries needed, and consequently the workers were at the mercy of their employers. Labour unions were not permitted to operate freely. Fear of the unions was so much that the state even colluded militarily with the employers to suppress unions. As a result, there was massive labour unrest and the strikes eventually began to take a political turn. Thus, agitations against the employers were turned against the rulers.

The peasants and serfs were no different from slaves, because they were bound to their land, sold by the lords along with the land, provided free labour for specified periods and could not even marry without the permission of the lords. (In the middle of the 19th century, the serfs numbered 45 million. Half of them were directly under the Crown while the other half were under the nobles, the Church and other institutions.) Ever since the time of Peter, the Great, serfs had been agitating for emancipation. The agitation of the serfs was so strong in the 19th century that Alexander II appealed to the nobility to abolish it from below. Eventually the Czar succeeded in freeing the serfs, but could not ameliorate their economic conditions.

The Czar, besides freeing the serfs, also arranged for them to possess some land, which was kept with the village community, called the 'Mir'. Every peasant worked in the Mir and claimed a share of the produce in return. Deprived of the land ownership, the serfs considered the Mirs as another kind of over-lordship. They were also convinced that the payment demanded from them for the land was unfair. Further, due to the process of industrialisation, handicrafts and rural industries were declining, and, on the whole, the opportunities and income of the peasants decreased. Consequently, the peasants began to agitate for more meaningful reforms, and between 1861 and 1917, staged a series of revolts. When the Revolution of 1917 broke out, they wholeheartedly supported it.

The Industrial Revolution produced a dynamic middle class, comprising merchants, industrialists and other businessmen, who were economically well-off, but had no significant political and social privileges. So, they combined with the intellectual liberals in demanding some system of representative government. Thus, when the 20th century dawned, the challenge to the autocratic system of Russia came more from liberalism than from socialism.

The middle class dominated Zemstovs (local assemblies) became active and came up with a definite programme of reform. They demanded a freely elected national assembly, a responsible ministry, equality of all citizens, and freedom of the press, religion and speech. Czar Nicholas II, who was against any kind of reform, turned a deaf ear to these demands.

The Russian monarchy was autocratic without being efficient. The Czars who ruled the state enjoyed absolute powers. Believing in the divine theory of kingship, they never permitted their powers to be checked by anybody or institution. Till the end of the 19th century, people were kept out of political responsibilities, and there was no Parliament in Russia during this period.

The Russian autocracy stood discredited by military disasters on a number of occasions. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Russia was involved in four great wars: the Napoleonic War, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the Great War of 1914–18. Excepting the first, the Russian army fared poorly in all the other wars, thereby exposing the weakness of the Russian military and political systems. This compelled the Czars to concede some reforms. The Crimean War was followed by the reforms of Alexander II, including the grant of freedom to the serfs; Russo-Japanese War was followed by the foundation of the Duma or the Parliament; the first World War ended the institution of monarchy and rule of the Czars.

Despite the attempts of the Czars to close Russia from the liberal and radical ideas of the West, the influence of West European thought and practice was felt in the country and produced a movement disruptive of the established order. These influences naturally found expression in literature. The great novels of Tolstoy, Turgonev and Dostoviesky immensely inspired the young Russians. The radical intellectuals, on the other hand, fired up by Marx and Bakunin, turned to Socialism and Anarchism. One result of the influence of Anarchism was the growth of Nihilism which aimed at destroying everything in the existing order of Russia. Nihilism was, however, stamped out, but Socialism proved itself to be more lasting. It was from the new class of industrial workers, who had to work hard under pathetic working conditions, that the gospel of Socialism received the best response. In the 1890s, Marx's teachings were made popular by radicals like the novelist Maxim Gorky, and revolutionary socialism made rapid progress among factory workers. The 'Workmen's Social Democratic Party' was formed in 1895.

The peasantry, now led by middle-class radicals, imitated the example of the urban proletariat and in 1901 organised the 'Social Revolutionary Party' with a programme that included the confiscation of the large estates of the nobility and their division into small individual holdings.

The Social Democratic Party, however, suffered a split on the questions of tactics and party discipline. Its radical section led by Vladmir Ulianov, better known as Lenin (pen name), broke away and came to be known as the 'Bolsheviks'. The Bolsheviks advocated extreme measures and were keen to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat immediately by force and violence, if necessary. They did not recognise any class other than that of the workers, and were hostile to any collaboration with bourgeois political parties.

The moderate members of the party, known as 'Mensheviks', were less radical in their views and methods. They were willing to wait for the final success of Socialism by an evolutionary process, and were ready to cooperate with other political parties in overthrowing autocracy which they felt to be the immediate danger.

The immediate spark to the Revolution was, however, provided by the World War I by weakening the government machinery. While Russia suffered unprecedented losses in human beings on the battle front, on the home front, chaos was created by the inadequate handling of the supply of munitions. By mid-1915 both the centre and left groups in the Duma were demanding moderate reforms.

Empress Alexandra actively opposed all reforms, and kept goading the Czar to act more autocratically. When Nicholas took personal command of the armies in field and prorogued the Duma, the empress virtually ruled at home. Her supremacy meant also the ascendancy of her favourite, the unscrupulous adventurer, Rasputin. With the Empress and her favourite in control, a gang of shady adventurers, blackmailers, and profiteers created a series of shocking scandals.

Despite continuous warnings from moderates in the Duma that the government itself was paving the way for a revolution by its failure to create a responsible ministry and to clean up the mass, the Czar reminded apathetic So, in the early months of 1917, all conditions favoured a revolution, but the revolutionaries themselves were not yet ready.

Areas Affected by the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions

What was February Revolution? The February (March) Revolution of 1917 took everyone by surprise. Strikes and bread riots broke out in Petrograd due to a severe shortage of food and fuel. The army was ordered to restore normalcy, but the soldiers mutinied and joined the demonstrators. The Czar, always distrustful of the Duma, suspected it of complicity and ordered its dissolution. The Duma leaders refused to comply and the Czar discovered that he could no longer enforce discipline. Russia had no functioning government. This became a legal reality after Czar Nicholas abdicated in favour of his brother Michael, who too gave up the crown the next day.

Russian Revolution of 1917

A new structure had to be quickly created lest the radical elements on the streets take over. So a provisional government was set up to administer until a Constituent Assembly could be elected. The new government was headed by the liberal prince George Lovi and included Cadet leader, Professor Paul Milinkov, as foreign minister and Alexander Kerensky, the sole socialist, as minister for justice. This was a bourgeois government – liberal, middle of the road cabinet which favoured restricted reform. It proclaimed freedom of speech, press and assembly; announced amnesty for political and religious offences; acknowledged legal equality of all citizens without social, religious or racial discrimination; and passed labour legislation including the eight-hour day. Despite these reforms the provisional government could not stabilise itself. For eight months, it tried in vain to provide law and order and finally, like the Czarist regime it succeeded, collapsed helplessly.

The period between March and November was a time of tussle for power between the provisional government and the Soviets. In this struggle, the provisional government was seriously handicapped because it refused to consider the two things that the Russians wanted most – peace and land. While they counselled for patience, the Soviets were attracting the masses by demanding peace and immediate distribution of land.

The origin of the Soviets can be traced to the 1905 Revolution when workers elected councils, or Soviets, to coordinate the struggle against Czarism. Though suppressed at the time, the Soviets proved their value as organs for agitation and direct action. They had the quality the provisional government lacked—mass support. The Soviet movement spread rapidly through the country, developing into a grassroots government and challenging the government in Petrograd. Village Soviets organised seizure of nobles' properties, city Soviets led unceasing demonstrations and street riots, and the soldiers' Soviets gradually usurped the authority of officers to the point where they controlled weapons and counter-signed orders before they could be executed.

In the initial stages, most of the elected members of to the Soviets were Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were relatively insignificant until the return of their leaders from Switzerland. Lenin arrived in Petrograd on April 16 and issued his famous 'April Thesis' demanding immediate peace, land to the peasants and all power to the Soviets. In the light of what followed, Lenin's demands may seem natural to us and logical too. In reality, they aroused great opposition within the Soviets amongst the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and some Bolsheviks. As Marxists, most delegates to the Soviets saw the March Revolution as a bourgeois uprising and believed that Socialist Revolution was out of question until Russia had undergone long term economic development. Their strategy, therefore, was to allow the provisional government to remain in office and to keep on prodding it for desired reforms and social change.

What was the October Revolution? Lenin challenged this policy and called for an immediate revolution. He was almost alone in this, but time was on his side; the longer the war continued, the more discontented people became and the more popular Lenins's slogans became. In six months, slogans that once sounded bizarre began to be seen as reasonable. By late 1917, people were desiring a second revolution, if that would rid them of the provisional government which was preventing the much sought after peace and land for all.

An early indication of changing public mood was the forced resignation of the Foreign Minister Milinkov. His insistence that Russia continue the war made him very unpopular. Hence he was dropped and a new provisional government was formed under Lvov and Kerensky. It was in office for a month only when Kerensky, who had been gradually becoming strong, organised a new government with himself as the prime minister. An indication of the mood of the country can be ascertained from the fact that the new ministers were mostly Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Kerensky was cooperating with these two groups so as to counter Lenin and his Bolsheviks.

At this point, Kerensky announced that his aim was 'to save the revolution from extremists'. Unfortunately, however, he did not get the support of the army and other conservatives. They regarded him as a weakwilled, loud-mouthed politician and wanted him to take immediate steps to crush the Soviets. His refusal to oblige sparked off an army revolt by Gen. Kornilov with the declared aim of freeing the government from Soviet domination.

However, the effect of Kornilov's revolt had the opposite effect from what he intended. The Soviets took the lead in organising resistance against Kornilov and conducted propaganda against him until many of his troops abandoned him. Kornilov was thus defeated by the Soviets and Kerensky found himself under their domination. Additionally, the Bolsheviks were gaining influence within the Soviets as public opinion swung increasingly to the left. By October, the Bolsheviks established majority in both Moscow and Petrograd Soviets. Lenin decided that the time had come to overthrow Kerensky and bring about the second revolution. His party was, however, unsure and feared that it would not be able to retain power even if the provisional government was overthrown. Lenin convinced the Central Committee of his stand only after threatening to resign. The party voted for revolution and the date was set for November.

There was almost no resistance and the actual revolution was anti-climatic. The Bolshevik forces seized key positions in Petrograd – railway stations, banks, bridges and government buildings. The only bloodshed took place at the Winter Palace and the causalities there totalled one Red soldier and five Red sailors. Kerensky escaped and tried to organise a revolution. After this failed attempt, he fled abroad. The provisional government fell in a humiliating manner; with no fighting, Kerensky had as few supporters as Czar Nicholose had in March.

Lenin's promise to the people was 'Peace, Land and Bread.' Workers established control of factories, private trade was banned, and the property of the Church and counter-revolutionaries seized. An armistice was arranged on December 5th, followed by the Treaty of Brest-Litousk on March 3, 1918. The first Soviet Constitution was promulgated the following July.

How was the Civil War Fought? The Bolsheviks had to wage a bitter 'Civil War' (1917–20) against the counter-revolutionaries before they could hope to become masters of Russia. The counter-revolutionary armies (Whites) first organised resistance in December 1917. They were opposed by the 'Red Army' under the leadership of Trotsky. Several separate governments were established, and civil war continued for nearly three years in five regions, and the lack of cohesion between the various movements contributed to the Bolshevik success.

The Whites were a mixed bag, consisting of Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, ex-Czarist officers and several other groups which did not like what they had seen of the Bolsheviks. They were not aiming to restore the Czar, but simply to set up a parliamentary government on western lines. In Siberia, Admiral Kolchak set up a White government; General Denikin was in the Caucasus with a large White army. Most bizarre of all, the Czechoslovak Legion had seized long stretches of the Trans-Siberian Railway in the region of Omsk.

The situation was complicated by foreign intervention to help the Whites with the excuse that they wanted a government which will continue the war against Germany. When intervention continued even after the defeat of Germany, it became clear that the aim was to destroy the Bolshevik government which was now advocating world revolution. The situation looked grim for the Bolsheviks when early in 1919 Kolchak, whom the Allies intended to head the next government, advanced within three miles of Moscow, the new capital. However, Trotsky had done a remarkable job in creating the well-disciplined Red Army, based on conscription and including thousands of experienced officers from the old Czarist armies. Kolchak was forced back, and later captured and executed by the Reds; the Czech Legion was defeated and Denikin, advancing upon Moscow from the south, was forced to retreat. By the end of 1919, it was evident that the Bolsheviks would survive. From the Bolshevik point of view, however, the important thing was that they had won the civil war.

Why and how did Foreign Intervention take Place? A socialist regime in a capitalist world naturally sent danger signals in foreign countries and hence foreign intervention. For, there was all round economic distress and political unrest attending the World War I, and the western powers feared that the example of Russia might incite revolt among the working class within their own borders.

This fear was intensified by the Bolshevik propaganda for a world-wide Socialist Revolution. The Allied powers refused to recognise the Soviet government. The Soviet government was further alienated by Lenin's repudiation of foreign debts contracted under the old regime. Hence, they felt it necessary to interfere in the affairs of Russia.

Their object was two-fold: to prevent Germany from exploiting the disturbed situation in Russia to her own advantage, and to overthrow the Bolshevik government by supporting various attempts at counter-revolution which were being made during the years 1917–1920.

An Allied expeditionary force landed at Archangal and Murmansk to support the anti-Bolshevik party in North Russia, and a similar force consisting mainly of Japanese soldiers, occupied Vladivostok. British forces occupied positions in the Caucasus and the French occupied some places in Southern Russia as bases for helping the counter-revolutionary movements. Of these, the most serious was that of Cossacks of the south led by Kornilov, then by Denikin and finally by Wrangel.

For a time, it seemed as though the Bolshevik government would collapse before foreign intervention and domestic revolts. To make matters worse, Poland, incited by France and anxious to extend her frontiers, declared war against Russia.

Why did Bolsheviks Succeed? The Bolsheviks, however, pulled through all these troubles for which several causes are attributed. There was a great amount of disagreement in the ranks of the counter-revolutionaries, and so united action for any length of time became impossible. The royalists were at odds with the republicans, and the military leaders with the politicians.

The peasants supported the new government, because they feared the return of the old landlords, which would result in the loss of their newly acquired land. The workers were always with the Bolsheviks.

The Allied intervention was not only inadequate but also half-hearted. After the strain of World War I and with many post-war problems still unsolved, the Allies were not in a mood to undertake extensive military operations which were necessary to subjugate a huge country like Russia. Hence they withdrew their troops in 1919.

Deprived of foreign military support and weakened by divisions among themselves, the anti-Bolsheviks fared poorly against the Red Army under Trotsky. The counter-revolutionary forces were beaten everywhere and Poland was forced to come to an agreement.

What is the Significance of 1917 Revolution? The Russian Revolution of 1917, particularly the October (November) Revolution, has a great significance for not only Russia but for the entire humanity. It had successfully demonstrated the Marxist theory of a revolution for the first time in history. Every aspect of Russian society, economy, polity, religion, etc., was completely overhauled and came to be organised on communist lines.

At the same time, it disproved some of the theories of Marx that a Marxist Revolution can occur only in an industrially advanced and capitalist country. Thus, it gave Marxism a new dimension by demonstrating that a Marxist Revolution can take place even in a semi-industrialised country like Russia.

It was the first of its kind in the history of revolutions till then, where a single individual (Lenin) had played a crucial role.

Some scholars even contend that the origin of the later day Cold War and Super Power rivalry can be traced to this revolution.

Fascist Counter-Revolution in Italy And Germany

The period between the World wars (1918–1939) was one ever-recurring turmoil and trouble. Hopes of a free and happier world received many setbacks, particularly on the continent of Europe, where undermining of authority and weak governments led to the establishment of a number of dictatorships of which two are especially characterised as being totalitarian regimes – Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany.

In Italy, the end of the World War I was followed by strikes, vigorous anti-German propaganda and denunciations of patriotism due to dissatisfaction with Italy's territorial gains, and to high taxes and prices, which seemed to many to be the chief results of the war. A succession of weak governments failed to improve conditions, to restore public confidence, or even to maintain the semblance of order. Chafing under this state of affairs, a former Socialist, a man of fiery energy and blatant patriotism, Benito Mussolini, formed a party known as the 'Fascist' after the 'fasces' or rods which the victors or officers bore as symbols of their authority before the Roman Emperors. In 1922, a march on Rome was arranged and from that time until Mussolini's fall from power in 1943 Italy was a fascist state. The king was nominally the head of state, but the real power was exercised by Mussolini. During that period, no opinion was tolerated except that of the state: press, platform and university were all expected to promulgate the new doctrines; disobedience meant imprisonment or exile to a remote island. Besides, Fascism was anti-communist, even though its leader had been once an advanced socialist. Despite its sinister features, Fascism did some material good in Italy, and the people were made conscious of their destiny as the heirs of traditions and culture of imperial Rome. At the same time, the militancy and arrogance of the ancient Roman spirit were also inculcated with results which were eventually to lead Fascism and the monarchy which supported it to complete disaster.

Among Mussolim's admirers was an Austrian, named Adolf Hitler, a man of humble origin and little education who had served in the German army during World War I and had never risen above the rank of lance-corporal. After the war, Germany passed through a period of serious crisis. She failed to pay the heavy reparations demanded of her and depreciation of the currency reduced the value of the Mark (German currency) to such an extent that many Germans became destitute. Besides, the strong armies which the French, the Poles and Czechs were allowed to maintain on her boundaries caused uneasiness in Germany. When in 1929, the statesman Stressman who had honestly tried to organise the republic on non-military lines, died and soon after the Great Depression led to the withdrawal of American money from Germany, the condition of the country became so serious that the Germans were ready to hail almost any one as a saviour. This was Hitler's great opportunity. Six years earlier, his party (the National Socialist or Nazi party) had failed so completely in an attempt to seize power that few could have expected its revival as a powerful factor in German politics. It was apathy and despair which made Hitler's rise to power possible, but even so it could never have been achieved without the support which he got from German capitalists because he preached undeviating opposition to Communism, whose spread they had begun to fear. The government was too weak to suppress the brown-shirted private army which Hitler had gathered around him. In 1933, he became Chancellor and a year later, after the death of the aged president Hindenburg, the head of the German state.

As Chancellor, Hitler was responsible for Germany's secession from the League of Nations, and as 'Fuhrer' or leader, he carried the struggle further by large scale rearmament, conscription, reoccupation of prohibited districts in the Rhine land, and repudiation of restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. His methods were frequently ruthless. Traitors were executed, and Jews and open opponents of the Nazi regime were consistently persecuted. The extent of his influence and fanatical reverence with which he was regarded by millions of his subject, are as remarkable as his rise to absolute power from so lowly a beginning. He certainly did much to make the Germans more self-reliant that they had been since their defeat in war, and to improve their physique. Unfortunately, all that was for one end. Germany was to be a great military empire again, the dominant power in Europe, and ultimately in the world. Self-reliance turned to arrogance and brutal interference in the affairs of other countries.

Fascism in Italy

What is Facism? 'Fascism', an Italian term, is derived from the word 'Fascio', which means a bundle. It denotes a centralised autocratic regime with extremely nationalistic policies and with an economic system based on state controlled capitalism. It was first used for the movement which started in Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. The Italian parliamentary government had shown little concern for the welfare of agricultural and industrial workers whose conditions were miserable in the extreme. It had, instead, plunged Italy into World War I in the hope of gaining colonies, but the peace treaties had failed to satisfy the ambitions of the Italians. Further, the growing strength of the socialist movement in Italy posed a threat to the existing systems. Hence, the capitalists and the landlords who dominated the Italian government at the time began to support anti-democratic and anti-socialist movements which promised to save them from the danger of socialism as well as to satisfy their colonial aspirations.

Fascist Regimes in Europe

Though the fascists gave up their street violence and gangsterism to a great extent after coming to power, they did not hesitate to use them whenever there was a threat to their position. They did not tolerate any opposition and, in fact, banned all political parties except their own party. Thus, its anti-democratic character gave rise to its authoritarian and totalitarian nature. Mussolini became the virtual dictator of Italy, though, in theory, the king remained the legal head of the stage. All the individuals and institutions within Italy were subordinated to the state. Thus, is clear from Mussolini's statement that everything should be for the state and nothing against the state.

Though Mussolini was formerly a staunch Socialist before starting the fascist movement, he soon became the leader of a crusade against Socialism and Communism. After becoming a fascist, he lost the Marxist feature of reason and analysis but retained the Marxist preparedness for violence and action. So, with the help of his armed gangs, he let out reign of terror against the Socialists and Communists both before coming to power and after. The signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1937 with Nazi Germany and Japanese is evidence of his efforts to curb communism and socialism at the international level. Because of this anti-socialist and anti-communist feature of Italian Fascism, the capitalists and the big landlords of Italy became its supporters. The economic policy of the Fascists, though was pro-worker and pro-peasant before coming to power soon became pro-capitalist and the big industrialists and landlords made merry at the expense of small industrialists and small peasants.

One of the primary objectives of Italian Fascism was to heighten the prestige of Italy in the eyes of foreign nations. Hence, they glorified war as a symbol of national virility. They aimed at reviving the prestige of ancient Rome, and securing for Italy the position of a world power. Though the nationalism of the fascists was highly irrational, symbolic and ritualistic, it was the most important thing as an emotional feeling to secure for Fascism the support of divergent sections of the Italian society. This feature of Italian Fascism amply explains Fascist Italy's conquest of Albania and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and also her participation in the World War II.

What Led to the Rise of Facism? It should be noted that the extensions of the franchise between 1870 and 1912 outran the growth of literacy so that the electorate were not sufficiently enlightened to make parliamentary democracy a success. On account of the prevalence of a regional spirit, a healthy party life did not develop. The members formed themselves into groups and in each group there was a tendency to fissure. All of these, coupled with the corruption which corroded the public life of Italy, enabled the politicians to reduce politics to a game of skill.

Governments, therefore, became unstable, a matter of expedients and shifts, beaten groups, a policy with which the name off Giolitti is most prominently associated in the years before the Great War. The result was a certain discrediting of parliamentary and democratic government as unsuited to Italy, an alien to her traditions.

Many ardent Italian nationalists felt that Italy had not been sufficiently compensated for her efforts and sacrifices in the war. They wanted a government which would take up a hard line and not be conciliatory in its attitude towards international affairs.

The problems of readjustment to post-war conditions appeared too great for people who were by nature impatient and highly mercurial. During the war and after, Italy was full of disorder and discontent arising mostly from economic and financial hardships. Poor before, she was poorer now, because of war expenditures. The cost of living rose very high. As a result, the people, particularly the lower classes like labourers, peasants, etc., suffered greatly.

There were many disorders arising out of activities of the socialists and the communists. Socialism and communism, which had been active before the war, now increased their strength. In many quarters, especially the industrial regions of the north, there were serious labour strikes and in some cases, the workers seized the factories. Even the peasantry were affected. For, in some of the rural communities the peasantry drove out the landlords and seized their properties. A social revolution seemed to threaten the country and it looked, for some years, as if Italy might go communists. The government under Nitti, and then under Giolitti, proved incapable of dealing with the situation, and its prestige was badly shaken. Bold leadership was wanted, and this was eventually supplied by the fascists.

The Fascists, under Mussolini, showed the ability to win over the support of several disparate and contradictory sections of the Italian population. Due to the autonomy of the local groups of Fascists, they could graft themselves on to local traditions, to exploit local rivalries, to appear republican, syndicalist, nationalist, etc., according to the strength of the local social grouping and political traditions.

What was Its Social Base? Support for Fascism, to begin with, came mainly from the middle classes of the petty bourgeoisie of small employers, shopkeepers, and the various professional classes. To these classes, faced with a serious decline in living standards, Fascism offered not only psychological reassurance but a means of overcoming the serious defect of disorganisation which rendered them helpless in the face of pressure from the forces of organised capitalism, on the one hand, and the trade unions on the other. It was hoped that the Syndical state, promised by the Fascists, by making organisations universal and compulsory, would end the disadvantageous position of the middle classes who would, in fact, become the arbiters of disagreement between capital and labour.

Another socially 'marginal' group which supported Fascism was the intellectual proletariat or 'Boheme' consisting of unsuccessful journalists, aspiring be poets and dramatists, and out-of-work publishers. Fascism offered them a career and the recognition which had eluded them. The ex-servicemen and the volunteers found an outlet for their talent and experience in the organisation of the Fascist movement, which believed in violent action and terrorism.

The growth of the 'Fasci' was powerfully assisted and sometimes even initiated by the regular army. The anti-militarist propaganda of the socialists and frequent incidents in which workers attacked officers on leave influenced their grievances. The failure of the parliamentary government to restore order and vacillation of successive government over the question of military reorganisation helped the army to come out openly in support of Fascism.

The common policeman could not but sympathise with the Fascists after they had been exposed to the constant harassment, insults and often violence of the extreme left for the two years. The same reasons were responsible for the partisan attitude of the magistrates. This attitude of the organs of the government, compounded equally of partiality and fear, allowed the Fascists to bring about the complete disintegration of the liberal state.

Some industrialists and propertied people were from the beginning willing to participate actively in the fascist movement, as the instrument of anti-Bolshevik crusade. However, in the initial period of fascism, the traditional industrial establishment of ship-builders, steel-makers, or automobile manufacturers did not support Mussolini. It was the war-time profiteers, fearful of punitive taxation or confiscation, and the local entrepreneurs of agrarian-based industries that gave full support to Fascists in those early years. Given the relationship between heavy industry and the state, it was inevitable that, once Fascism had shown its power to seize control of the state, support would also come from the heavy industrial establishment.

Landlords and peasants, however, were far more committed to the success of the movement. The landlords supported it since it seemed to be the best instrument to check Bolshevism, while the peasant supported it because the Fascists promised, at least in the initial stages, agrarian reforms like land to the tiller, etc. Besides, the agrarians never had an organisation of their own comparable in efficiency to the 'Confindustria' (Confederation of industrial leaders). This failure created a strong resentment against the parliamentary government. The agrarian class was, therefore, less concerned than the industrialists to back the Fascists in demanding a clear sweep.

Mussolini, being an opportunist, saw the necessity of coming to terms with the Church. As a connoisseur of collective psychology, he could not fail to appreciate the force and influence of the Church. On the other hand, the dignitaries of the Church were ready to respond to his overtures. They might dislike and fear the Fascists, but they disliked and feared the socialists more. As a result, a good number of Catholics joined the Fascist movement. Thus, Mussolini was able to get the support of even the Church. Similarly, Fascism had to accept the continuation of the Monarchy which had the direct loyalty of the armed forces. In return, the crown supported Fascism.

Thus, Fascism had arisen as a mass movement on a local basis by the creation of local fascio. Because of their autonomy, the fascio were able to graft themselves on to local traditions – to exploit local rivalries, according to the strength of the local social groupings and political traditions. In this manner, through its democracy and actions, Fascism claimed support from different and contradictory sections of the population and emerged as a mass party.

What was its Economic Policy? After coming to power, Fascism tried to reform the nation's fiscal system by abolishing extraordinary tax on war profits and property and rescind the requirement that stocks and bounds be registered in the name of the owner; all in an effort to stimulate savings and capital investment. All these measures produced the highest rate of saving and capital accumulation and a rate of industrial growth that doubled Italy's total output by 1929. Iron and steel production and electrical power generation were doubled. This shows that during 1922–1929 Italy was undergoing extensive economic and industrial development and modernisation.

This development was not a well-balanced one. The large grain, coal and scrap metal imports began to create structural tensions throughout the economy by 1926 itself. As a result, the international exchange value of the Lire (Italian currency) declined. Consequently, the fascist government was forced to undertake two main programmes – 'The Battle for Grain' and 'The Battle for the Lire'. Due to the measures taken under the first programme, the production of grain per hectare increased from 10.5 quintals (1928) to 15.2 quintals per hectare in 1932. By 1935, Italy was no longer compelled to expend 15 percent off its total foreign exchange for the importation of cereals. However, this programme, just like so many other Fascist programmes, benefited the larger proprietors than small proprietors. The second programme was rather mainly used by Mussolini to extend political control over the economy.

Fascist Italy fell victim to all the consequences of the world Depression of 1929–1932. Most of the policies pursued by the Italian Fascist government, such as taking over the banks, setting up of specialised institutions for economic recovery, lowering of salaries and wages in response to the crisis, etc., were in many ways similar to those undertaken by non-fascist governments on the Continent and in the U.S.

Whatever economic measures and programs the Fascists state undertook helped the big industrialist and large farm holders, whether directly or indirectly. The small industrialists, the small farmers and other middle classes always suffered, or at least did not benefit. Whether Fascism had intended to serve as a conservative movement or not, its policies directly or indirectly saved the conservative section of the Italian society.

What was its Labour Policy? Prior to the Fascist seizure of the power, they set up 'corporations' within the party at Bologna in January 1922. These corporations included representatives of capital and labour. Each corporation, in addition to representatives of the employers and employed, contained there members of the Fascist party to 'represent the public'. Though Mussolini was highly proud of his corporative state and declared that Fascist Italy had solved the social question of the 20th century, even Fascist sympathisers agree that the corporative system did not work in Italy. It added a bureaucracy of its own, but did not help either the production or the producers.

The issue of labour was not seriously tackled by the Fascist government until the beginning of 1926. In April 1926 all strikes and lockouts were forbidden. Even before this, due to the disintegration of the traditional working class organisations and the rapid expansion of Fascist Syndicalism, strike activity declined rapidly in Italy. As a result of the decline in aggressive working class defence of wages and living conditions, the real salaries of the workers also declined.

What was its Policy Towards the Church? The Fascists had to make a compromise with the church in order to get its support even before coming to power. Even after coming to power, they continued the same policy. Mussolini proved his respect for the church during his first 18 months in office by restoration of the crucifix in schools and public places, raising the stipends of the clergy, etc. In return, the church and the clerico-moderates extended their benevolent neutrality towards Fascists and supported Mussolini's rule.

During 1925–26 the elimination of Popolari (Catholic party) and the consolidation of the dictatorship seriously alarmed the Church. Hence, the Pope himself undertook serious negotiations for a settlement of the Roman question. Finally, the 'Lateran Agreements' consisting of the Treaty and the Concordat, were concluded in February 1929. The former was a political settlement according to which many political issues were solved. By the latter, Catholicism was confirmed the religion of the state.

These agreements, however, only started a fresh conflict. In 1931 both the parties started throwing accusations at each other. A breach between the Duce (Mussolini) and the Pope appeared imminent. It was in the nature of Italian Fascism that this did not occur. A compromise was reached early in September 1931, according to which the Catholic youth associations, which had been condemned and banned by the government in May, were re-allowed. After this, during the period between 1931 and 1938, the forces of Catholicism went a long way in adopting the slogans of the Fascist regime, especially in the fields of demographic policy, corporatism, and imperial expansion. The spread of hybrid clerico-fascist ideology was fortunately halted by the alliance of Mussolini with Hitler and the racial laws.

What was its Foreign Policy? The Fascists glorified war as a symbol of national virility, and they aimed at reviving the prestige of ancient Rome and securing for Italy the position of the world power. At the Versailles Peace Conference, the Allies had neglected Italy in the distribution of mandates, and so Mussolini sought to rectify this wrong by adopting a vigorous policy of colonial expansion.

His first objects were Tunisia and Corsica which were French possessions. Mussolini maintained that Italy had a better right to them. Besides, the two countries were competing for the control of the Western Mediterranean and superiority in naval armaments. Mussolini's provocative utterances put a severe strain on Franco-Italian relations for a time and produced a crisis. It was, somehow, averted for the time being.

Mussolini turned then his attention to Eastern Europe, where he obtained the Dodecanese islands and Fiume in 1924. Italy's relations with Yugoslavia also became more and more strained as the latter, promoted by Irredentist Movements (movement for redeeming land from foreign occupation), wanted to acquire a large portion of Dalmatia from Italy. The Italo-Yugoslav quarrel was in essence a struggle for the control of the Adriatic. This struggle was further intensified when Mussolini conquered Albania in 1933.

The most creditable achievement of Mussolini in the international affairs was his conquest of Ethiopia. Apparently, he wanted to take revenge for the humiliation of Italian forces at Adowa by the Abyssinians (people of Ethiopia) in 1896. The actual reason was that Italy was in need of colonies to enhance her prestige and to find more room and food for her growing population. Hence Mussolini took advantage of border 'incidents' at Walwal to attack Ethiopia in 1935. Its king appealed to the League of Nations for arbitration, which promptly declared Italy to be the aggressor. Mussolini, however, defied the League, conquered Ethiopia and proclaimed King Victor Emmannuel III as the Emperor of Ethiopia. Thereafter, Italy came closer to Germany, while her relations with France and Britain got strained.

In 1937, Italy became a signatory to the Anti-Comintern Pact, signed by Germany and Japan in 1936. Its ostensible object was to check the spread of Communism at the international level. So, in the civil war that the broke out in Spain in 1936, Italy and Germany supported insurgents headed by General Franco while Soviet Union supported the existing government. Thus, the Spanish Civil War ceased to be in the domestic concern of Spain alone but developed into a struggle between Communism and Fascism, fought on Spanish territory. It was a prelude to the larger struggle that followed very soon.

Mussolini arrived at an understanding with Hitler and, thus, began the Rome-Berlin Axis. When the Second World War broke out and the power of France collapsed, Mussolini joined Germany and declared war on Britain and France (1940). Mussolini's object was to take advantage of Britain's critical position to snatch away the British colonies in North Africa and to take Egypt and Suez Canal. The Italians had some initial success but were soon thrown back by the British who took possession of most of the African colonies of Italy such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, etc. Mussolini's African gamble had failed, and the Allied victory in North Africa proved to be the prelude to his fall.

Mussolini soon fell from power and Italy capitulated unconditionally. The German army in Italy offered a tough resistance and held up the Allied forces for five months. Rome was taken in June 1944. Before this, Mussolini was shot dead by the anti-Fascists. Thus ended the life of this phenomenal demagogue and the movement he founded in Italy.

Nazism in Germany

What is Nazism? 'Nazism' is a German from of Fascism in particular and a part of the right-wing movement in general. It started in Germany 1919 as a political movement. Its official name was National Socialist German Workers Party, but it soon became popularly known as the Nazi party and its followers were called 'Nazis'. When Adolf Hitler joined the party, it consisted of a little group of unimportant malcontents in Munich. Yet within 14 years, it became the biggest mass movement in German history, including in its cadre members of almost all groups of German society, from the unemployed workers to members of the imperial family of the Hohenzollerns and of several of the royal houses of the German states.

The essential features of German Nazism are similar to those of Italian Fascism. Appeal to the nationalist feeling of the highly sensitive Germans was one of the main ways through which Hitler and his Nazi party became so popular. The form of nationalism that Hitler evoked in the Germans was so extreme that we cannot make any distinction between this extreme form of nationalism and militarism. This union between nationalism and militarism can, in fact, be seen clearly not only in Germany under Hitler, but also in Italy under Mussolini and in Japan between 1928 and 1945.

Nazism abhorred and hence suppressed all forms of democracy, and throughout the reign of the Nazis in Germany we can witness innumerable anti-democratic measures. Besides, the Nazis, like the Fascists in Italy, held that the individual exists for the sake of the state and not vice-versa. This anti-individualist nature of Nazism was due to the influence of the authoritarian and totalitarian political thinkers, like Hegel, Nietzsche etc., on the Nazis. Hence, during the period of Nazi dictatorship, individual was subordinated to the state in every conceivable form.

The Nazis believed that the real threat to their position came from the communists. Initially when they were consolidating their position against social democrats, they adopted friendly posture towards the communists in Germany and also signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy in 1936–37. This anti-communist characteristic of Nazism can also be seen in the ruthless suppression of the trade unions by the Nazis in Germany.

Nazis captured power in Germany during the period of a crisis through a clever manipulation of the frustrations of the people. They were fully aware that they could remain in power only through perpetuating that crisis. Germany between 1933–36 recovered from the economic crisis which brought Nazis to power. Therefore, it was necessary for the Nazis to create some other crisis in order to remain in power. The need to create an artificial crisis was thus one of the most important causes for the aggressive foreign policy of Hitler and his occupation of the neighbouring countries, which ultimately resulted in the outbreak of the World War II.

Some Marxist scholars hold that Nazism was a response to a crisis in Capitalism, and hence its basic purpose was to revive Capitalism. Whether this opinion is acceptable or not, the fact remains that under the Nazi rule, Capitalism in Germany recovered from the crisis of 1929–32 and made good progress throughout. So, whatever might have been the purpose of Nazism, Nazism was undoubtedly pro-capitalist.

The Nazis believed that all the problems of Germany were due to the activities of the Jews, who belonged to the Semitic race. The economic problems of Germany were ascribed to the economic domination of Germany by the Jews, most of whom were money-lenders and bankers. Even the defeat of Germany in the World War I was ascribed to the betrayal of Germany by German Jews. Thus, the resentment against the economic domination of Germany by Jews was given a racial colour. This anti-Semitic nature of Nazism explains the persecution and even physical extermination of millions of Jews not only in Germany but all over Europe. This feature is peculiar and unique to Nazism as it is not to be found either in Italian Fascism or Japanese Militarism.

What Led to its Rise in Germany? There was a kind of malaise in the German society and economy in the form of general disaffection or discontentment of the major groups at this time. We should, however, remember that the disaffection was structural and endemic in all Western industrialised societies. It was intensified in Germany due to some historical factors like non-competitive highly centralised high priced industrial economy, disproportionate influence of a small class of land owners (the Junkers), too many rural small landholders inflated urban petty bourgeoisie, etc.

The Versailles Treaty with all its humiliating terms and restrictions, adverse economic consequences of the war, the generation of demobilise soldiers, the floating population of eastern refugees of mostly aristocrats, the liquidation of millions of war loans floated with middle class savings, etc., further complicated the socio-economic problems of Germany. The results were paradoxical: on the one hand, consistent and uninterrupted extension of the social tendencies of the pre-war era, and on the other hand, ideological misinterpretation of these tendencies were reflected in the loss of economic independence, the ballooning white collar population and so on.

The World Depression adversely affected not only the U.S.A., France, England but also Germany. After the World War I, Germany was required to pay huge amounts to Britain and France as war indemnity. It borrowed heavily from these two countries, which, in turn, got their loans from the U.S. When the crisis began in New York finances market, the U.S. recalled the money from Britain and France, who, in turn, recalled their money that was lent out to Germany. Hence, the real brunt of the crisis was borne by Germany.

The Social Democrats who were in power in Germany at this time could not offer any concrete solutions to these accumulated problems of Germany, which were further aggravated by the world economic crisis. The Nazis, on the other hand, fully exploited the situation to their advantage and succeeded in attracting the discontented social groups to their side by their ideology.

Authoritarian and totalitarian traditions of German thinkers like Hegel, Nietzsche, Trietsche, etc. were also responsible for the rise of Nazism in Germany. Hegel held that the 'State was the march of God on Earth', and hence the individual exists for the sake of the state and not vice versa. Nietzsche put forward the concept of 'Super Man', and held that everything within the state should be subordinated to him. The Nazis borrowed very generously form the theories of these German authoritarian and totalitarian thinkers in formulating their own ideas of state.

Adolf Hitler, gifted by demonic dynamism and possessing mesmeric powers, swayed multitude of discontented Germans, and gave the impression of rescuing Germany from the despair into which she had sunk after the Treaty of Versailles. With terrorism, and violence, by demonic frenzy and impressive showmanship by unceasing propaganda, with an instinctive perception of human weakness and a satanic exploitation of it, he enlarged and maintained his power.

What was its Social Base? Most of the original members of the Nazi party were marginal characters, i.e., those who were failures or disappointed in life, and did not belong to any one social group. Soon it secured the support of many social classes such as the old aristocracy, the clergy, the peasants and the urban classes or petty bourgeois consisting of artisans, retail trades, white collar workers, etc.

The old aristocracy and the clergy, for instance, were losing their former social and economic privileges because of the Industrial Revolution. The peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie, though were not losing because of the Industrial Revolution, were not offered any bright future by it either. Instead, they were suffering a lot due to the social and economic problems of Germany which were made more complex by the adverse effects of the World War I and which became unbearable due to World Depression of 1929–32.

The seizure of power by the Nazi party would hardly have been possible without the support of considerable circles of big industrialists during the period. This explains the pro-capitalist measures of the Nazis at least between 1934–36.

Faced with all the accumulated problems, the above social groups sought to find solutions to the structural problems of the social order of Weimar Germany in Nazism, i.e., national glory, cult of the leader, anti-Semitism, anti-communism, etc. These various social groups, which joined it during 1930–31, saw compatibility between the new political style and the vigorous pursuit of their social and economic interests within the movement. Nazi party's uncertainty and opportunism on many specific questions, the socially heterogeneous character of its following, the ruthlessness with which decisions were implemented, etc., only strengthened their hopes. Thus, Nazism was a vehicle sought by the various disaffected social groups to solve their problems. By promising everything to everyone, Nazism promised nothing to no one.

How did the Nazis Rise to Power? Under Stressman's leadership, Germany from 1923 and 1929 shared in the general recovery of Europe and the Dawes Plan began to work. This, by better situation, gave a false appearance of greater stability to the Republic. The Republican government represented a coalition of diverse elements and could not pursue any consistent policy of internal reforms. Nor was its foreign policy very popular, for it had accepted the imposed Treaty of Versailles. In 1929, two things occurred which showed the real weakness of the Republic. Stressman died, leaving his work of political rehabilitation unfinished, and the great world slump of 1929–32 gripped an already enfeebled Germany, making all classes desperate. Thus, a situation was produced which provided Hitler and his Nazis a unique opportunity to come to power. The Nazis were already strong in the Reichstag (German Parliament) and it became increasingly difficult for the social democrats to carry on government without their cooperation. At last, on 30th January 1933, President Hindenburg was forced to accept Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.

To begin with Hitler was determined to transform his chancellorship into a dictatorship. His first step was to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections. During the campaign, opposition candidates were intimidated by violence and threats, and were not allowed radio time and free use of the press. Even then a Nazi victory in the election did not appear certain. On February 27, 1933, fire broke out in the Reichstag building (set probably by the Nazis themselves) and Hitler could point to it as a sample of disorder that the communist were likely to cause. President Hindenburg passed emergency decrees suspending free speech and free press, and thus made it easier for the storm troopers of Hitler to use terror against his political opponents.

Despite their violent campaign, the Nazis won only 44 per cent of the votes. Using the musclemen of his party as a constant threat, Hitler bullied the Reichstag. Except for the Social Democrats (the communists were denied their seats), all the other members of the Reichstag voted for the infamous Enabling Act (March 23, 1933). This act gave dictatorial powers to the government and suspended the constitution.

Now Hitler could act as he chose. He deprived the state governments of the powers they had under Weimar and transformed Germany into a strongly centralised state (April 1933). He appointed governors from Berlin who had the power to override the state legislatures. After the death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler became the president as well as the chancellor, but preferred to use the title Der Fuhrer (the leader) to describe himself. This change was legalised by a plebiscite in which he got 88 percent of the votes cast.

All opposition political parties were forced to dissolve. The government prohibited Communists and Socialists (May 1933); the nationalists dissolved themselves (June 1933); the government did away with the Catholic Parties (July 1933) and all monarchist groups (February 1934). By July 1933 itself, the Nazis were announced to be the only legal political party in Germany.

But within the Nazi party itself, a serious threat was posed by those who sincerely believed in Hitler's more radical pronouncements on socioeconomic issues. Majority in the SA were such men and most of them came from the lower middle classes. They were also distressed by the way in which Hitler had used their organisation. Although the SA had helped him to come to power, now it was seen as an embarrassment to him. It was no longer quite respectable and certainly not in favour as were the SS (Secret State Police or the Gestapo) and the army.

On July 30, 1934 Hitler personally carried out the much hyped 'blood purge' or as he himself described it 'The Night of Long Knives'. Roehm himself, founder and leader of SA, was shot, and so were 73 others by Hitler's own admission. However, independent observers put the causalities as high as 1000. Among the victims were eminent Catholics and several Generals, all of whom were jointly charged by Hitler, with a plot on his life. In any case, after June 1934 there was no further opposition to Hitler within or without Nazi party or outside.

What were its Anti-Semitist and Racist Policies?Shortly after the enactment of the Enabling Act, Hitler delivered the first of his blows against the Jews, whom he had so long denounced. In a country of nearly 60 million people, the Jews formed less than 1 percent of the population, not including part Jewish Germans. The Jews had been very successful professionals and had made tremendous contribution to German culture. The Jewish businesses and professions were boycotted and Jews were prohibited to hold office (April 1933), although a temporary exception was made for veterans of World War I.

In the 'Nuremberg Laws' of September 15, 1935 a Jew was defined as any person with one Jewish grandparent. All such persons were deprived of German citizenship. Inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden as radical pollution. Jews were not allowed to fly the national flag, write or publish, act on stage or screen, teach in any educational institution, work in a bank, exhibit paintings or give concerts, work in a hospital, etc. They were not eligible for unemployment insurance or charity and the names of Jews who died in Germany in World War I were removed from war memorials. Influenced by the government sponsored propaganda, several towns and villages refused to permit Jews to live inside their precincts. Jews were forced to take special names, wear yellow stars of David and to belong to a 'Union of Jews'.

Few Jews succeeded in leaving Germany, but it was usually at the cost of giving up all their possessions they were, however, the fortunate ones. These together with other measures were all designed to drive the Jews into ghettos and starvation. These were only a prelude to the physical extermination in gas chambers which they were to be subjected to by the Nazis during World War II. What horrified independent observers much more than the actions themselves was the inability of any substantial number of highly educated and civilised non-Jewish Germans to make kind of protest against this worst human carnage.

Nazi eagerness for racial purity had its positive as well as its negative consequences. The ideal blue-eyed blond 'Nordic types' were required to mate with each other at an young age to produce as many children as possible. Additionally, to keep the race pure, sterilisation was introduced purportedly for the prevention of genetic diseases. A 'Court of Eugenics' consisting of a judge, a doctor, a specialist in hereditary diseases, had to judge each case. Medical experimentation of unimaginable cruelty and inconceivable scientific value was also conducted during the war on human beings of the so-called inferior races, such as Jews, Poles and other Slavs and Gypsies. These practices were the direct result of Nazi 'Eugenic' legislation.

What were its Agrarian and Industrial Policies? In agriculture, the Nazis had the objective of hundred percent self-sufficiency, along with comprehensive political control over the peasantry. The Junkers (landlords) were fully protected, with no attempt being made to divide their large estates. The government determined the production required of farmers and decided farm prices as well as wages. Waste land was brought under cultivation and private citizens were required to grow vegetables, in green houses. All these were integral to Hitler's preparation for war. By 1937 Germany attained 83 per cent self-sufficiency in agriculture, a rise of 8 per cent since the Nazis had come to power.

Inspired by Stalin, Hitler adopted a four year plan in 1933. The first plan (1933–36) had the chief objective of economic recovery and unemployment eradication. Labour camps for men and women reduced unemployment, as did rearmament and a programme of public works. By 1936 unemployment had come down from 7 million to less than 1.5 million.

The second plan (1936–39) was aimed at preparing Germany for war, and especially to enable Germany blockade proof. Production of raw materials was increased and the materials were distributed on a priority basis to ornament and other war industries. Labour was allotted in a similar fashion, and prices and foreign exchange were manipulated. Germany's talented scientists were asked to make up for other deficiencies by devising successful but expensive synthetic products. Important in this field were distillation of motor fuel from coal and the production of synthetic rubber.

The Nazis banned all labour unions in 1933, and employers' associations in the 1934. Instead, a 'Labour Front' was established, including wage earners, salaried persons, professionals, and employers. Strikes and lockouts had been forbidden. Each plant had its own council. This council made recommendations for improvements within the plant. Germany was divided into 13 districts, each under a 'Trustee of Labour' who fixed wages, settled disputes, ousted anyone, whether employer or worker, whom he felt were hampering the operation of the labour front. Workers were assured jobs so long as they quietly accepted the entire system. The labour front was in a way a huge spy organisation constantly on the alert for anti-Nazis in the factories. A supplement to the Labour Front was the 'Strength through Joy' organisation, which extended paid vacation trips for German workers to resorts or tourists centres and which sponsored concerts and other entertainments.

What were its Other Domestic Policies? Hitler went for thorough reorganisation of the judicial system of Germany. He abandoned traditional legal principles and substituted 'folk' justice for German law. People's courts were set up to try all cases of treason. Hitler appointed all judges of the people's courts. Concentration camps were created for enemies of the regime. The Gestapo (Secret State Police or SS) was founded in April 1933 in Prussia and a year later was extended to all of Germany. It had handful powers in opening private correspondence, tapping wires and spying on private citizens.

The Christian Churches of both Protestant and Catholic sects posed a problem for the Nazis. Extremists among Hitler's followers were keen about returning to paganism. Hitler himself had openly admitted that Germany was his only god. However, office made him sober and made him keep in mind that Germany was after all nominally a Christian country. The efforts of extreme Nazis to purge the Bible and to discard the crucifix let to dissension. The dissidents led by Pastor Martin Niemoeller protested against Nazi policy and efforts at control. However, Niemoeller not only pledged his loyalty to Hitler, but also made no objections to Nazi racism and went to a concentration camp solely out of determination to resist dictation over the Lutheran Church. Yet, the movement he led was probably confined about only 15 per cent of the Protestant Clergy and the rest compromised with the regime.

The Nazi process of coordination was applied in every aspect of the national life, including education and the arts. A prominent Nazi official once commented, 'When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver' – very typical of the extreme Nazi attitude. Hitler's own artistic tastes were also simple in the extreme; he preferred nudes – the more Germanic the better. His tastes were sought to be imposed on the nation, denouncing most of the modern and experimental styles in art as non-Aryan.

The school curriculum, especially history, was not to be taught with the 'objectivity' which was a 'Fallacy of Liberalism' but had to be delivered to the student in sync with the Nazi doctrine of 'Blood and soil'. Nazi racial doctrines, the exaggerated achievements of Germany, the growth of the military spirit and physical culture – these were the foundations of the new education.

What was its Foreign Policy? The Foreign policy of the Nazis was based on the principle of German 'Racism' which justified the integration of all territory inhabited by Germans, including Austria, Sudetenland (the Western borderlands) of Czechoslovakia, and the Polish Corridor. The Nazi doctrine of 'living space' or 'Lebensraum' justified the absorption of non-Germanic areas in the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and all South Eastern Europe as well as large areas of Russia. Hitler thought that what the Germans need, they were entitled to take as they were a superior people.

The concept of 'Lebensraum' comes partly from 20th century German intellectuals who nostalgically viewed the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, the Fist Reich, and aspired, after the World War I broke up the Second Reich of William II, to behold a third empire, including the old territories, no matter who now lived in them. This is the meaning of Hitler's use of the term 'Third Reich' to portray the Nazi stage, which he declared would last a thousand years.

A theoretical basis for the 'Lebensraum' concept was offered by the teacher of 'geopolitics', chief among whom was Karl Haushofer, professor of Geography and teacher of Hitler's close friend, Rudolf Hess. The geo-politicians gave a respectable front for Nazi territorial aspirations. Haushofer proclaimed that Britain and France were degenerate, that small powers should vanish (except for Switzerland and the Vatican city), and that Germany with its racial purity should expand ruthlessly occupying the 'heart land' of Eurasia from which the world could be dominated.

To bolster his claims to more space Hitler often stated that Germany was overcrowded. He himself undertook all steps to increase the overcrowding by subsidising bigger families. Hitler captured power by promising to regain the lost land, viz. the Saar province, which was indispensable to Germany's industry and agriculture due to its mineral deposits and fertile lands.

How does Nazism Compare with Facism? It is interesting to make a comparison of the two right wing movements of Europe. German Nazism was in several respects similar to Italian Fascism. Both laid great store by the supremacy of the leader; tried to organise a totalitarian state, controlled industry, agriculture, trade and the way of life of the people so much so that personal freedom was restricted; violently opposed communism; stressed the close unity of all classes working together to attain their goals; and strove to make the country self-sufficient.

But the dissimilarities between the two cannot be ignored. Hitler was especially known for his anti-Semitic views from the very beginning, while Mussolini was not particularly anti-Semitic. It was only in 1938 that the latter shared the views of the former mainly in order to come closer to the more powerful ally. Besides, in Italy there was no persecution of Jews comparable to that of Nazi regime. The constitutional positions of Mussolini and Hitler were quite different. The monarchy still remained intact in Italy and though Mussolini usually ignored King Emmanuel, the king proved useful in 1943 when Mussolini's opponents looked up to him as the head of the state. He was able to declare Mussolini's dismissal. There was no one in Germany who could dismiss Hitler (monarchy was overthrown immediately after the end of the World War I). Nazism was much more deep-rooted and stronger in Germany than Fascism in Italy. The German system was much more efficient than that in Italy. For, the latter never came anywhere near self-sufficiency and never eliminated unemployment. The Italian system was not as ruthless and brutal as that in Germany and there were no mass atrocities in Italy.

The Chinese Revolution of 1949: Anti-Imperialist & Communist Movements

China experienced a nationalist or anti-imperialist movement after World War I. This was a somewhat surprising event because China was, at least nominally, independent. China entered the war in 1917 with the hope of recovering Shantung province, which had been occupied by the Japanese in 1914. The lost province was not restored by the peacemakers at Versailles leading to demonstrations by students and intellectuals in Peaking. The protests soon spread like wildfire, engulfing other Chinese cities. Merchants too joined by closing their shops. The movement developed into a boycott of Japanese goods and was accompanied by clashes with Japanese residents. The Westerners too became targets of this movement because of their willingness to allow Japan to retain its booty on the mainland. Russia, however, was viewed with sympathy and admiration, because the Soviet government had renounced Czarist special privileges in China, as it did in Turkey and Persia.

These upheavals and changes allowed Dr. Sun Yat Sen the opportunity to make a fresh start with new policies and methods. After appealing in vain for aid from western powers to counter the provincial warlords who were behaving like independent potentates, Dr. Sun turned to the Soviet government for help. A positive response was given leading to the Kuomintang-Communist Entente that began in 1921 and lasted till 1927. Dr. Sun and the able Russian representative, Mikhail Borodin, together brought about three basic changes; they remodelled the Kuomintang Party along communist lines, organised a modern and efficient army, and developed a more effective and appealing political ideology.

In 1925, Sun Yat Sen died at a time when the fruits of his labour were just ready. He did not live to see the warlords humbled and the country united. He is now recognised, both by Chinese communists and Taiwan Nationalists, as one of the creators of modern China. After Dr. Sun's death, Chiang Kai Shek became the leading figure in the Kuomintang. In May 1926, he assumed charge of the 'Northern Expedition', a campaign to unify China by suppressing the northern warlords.

These Kuomintang forces, preceded by propaganda corps that included Chinese Communists, swept everything before them reaching the Yangtze by October. The capital was moved to Hankow, which was dominated by left-wing and communist elements, the Chinese Communist Party having been organised in.

These military victories precipitated a split within the Kuomintang between the left-wing in Hankow and the right-wing under Chiang. Chiang was against Socialist Revolution and advocated nationalism. He had become alarmed by the activities of the leftist propaganda corps that had been operating ahead of his divisions. This propaganda worked among the workers and peasants, stirring them up against the landed gentry, the urban bourgeoisie and the western business interests. Chiang worked closely with Russian advisors, but nevertheless, he was strongly anti-communist and determined to prevent the leftists from gaining control of the party.

Chiang, therefore, carried out a bloody purge of communists and their leftist allies with help from the conservative elements within the Kuomintang and the financial interests in Shanghai. Borodin returned to Russia, and Chiang reorganised Kuomintang so that he was the undisputed leader. In June 1928, his armies took Peking, thereby breaking the hold of the northern warlords and completing the country's unification. China's new capital became Nanking.

In the next decade, appreciable progress was made. Railway mileage almost doubled, and that of modern roads quadrupled. Internal tariff barriers were abolished in 1932 and unified currency created for the first time. Commendable progress was also achieved in governmental procedures, in public health, in education and in industrialisation. Striking success was achieved in the diplomatic field too. Control of the tariff was regained, some of the territories ceded to foreign nations were recovered and many of the special privileges enjoyed by the West were returned; extra-territorial rights were surrendered by all foreign nations by 1943.

Chiang's reform program had some serious gaps which proved fatal ultimately. Essential land reforms were neglected because the Kuomintang in the countryside was dominated by landlords who opposed change. Chiang was authoritarian and his one-party government prevented the growth of democracy. All opposition was suppressed with no constitutional means provided for groups to express opinions. In this situation, revolution was the only alternative. The Kuomintang failed to develop ideas that could attract the people's support. Nationalist appeals had little appeal for land hungry peasants and poverty-stricken city workers.

These weaknesses of the Kuomintang regime may have been overcome if it had been given a longer period of peace. The communists at home and Japanese abroad made this impossible. The Communist Party in China was organised in July 1921 at Shanghai and branches were soon opened all over the country. Many students and intellectuals joined, attracted by the call for action and the assurance of a classless and equitable society for the future.

The communists first cooperated with Sun Yat Sen and then broke with Chiang Kai Shek in 1927. Many of the early communist leaders were killed by Gen. Chiang, but some managed to escape to the mountainous interior of South China. Mao Tse Tung was one of their leaders. He worked out a revolutionary strategy in defiance of the Communist International in Moscow. He rejected the traditional Marxist doctrine that only the urban proletariat could be depended on to carry through a revolution. He concluded from first hand observation in the countryside that the poor peasants, who constituted 70 per cent of the population, were 'the vanguard of the revolution.' This was heresy according to Moscow, but Mao went his way, organising the peasants and building up a separate army and government in the south.

Chiang responded to this threat by launching five 'Bandit Extermination Campaigns'. The communists, however, managed to survive, thanks to the support of the peasants who were won over by the communist policy of dividing large estates without compensation to the owners. The fifth campaign succeeded in dislodging the communists, who were completely surrounded by the Kuomintang armies. Eventually, 90,000 communists managed to break through. Of these, less than 7,000 survived a 6000-mile trek of tremendous hardship, popularly known as the 'Long March.' The survivors finally reached the northwest provinces, where they dug in and set up base. Once again, their land reform policies stood them in good stead and won them peasant support which enabled them to build up strength to the point where they became serious rivals of the Kuomintang regime in Nanking.

While these domestic problems and skirmishes with the communists were taking place, Chiang faced a challenge from the Japanese. The aggression began with the occupation of Manchuria in 1931 and continued until the end of the World War II. By the beginning of the World War II, the Japanese were in control of the entire eastern seaboard. This combination of communist subversion and Japanese aggression proved too much for Chiang and in 1949 he fled to Taiwan, leaving Mao to rule the mainland from Peking, the new capital.

Anti-Imperialist Movements

Why did they Rise? The 'cutting of the Chinese melon' or the dismemberment of the Chinese Empire by the foreign powers was the primary cause for the rise of nationalist movement in China. It was accomplished by the foreign powers in two stages. During the first phase (1860–95), the Celestial Empire was trimmed of its fringes, i.e., China lost her tribute paying kingdoms. For example, it lost Burma to Britain in 1886, Indo-China to France in 1885, and Korea to Japan in 1895. During the second phase (1895–1914), the mainland of China itself got carved up into spheres of influence under the control of foreign powers. In this process of 'cutting the Chinese melon', Great Britain, France and Russia, and later Japan took the lead.

The uninhibited economic exploitation of China by foreign powers, first through the Treaty Port System and later through the finance capital, was equally responsible for the rise of nationalist movement in China. The Treaty Ports soon became areas through which the imperialist powers influenced China's economic and commercial life. Foreign trade of China increased by more than six times between 1850 and 1900. This had serious impact on the Chinese economy, since the import of machine-made foreign goods far exceeded her exports. The Chinese markets began to be flooded with the machine-made foreign goods and they were sold at much cheaper rates. This naturally crippled the growth of indigenous industries, which in turn caused large-scale unemployment and economic dislocation.

One more main cause for the rise of nationalist movement in China, was the activities and behaviour of Christian missionaries in China, which hurt the religious and social sentiments of the traditional minded Chinese. The Christian missionaries obtained a legal status in the Chinese empire by the Toleration Clause of the Tientsin Treaties of 1858. Fortified by these clauses, many missionaries tried to throw their mantle of protection around the local converts. The common man was hostile as he was suspicious of Christianity, which clashed with fundamental concepts of Chinese social and religious life. This suspicion and distrust sometimes led the people to make lives and properties of missionaries their targets.

Yet, we cannot ignore the positive contribution made by the missionaries for the betterment of China. Among them there were many who were sincere and permeated with the spirit of humanity. They played an important role in enlarging China's relation with the outside world. They introduced western medicine, spread education of western type by establishing schools and colleges, and circulated western literature containing western ideas, including that of nationalism.

The Chinese in general resented the ill-treatment of Chinese in foreign legations and treaty ports in China itself. Chinese students who had gone to the USA and the European countries were often looked down and ill-treated.

Moreover, the Chinese were quite unhappy by the ruthless exploitation of the Chinese workers by the foreigners through the so-called 'pig-trade'. Thus, the gradual subordination of China to the Imperialist powers in all fields – political, economic, social and religious – was strongly resented by the Chinese. As a result, they rose in a nationalist movement starting with the Boxer Uprising and ending with the triumph of the communists in mainland China.

What is Boxer Movement? A wave of resentment against any compromise with the West swept the country which at its height is known as the 'Boxer Uprising' (1899–1901). It was an attempt to overthrow the foreigners out of the land with all their hated ideas. It was not just a sudden outburst against the missionaries. It was an attempt to oppose the policy of any type of contact with the West. Practically, the entire North China stood behind the movement. It was also supported by many high-ranking people of the country. The Boxers cried 'protect China and destroy foreigners'.

Hence, it was not just an anti-Christian but an anti-foreign movement as well.

The origin of the movement was complex in nature. The popular and spontaneous opposition to the foreigners found expression in the establishment of traditional form of societies with religious features which offered the protection of magic against western bullets. A secret society, known as the 'Eight Diagram Society', had been active since 1770. During the troubled days of the 1890's one of its probable off-shoots, 'Fists of Righteous Harmony', became active. This title together with the gymnastic exercises practiced by its members won for them the name of Boxers. Their rituals based on popular Taoist magic impressed the common people. The Boxers were at first local groups organised to destroy Chinese Christians. In areas such as Shantung, where the government encouraged the organisation of militia to resist the Germans, the Boxers by infiltration acquired a semi-official encouragement. They became the core of a desperate anti-foreign movement.

Majority of the Boxers came from poor disgruntled peasantry, disbanded soldiers and the riff-raff of the society. They were essentially against the aristocracy, and wanted to attack the landlords and corrupt government officials. The local government officials (mandarins) cleverly manipulated them and diverted their attacks against foreigners. The Boxers were persuaded to believe that the cause of their poverty and suffering was the presence of foreigners in China.

The Boxers were, therefore, anti-foreign and anti-Christian, but not anti-Manchu. The churches, banks, the railways, educational institutions and the hospitals constructed by the foreigners were attacked and destroyed. They also attacked the Chinese Christians who came to be considered as the agents of the foreigners. Pro-western Chinese too were not spared.

How did it Take Place? The Empress Dowager, Tsu-Hsi, incited the Boxer rebels, though tacitly, and was happy to see the foreigners in real trouble. Emboldened by the support of the Empress, the Boxers attacked foreign legations in Peking where the foreigners used to live. Being alarmed with rapid spread of such violence, the foreign ministers at Peking strongly urged the Chinese government for the immediate dissolution of all secret societies. As the Chinese government did not respond favourably to their request, the foreign ministers asked their respective governments to dispatch naval squadrons to China. The arrival of these squadrons merely whipped up anti-foreign sentiment. Matters came to a head when the Chancellor of the Japanese Legation and the German envoy were murdered. The newly arrived fleet seized the forts which commanded the river approach to Tientsin to ensure access to that city for the safeguarding of foreigners there and in Peking.

After a stormy session of the Chinese Grand Council, a formal declaration of war against the foreigners was made. The southern provinces remained aloof and ignored this declaration of war on the ground that it had not received the Emperor's sanction.

The declaration of war did not amount to much and the formal warfare remained practically limited to the seize of legations, and their relief by an allied army. An international army of seven nations was raised and it marched from Tientsin, and within 10 days took control of Peking. The Empress and other members of the royal family fled from Peking, leaving the Chinese government and the capital at the mercy of the foreigners.

After prolonged negotiations, the victorious powers (11 in number by this time) signed with China the settlement known as the Boxer Protocol (1901), the last of the Chinese treaties in the humiliating 19th century tradition. By the terms of the agreement, China agreed among other things to:

(1)make a formal and general apology.

(2)offer regrets to Germany and pay a special indemnity to Japan.

(3)pay a large indemnity of 450 million taels secured on the maritime customs and the salt gabelle.

(4)punish the Boxer leaders.

(5)suspend for five years all competitive examinations for administrative purposes in Boxer towns.

(6)permit the establishment of permanent legation guards in Peking.

(7)revise commercial treaties.

(8)accept military occupation of strategic points between the capital and the sea.

What was its Outcome? The results of the failure of the movement and the subsequent treaty were quite far-reaching. China emerged with an enhanced debt and added humiliation. Instead of strengthening, the uprising hastened the end of the Manchu dynasty, and paved the way for the successful Revolution of 1911 and the establishment of the Republic. China was almost relegated to the position of a subject nation, and for the next quarter of a century, the victorious westerners almost assumed the attitude of conquerors in a vassal state, which could not but be humiliating to proud people.

Nevertheless, the movement saved the country from partition and outright annexation by foreign powers. Though the Boxers were mainly guided by a policy of blind hatred and had no constructive program, their resentment against foreign intrusion and exploitation was so intense that the foreigners were forced to stop the dismemberment of China, and that she emerged with her independence guaranteed, if restricted. Several factors ranging from the mutual jealousies of the powers which might involve them in the possibility of a large-scale conflict over the division of China, to a recognition that the 'spheres of influence' were more profitable than outright annexation were responsible for this. Its failure also set off an era of conservative reform in an attempt to infuse some vigour into the decadent system.

What is the Importance of 1911 Revolution? The Nationalist Revolution of 1911 was led by nationalists like Dr. Sun Yat Sen, Liang Chi Chao, Tung Meng Hue, etc. The twin objectives of the revolution were: to free China from the economic and political domination of the foreigners and to see the end of the Manchu dynasty which was an obstacle in the modernisation of China.

The revolutionary nationalists finally succeeded in occupying 13 provinces and proclaimed it as a Republic with Nanking as its capital. Dr. Sun Yat Sen became its president. North China was still under the control of the Manchus. The Manchus, with the intention of fortifying their authority, recalled General Yuan Shi Kai to assume the reigns at this crucial juncture.

Dr. Sun Yat Sen, showing self-sacrifice and courage, telegraphed to Yuan offering him the presidency of the Republic after the abdication of the Manchu emperor, if Yuan accepted the Republican constitution. Ultimately, Yuan made the Emperor to abdicate the throne and he became the president of the first Republic of China.

The Revolution of 1911 was anti-imperialist, because it was the work of Chinese nationalists who strongly resented the humiliation and ruthless economic exploitation of their country by imperialist powers. It was also anti-Manchu, because it ousted the Manchu rulers who were held responsible for humiliation and exploitation of China by the imperialist countries. It was even anti-traditional, since it represented an attempt on the part of the Chinese nationalists to put aside traditionalism, which was thought to be responsible for the sad plight of China, in favour of modernism through which they hoped to stem the imperialist aggression.

Why did the may Fourth Movement Happen? May Fourth Movement (1919–1921) was the direct result of the aggressive activities of Japan which occupied the Kiachow Bay and the Shantung province and served the notorious 21 demands on China, and the refusal of the imperialist powers to redress genuine grievances of China at the Versailles Peace Conference. By serving the 21 demands on China, Japan wanted to exercise her control over the Southern Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. This was naturally resented by the Chinese nationalists, and strong anti-Japanese sentiments swept the country. The failure of the Chinese delegation at Versailles to recover the German rights and leased territory in Shantung province, which had been taken over by Japan, completely disillusioned the Chinese nationalists about the motives of the West. They had believed in the declared war aims of the Allies that they were fighting to end all future wars and for democracy and self-determination of all people. The Chinese felt that they had been betrayed by the West.

The denial of China's just aspirations roused national spirit and led to anti-imperialist demonstrations in which the students took an active part. On 4th May 1919, students of Peaking University staged a strong demonstration against the action of the imperialist countries. This protest march of May 4th developed into the May Fourth Movement. Hundreds of students denounced the Chinese diplomats, who failed to uphold the national honour, and demanded the abolition of unequal treaties and the protection of the sovereignty of their nation. They shouted slogans like 'boycott of Japanese goods.' When Japan protested to this, the students changed the slogan and shouted 'purchase Chinese goods only'.

The May Fourth Movement is significant because it represented the growing anti-imperialist sentiment of the Chinese. During the movement, the merchants co-operated with the students and showed willingness to make economic sacrifices. The sacrifices of the business community and the mobilisation of almost the whole nation on such a large-scale revealed the growth of nationalism and anti-imperialism.

The results of this movement were quite far-reaching. It played a great role in modernising the country and contributed largely to the rise of student and labour movements, the reorganisation of the Kuomintang and the birth of the Chinese Communist Party. It bolstered the growth of a new vernacular literature and facilitated the rapid spread of popular education. It also hastened the decline of the old order including traditionalism, Confucianism and the old family system. In other words, it marked the birth of modern China. Finally, the intensity of the movement made the western imperialist countries realise that they must do something to pacify the wounded feelings of the Chinese. This realisation was to a great extent responsible for the convening of the Washington Conference (1922) in which some of the Chinese grievances were redressed.

What was the Role of KMT and CCP in the Final Stage? The Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) formed the 'First United Front' (1922–27) in order to meet the imperialist threat and free China of all foreign control. The KMT and the CCP formed this alliance despite their major policy differences on the home front, because both parties felt that it was first necessary to free China of imperialist control if China were to develop in all fields at home. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, who was the head of the KMT till his death in 1925, was more of a nationalist than an anti-communist. He was in fact very impressed by the progress made by the Soviet Union under the communists. Thee CCP was greatly influenced at this time by the Soviet Communist Party and the Comintern (Communist International) which followed the policy that the communists in all the suppressed nations should cooperate with the nationalists there in order to remove all foreign control. The abrogation of all the unequal treaties in 1927–28 was the result of the coordinated efforts of the KMT and the CCP.

The sudden demise of Dr. Sun Yat Sen and the succession of Chiang Kai Shek in 1925, however, caused difficulties in the cooperation between the KMT and the CCP and finally it broke down in 1927, because Chiang was more worried about the spread of communism in China rather than the domination of China by the imperialist countries.

Once again the KMT and the CCP came together in 1937 to form the Second United Front (1937–45) in order to put up a strong front against the Imperialist Japan which was at that time going through the highest stage of imperialism and militarism. In the formation of this second united front, Mao played the most important role. Mao, who became the undisputed leader of the CCP after the great Long March, believed that revolution should be carried on two fronts – against the landlords on the home front and against imperialist countries at the international level. When Japan increased her imperialist aggressive activities against China, Mao put aside his differences with the KMT and forced Chiang to cooperate with him in defending China. It was, in fact, due to this cooperation that China was able to put up strong resistance to Japan during the Second World War. The defeat of Japan in the Second World War, and the success of the communists in the civil war (1945–49) against the KMT and the final establishment of the People's Republic of China by the communists in 1949 marked the end of the anti-imperialist movement in China.

Communist Revolution

Why did it Take Place? China suffered immensely due to the unashamed economic exploitation perpetuated by the imperialist powers in China and the social as well as political humiliation heaped on it by these powers throughout the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. This exploitation and humiliation came to be resented by almost all sections of the Chinese society, who felt that this sad plight of China was due to the feudal nature of her economy, society and polity. Hence they wanted to bring about drastic changes in these spheres.

The Kuomintang government led by Chiang Kai Shek, which consisted of mainly capitalists and landlords failed to offer and implement a suitable program to improve the economic condition of the poorer sections of the society. It also failed to control the rising inflation of the 1930s which further worsened the condition of the common people.

The emergence of the Communist Party of China, under the effective leadership of Mao, who seemed to offer a dynamic, forward looking and above all inspiring leadership, caught the imagination of the Chinese people.

The successful Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent advancement of the Soviet Union provided a great source of inspiration for the people of China. The Soviet assistance also, though materially limited, morally mattered a lot.

Prof. Li Tao Chao and Chen Tu Hsiu of Peking University organised the first Marxist study group in China in 1918. Chen Tu Hsiu with the assistance of the Soviet communists founded the nucleus of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in September 1920.

Mao Tse Tung, Liu Shao Chi, Chou En Lai and Chu Teh were among the founder members of the CCP. The goal of the CCP was the establishment of the dictatorship of the workers and the peasants.

What were the Early Relations of CCP and KMT? The CCP initially maintained close contact with the Soviet Union, whose decision in the early twenties was to cooperate with the nationalists, and hence its directive to the CCP to cooperate with the Kuomintang (KMT) made the CCP a junior partner of the KMT. As a result, the communists formed the First United Front with the KMT and collaborated with the nationalists between 1923 and 1927. During this period of collaboration, the communists increased their strength by enrolling new members and by developing their military and party organisation. Then came the split in 1927 with the KMT when Chiang's forces dealt the severest blow to the communists.

Between 1927 and 1930, the CCP led a series of unsuccessful revolts against the KMT government. An abortive army uprising in August 1927 was followed by an equally fruitless peasant uprising in Hunan in early September under the leadership of Mao. While the continued failure of these uprisings discredited Chen Tu Hsiu, the Secretary General of the party, and other leaders, Mao retreated to Kiangsi to establish the first Chinese Soviet there in 1931. With the aid of Chu Teh, the nucleus of the Chinese Red Army was also formed there. From the time of its inception, Chiang's forces launched the 'encirclement campaigns' against the newly founded Soviet for its complete destruction. A total of five such campaigns were launched between December 1930 and October 1934.

In the fifth and final campaign Chiang assembled about 7 lakh troops against the communists. He combined his massive offensive with an economic blockade. The methods of this offensive were changed this time. In the earlier campaigns, KMT troops had made quick and deep thrusts into communist held territory in Kiangsi. But against the determined communist resistance they could not maintain their position. This time, however, Chiang adopted new methods upon the advice of his German counsellors. The methods used this time resembled the tactics used in North America against the Red Indians. The military pressure and the blockade had the desired effect. The position of the communists became precarious and in October 1934, they broke out of the encirclement and moved away from Kiangsi.

What is the Long March? The breakthrough of communists from their siege by the KMT forces resulted in the famous 'Long March' (1934) during which the communists and their supporters covered a distance of more than 6,000 miles on foot over incredibly difficult terrain. The memorable march took slightly more than a year. In spite of the difficulties of the terrain, the average daily distance covered during the march was 24 miles. It was all the more creditable, as besides the difficulties of the terrain, the communist army had with it many families of its supporters and it was all along harassed by KMT forces and the armies of the local landlords. Moreover, besides continuous skirmishes they had to fight over 15 major battles on the way.

All through the long distance covered during the march, the communists tried to spread their ideas in the cities and the rural areas along which they moved. They held mass meetings with political speeches and theatrical performances for the purpose. In the process they were able to win over many peasants and other poorer sections of the society to their cause.

The communists had to incur great military losses during the march. Though about one lakh persons had left the Soviet of Kiangsi and many poor people joined them on the way, only about 7000 men reached North-western Shensi. The Long March revealed the resiliency of the CCP and the inadequacies of the KMT which later proved fatal to the KMT.

The areas through which the communists had marched were mostly under the control of the local warlords. In their battles with the communists, the warlords suffered considerable losses that made easier the task of the KMT to establish control over these areas. Thus, it helped the nationalists to consolidate their hold over many areas where previously they had no real footing. On the other hand, it taught the communist forces new techniques of guerrilla warfare that later proved helpful to them during the periods of Japanese aggression and civil war with the KMT.

Within the CCP also the Long March had important effects. Mao, who was already the Chairman of the Soviet of Republic of Kiangsi, ultimately emerged as the undisputed leader of the party.

What was the Shensi Soviet? At Shensi, the communist forces established their new headquarters. The territory controlled by them was mainly south of the Great Wall in the Northern part of Shensi and in the North-eastern portion of Kansul. The area where they settled was well-known for its maladministration and oppressive taxation by local warlords. By judicious administrative and agrarian reforms they were able to repeat here the success of the Kiangsi Soviet.

In the areas controlled by them, called 'Liberated Areas', all prices were brought under state control and commodity prices were drastically lowered. They conscripted young men of the area and built the Red Army. By their seizure of property and conscription of young men, the communists had earlier become unpopular with the middle class in the Kiangsi Soviet. In order to avoid creating enemies this time, the communists instituted less stringent reform programs when they moved to Shensi. Instead of widespread seizure of land, they adopted a program of progressive taxation, and rent and credit controls. Assemblies elected by popular vote were created. To show their moderation, they took only one third seats in all governing bodies, though they were able to control them effectively through their superior organisation and discipline.

Why was the Second United Front Formed? The CCP took a serious objection to the Japanese attack on Manchuria and declared war against Japanese in February 1932. They held anti-Japanese mass meetings and aroused the popular hatred against them to a fever pitch. To resist Japan, they also proposed cooperation with the KMT. Chiang turned down their appeal and withstood the pressure of the ardent nationalists for a joint defence of the country.

Ultimately in December 1936, he was taken prisoner by his own men who demanded among other things the acceptance of the communist proposal for a united front and strong resistance to Japan. For some time, Chiang's life appeared to be in danger, but early in 1937 a settlement was reached with the communists about a united national front. Thus, after the 'Sian Incident', Chiang was forced to agree to the formation of the Second United Front, and throughout the war with Japan an uneasy truce existed between the CCP and the KMT.

With the Japanese advancement into China and occupation of vast part of the country, the communist and nationalist guerrillas remained behind the tightly held Japanese areas. The communists, however, were better organised and experienced to continue guerrilla activities. They, therefore, were more successful in harassing the Japanese. These successes enabled them to absorb the nationalist guerrillas into their own organisation. By the time of Japanese surrender, the communist-controlled 'liberated areas' had a population of about 10 crores.

In spite of an earlier understanding that the Red Army should be reorganised under Chiang's authority, the communists kept control of their military formations throughout the war with Japan. The Red Army was imparted intensive political indoctrination and continued to grow and perfect its tactics under the leadership of Chu Teh. For maximum flexibility and efficiency, their army was divided into three parts – the regular troops, the well trained guerrilla forces and loose formations of peasant militia. By the close of the war, the communist armed forces had increased formidably from 80,000 in 1937 to about 13 million. Thus, on the eve of Japanese surrender the CCP was ready to fill the vacuum with a large well-doctrinated army, efficient party machine and by popular slogans of land redistribution and agrarian reform.

Why did the Civil War Break Out? Even when the United Front of the CCP and the KMT was resisting the Japanese, the two parties were suspicious of each other. In January, 1941, a serious clash occurred between the communists and the nationalists in Southern Anhwei. The pressing demands of the Japanese war, however, temporarily reconciled them, but as the defeat of Japan became imminent, the two parties again began preparations for the final showdown. Encouraged by the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan, Chu Teh ordered the Red Army to grab as much territory as possible. Chiang was shrewd enough to see in it a communist plan to capture power and ordered Chu Teh to withdraw his order. When Chu ignored his order, clashes started between the nationalists and the communists.

What was USA'S Role in it? The United States which had helped the nationalist government with huge sums now stepped in and urged both the parties to continue the war-time front for the reconstruction of the war-torn country. The American initiative seemingly succeeded for the time being and the two parties arrived at an agreement by which they consented to call a political consultative conference for deciding the future of China.

Even when these negotiations were going on, the clashes continued on an ever-increasing scale and the nationalist government decided to mount full scale offensive against the communists. The USA once again intervened with the same limited success.

By the close of 1945, President Truman sent General George C. Marshall to act as mediator. Though Marshall succeeded in bringing the hostile parties to a conference table, nothing concrete could be achieved. The nationalists, who had regained military control over China's most important strategic centres after Japan's defeat and who were convinced that the USA could not afford to let communism triumph in China, refused to make any substantial concessions to the communists. The communists, being confident of their strength and enraged by continued American aid to the nationalists also showed stiff attitude in the conference. Marshall acknowledged his failure in August 1946, and left for USA.

How did it Take Place? The capitulation of Japan set off the race between the nationalists and the communists to take over the areas evacuated by Japan. Massive hostilities began in Manchuria and North China. The nationalists who had a large armed force obtained considerable success in the opening phases of the struggle. They swept through the north-west and even occupied the old communist stronghold of Yunan in Shensi. These victories, however, did not break the spirit of the communists, and though they were driven out of the cities, they retained control of the countryside and continued to harass the nationalist forces whose lines of communication were over-stretched and became increasingly vulnerable. The Red Army which now called itself the 'People's Army' began a strong counter-offensive and the nationalist army began to crumble before it when many of their units surrendered to the communists. Despite the generous help of the USA to the nationalists, the communists became the masters of the entire mainland of China, while the remnants of the nationalist forces under Chiang fled to Formosa (Taiwan).

Why did the Communists Win? The somewhat unexpected victory of the CCP over the KMT in the civil war was largely due to the latter's fierce internal conflicts as well as to the weaknesses and corruption of its leaders. When the Japanese occupied the urban and industrial areas of China, most of the capitalists retired to the interior and they lost their previous powers and influence over the party which was usurped by the landed gentry. Under their leadership, the KMT became anti-capitalist not in a Marxist, but in a pre-industrial sense. This retrogressive attitude antagonised the intelligentsia as well as the middle classes which were the main supporters of the KMT. After the fall of Japan, when the nationalists became the rulers of China, they were led by an unimaginative small-minded rural landlord leadership who earned notoriety by their corruption and inefficiency. They were unable to offer and implement a suitable program to improve the condition of the poorer sections of the society, the peasantry and the workers. The galloping inflation, for which the KMT misrule was held responsible, further undermined the popularity of the party. Its armies were poorly paid and were allowed to loot the countryside. Subjected to communist propaganda, they gradually became disillusioned with Chiang and began to desert to the communists. Towards the end, Chiang also made some tactical blunders; like Hitler he could not bear to order retreats and consequently his scattered armies were surrounded and often, as at Peking and Shanghai, surrendered without resistance, totally disillusioned.

The communists, in contrast, continued to win popular support by their restrained land policy which varied according to the needs of particular areas; some or all of a landlord's estates might be confiscated and redistributed among the peasants, or there might simply be rent restriction. Besides, communists were well disciplined, and communist administration was honest and scrupulously fair. Finally, the CCP leaders, Mao and Chou En Lai, were shrewd enough to take advantage of KMT weaknesses and were completely dedicated. The communist generals Chu Teh, Lin Piao and Chen Yi, had prepared their armies carefully and were more competent tactically than their KMT counterparts.

What was MAO'S Role in it? After successfully leading his men from Kiangsi Soviet to the Shensi Soviet, he became the undisputed leader of the CCP and was elected its chairman in 1935. From the new base at Shensi, he continued to dominate the strategies of the CCP. The theoretical justification for CCP's tactics was provided by Mao in a series of speeches, essays and handbooks written in a style at once hard hitting, elegant and authoritative. One of the most important of these was the 'New Democracy'. He formulated his idea of 'New Democracy' to show how the communists would rule China. It was moderate in outlook. He argued that economically China was not yet sufficiently developed for complete socialistic rule and pleaded for a mixed economy of state-owned, private and cooperative enterprises. Land to be distributed with equal shares was the ideal. He further advocated a coalition government of the party, proletariat, peasantry and national bourgeoisie to administer the New Democracy in the first stage. After the elimination of feudalism and imperialism in the first stage, the ultimate aim of establishing socialism was expected to be achieved in the next stage.

From his idea of New Democracy, we can glean some of the basic features of his leadership. They were pragmatism, right strategy, appeal to Chinese nationalism, etc. His policy of pragmatism, as opposed to rigid dogmatism and attuning Marxism to the special conditions of China won him considerable support both within and without the CCP. A large number of middle class intellectuals who could not see any hope for China's regeneration under the KMT regime gradually shifted their allegiance to Mao's doctrines. The reversal of previous 'Closed Door' policy of the party leadership by Mao also enabled the progressive intellectuals to rally round him.

What is the Significance of Chinese Communism? The significance of the rise and establishment of communism in China lies in the fact that it has given a new dimension to international communism, both in theory and practice, by demonstrating that Communist Revolution is possible not only in the industrialised or at least semi-industrialised countries but also in countries with predominantly agrarian based economies like China. It also demonstrated that Communist Revolution can be successfully brought about even with peasants forming the main force. Hitherto, it was believed that only the industrial workers can and, in fact, should form the vanguard (main force) of a communist revolution. Finally, by joining the hitherto lone communist country of the world, viz. USSR, China has given strength to international communism.