D

D'Annunzio, Gabriele (1863–1938), Italian writer and political adventurer. Born into the nobility at Pescara, he had established a literary reputation (through poetry, novels, and drama) by the early years of the twentieth century. On the political front he became a fierce critic of liberal democracy, and one whose extremist advocacy of NATIONALISM led him to support the ITALO-TURKISH WAR of 1911–12. On the outbreak of WORLD WAR I, D'Annunzio urged that Italy should enter the conflict against Austria-Hungary. After his country did become involved in 1915, he fought with great distinction as an airman. He emerged from the war as a nationalist hero still addicted to a life of excitement. In September 1919, angered by the PARIS PEACE SETTLEMENT'S approach to Adriatic issues, he led a small band of irregulars into an occupation of the port-city of FIUME on the Dalmatian coast, arguing that this rightly belonged to Italy and not newly-emerging YUGOSLAVIA. His authoritarian administration lasted 15 months, during which D'Annunzio developed a number of political ceremonies and symbols later associated with FASCISM, including the Roman salute. His moment, however, had passed. By the RAPALLO TREATY of November 1920 Fiume was declared a free city, and in January 1921 the Italian navy forcibly ended the occupation. Physically exhausted, D'Annunzio withdrew from public life, thus leaving MUSSOLINI to take the lead in uniting the disparate elements of the Italian far right.

D'Azeglio, Massimo (1798–1866), Prime Minister of PIEDMONT-SARDINIA (1849–52). Having first established his reputation as a novelist, this cultured aristocrat turned in the 1840s towards politics. Influenced by his cousin BALBO, he espoused a moderate NATIONALISM that rejected the more radical republicanism of MAZZINI. Though he had high hopes of Pope PIUS IX, D'Azeglio looked principally to a version of ITALIAN UNIFICATION led by his native Piedmont. In the REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9, he joined King CHARLES ALBERT in fighting the Austrians. Wounded in battle, he twice declined the premiership before accepting it in May 1849 following the accession of VICTOR EMMANUEL II. Much of his energy was subsequently devoted to moderating nationalist fervour within parliament and to modernizing the armed forces. In 1852 he stood aside for CAVOUR, whom he supported during the CRIMEAN WAR and in the campaign of 1859 against Austria (see FRANCO-AUSTRIAN WAR). In 1860 D'Azeglio became governor of Milan and negotiated the inclusion of Romagna in the new Italy, though he opposed adding the Kingdom of the TWO SICILIES. In the aftermath of that eventful year, he famously and perceptively observed that, having created Italy, it was now necessary to make Italians.

Daladier, Edouard (1884–1970), French politician. He is best remembered for signing, alongside Neville Chamberlain, the MUNICH AGREEMENT of September 28, 1938 with HITLER and MUSSOLINI. A baker's son from the Vaucluse, Daladier exemplified the social mobility encouraged by the THIRD REPUBLIC. Excellent exam performances at the Lycée Ampère de Lyon, where he was a pupil of HERRIOT, enabled him to study history at university and become a secondary school teacher. In 1912 he was elected mayor of Carpentras, where he stood for the RADICAL PARTY, a grouping that married the Jacobin values of 1789 with the interests of the peasantry and petite bourgeoisie. After service in World War I, he was returned in 1919 as deputy for the Vaucluse. Having been minister of colonies in the brief-lived Herriot cabinet of 1924, he became president of the Radical Party three years later. He had a short spell as prime minister in 1933 when he pursued orthodox deflationary economics to fend off the GREAT DEPRESSION[2], a strategy which alienated the Socialist support that he needed in parliament. He returned briefly as prime minister in 1934, but resigned a day after the riots of 6 February 1934 (see also STAVISKY AFFAIR). Though a centrist, in 1936 he took the Radicals into the POPULAR FRONT government of BLUM where he served as minister of defense, an area of longstanding interest. With the eventual collapse of the Front in 1937, confusion reigned before Daladier was appointed prime minister in March 1938. During his two-year administration his policies were conservative – for example, reconciliation with the Catholic Church (see CATHOLICISM), withdrawal of those trade union rights granted by Blum, provision of subsidies for fathers with large families, and, in the course of the so-called PHONEY WAR, prohibition of the Communist Party (see COMMUNISM). Some have suggested that his government prefigured the VICHY REGIME, but it would be a mistake to believe that Daladier had lost faith in liberal democracy. He signed the Munich agreement reluctantly, influenced by Chamberlain's emphasis on APPEASEMENT, and swayed by his own sympathies for the Sudeten Germans as well as a belief that France was unready for war. However, he was neither a pacifist nor someone convinced that Hitler would keep his word. In September 1939 he hesitated before taking France into WORLD WAR II, yet accepted he had no choice. In March 1940 he stood down in favor of REYNAUD, after right-wing appeasers such as LAVAL had severely criticized his handling of the war effort. Retained in cabinet where he held the defense portfolio, he was opposed to PÉTAIN and the armistice. This opposition led him, along with a small number of other politicians, to set sail for North Africa, where they intended to continue the fight – only to be returned to France where Daladier became a defendant in the RIOM TRIALS. As the embodiment of Third Republic values, and a participant in the Popular Front, Daladier represented everything that Vichy hated. Yet he managed to embarrass his accusers, launching a spirited defense of his war preparations. Angered at the conduct of these trials, the Germans took him and Blum into their own custody in 1943. Under the FOURTH REPUBLIC Daladier returned to politics as deputy of the Vaucluse, but never regained his previous influence. He was too closely associated with Munich, lacked a RESISTANCE record (despite the heroics at Riom), and belonged to a party which was in terminal decline. His marginalization was confirmed after DE GAULLE'S resumption of power in 1958.

Danton, Georges-Jacques (1759–94), orator and leading politician during the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789. Born in Champagne, Danton was educated by the Oratorians before moving to Paris where he took up law as a profession. With his fiery speeches and charismatic personality he quickly established a local reputation as a man of the people in 1789, and became prominent in the CORDELIERS CLUB and district. He spoke out against the reinstatement of the king after the flight to VARENNES, but managed to distance himself from the Cordeliers' petition and the CHAMP DE MARS MASSACRE which followed. He failed to gain election to the Legislative Assembly, but was made minister of justice. He joined ROBESPIERRE in speaking out against the launching of war in the spring of 1792 (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS), but then rallied support for it in the autumn and turned a blind eye to the SEPTEMBER MASSACRES. Elected to the CONVENTION, he supported the institution of THE TERROR and was an early member of the COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY. In the autumn of 1793 his health began to fail and, as doubts about his honesty resurfaced, his political fortunes also declined. When he sought to bring the Terror to a conclusion, he was arrested by the Committee of Public Safety and executed on April 5, 1794 after a notorious show trial in which his undimmed oratorical powers nonetheless allowed him to turn the tables on his accusers.

Danube question International disputes surrounding the control of Europe's longest river, running from southern Germany to the Black Sea. At the end of the CRIMEAN WAR, the Paris Treaty of 1856 envisaged establishing an administrative authority comprising representatives of the states that it traversed or bordered. When it became evident that this was a recipe for Austrian domination (see HABSBURG EMPIRE), the other powers insisted on creating a broader European Commission. Based in Bucharest, this became increasingly resented during the late nineteenth century by the nationalists of newly-independent ROMANIA, whose area of sovereignty included the estuaries. A conference of 1920–1 left the lower or maritime Danube under the existing authority, while creating a separate international body for the upper river. By 1938 HITLER was well on the way to obtaining for Germany the most powerful voice in issues of control. After WORLD WAR II and the Belgrade conference of 1948, it was clear that such ascendancy had passed to the SOVIET UNION. The latter's dissolution, together with other aspects of the European REVOLUTIONS OF 1989–91, merely reconfigured the problems (e.g. hydroelectric production for one country being potentially at odds with commercial navigation or agricultural irrigation for another) by producing a greater proliferation of interested parties. At the beginning of the twenty-first century there were no fewer than nine states (including such recent creations as MOLDOVA, CROATIA, and SLOVAKIA) directly concerned with Danubian administration.

Danubian principalities Term used by nineteenth-century diplomats to designate MOLDAVIA and Wallachia, which lie on the lower Danube (see also DANUBE QUESTION) and command its outlets to the Black Sea. These principalities were formally part of the Ottoman Empire (see TURKEY AND EUROPE) from the mid-fifteenth century until 1878. By that latter point, however, their fortunes had become entwined with wider issues of Turkish decline (see also EASTERN QUESTION; BALKANS). Periods of Russian occupation from 1829 to 1834 and from 1848 to 1851 had confirmed the weakening of Ottoman control. During the CRIMEAN WAR both Turks and Russians proved anxious to avoid their conflict spreading into this region and therefore agreed to place it under the temporary administration of Austria (see HABSBURG EMPIRE). The Paris Treaty of 1856 guaranteed the continuing autonomy of each of the principalities within the Ottoman sphere, but in 1862, under the leadership of CUZA, they declared their union as ROMANIA. International recognition of independent sovereignty came at the BERLIN CONGRESS, following the RUSSO-TURKISH WAR of 1877–8.

Danzig corridor Also known as the Polish corridor, this was a strip of territory, some 15,540 sq km (6,000 sq miles) in size, granted to POLAND at the PARIS PEACE SETTLEMENT of 1919, dividing the main part of Germany from East Prussia. Most of those living within it were Poles, and the area had belonged to Poland before the first partition of 1772. Danzig itself, whose population was predominantly German, was made a free city under the jurisdiction of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS. The arrangement gave landlocked Poland vital access to a neutral port on the Baltic Sea, and thus reduced the newly-independent state's economic reliance on Germany. Friction inevitably persisted. First STRESEMANN, and then HITLER, demanded that the corridor, plus the free city of Danzig, be returned to Germany. This objective was eventually achieved by force at the start of WORLD WAR II. In 1945 the whole of this territory, including the city, was incorporated into Poland.

Dardanelles Maritime channel in northwestern Turkey that marks part of the geographical dividing line between Europe and Asia Minor (see TURKEY AND EUROPE). It connects the Sea of Marmara with the Aegean, thus constituting, like the BOSPHOROUS narrows, a vital strategic element in the overall linkage between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Its significance for modern history is mainly related to the wider context of that STRAITS QUESTION (see also EASTERN QUESTION). More specifically, however, in WORLD WAR I the peninsula forming the southernmost part of the European shore of the Dardanelles was the location of the Allies' failed GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN of 1915.

Darlan, Jean François (1881–1942), head of the French navy (1937–42), and one of the most powerful figures in the VICHY REGIME. The son of a Radical-Socialist senator, he had distinguished himself in the 1920s as a naval expert and became an admiral in 1929. Given his modernization of the navy and the fact that it remained undefeated in 1940, he was initially ambivalent towards the Franco-German armistice of June 22 concluded by Marshal PÉTAIN. It was a faith in authority, an ardent Anglophobia, and a deep-rooted anticommunism that led him to serve Vichy. In February 1941, after the sacking of LAVAL, Darlan became Pétain's principal minister. In this capacity he intensified ANTISEMITISM, persecuted FREEMASONRY, pursued a policy of economic planning, and almost took France back into the war alongside Germany, offering the Nazis military bases in Syria. His inability to win concessions from HITLER and his inept handling of the RIOM TRIALS, in which prominent Republican politicians were tried for losing the war, led to Laval's return in April 1942, although Darlan remained commander-in-chief of French forces. In November that year, the latter was on a tour of inspection in Algiers when the Allies landed in North Africa. Under intense US pressure, Darlan agreed to govern French North Africa, yet was assassinated on Christmas Eve by a deranged gunman, most likely working for either the Free French or the British.

Darnand, Joseph (1897–1945), French politician who headed the Milice, the paramilitary police force of the VICHY REGIME. The son of a railwayman from Coligny in the Ain, Darnand was a hero of World War I whose bravery was commended by POINCARÉ. On demobilization in 1921, Darnand established a lorry firm in Nice. He served in several extreme right-wing groups: ACTION FRANÇAISE, the CROIX DE FEU, the CAGOULARDS, and the Parti Populaire Français. In 1939 he reenlisted and was taken prisoner in June 1940. After escaping, he returned to Nice where he established the paramilitary Service d'Ordre Légionnaire, to guard against a possible Italian invasion. Espousing RACISM and antidemocratic values, this body was transformed in 1943 into the Milice (membership 30,000) whose function was to hunt out JEWS, resisters, and deserters from the obligatory work service to Germany. In October 1943 Darnand joined the SCHUTZSTAFFEL (SS) and, early the following year, became Vichy's minister for the maintenance of public order. In March 1944 the Milice fought alongside German troops against the maquis of the Glières plateau and later murdered the republican politicians Georges Mandel and Jean Zlsquäy. In September 1944 Darnand left for Sigmaringen, and then for Italy, his remaining miliciens joining the SS Charlemagne division which defended Berlin. Executed for high treason on October 10, 1945, Darnand represented the squalid character of COLLABORATION.

Darwinism (see SOCIAL DARWINISM)

Dawes Plan An attempt made in 1924 to resolve the issues raised by the Franco-Belgian RUHR OCCUPATION (1923–5), which followed Germany's failure to pay the REPARATIONS demanded by the VERSAILLES TREATY. The settlement, drawn up by the American banker Charles G. Dawes at the London conference of April 1924, stipulated that payments must continue, albeit at a much reduced level. Germany was also promised US financial aid for this purpose. For their part, Britain and France agreed to pay off their own war debts to the USA. The Dawes Plan subsequently facilitated a transatlantic money-go-round in which US loans went first to Germany, then were repaid as reparations to Britain and France, eventually returning to the USA as war debts. While the Dawes Plan ended the Ruhr occupation and enabled the WEIMAR REPUBLIC to undergo a brief-lived economic and political recovery, it failed to provide broader stability. For France, the Plan was an acknowledgement that its leaders no longer had the stamina to insist on full enforcement of the Versailles settlement. There then ensued a more conciliatory dialogue with Germany embodied in the LOCARNO TREATIES. (See also YOUNG PLAN)

Dayton Accord Peace deal negotiated in Ohio during November 1995 and signed at Paris the following month. Brokered by the USA, it ended the civil war that had lasted in BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA since 1992. Under the Dayton terms CROATIA, and the Serb-led core of former YUGOSLAVIA, agreed to recognize the continuance of an independent Bosnian state restructured so as to combine two main elements. The first was a decentralized Bosnian-Croat federation (see FEDERALISM[1]), and the second a more centralized Serb republic (see SERBIA). The state presidency would rotate, however, amongst representatives of all three ethnic groupings. The Dayton Accord also included the deployment, under UNITED NATIONS sponsorship, of 60,000 NATO peacekeeping troops. Not even that international military presence could reassure Bosnians and Serbs of their security in any area where they constituted a minority still vulnerable to so-called ETHNIC CLEANSING. Thus, though the agreement helped towards a fragile peace, it failed to prevent vast waves of panic-stricken MIGRATION occurring in opposing directions.

D-Day (see NORMANDY LANDINGS)

DDR (see GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC)

de Gasperi, Alcide (1881–1954), Prime Minister of Italy (1945–53). Born in the Trentino, which then belonged to HABSBURG Austria, de Gasperi studied philosophy at Vienna and then during 1911–15 served as a Christian Social Party member of parliament. At the end of WORLD WAR I, when Austria was forced to relinquish the Trentino, he took Italian citizenship. He was elected a representative of the People's Party in 1919, and quickly rose within its hierarchy. In 1922 he thought that MUSSOLINI should be given a chance, but soon found himself opposing FASCISM. In 1927 he was arrested by the Duce's regime and jailed for 18 months, before being released on the intervention of the bishop of Trento. Thereafter he was permitted to live in the Vatican, and later developed links with RESISTANCE movements. A committed Catholic and fervent anticommunist, in 1945 he received considerable US support in establishing the Italian Christian Democratic Party (see CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY). Having become foreign minister in 1944, de Gasperi went on to hold the premiership in eight successive coalition cabinets. He was an early supporter of EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, who oversaw Italy's entry into NATO, the COUNCIL OF EUROPE, and the EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY.

de Gaulle, Charles (1890–1970), French general and politician, who served as first President (1958–69) of the FIFTH REPUBLIC. Son of a minor aristocratic family, the young de Gaulle read BARRÈS and DÉROULÈDE, and came to believe that the best form of government for France was a republic headed by a strong leader, assisted by a subordinate legislature. His fervent patriotism helps explain his choice of an army career. Graduating in 1909 from the military college of Saint Cyr, he served in the 33rd Infantry Regiment under PÉTAIN, who later became his mentor. In WORLD WAR I de Gaulle was wounded and captured at VERDUN. He returned to active service in 1919, participating in the French military mission to Poland during the RUSSO-POLISH WAR. He subsequently lectured at the École de Guerre, and published writings on military theory that led to an irreconcilable quarrel with Pétain. His most famous work, Towards an Army of the Future (1934), rejected the defensive tactics (made literally concrete in the MAGINOT LINE) that were favored by most French generals, and urged instead the merits of a more mobile tank-based force.

In May 1940, early in WORLD WAR II, de Gaulle (now promoted to Brigadier-General) had the opportunity to test his theories, by conducting a successful armored battle against the Germans at Arras. Shortly afterwards he was appointed under-secretary of state for national defense by REYNAUD, yet was disturbed by ministerial defeatism. On June 17, faced by the imminent prospect of a humiliating armistice, he escaped to London in the belief that this was the best place from which to continue the war. Next day he made a radio broadcast inviting his compatriots to join him in the struggle. Though he was little known in either Britain or France, he cast himself as his country's saviour. He thereby awakenend the suspicions of CHURCHILL, who refused to acknowledge the self-proclaimed leader of the FREE FRENCH as the head of a government-in-exile. In the period 1940–2, relations with Churchill remained fractious as an increasing number of French colonies rallied to de Gaulle. The Americans likewise found the General prickly and aloof, and, following the November 1942 invasion of North Africa, chose to govern the area first with the assistance of DARLAN and then of General Giraud. In summer 1943 de Gaulle supplanted Giraud to take charge of the Comité Français de Libération Nationale, effectively a government-in-waiting. Developing links with the metropolitan RESISTANCE operating against the Nazis and the VICHY REGIME, de Gaulle was determined that, once liberated, the French would be saved from both the communists and the Anglo-Saxons. He also hoped that France might play some significant part in the wider liberation of Europe, although he was snubbed by the meeting of the “Big Three” Allies at YALTA.

De Gaulle was similarly marginalized by the politicians entrusted with devising a new political framework for France. Though he became head of the provisional government (1944–6), he could not prevent the constitution-makers from favoring a format resembling that of the THIRD REPUBLIC. Committed to a strong executive, he resigned in January 1946. Thus he entered a 12-year political wilderness, albeit one from which he kept constant watch on the travails of the FOURTH REPUBLIC. In 1947 he oversaw the establishment of a broadly “Gaullist” party, the Rassemblement du Peuple Français. While writing his war memoirs in Lorraine, he offered this only remote leadership, and then disbanded it for indiscipline in the early 1950s. However, de Gaulle never lost his belief that the French would again call upon him, perhaps under circumstances of nuclear crisis associated with COLD WAR tensions.

In the event, the summons came in 1958 over the ALGERIAN WAR, when many politicians thought that the General was the one man capable of resolving the crisis. De Gaulle headed a “government of national safety,” before presenting the constitution of a Fifth Republic for popular endorsement. This document, which augmented the presidential powers that he was now assuming, led many critics to fear a revival of something akin to BONAPARTISM. They cited the recourse to plebiscites, the employment of technocrats as ministers, censorship of the media, public tours and broadcasts, the creation of a highly disciplined party in the form of the Union pour la Nouvelle République, and the use of an electoral college to elect the president (something abandoned in favor of universal suffrage in 1962). Though this system of government was highly personalized, in practice much autonomy was left to ministers, especially within the economic domain where the General himself had little expertise. Gaullism itself was perhaps less a political ideology than a political style – one whose tendencies towards autocratic judgment and myth-making never entirely removed an underlying respect for liberal democracy.

It was in the so-called domaine réservé – concerning foreign, defense, and colonial policy – that the president ruled supreme. Here de Gaulle pursued a policy of grandeur which defied the realities of the international balance of power. In particular, it meant asserting the right to act independently of the two superpowers. This resulted in France's acquisition of its own nuclear weaponry, its withdrawal from the NATO command structure, and a series of snubs to the USA which themselves entailed economic disadvantages. At the same time, de Gaulle valued improved relations with the Soviet Union and China. However, at certain decisive points (e.g. the building of the BERLIN WALL in 1961, and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962) he stood firm alongside the Americans. Closer to home, his conception of EUROPEAN INTEGRATION differed from the views of those who had signed the ROME TREATIES shortly before his return to power. This impassioned enthusiast for a Europe des patries, fully protecting national sovereignties, had no time for shifts towards centralizing versions of FEDERALISM. Thus in 1965 he precipitated a crisis (see also LUXEMBURG COMPROMISE) which stalled much of this European project for the next 15 years, imperilling the good relationship that he had nurtured with the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY. Two years earlier he had vetoed Britain's application to join “THE SIX,” lest this should dilute French influence. As to empire, de Gaulle reluctantly oversaw a process of DECOLONIZATION, which was particularly critical in the case of Algeria (declared independent in 1962). Even so, France maintained a certain influence overseas, not least by pursuing some tawdry policies of neocolonialism. While these brought important military and economic gains, they also involved propping up some especially brutal African regimes.

Though de Gaulle's foreign policy played well at home, if not among those who had expected him to keep Algeria French, there was growing domestic dissatisfaction. Underlying social and cultural problems erupted in the STUDENT REVOLTS OF 1968. These events caught the president off-guard, but he was not entirely insensitive to the temper of the times and perhaps understood that he had outlived his usefulness. “Old age is a shipwreck,” he had remarked of Pétain. Thus he used defeat in a referendum on senate reform in 1969 as a pretext for retirement. Gaullism proper is often said to have died with the General in 1970; if so, it then gave way to a Gaullism more broadly defined, and one that continued to exert some significant influence on the French centre-right.

de Valera, Eamon (1882–1975), Prime Minister (1932–48, 1951–4, 1957–9) and President (1959–73) of IRELAND. For half a century de Valera was his country's leading politician, working above all for an independent and unified nation-state. Though born in the USA, he was brought up in Limerick. Having participated in the Easter rising of 1916 against British rule, he was sentenced to death but then released due to the technicality of his American origin. Soon gaoled again for resisting the London government's conscription demands, he managed to escape and swiftly to gain political leadership of Sinn Fein as well as military authority over the Irish Volunteers. He opposed the 1921–2 partition of Ireland, and fought in the ensuing civil war. In 1926 he became president of a new republican party, Fianna Fáil. As such, he assumed the premiership of the Irish Free State in 1932, and then became Taoiseach (chieftain) of Éire in 1937. He used these offices to weaken the remaining constitutional links with Britain, and during WORLD WAR II insisted on a formal NEUTRALITY that greatly angered CHURCHILL. Though defeated in the 1948 elections, de Valera served during the 1950s two terms as prime minister of what was by then the Republic of Ireland, and thereafter became its president. To the very end, he contested the UK's claims to sovereignty over Northern Ireland. He stood down at the age of 90, being by then the world's oldest head of state.

Deák, Ferenc (1803–76), Hungarian statesman and nationalist (see NATIONALISM). He briefly held the justice portfolio in the Budapest revolutionary government of 1848 (see REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9), but failed in his efforts to win from Vienna any firm concession of constitutional monarchy. After the exile of KOSSUTH, it was Deák who assumed leadership of the campaign that continued to be waged within the HABSBURG EMPIRE for proper recognition of Magyar rights. Though he never sought formal political office after 1848, Deák became widely known as “the sage of the nation.” His relative moderation encouraged FRANCIS JOSEPH I to bring him into the discussions on reform of the imperial framework that were already under way even before the Habsburg defeat in the AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR of 1866. During its aftermath Deák played a pivotal role in negotiating the AUSGLEICH of 1867, which created an Austro-Hungarian “dual monarchy” within whose structures the Magyars would henceforth enjoy a large degree of domestic autonomy.

Déat, Marcel (1894–1955), French politician who under the VICHY REGIME became notable for COLLABORATION with the Germans. Déat's education at the prestigious École Normale Supérieure was interrupted by World War I, in which he served bravely. As an aspiring intellectual, he developed an interest in SOCIALISM and was elected deputy for the Marne in 1926, and in 1932 won a seat in Paris. A year later he was expelled from the Socialist Party for advocating a broad-based alliance to counter both FASCISM and the GREAT DEPRESSION[2], whereupon he created his own self-styled “neo-socialist” grouping. An advocate of national solidarity, Déat subsequently moved rightwards, developing a contempt for COMMUNISM and an admiration for NAZISM. In 1939, his newspaper L'Oeuvre printed the famous headline, “Must one die for Danzig?” In July 1940 he tried to persuade PÉTAIN to establish a single party. When his approaches were rebuffed, he returned to Paris where he wrote for L'Oeuvre and, alongside Eugène Deloncle, established the Rassemblement National Populaire dedicated to Franco-German reconciliation. This failed to win over other collaborators, most notably DORIOT, and was strictly regulated by the Nazis. Eventually, in March 1944, Pétain made Déat minister for labor and national solidarity. At the Liberation, Déat went on the run, finding refuge at a Turin convent where he converted to Catholicism.

Debré, Michel (1912–96), Prime Minister of France (1959–62). Son of an eminent medical professor, Debré took an early interest in law and, in 1935, became an auditeur of the Conseil d'État, the highest administrative legal body. In 1938 he assisted the REYNAUD government in dismantling the POPULAR FRONT'S progressive welfare measures, and had a hand in DALADIER'S 1939 Code de la Famille, designed to boost the birthrate. In 1940, early in WORLD WAR II, Debré was captured by the Germans. He escaped to Morocco, and became part of the RESISTANCE. As a jurist, he closely advised both the Comité Général d'Études and the Comité Nationale de la Résistance on the administrative structures required at the liberation of France. Through his efforts, commissaires de la République, or “super-prefects,” were installed in June 1944, ensuring a smooth handover of power from VICHY to the Gaullist forces, and preventing any possibility of an American takeover. A close associate of DE GAULLE, Debré opposed the constitution of the FOURTH REPUBLIC. He returned to power with the General in 1958, and served as minister of justice (1958–9) and then as prime minister, in which capacity he pursued a right-wing agenda, facilitating subsidies for Catholic schools. He had a large hand in framing the constitution of the FIFTH REPUBLIC which he hoped would lay the foundations for British-style parliamentary government. While grateful for Debré's support over Algeria, de Gaulle was fearful that he had intentions to dilute presidential powers, and in 1962 replaced him as premier with POMPIDOU. Debré later served as minister of finance (1966–8) and foreign minister (1968–9). In the 1970s, he was a critic of the pro-Europe agenda of GISCARD D'ESTAING. He made a failed bid for the presidency in 1981.

Decembrist conspiracy Plot hatched in 1825 in RUSSIA by dissident nobles aiming to overthrow the monarchy and initiate reforms. Liberal reformers had existed since at least the time of CATHERINE II, but their numbers grew as a result of contacts with the West made by young aristocrats who were educated abroad and by army officers during the NAPOLEONIC WARS. The cause of reform was also stimulated by the increasingly reactionary policies of ALEXANDER I after 1815, which led to the formation of secret conspiratorial societies. By the early 1820s many of these had coalesced to form two “unions,” a northern and a southern one. The former envisaged a constitutional monarchy, while the latter favored a republic. Faced with Alexander's sudden death in 1825 and his replacement by the equally reactionary NICHOLAS I, the conspirators brought forward the date of their insurrection to December 26. The garrison at St Petersburg was persuaded to declare for Nicholas's elder, more tolerant brother, Constantine. However, the bulk of the army remained loyal and the risings were defeated. The leaders of the coup were executed and over a hundred conspirators were sent to Siberia.

dechristianization

[1] Concept used most typically in the general context of French historical experience to refer to the general decline in habits of religious observance, notably reduction of attendance at Sunday worship and failure to baptise children or to take the last rites. Such trends towards SECULARIZATION can be detected in the eighteenth century, but they became more pronounced in the nineteenth, particularly amongst men, producing what is often called a GENDER dichotomy in religious practice. In the twentieth century dechristianization came to have increasing effect on women too, and levels of religious practice among all social groups in western Europe declined significantly from the 1960s onwards. Viewed over the long term, however, such dechristianization has not been linear, and the most likely reasons for it – including the impact of radical political ideas, of scientific advance, and of URBANIZATION and INDUSTRIALIZATION – are not always clear-cut in their operation.

[2] The term is also encountered with more specific reference to the attempts made during the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789 to eradicate CATHOLICISM and other forms of religious worship, mainly occurring in the early months of the year II in the Revolutionary calendar (autumn 1793–spring 1794). The loyalty of the refractory clergy (see CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY) to the Revolution had been suspect from the outset, and since 1790–1 they had been subject to a welter of penal legislation. By 1793 the perceived link between religion and counter-revolution in areas such as the VENDÉE, and anger at the failure of the state-supported Constitutional Church to secure the loyalty of parishioners to the new regime, led the revolutionaries to embark upon a wider campaign of dechristianization which targeted the constitutional clergy and Catholicism itself. Churches were closed and religious artefacts removed; the clergy were forced to abdicate their functions; a new revolutionary calendar, which ignored Sundays and church festivals, replaced the Gregorian one; street and place names were altered to remove Christian references; and revolutionary cults of Reason and the Supreme Being were devised to wean people away from their attachment to “superstition.” The results of these efforts, which encountered significant popular resistance (notably from women) in some regions, were patchy. Most affected were the clergy who were driven from France or forced into hiding. In the long run, the campaign may have contributed towards a decline in levels of religious observance as habits of conformity were lost; it helped to make religion part of the woman's sphere; and it fostered greater independence on the part of the laity.

Declaration of the Rights of Man (see RIGHTS OF MAN)

decolonization A retreat from colonial authority that developed as sequel to IMPERIALISM and featured particularly prominently during the third quarter of the twentieth century. Even earlier, changes in the nature of European “empire” were becoming apparent: for example, through the UK's concession of self-government to its white-settler Dominions, and the MANDATE system of LEAGUE OF NATIONS trusteeship that covered the transfers of control over colonial territories arranged after World War I. However, it was the still wider conflict of 1939–45 that most crucially strengthened the currents of anticolonialism. Neither of the “superpowers” that dominated the postwar global scene was well disposed towards perpetuating old-style European imperialism; nor could it expect much sympathy from the General Assembly of the new UNITED NATIONS. Moreover, amid the material devastation and the other travails that most of the European imperial powers had undergone in the face of German or Japanese aggression, none of them appeared to their colonial subjects as invulnerable as before. The indigenous political movements that aimed to remove such distant metropolitan authority would now also begin to acquire a broader base of support, often using not only appeals to their native cultural and religious traditions but also a rhetoric of equality, human rights, and NATIONALISM deeply influenced by the European legacy itself. In due course decolonization became subject to a “domino effect,” which was fortified by rising skepticism among Europeans themselves as to whether they were any longer benefiting from imperial involvement.

Against that background, early landmarks in the decolonization process included Britain's hurriedly improvised withdrawal from India (partitioned, with a new Pakistan), Burma, Ceylon, and Palestine during 1947–8; across the East Indies, the eventual Dutch acceptance of an independent Indonesia in 1949; and in Indochina the defeat inflicted by the Vietnamese liberation movement on French forces at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The ineptitude of the Anglo-French handling of the 1956 SUEZ CRISIS further confirmed the waning international position of Europe's two leading colonial powers. In 1957, after nearly a decade of “emergency” associated with communist insurgency, Malaya obtained its independence from Britain. Over the next few years a more peaceful process of decolonization was conducted across the Caribbean. In Africa, amid the “wind of change” identified by premier Harold Macmillan, the territories over which the UK had ceased to rule by the early 1960s included the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Kenya, and Northern Rhodesia. In 1965 loss of de facto control also occurred with regard to Southern Rhodesia, but under circumstances where it was a white-settler regime that effected unilateral secession from British sovereignty and then sustained this position for a further 15 years until the creation of Zimbabwe. Meanwhile, in 1960, French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa had been partitioned into various indigenous successor states, and Madagascar too had achieved its sovereignty. Further north, the grants of independence conceded to French Morocco and to Tunisia in 1956 had helped to fuel the hopes of those anticolonialists who were campaigning for the liberation of Algeria too. This was finally achieved in 1962, albeit only after a particularly bitter armed struggle (see ALGERIAN WAR) for a region that France had hitherto regarded as an integral part of its metropolitan territory. Two years earlier, Belgium had scuttled rapidly out of the vast Congo area, rounding off its dismal record of colonial maladministration by leaving the region prey to civil war and singularly ill-prepared for the challenge of self-governance. Italy, having been disgraced by its 1935 seizure and subsequent loss of Ethiopia (see ITALO-ETHIOPIAN WAR), had witnessed its two main surviving possessions – Libya and Somalia – being transferred to UNITED NATIONS mandate in 1945: the first then gained full sovereignty in 1951, and the second in 1960. As for Portugal, its role in the ruling of Africa lasted until 1975, when, as part of a transition to more liberal democracy at home but only after years of guerrilla warfare in the colonies themselves, it conceded independence to Angola and Mozambique. At the same period, Spain completed the abandonment of all but a few small enclaves in the areas long claimed by Morocco. By the end of the COLD WAR epoch around 1990, only a few remnants of Europe's formal colonial authority survived in the world at large, such as those that Britain and Portugal would soon abandon over Hong Kong (1997) and Macao (1999) respectively. As for the remnants of white-settler domination in Africa, these disappeared with Namibia's achievement of independence from South Africa in 1990, followed by the collapse of the latter's own apartheid regime in 1993–4.

Among the most notable results of decolonization was significant MIGRATION into Europe. The flows included ethnic Europeans who sought repatriation to the metropolitan countries, such as the pieds noirs who returned to France from Algeria. But they also comprised non-Europeans for whom (not least as a potential source of cheap labor) a path of entry had been opened as part of the postcolonial agreements. The pressure from the latter surged further whenever their newly-created states encountered conditions of economic or political crisis. Such difficulties occurred, moreover, all too frequently. In consequence, it proved less difficult for many of the colonies to attain formal sovereign status than to consolidate their independence by freeing themselves from some continuing dependence upon the economic, scientific, and technological expertise of their old masters. Thus the historiography of decolonization also embraces controversy about the nature and extent of neocolonialism – as a system through which Europe's former imperial powers, and the USA, allegedly sought to develop more informal yet still effective means of control and even exploitation.

Degrelle, Léon Marie Joseph Ignace (1906–94), extreme right-wing Belgian politician who, in May 1940, supported COLLABORATION with Nazi Germany. A failed lawyer, Degrelle entered Catholic youth politics in the 1920s and was heavily influenced by the foreign authoritarian regimes of SALAZAR and DOLLFUSS. In the 1930s he founded the REXISTS, a proto-fascist party (see FASCISM) committed to a mixture of Catholic, nationalists, and anti-democratic ideals. Having won 21 seats in the 1935 parliamentary elections, in the following year Degrelle attempted a “march on Brussels” which ended in embarrassment. New opportunity arose early in WORLD WAR II, with the Nazi invasion of Belgium in May 1940. A full-blown collaborationist, he created in 1941 the Légion Wallonie which campaigned on the Eastern front. In 1943, the Légion became part of the SCHUTZSTAFFEL (SS) and Degrelle received many military decorations, including the Iron Cross. HITLER is reputed to have said that if he had been blessed with a son he would have “hoped for Léon.” Sentenced to death in absentia by a Belgian court in 1945, Degrelle took refuge in Spain where he subsequently encouraged movements denying the historicity of the so-called FINAL SOLUTION.

Delcassé, Théophile (1852–1923), French statesman and diplomat. Of modest origins, he worked as a journalist before being elected to parliament as a Radical deputy in 1889. In 1893 he was appointed under-secretary of state for the colonies, and the following year headed the newly-formed colonial ministry. He belonged to a group of deputies, businessmen, soldiers, and writers known as the parti colonial. They believed that empire was a sign of national prestige and source of wealth (see also IMPERIALISM). Under Delcassé, France acquired territories in West Africa and Indochina, and looked to displace Britain in Egypt. Frequently these initiatives were taken without direction from Paris, one example being the FASHODA CRISIS that Delcassé had to resolve on becoming foreign minister in 1898. He drew from it the conclusion that better relations with Britain would assist France in consolidating its imperial role. This belief informed the ENTENTE CORDIALE of 1904. Here the two powers agreed to resolve several outstanding colonial differences, most importantly in Morocco and Egypt. It also helped pave the way for the TRIPLE ENTENTE between Russia, France, and Britain in 1907. Indeed, Delcassé had already done much to boost the Franco-Russian alliance, and had further secured French interests against Germany by signing a secret non-aggression pact with Italy in 1902 which undermined the TRIPLE ALLIANCE. In 1905 German provocation during the first of the MOROCCAN CRISES forced his resignation, yet his talents could not be ignored. He returned as naval minister (1911–13), and headed the Foreign Office during the first 16 months of WORLD WAR I.

Delors, Jacques (1925–), President of the European Commission (1985–95). This socialist entered French politics via the civil service and the trade union movement, and eventually became minister for finance in 1981. His move to Brussels four years later marked the beginning of the most dynamic period of Commission presidency since that of the first incumbent, HALLSTEIN. During Delors' tenure EUROPEAN INTEGRATION progressed as the European Community underwent territorial enlargement, both through growth from 10 to 15 member states and also via the eastward extension resulting from GERMAN REUNIFICATION. He was also successful in negotiating the SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT and the MAASTRICHT TREATY, and in mapping (via his report of 1989) a path towards ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION. In pursuing greater political as well as economic integration he generally benefited from the combined Franco-German support of MITTERRAND and KOHL. Conversely, the same developments also made Delors' relations with THATCHER increasingly difficult during the final phase of her British premiership.

democracy A direct derivation from the ancient Greek dēmokratia, meaning “rule by the people.” Its modern connotations also embrace links with the discourse of social equality.

The process of democratization, at the expense of more obviously elitist forms of rule (see ABSOLUTISM; ARISTOCRACY; MONARCHISM), has clearly been a leading feature of European political development since the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789. It has often provided a focal point of contention between CONSERVATISM (particularly fearful of domination by “the mob”) and more progressive movements such as LIBERALISM and SOCIALISM. The growth of popular governance and “majority rule” became evident within Europe (though hardly in the wider regions subjected to its IMPERIALISM) through the way that its electoral systems tended towards establishing increasingly broader franchises. Thus, in the course of the twentieth century and in continuation of a political mobilization of MASS SOCIETY that began even earlier, the entitlement of all adults to vote eventually became the norm. It was achieved first for men, but only more slowly for women who had no such rights at all until provision began to be made by Finland in 1906 and Norway in 1913 (see also FEMINISM; GENDER).

There was, however, no simple correlation between this trend towards universal suffrage and other features that are often linked with it far too casually, and indeed optimistically. Most importantly of all, such universality, while being a necessary precondition for the attainment of general political freedom, has certainly not proved to be a sufficient foundation for it. One problem was the persistence of elitist oligarchy, especially where voters in so-called democracies failed to sustain effective control over those whom they had elected to govern them. Another stemmed from the fact that majority views expressed through “the will of the people” often generated illiberal consequences for minorities, and especially so in those areas of Europe most affected by ethnic complexities. Thus, as TOCQUEVILLE was already warning in the early nineteenth century, historians need to be alert to variations of time and circumstance while pursuing skeptical questions about the relationship between enlarged electoral participation in any particular state and other aspects of its political culture and constitutional procedures. Who exactly are to qualify as being the people? How freely and regularly can they exercise their vote, and with what range of choice amongst competing parties? Who actually rules in the people's name? To what proper purposes? Through what mechanisms of national, regional, and local representation? According to what limitations of governmental power? With what effective provision for the observance of those constraints and for the expression of opposition? Not least, with what protection given to the rights of those dissenting from the sometimes dubious wisdom of the greatest number?

When the issues are reviewed in that way, it becomes easier to see why some commentators have favored using, at the “negative” end of the spectrum of answers, the concept of totalitarian democracy (see TOTALITARIANISM). They have further highlighted the seeming paradox that the origins of any such phenomenon must be located within the overall context of the supposedly liberating ideology of the French Revolution – at the point where the JACOBINS launched their reign of TERROR, precisely in the name of the people and of preserving democratic “virtue.” The broader thrust of this argument was aimed at emphasizing that, in the twentieth century, even the dictatorships of STALIN and HITLER had claimed to be somehow rooted in the popular will (even if this was normally expressed, at best, only through passive consent). In less brutal mode, NAPOLEON I and NAPOLEON III had both provided during the intervening period notable examples of how authoritarian rule might be aided by plebiscitary endorsement (see also BONAPARTISM).

By the time of the COLD WAR no state in Europe could afford publicly to repudiate an attachment to democracy, in some sense of the term. However, on each side of the Iron Curtain, there was a perception that the socioeconomic (and not simply the political) structures controlling the rival system were so corrupt as to render hollow all the rhetoric of democratic achievement being so loudly trumpeted by the competing ideology, whether this was CAPITALISM broadcasting its propaganda in one direction or COMMUNISM responding in the other. Over the longer run, as the REVOLUTIONS OF 1989–91 confirmed, it was not the self-styled “people's democracies” of the Soviet bloc but the versions of democratic parliamentary representation found in the West that prevailed and spread. The latter had greatly strengthened their position after 1945. This was most notable through the post-Nazi political reconstruction achieved within the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY – something pursued initially under the banner of a new CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY that also emerged in France and Italy at the same epoch. At the beginning of the twenty-first century there were still some significant areas – for example, Russia (where PUTIN sustained a genuinely popular “directed democracy”), Belarus, and parts of the Balkans – to which the broad model generally operative in western Europe had not been fully transplanted. However, this version had become normative for any state desiring direct involvement in EUROPEAN INTEGRATION. There remained, all the same, some anxieties that the European Union itself had come to embody excessive governance by Brussels BUREAUCRACY, with a resulting lack of democratic accountability.

demography (see POPULATION)

Denmark This country, with an estimated current population of 5.5 million, is the most southerly in SCANDINAVIA. Its mainland covers the major part of the Jutland peninsula which, together with the archipelago immediately to the east, gives Denmark an important strategic position in relation to the channels that link the Baltic to the North Sea. During the NAPOLEONIC WARS, the Danish monarchy endeavored to remain neutral. However, at the battles of COPENHAGEN in 1801 and 1807, its fleet was twice attacked by British naval forces who were anxious lest this should fall into French hands. As a result, Denmark eventually sided with NAPOLEON I, before being penalized upon his defeat. The 1814–15 VIENNA CONGRESS required the Danes to yield NORWAY, which they had ruled for four centuries, to SWEDEN. Their sovereignty over ICELAND, however, survived until the early twentieth century. Following the REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9 elsewhere in Europe, King Frederick VII swiftly conceded constitutional adjustments that orientated Denmark towards a more representative mode of governance. In 1864 the country suffered further territorial loss, this time on its southern border, when the forces of Prussia and Austria incorporated the disputed region of SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN into their holdings within the GERMAN CONFEDERATION. During WORLD WAR I the Danes maintained their NEUTRALITY, and at the end of hostilities benefited from a plebiscite that restored their control over northern Schleswig. Despite another declaration of neutrality in WORLD WAR II, from April 1940 they found themselves under German occupation as part of HITLER'S wider strategy of domination over Norway (and indirectly Sweden too). In 1943 the Danish RESISTANCE proved particularly effective in smuggling nearly all of the country's small community of JEWS to neutral Sweden so as to save them from NAZISM'S genocidal ambitions (see FINAL SOLUTION). Towards the end of the conflict some 3 million Germans escaped from the advance of the Red Army by fleeing into Schleswig-Holstein, and that whole region was confirmed as belonging to the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY when the latter began its existence four years later. After 1945 Denmark consolidated its earlier development of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY and WELFARISM, but abandoned its neutralist tradition in 1949 when it became a founding member of NATO. In 1952 the Danes participated in the creation of the NORDIC COUNCIL. Within the wider setting of EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, where Danish policy tended to follow that of the UK as one of its major trading partners, they helped to inaugurate the EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION in 1960 before achieving entry into the European Community (EC) as part of that body's first wave of enlargement in 1973. Despite the benefits yielded to its substantial farming sector through the COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, Denmark was subsequently cautious about the emergence of a European Union (EU). It declined by plebiscite to endorse the MAASTRICHT TREATY in 1992, and reversed that decision in 1993 only after securing opt-outs on points relating to currency union, citizenship, and defense.

Denmark possesses two outlying territories, which had colonial status until becoming integral parts of the country in 1953. The Faeroe Islands form the first of these, while the second is the vast expanse of Greenland. The latter, with a very sparse and chiefly Inuit population, lies mainly within the Arctic Circle and is located far closer to Canada than to Europe. Like the Faeroes, it was granted a large measure of internal self-government in 1979. Through a referendum held in 1982 Greenland used this autonomy to become the first (and so far the only) case of territorial withdrawal from full membership of the EC/EU.

Depressions (see GREAT DEPRESSIONS)

Depretis, Agostino (1813–87), Prime Minister of ITALY (1876–8, 1878–9, 1881–7). Born in Lombardy, Depretis was an early disciple of MAZZINI and was involved in many abortive nationalist conspiracies. During the REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9 he was elected as a left-wing deputy in the Sardinian parliament, where he became an opponent of CAVOUR. He was appointed governor of Brescia in 1859, and in the following year GARIBALDI prevailed upon Cavour to make Depretis the representative of PIEDMONT-SARDINIA in conquered Sicily (see ITALIAN UNIFICATION). Within the newly-proclaimed Kingdom of Italy, Depretis held a series of cabinet appointments and served three spells as premier. He was a skilful political operator, holding together coalition governments through a policy of TRASFORMISMO. However, this meant a recourse to corruption and a failure to confront problems so as to maintain a united ministerial front. It is sometimes said that his methods fuelled widespread public disillusionment with the Italian liberal state.

Déroulède, Paul (1846–1914), French nationalist poet and politician, influential in the rise of right-wing authoritarianism. Having served in the FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, Déroulède was determined on a campaign of revenge which would recover the lost provinces of ALSACE-LORRAINE. To this end, in 1882 he founded the Ligue des Patriotes which included a number of respectable politicians among its 180,000 members. Convinced that the THIRD REPUBLIC was incapable of standing up to the new GERMAN EMPIRE, Déroulède threw his weight behind General BOULANGER, which led to the League's suppression in 1889. Elected deputy for the Charente (1889–93), Déroulède made his mark as a noisy politician, and was expelled from the chamber. He was reelected in 1898 and became a prominent anti-Dreyfusard (see DREYFUS AFFAIR). The following year, he attempted a coup on the day of President Faure's funeral, for which he was expelled from France. On returning in 1905, he shunned public life, but was remembered with affection by BARRÈS, MAURRAS, and the other supporters of integralist NATIONALISM who flocked to his funeral in 1914.

détente Term regularly encountered in diplomatic language from the early twentieth century onward to denote relaxation of tension between states. Today its commonest usage relates more specifically to the improvement in East–West relations that occurred during the 1970s and 1980s and characterized the concluding stages of the COLD WAR.

Dimitrov, Georgi (1882–1949), Prime Minister of BULGARIA (1946–9). He first became prominent in 1923, leading in the name of COMMUNISM an unsuccessful counter-coup against the right-wing nationalists who had overthrown the agrarian-populist government of STAMBOLIISKY. Dimitrov then spent a twenty-year exile in Moscow, working for the Third INTERNATIONAL. During a Berlin mission in 1933, he was arrested by the Nazis for complicity in the REICHSTAG FIRE, but his spirited defense won him acquittal. During WORLD WAR II he helped to form the Fatherland Front that coordinated Bulgaria's anti-fascist RESISTANCE. In 1945 he headed his country's provisional government, and became premier of its new People's Republic in 1946. Though following orthodox Stalinism (see STALIN) at home, Dimitrov initially tried to develop, like TITO, a stance in foreign affairs that was more independent of the Kremlin. However, by the time of YUGOSLAVIA'S break with the SOVIET UNION in 1948, Stalin was already bringing Bulgaria back into line. Dimitrov died in office, while undergoing medical treatment in Moscow.

Directory Within the broader context of the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789, this was the regime that operated from August 1795 to November 1799. It was established by the outgoing CONVENTION under the Constitution of the Year II (so-called according to the new Revolutionary calendar). The Directory's founders wished to steer a middle course, avoiding a return to the social egalitarianism and centralized JACOBIN dictatorship of 1793–4 (see also THE TERROR) on the one hand, and a royalist restoration on the other. Accordingly, the Constitution empowered the well-to-do, especially those who had benefited from the sale of national properties and opposed any overturning of the revolutionary land settlement. Although there were some 5 million in the electorate, the high property franchise at the second stage of the electoral process effectively put control into the hands of 30,000 wealthy voters. Additionally, the Constitution established a clear separation of powers between the legislative and the executive. The former comprised two elected bodies, the Council of Five Hundred, which initiated legislation, and the Council of the Ancients, which approved it. Deputies in both houses sat for three years, with one third being renewable annually. The Directory, the five-man executive from which the regime took its name, was appointed by the Council of Five Hundred from a list of nominees supplied by the Council of Ancients. Napoleon Bonaparte (see NAPOLEON I) justified his coup against the regime in BRUMAIRE 1799 by vilifying the Directory for its political instability, corruption, and incompetence, a verdict which has largely been adopted by posterity. There was some truth in his accusations. The complete separation of powers was unworkable; the provision for annual elections made for frequent changes in the political complexion of the regime; and there were a series of coups, to avoid swings to the right and the left, which destroyed the regime's liberal credentials. The use of private contractors to handle government business offered rich pickings for dishonest operators. The religious policies of the regime lurched from toleration to persecution. It failed to control its generals, and suffered a series of military reverses between September 1797 and November 1799 which would seal its fate (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS). Even so, the Directory survived longer than any other revolutionary regime. Moreover, it faced enormous challenges from the outset: an empty treasury, rampant inflation, devalued ASSIGNATS, and extensive counter-revolution. Some of these problems it successfully tackled. After experimenting with an unsuccessful paper currency, the mandats territoriaux, it brought inflation under control by restoring a metallic currency. A new tax regime was put in place. It moved to a balanced budget by repudiating much government debt, causing squeals of protest from investors in the short term, but laying the basis for longer-term financial recovery. Moreover, the Directory took important initiatives in the social sphere – for example, legislating to extend secondary education and improving the care of the mentally ill. Yet ultimately the regime failed to establish a basis of popular support, leaving it dangerously dependent on the army for its survival, and thus opening the way for a military coup.

Djilas, Milovan (1911–95), Yugoslav writer and dissident. Having been imprisoned for communist activism by the dictatorship that controlled his country during the 1930s, he became in WORLD WAR II a leading figure in YUGOSLAVIA'S partisan RESISTANCE to the forces of HITLER and MUSSOLINI. Thereafter he followed a promising political career, eloquently supporting TITO'S determination to develop Yugoslav COMMUNISM along lines independent from those demanded by STALIN. By 1954, however, Djilas's increasing criticism of the oligarchical tendencies of all existing communist practice had brought him into disfavor even at home. Two years later it was the Tito regime that returned him to gaol, for defending the HUNGARIAN RISING. Though freed in 1961, Djilas also suffered later spells of imprisonment within Yugoslavia, beginning with punishment for having published, in the West, Conversations with Stalin (1962). This remains the most celebrated monument to his disillusionment with the movement that he had formerly championed.

Dolchstoss German term for “dagger stab.” It was used at the end of WORLD WAR I especially by those nationalists who, conscious that no foreign troops had yet penetrated into Germany at the time of the November 1918 armistice, attributed the collapse of the Reich not to defeat on the battlefield but to domestic treachery. NAZISM would exploit such rhetoric of back-stabbing to especially skilful effect against supporters of COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM, and against JEWS whom they condemned for undermining the war effort and unleashing the disaster of the VERSAILLES TREATY.

Dollfuss, Engelbert (1892–1934), authoritarian politician who served as Chancellor of AUSTRIA (1932–4). Of lowly origins, he studied theology and law at university. Though his diminutive stature almost excluded him from military service, he fought with distinction in WORLD WAR I. On demobilization, his devout Catholicism led him to join the Christian Social Party, and he became an expert on rural affairs. In March 1931 he was appointed minister of agriculture and forestry, in which capacity he tackled the onset of the GREAT DEPRESSION[2]. His financial skills led to his elevation to chancellor in May 1932. He was, however, haunted by the prospect of a left-wing takeover and believed dictatorship was the only way to forestall SOCIALISM. In March the following year, the so-called “millimetre Metternich” suspended parliamentary democracy and revealed his true authoritarian leanings. In his foreign policy he cultivated MUSSOLINI and HORTHY DE NAGYBÁNYA, while at home he brutally crushed the socialist protests of February 1934. Three months later he unveiled a fascist constitution (see FASCISM). However, he found little support among Austrian enthusiasts for a still more radical NAZISM that sought a union with Germany (see ANSCHLUSS). It was they who assassinated Dollfuss in an abortive putsch of July 25, 1934.

Doriot, Jacques (1898–1945), a leading French supporter of COMMUNISM and TRADE UNIONISM, who eventually gravitated to FASCISM and COLLABORATION with NAZISM. He distinguished himself in WORLD WAR I, after which he became in 1924 Communist deputy for St-Denis in Paris, a political base for the remainder of his career. Secretary general of the French Communist Party, he was expelled in 1934 for advocating a POPULAR FRONT against Fascism before Moscow had given its approval. In 1936 he founded his own Parti Populaire Français, taking with him 100,000 working-class supporters. Historians disagree whether, at its founding, this was truly fascist; but after 1940 there was little doubt. Having become a staunch supporter of the VICHY REGIME, Doriot preferred to reside in occupied Paris where he wrote for Le Cri du Peuple. In 1941 he helped found the Légion des Volontaires Français contre le Bolchevisme, which recruited men to fight on the eastern front where Doriot himself spent much of the war. Vichy always feared that the Germans might establish him as the head of a rival government in Paris. This never happened, and on February 22, 1945, while travelling in Germany, Doriot was killed in an attack by two unidentified aircraft.

Dreikaiserbund (see THREE EMPERORS' LEAGUE)

Dreyfus affair A judicial scandal (1894–1906) which seemingly threatened the stability of the French THIRD REPUBLIC. At a time of heightened Franco-German tensions, it became evident that military secrets were being passed to Berlin. In September 1894 a list, known as the bordereau, that detailed military equipment was allegedly discovered in the waste-basket of the German military attaché in Paris. After a cursory investigation, the handwriting was matched to that of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army captain from Alsace, who served on the General Staff. He was duly convicted in December 1894 and sentenced to “the dry guillotine,” namely banishment on Devil's Island in the Pacific. Refusing to recognize the verdict, Dreyfus' family pursued the matter, discovering that the prosecution had consistently misled the court. The recently appointed head of military intelligence, Colonel Picquart, was also disquieted by the proceedings and by the continuing drip of secrets to Germany. In the course of his enquiries, suspicion fell on Commandant Esterhazy, whose handwriting matched the bordereau, and whose several gambling debts gave him motive. The army, however, refused to reopen the case, believing that this would undermine the rule of law. Picquart was transferred to North Africa, to be replaced by Colonel Henry. The latter quickly forged new evidence; and would later commit suicide when his wrongdoings were exposed. The case continued to attract public attention, some of this sustained by Bernard Lazare, a Jewish intellectual who in 1896 published Une erreur judiciaire. This helped force the trial of Esterhazy, whose speedy acquittal prompted Emile Zola to blow open the whole affair. In February 1898 this celebrated novelist published, under the title “J'accuse,” a sensational letter in CLEMENCEAU'S newspaper L'Aurore. There Zola detailed the many cover-ups, forgeries, and judicial shenanigans associated with the Dreyfus affair. Though he was forced to exile himself to Britain, Zola had transformed the case into a political scandal. In 1899 Dreyfus was retried and again pronounced guilty, but now only by a majority verdict and with “extenuating circumstances.” Exasperated by the stubbornness of military justice, the prime minister, Waldeck Rousseau, arranged for a presidential pardon, though this was confirmed by the Rennes Court of Appeal only in 1906. Both Dreyfus and Picquart subsequently reentered public service. Whether the affair truly threatened the stability of the republic, as many of its supporters believed, is now questioned by historians. French society was not divided down the middle as is sometimes claimed, and the most heated debates took place in Paris not the provinces. Nonetheless, the affair stirred emotions and split opinion between so-called Dreyfusards (intellectuals, free-thinkers, republicans, and socialists) and anti-Dreyfusards (military men, clerics, and supporters of ACTION FRANÇAISE). Troublingly, the affair also revealed a virulent ANTISEMITISM within French society and a xenophobia that would later resurface under the VICHY REGIME and become a noted characteristic of the French extreme right.

Dual Alliance Secret defensive arrangement made between Germany and Austria-Hungary on October 7, 1879. They agreed to provide mutual assistance in the case of either facing attack from Russia; they also pledged to each other a “benevolent NEUTRALITY” under circumstances of war with any other state. BISMARCK later boasted that he had planned this reconciliation of the two major Germanic powers back in the late 1860s. The alliance was certainly designed to deter Austria from courting France and (like the THREE EMPERORS' LEAGUE, first canvassed in 1873 and then formalized in 1881) to restrain potential Austro-Russian conflict arising from rival territorial ambitions in the BALKANS. Renewed every five years, the Dual Alliance became a lynchpin of German foreign policy and grew more aggressive in nature following the fall of Bismarck in 1890 and the signing of the FRANCO-RUSSIAN ALLIANCE in 1894.

Dual Entente (see FRANCO-RUSSIAN ALLIANCE)

Dual Monarchy (see under HABSBURG EMPIRE)

dualism (see under HABSBURG EMPIRE)

Dubček, Alexander (1921–92), First Secretary of the Communist Party of CZECHOSLOVAKIA (1968–9). As successor to NOVOTNY, this Slovak became the leading figure in the PRAGUE SPRING of 1968. Dubček headed a reforming administration that sought some liberalization of the COMMUNISM operative inside his country and a lessening of the SOVIET UNION'S control over foreign policy too. The WARSAW PACT invasion of August 1968 put an end to his effective authority, and he was formally replaced by HUSÁK in the following year. However, when Soviet hegemony over the Eastern bloc collapsed amidst the European REVOLUTIONS OF 1989–91 and HAVEL became Czechoslovakia's first post-communist leader, Dubček re-emerged to act as chairman of the new democratic parliament.

Duce (see MUSSOLINI)

Duma Russian term for an assembly associated with the business of government. Initially comprising an advisory body of aristocrats (boyars) summoned at the tsar's pleasure, an elected Duma with representative functions was conceded as part of the constitution wrung from NICHOLAS II following the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1905. Despite limits to the franchise which heavily advantaged conservative property owners, the first two Dumas (May–July 1906, March–June 1907) were hostile to the government and were dissolved by the Tsar. Changes to the electoral laws reinforced the conservative majority in the third and fourth Dumas (1907–12, 1914–17). Even so, they were largely ignored by Nicholas, and the Dumas were further weakened by their avoidance of the social and economic reforms needed for popular support. Nevertheless, they helped to raise political awareness and served as a forum for criticism of government policy, especially the conduct of WORLD WAR I. When the tsarist regime imploded early in 1917, the Duma inaugurated a Provisional Government (see RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS OF 1917). In November of that year the Duma disappeared, upon the seizure of power by the BOLSHEVIKS. It was not restored until 1993 when, following the collapse of the SOVIET UNION, it became one of the two houses of the new Federal Assembly.

Dunant, Henri (see RED CROSS, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE)

Dunkirk, evacuation from This occurred May 26–June 4, 1940, early in WORLD WAR II and shortly after HITLER launched his invasion of western Europe on May 10. Within two weeks German armies had reached the Channel coast, encircling the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), together with many French troops. Unwittingly helped by sudden hesitancy on the part of the German commander, Gerd von Rundstedt, the Allies managed to bring together their remaining forces at Dunkirk and, on May 26, began to ferry soldiers to Britain in a manoeuvre code-named Operation Dynamo. Initially it was just British troops who were transferred; the French still awaited orders to evacuate and were disadvantaged in that their fleet was largely in the Mediterranean and off North Africa. The British used whatever boats and ships came to hand; many were civilian pleasure craft. On May 29 CHURCHILL, newly-appointed as premier and anxious to keep the Anglo-French alliance intact, ordered that French and British be evacuated in equal numbers. By the close of Dynamo, 198,315 British troops had been evacuated and 139,911 Allied ones, mainly French. The rescue of the BEF, albeit without its equipment, was vital in keeping Britain in the war. French military evacuees were quickly returned to Normandy, although by then the battle was lost. Some 35,000 French troops had stayed behind to protect the Dunkirk retreat and were captured. The town itself was left in ruins. For the French, Dunkirk was one example, among many in the Battle of France, of British bad faith. Conversely, for Britain, Dunkirk became a symbol of defiance and resourcefulness.

Dunkirk, Treaty of Anglo-French pact of March 1947, providing for a 50-year term of mutual defense assistance against any renewal of German aggression. This first security agreement of the post-1945 era evoked the spirit of the ENTENTE CORDIALE of 1904, and of the alliances with which Britain and France had entered the two world wars. Covering regular economic as well as military consultations, the pact was soon enlarged by the BRUSSELS TREATY of 1948.