T

Taaffe, Count Eduard (1833–95), Prime Minister of Austria (1868–70, 1879–93). Having inherited both Irish and Austrian titles of nobility, Taaffe won rapid political promotion before becoming president of the cabinet in the year following the AUSGLEICH. That arrangement involved a new power-sharing compromise with the Magyar-dominated half of the HABSBURG EMPIRE. Taaffe soon faced major difficulties in trying to reconcile the many different competing political and national factions, and in 1870 was forced to resign. He subsequently served as governor of the Tyrol, before returning as prime minister in 1879. Though essentially loyal to Emperor FRANCIS JOSEPH I rather than to any particular political party, Taaffe managed to build a conservative coalition that enabled him to sustain the longest ministry of the reign. His second period of office is chiefly remembered for the electoral reforms of 1882 that reduced the tax requirements for the male franchise, and for his repeated attempts to persuade the Czechs to become engaged with parliament. To this latter end, he secured official recognition for partial use of the Czech language in BOHEMIA and Moravia. Essentially a pragmatist who was reliant on conservative Slav and German support in parliament, Taaffe never succeeded in appeasing the liberals and the many disaffected nationalities within the empire. His proposals of 1893 concerning further franchise extension also alienated his conservative allies, and thus brought about his second resignation.

Talleyrand, Charles Maurice (1754–1838), French churchman and diplomat. Talleyrand was notorious for his decadence, and for the cynicism and political opportunism that allowed him to survive the turbulent decades of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. A largely absentee bishop of Autun under the ANCIEN REGIME, Talleyrand was elected to the ESTATES GENERAL at the start of the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789. He quickly rallied support for the constitutional monarchists and helped in drafting wide-ranging reform proposals in matters of religion, finance, and education. He resigned his bishopric with the promulgation of the CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY. Following the downfall of LOUIS XVI he went into exile. He returned under the DIRECTORY, becoming foreign minister in 1797. Talleyrand quickly established close relations with the future NAPOLEON I, helping to organize the coup of BRUMAIRE. He was reappointed to the post of foreign minister but gradually diverged from Napoleon over the latter's unbridled territorial ambitions, resigning in 1807 over the Treaties of TILSIT. Following the emperor's downfall, Talleyrand helped persuade Tsar ALEXANDER I to accept restoration of the BOURBON DYNASTY. He played a significant role at the VIENNA CONGRESS in achieving the reintegration of France into the European diplomatic system. He retired in 1815, but returned to public life under the JULY MONARCHY as ambassador to London, in which capacity he helped to negotiate the independence of BELGIUM.

Tannenberg, Battle of (27–28 August 1914). Fought in East Prussia, this battle was the first major engagement between Russians and Germans in WORLD WAR I. The tsarist forces, mobilizing more rapidly than expected, had earlier defeated the Austrians. HINDENBURG and LUDENDORFF now took command on the Eastern Front, and a mixture of luck and tactical brilliance gave them victory at Tannenberg (a battle vengefully named by the Germans for the destruction of the Teutonic knights, their supposed predecessors, by the Poles in 1410), where the Russians lost 92,000 men as prisoners and 50,000 as casualties. This defeat, together with a further one at the Masurian Lakes early in September, induced in the tsar's army a feeling of inferiority when pitted against the Germans. Conversely, these battles turned Hindenburg and Ludendorff into national heroes capable of encouraging the German high command to focus attention on the Eastern Front and to gloss over failure in the west (see MARNE, BATTLE OF THE) where victory was most urgently needed.

Tehran Conference Meeting held from November 28 to December 1, 1943 between President Roosevelt, STALIN, and CHURCHILL. Conducted in Persia at the stage when WORLD WAR II had begun to look winnable for the Allies, these first face-to-face negotiations between the Big Three produced broad agreement about the grand strategy now needed for coordinated attacks on HITLER'S forces from east, west, and south. Most notable was the Anglo-American promise to ease Stalin's problems by launching during 1944 the Second Front that eventually began with the NORMANDY LANDINGS. While generating less conclusive discussions (later resumed at YALTA) about the shape of postwar eastern Europe, the conference also reached some consensus about replacing the LEAGUE OF NATIONS with the kind of body that eventually emerged as the UNITED NATIONS.

Tennis Court Oath Resolution by deputies of the National Assembly, made in the context of the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789, that they would not disperse until a constitution was granted. On June 17, 1789 members of the Third Estate at the ESTATES GENERAL, together with some nobles and clerics, adopted the title of National Assembly. This threw the Court into a quandary and LOUIS XVI was persuaded to hold a royal session of all the deputies. In anticipation of this, the National Assembly's meeting-place was locked. Fearing an imminent royal coup, those involved in the Assembly then gathered on June 20 in the nearby covered tennis court and, with a single exception, swore the oath drafted by SIEYÈS. The event was immortalized in a painting by Jacques-Louis David that suggests more resolve than was in fact the case. The Oath nevertheless forced the king to make sweeping concessions.

The Terror Form of government that emerged during the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789 and involved setting aside the normal constitution. It was characterized by centralization of authority and ready use of the death penalty against opponents. The Terror developed in response to the dangers that threatened to overwhelm the Revolution, particularly foreign invasion and internal counter-revolution (see also CHOUANS; VENDÉE; FEDERALISM[2]). For some, including ROBESPIERRE, it was also a means of regenerating France by eliminating those judged morally unworthy to be part of the republic. Although Terror was declared the “order of the day” only in September 1793, the governmental structures underpinning it were developed piecemeal from the autumn of 1792 onward. By mid-1793 the most important of these were the Committees of General Security and Public Safety; a tribunal to try counter-revolutionary offences; representatives-on-mission sent from the CONVENTION to the provinces, with power to override local authorities and military commanders; and the formation of “revolutionary armies,” as irregular units of popular militants from the towns (see SANS-CULOTTES) who played a special role in securing bread supplies and in imposing DECHRISTIANIZATION[2]. In August 1793 a forced call-up, the levée en masse, was declared (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS). The Terror then reached its peak between the autumn of that year and the summer of 1794. The laws of Frimaire (December 6, 1793) and Prairial (June 10, 1794) centralized and streamlined its operation, removing the need for normal forms of evidence. The Terror was used against Robespierre's political opponents, including DANTON and Hébert, but most of its victims were members of the peasantry and working class, convicted of sedition or holding counter-revolutionary opinions. Altogether, some 17–20,000 opponents were guillotined and there were 10–12,000 deaths in prison. However, many thousands more died as a result of mass shootings, drowning, and ill treatment, especially in the Vendée and at Lyons where Collot d'Herbois and FOUCHÉ were the representatives-on-mission. As these examples suggest, the impact of the Terror was regionally specific, being most severe in areas of counter-revolution. After THERMIDOR the Terror was wound down. It had saved France by turning the tide of the war and suppressing internal opposition, but at the cost of undermining mass support for the Revolution. It had also tainted the JACOBINS, the political grouping most closely involved. Many of them subsequently became victims of harassment and assassination in the so-called WHITE TERROR. (See also TERRORISM)

terrorism This term tends to have a more precise focus than “terror” as such. The latter may denote any general resort to violence and intimidation for political ends, whether or not conducted by force of government. By contrast, “terrorism” normally involves reference to that subset of situations where the cultivation of such fear is unofficial in the sense of being directed essentially against the ruling authorities. Definition is further complicated by recognition that the distinction between “terrorists” (pejorative) and “freedom fighters” (commendatory) is often deeply subjective, and that the whole topic is constantly shadowed by the violence intrinsic to WARFARE. That said, the following comments keep particularly in mind the tension between state-sponsored versions of terror on one hand and the oppositional essence of terrorism on the other.

Although state structures were relatively weak in the pre-modern period, the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789 signaled a shift. By 1792–3 events had moved into their most radical phase – that of the TERROR, marked by the determination of JACOBINS such as ROBESPIERRE to use fear and “the despotism of liberty” to secure their “Reign of Virtue.” In 1814–15 the so-called WHITE TERROR saw French royalists adopting similar tactics to entrench a monarchical restoration. As the nineteenth century progressed, antigovernmental terrorism more clearly entered the picture. It was frequently used in the cause of NATIONALISM, for instance by the Fenians in IRELAND; and most crucially through the cult of ANARCHISM, as exemplified by the Russian movement “the People's Will” (see POPULISM) which was responsible for Tsar ALEXANDER II'S assassination. When the same fate befell the Austrian crown prince FRANCIS FERDINAND in 1914, his Bosnian murderers from the “Black Hand” unleashed vastly more violence than even they had anticipated. In the post-1918 world, terrorist tactics were increasingly adopted by colonial peoples as they challenged the European IMPERIALISM which itself had often resorted to systematic intimidation. However, within Europe, it was state terror that now prevailed most harshly, as part of the TOTALITARIANISM that characterized the regimes of MUSSOLINI, HITLER, and STALIN (see also FINAL SOLUTION; GREAT PURGES). Moreover, during WORLD WAR II both Nazi and Soviet forces tended to equate RESISTANCE with terrorism. After 1945 officially-sponsored intimidation became widespread across the Communist bloc, with the huge undercover operations of the East German STASI to the fore. More widely afield, the processes of DECOLONIZATION were strongly marked by the terrorist tactics of liberation movements pitted against European domination (e.g. in Palestine, Malaysia, and Algeria). In the 1970s oppositional terrorism underwent a revival within Europe too. Nationalists in the BASQUE COUNTRY, Corsica, Belgian Flanders, the SOUTH TYROL, and (from both rival communities) in Northern Ireland resorted to violence in pursuit of longstanding aims. There also emerged, on the extreme left, new movements such as the RED BRIGADES in Italy and the BAADER–MEINHOFF group in West Germany. Dismayed by the eventual failure of the STUDENT REVOLTS OF 1968, and part-financed by Eastern bloc states, these organizations had few political goals beyond destabilizing liberal democracy through bank robberies, assassinations, kidnappings, and random bomb attacks in which civilians were deliberately targeted. Nor was it only the left that pursued such tactics: within Italy, for instance, right-wing groupings and the MAFIA were also involved. Their outrages were eclipsed, however, by those later perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. By the 1980s, Europe had growing experience of overseas militants bringing their struggles to its own streets. Moreover, in the aftermath of the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan there emerged a new organization, Al Qaeda (“the Base”), with an extensive international network of cells. It sought not only to end Western influence within the MUSLIM world but also to pursue its militancy directly within Europe and the USA – hence the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The public outrage which followed this attack, together with the widespread revulsion felt after subsequent suicide bombings in Madrid (2004) and London (2005), briefly forced such groups as the Basque ETA to rethink their terroristic tactics, but did nothing to discourage separatists within the Russian Federation from pursuing similar campaigns of violence. More generally still, in the world of the early-twenty-first century the terror potential of nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry – whether controlled by states or by dissident groupings – had become a major concern.

Teschen dispute Territorial disagreement (1918–39) between POLAND and CZECHOSLOVAKIA, arising from WORLD WAR I. This small but ethnically diverse region of SILESIA, centered on the city of Teschen, had been part of the HABSBURG EMPIRE since the late eighteenth century. Early in 1919 both Poland and Czechoslovakia claimed it, ostensibly on ethnic grounds. However, it was also important for its key railway links and coal resources. A military confrontation erupted, ended by an armistice of February 5, 1919. Both sides agreed to arbitration from the LEAGUE OF NATIONS. In 1920 the major part of the city and some agricultural areas were awarded to the Poles; while the Czechs benefited even more from their acquisition of the coalmines. Poland was never happy with this arrangement and, following the MUNICH AGREEMENT of 1938, took advantage of Czechoslovakia's problems to occupy all of Teschen. In 1945 Poland reasserted its claims, yet the SOVIET UNION reimposed the 1920 boundaries.

Thatcher, Margaret (1925–), British Prime Minister (1979–90). Elected as a Conservative MP in 1959, she was education minister in HEATH'S government from 1970 to 1974. She ousted him as party and opposition leader in 1975, and then became the UK's first woman prime minister after winning the 1979 election. Further victories in 1983 and 1987 enabled her to record the longest continuous tenure by any twentieth-century British premier. Among the others who have served since 1945, only Clement Attlee rivals her scale of impact upon the course of national policy. In domestic politics Thatcherism became synonymous with a radical CONSERVATISM that championed privatization, sapped trade union power, promoted monetarism over Keynesianism (see KEYNES), and generally challenged the state-centered WELFARISM that had pervaded British politics since the Attlee era of the late 1940s. Internationally, after defeating Argentina in the Falklands War of 1982, she developed a close rapport with US President Reagan. As a forceful personality who relished her public image as “iron lady,” Thatcher eagerly assisted his efforts to hasten the collapse of communist hegemony in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Eventual success there meant that she also contributed more to GERMAN REUNIFICATION than she ever intended. Her anxiety on that issue was all of a piece with her growing hostility towards the form being taken by EUROPEAN INTEGRATION (see also BRITAIN AND EUROPE). Although her free-market enthusiasms had encouraged endorsement of the SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT in 1986, she failed at that time properly to grasp its deeper political implications. By 1990 her increasingly strident and xenophobic approach to the kind of European project being molded by KOHL, MITTERRAND, and DELORS, together with her stubborn attachment to a scheme of “poll tax” at home, seemed to be turning Thatcher into a potential electoral liability. Her fall was indeed triggered by preemptive revolt from her own MPs and cabinet rather than through defeat at the ballot box – a fact that offered her only meager consolation.

Thermidor One of the months of the new calendar established during the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789 as part of the wider attempt at DECHRISTIANIZATION[2]. It is also shorthand for the events around 9 Thermidor (July 27, 1794) that produced the fall of ROBESPIERRE and the subsequent winding down of the TERROR. Robespierre successfully rebutted claims in the Jacobin Club (see JACOBINS) that he was seeking to establish a dictatorship. But following his rambling speech to the CONVENTION on 8 Thermidor his enemies, fearful of becoming victims of the purge that he demanded, banded together against him. He was arrested on 9 Thermidor and, after a confused interlude in which events might have gone either way, was executed the following day with 21 associates.

Thiers, Louis Adolphe (1797–1877), first President of the French THIRD REPUBLIC (1871–3). A lawyer by training, Thiers entered politics in the late 1820s, and in 1829 established the newspaper Le National, which opposed the illiberal policies of CHARLES X and his chief minister, POLIGNAC. He was a supporter of Louis Philippe in the July revolution of 1830 (see JULY MONARCHY; REVOLUTIONS OF 1830–2), and entered parliament that same year. During the ensuing epoch of ORLEANISM, he was rewarded first with the interior portfolio (1832–6), and then served briefly as prime minister in 1836 and again in 1840. Out of office, he worked on his Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire, a sequel to his earlier Histoire de la Révolution. During the REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9 he backed the successful bid of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (see NAPOLEON III) for the presidency of the SECOND REPUBLIC, but became rapidly disenchanted. After the Napoleonic coup of 1851, Thiers was expelled from France. He eventually returned, but, as a parliamentarian again from 1863, remained an outspoken critic of the Second Empire, attacking its foreign policy in particular. Given his experience and opposition to Napoleon III, he seemed the obvious choice to negotiate the armistice of 1870 that followed the defeat at SEDAN in the FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, and the emperor's downfall. Appointed chief of the provisional government, he next faced the task of crushing the PARIS COMMUNE, which earned him the scorn of the left. Seen by the royalists as a safe pair of hands until a restoration could be effected, he was then elected president of the Third Republic. Yet Thiers soon lost patience with the extremism of the right. His political outlook was moderate, avoiding the excesses of revolution and counter-revolution alike, and seeking to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie. It was he who famously remarked that a republic was the form of government which “divided the French the least.” Thus he set out to put the new regime on a secure footing, consolidating links between the moderate republicans and the supporters of an Orleanist restoration. Troubled by these developments, those whose LEGITIMISM focused on the rival monarchist claims of the Comte de Chambord ousted Thiers in 1873. Elected senator in 1876, he rallied to GAMBETTA in opposition to President MACMAHON, and engaged in the bitter elections of 1877 that produced a republican victory. During a long career Thiers had done much to destroy previous regimes, yet in his final years he also contributed significantly to securing the survival of the fledgling Third Republic.

Third International (see under THE INTERNATIONAL)

Third Reich (see under HITLER; NAZISM)

Third Republic (France) This was established after the abdication of NAPOLEON III and amid defeat in the FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR of 1870–1, and then lasted until the VICHY REGIME was installed following the further German victory of 1940. The Third Republic has often been negatively assessed because of its chronic political instability. The constitution eventually approved in 1875 vested considerable power in the chamber of deputies (the lower house of the National Assembly), which had the ability to overthrow ministries. The frequent fall of cabinets was also attributable to a weak presidency, an undisciplined party system, a willingness of deputies to champion local interests over national ones, and the obstructive instincts of a conservative-minded senate. There were some sixty governments in the 1870–1914 period, and nearly fifty more thereafter. This made it difficult to produce significant reform, and IMMOBILISME often held sway. Nonetheless, the system was more stable than is sometimes realized. The fall of a cabinet did not necessarily produce fresh elections, which were generally conducted on a four-yearly basis. There was also significant continuity of personnel, the clearest example being BRIAND'S ministerial record from 1909 to 1932. Nor was the politics of the Republic dominated by extremes. Throughout most of its history, the center prevailed, and deputies faithfully represented the interests of a population dominated by peasants and self-employed members of the bourgeoisie, if not the WORKING CLASS. Ideological arguments could be fierce, but the most impassioned debates took place over taxation, monetary policy, and social reform.

The pre-1914 history of the regime is usually treated in three phases. During the first, the Republic of Notables, 1870–9, monarchists controlled parliament. Although a restoration looked inevitable after the crushing of the PARIS COMMUNE, the rival advocates of LEGITIMISM and ORLEANISM wasted valuable time by squabbling over tactics. The constitution of 1875 provided the Republic with firmer legal underpinning, and two years later President MACMAHON shied away from a royalist coup. By 1879, a republican majority existed within both the chamber of deputies and the senate. So began the Opportunist Republic, 1879–98, during which the regime was dominated by moderate, propertied men, committed to the ideals of 1789 and influenced by POSITIVISM, yet prepared to undertake reform only when it was deemed “opportune.” Their legislation focused mainly on establishing civil liberties and founding a secular state. Under FERRY'S leadership, the Republic eroded clerical influence in public life (see also ANTICLERICALISM; EDUCATION; SECULARIZATION). Within the social and economic domain, however, the opportunists were cautious and, during the late-nineteenth-century GREAT DEPRESSION[1], they retreated from public spending in favor of protectionism. This was also the period when France struggled to end its diplomatic isolation, and to overcome a series of internal crises that included the BOULANGER AFFAIR, the PANAMA CANAL SCANDAL, and the DREYFUS AFFAIR. To compound the sense of uncertainty, the Republic was faced with the rise of SOCIALISM (see also BROUSSE; GUESDE; JAURÈS) on the left, and with an assertive NATIONALISM fronted by ACTION FRANÇAISE (see also BARRES; DÉROULÈDE; MAURRAS) on the right. Both these potentially populist forces disliked the elitism of French politics. Yet the regime had not lost its resilience, as evidenced by the so-called Radical Republic, 1898–1914 and particularly by the premierships of Émile Combes and of CLEMENCEAU. Though their RADICAL PARTY was unwilling to grasp the nettle of social reform and economic modernization, it revived anticlericalism as a means of rallying the center-left. In foreign policy, Germany rather than Britain was recognized as the enemy (see also ENTENTE CORDIALE), though it is questionable whether enough was done to prepare for defense against another invasion from across the Rhine.

WORLD WAR I posed a formidable challenge – something recognized by parliamentarians of all persuasions who initially buried their differences in the so-called union sacrée. During 1915, however, quarrels reignited while democratic procedures were curtailed. Had France been defeated, it almost certainly would have faced major political upheaval: either a repeat of the Commune or, more likely, a right-wing military coup. In the event, victory ensured full restoration of parliamentary processes and the formation of the BLOC NATIONAL. Despite the emergence of COMMUNISM, and the 1924 election of the CARTEL DES GAUCHES, the first postwar decade belonged largely to the center-right which struggled with the issues of currency stabilization, economic reconstruction, demographic stagnation, and international security. The 1930s presented even graver challenges. The onset of a second Great Depression, the rise of FASCISM and NAZISM, and the growing prospect of another general European conflict created instabilities that encouraged many to support extremist solutions, notably those offered by right-wing leagues such as the CROIX DE FEU (see also STAVISKY AFFAIR). The POPULAR FRONT administration of 1936–7, led by BLUM, was an attempt to rejuvenate democracy and meet the challenge of fascism at home and abroad. It was also the first government to promote far-reaching social reforms, even though these were soon reversed under DALADIER and REYNAUD.

Given this background, it is small wonder that military defeat in 1940 has been attributed to political shortcomings. It certainly suited the VICHY REGIME (especially when mounting the RIOM TRIALS) to denounce the Third Republic as decadent and graft-ridden. Many of these criticisms are unfair. The reasons for the defeat of 1940, including the crucial outflanking of the MAGINOT LINE, relate principally to the military rather than the parliamentary domain. Even if (as the experience of the FOURTH REPUBLIC would confirm) there was always the danger of political institutions not keeping pace with underlying social and economic developments, the regime still seemed at the end of the 1930s far from being in its death-throes. For much of its long lifetime, the Third Republic had provided a functioning system of government that reflected quite accurately the conservative tendencies of French society.

Thorez, Maurice (1900–64), leader of the French Communist Party (1930–64). The son of a miner, Thorez entered left-wing politics as a Socialist, but then enlisted with the Communists in 1923 and became their secretary-general in 1930. He first entered parliament in 1932. Four years later, not wanting to participate in bourgeois governance, he refused to join the POPULAR FRONT cabinet of BLUM, thus making the latter's task harder. Faithful to STALIN'S version of COMMUNISM, Thorez supported the NAZI–SOVIET PACT of 1939, even though this compromised his supporters who had hitherto been staunch opponents of FASCISM. During WORLD WAR II he and his Party comrades did not throw their full weight behind RESISTANCE to the Germans until mid-1941, when HITLER launched Operation BARBAROSSA against the SOVIET UNION. Meanwhile, their backing for the Nazi–Soviet pact had led DALADIER to proscribe the Communist Party in October 1939. By then Thorez had deserted the army and made for Moscow, from whence he denounced the war as “an imperialist struggle.” Resident in the Soviet capital until 1944, he seriously discussed with Stalin the possibility of a takeover in France. At the outset of the FOURTH REPUBLIC, Thorez seemed prepared to work within its structures and served as deputy premier in 1946–7. However, when he defied government policy by supporting the Renault strikes of 1947, his Communists were banished from cabinet. Though they expected their exclusion to be temporary, they would not regain any share in ministerial posts until MITTERRAND'S victory in 1981. As the most uncompromising of western European Communist leaders during the COLD WAR epoch, Thorez condemned his party to a Stalinist time-warp from which it would not escape until the 1970s.

Three Emperors' League Otherwise known as the Dreikaiserbund, this began in 1873 as an informal understanding between the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian rulers. Following the wars of GERMAN UNIFICATION, it reflected BISMARCK'S desire to keep France diplomatically isolated, assuage the Habsburg regime, and regulate Austro-Russian territorial rivalries in the BALKANS. The three emperors agreed to consult with each another on matters of common interest, such as their shared opposition to republicanism and SOCIALISM as threats to the established order. By 1878 this version of the League had foundered due to difficulties over the EASTERN QUESTION (see also BERLIN CONGRESS), and the increased tensions between Austria and Russia. Three years later, however, Bismarck succeeded in reconstituting the Dreikaiserbund as a more formal but secret arrangement. The three imperial regimes promised prior consultation on matters involving any further challenges to the waning authority of Turkey (see TURKEY AND EUROPE), as well as the maintenance of benevolent NEUTRALITY in the event of any of the parties becoming involved in war with a fourth power. This compact was renewed in 1884, but lapsed in 1887 because of continuing Austro-Russian tensions over Balkan affairs. At that point Bismarck negotiated a separate agreement with Russia known as the REINSURANCE TREATY. When CAPRIVI replaced him in 1890, the new chancellor declined its renewal, thus opening the way for the FRANCO-RUSSIAN ALLIANCE of 1892.

Tilsit, Treaties of Agreements made July 7–9, 1807 by NAPOLEON I with ALEXANDER I of Russia and FREDERICK WILLIAM III of Prussia in the context of the NAPOLEONIC WARS. Following victories over the Prussians at JENA-AUERSTLSQUÄDT and the Russians at Friedland, Napoleon's influence was at its height. Under the terms of the treaties, Prussia lost around half its lands which now constituted component elements of the kingdom of Westphalia and the Grand Duchy of WARSAW, themselves part of the CONFEDERATION OF THE RHINE. These territorial arrangements secured French dominance in central Europe. Russia lost no territory, but, like Prussia, was obliged to join the CONTINENTAL SYSTEM, and to recognize Napoleon's brothers, Joseph (see BONAPARTE, JOSEPH) and Louis, as kings of Naples (see TWO SICILIES, KINGDOM OF THE) and Holland (see NETHERLANDS) respectively. Alexander's failure to observe the treaty would lead to the 1812 invasion of Russia (see MOSCOW, RETREAT FROM).

Tirpitz, Alfred von (1849–1930), German admiral, and Secretary of State for the Navy (1897–1916). Both Tirpitz and Kaiser WILLIAM II, were influenced by the writings of the American naval geostrategist Mahan, and believed that a large fleet must underpin Germany's status as a world power. The Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 aimed to increase the number of her battleships from seven to 38. Tirpitz miscalculated badly in assuming that Britain would not respond to this challenge to her naval supremacy. An arms race began, with British concluding alliances with France (see ENTENTE CORDIALE) and Russia (see ANGLO-RUSSIAN ENTENTE). When WORLD WAR I broke out, Tirpitz refused to hazard Germany's fleet on the high seas (see JUTLAND, BATTLE OF). Instead, he now concentrated on use of unrestricted submarine WARFARE, a policy adopted in 1917 with fatal results for Germany. After the war, Tirpitz sat in the Reichstag as a member of the far-right National People's Party.

Tiso, Jozef (1887–1947), President of the Slovak Republic (1939–45). Born at Bytča, Tiso entered the Catholic priesthood but turned to politics after the collapse of the HABSBURG EMPIRE and the creation of CZECHOSLOAKIA following WORLD WAR I. He joined the right-wing Slovak People's Party which campaigned for SLOVAKIA'S autonomy and, following the death of its founder Andrej Hlinka in 1938, became its leader. He was made president of the Nazi satellite state established by HITLER after the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1939. Although his regime adopted some elements of FASCISM such as state corporatism, Monsignor Tiso sought to avert the worst excesses of NAZISM. However, he was obliged to join the Wehrmacht's ill-fated invasion of the Soviet Union (see BARBAROSSA,), and within Slovakia itself he relied on support from the paramilitary Hlinka Guard which became notorious for atrocities. He was hanged as a war criminal in April 1947 by a Czechoslovakian state anxious to reject its wartime fascist record, thus becoming an unlikely Catholic martyr.

Tisza, István (see under TISZA, KÁLMÁN)

Tisza, Kálmán (1830–1902), Hungarian statesman. His hopes for the complete independence of the Magyar nation made him initially a critic of the 1867 AUSGLEICH which reorganized the HABSBURG EMPIRE on the basis of a “dual monarchy” operated from Vienna and Budapest. Within this structure, however, he eventually served as Hungarian prime minister from 1875 to 1890, heading a Liberal Party that implemented significant administrative and economic reforms as well as pursuing the Magyarization of rival nationalities. His son, István Tisza (1861–1918) held the same office from 1903 to 1905, and again from 1913 to 1917. At the start of the JULY CRISIS of 1914 the younger Tisza was particularly notable for his unavailing efforts to moderate Austria's reaction to SERBIA'S provocations. He was murdered at the end of WORLD WAR I, amidst the disorders that accompanied the creation of a new and independent Hungarian republic.

Tito (1892–1980), Prime Minister (1945–53) and President (1953–80) of YUGOSLAVIA. Originally named Josip Broz, he was born in Croatia, then part of the HABSBURG EMPIRE. He became an Austrian army conscript in 1913, and was wounded and captured by the Russians in 1915. Released on the fall of the tsarist regime, he fought alongside the BOLSHEVIKS in the RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS OF 1917. Having returned in 1920 to what would soon be known as Yugoslavia, he led a clandestine existence, working for the outlawed Communist Party and frequently visiting Moscow. In and out of Yugoslav jails, he used several aliases, “Tito” being the one that stuck. In 1937 he was appointed head of the Communist Party and proved himself to be a formidable organizer. When Germany attacked Yugoslavia in April 1941, he took advantage of the remaining respite still provided by the NAZI–SOVIET PACT to prepare for the forthcoming battle against the invaders. Tito's Partisans subsequently entered into a three-way conflict with the Nazis, the PAVELIĆ administration, and the CHETNIK guerrillas loyal to the Yugoslav government-in-exile. His military successes brought him international recognition and the title of Marshal. In 1945, with Allied backing, he headed the new federal government of Yugoslavia. Though he excluded non-Communists from power and seemed intent on imposing Stalinist controls, he resisted interference from Moscow, which led in 1948 to Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform (see THE INTERNATIONAL). Elected president in 1953, and appointed president for life in 1974, Tito undertook a policy of partial liberalization and received support from the West which saw an opportunity to sow divisions within the Eastern bloc. Critical of Soviet behavior, he unsuccessfully attempted to create – along with Nasser of Egypt and Nehru of India – an alliance of non-aligned states. He enjoyed greater success in holding together the many nationalities comprising federal Yugoslavia, and it is commonly argued that the state's descent towards dissolution and civil war began with his death.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1805–59), French political analyst whose insights into the ANCIEN REGIME, the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789, the dilemmas of DEMOCRACY, and the condition of MASS SOCIETY have retained a classic status. Born into the aristocracy of Normandy and trained as a lawyer, Tocqueville moved towards supporting ORLEANISM while also showing some sympathy for moderate republicanism. He even served for a few months during 1849 as foreign minister of the SECOND REPUBLIC – a regime whose rapid ruination by the imperial ambitions of the future NAPOLEON III he soon deplored. However, it is as a writer rather than as a politician that Tocqueville remains renowned. Although his posthumously issued memoirs (Souvenirs) illuminate the REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9, he is chiefly celebrated for two other books: Democracy in America (1835–40) and The Ancien Regime and the Revolution (1856). The first book stemmed from a study visit to the USA. There he observed an experiment with democracy that raised for Europeans as well as Americans the question “whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” The second work, based on pioneering archival research, was intended as a prelude to a larger study of the first Napoleonic epoch that he never completed. It included arguments to the effect that the time of maximum peril for an old order is when it begins to concede hesitant reforms, and that the upheaval of 1789 came during a phase of economic improvement rather than worsening hardship. His critique of centralization under the Ancien Regime also reflected his anxieties about much of France's post-1789 experience, including the new Second Empire's administrative structures. Despite Napoleon III's rhetoric of democracy, Tocqueville contended that these were now promoting mass conformity and stifling the active participatory citizenship essential to real freedom (see also LIBERALISM).

totalitarianism This term sprang from Italian FASCISM, which used stato totalitario approvingly to denote a political system demanding complete subservience to dictatorial government. As MUSSOLINI put it: “Everything is in the state, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the state.” Whatever the theory, his own regime never matched the degree of sustained and ruthless brutality that characterized those of STALIN and HITLER. Thus, when the term “totalitarianism” began to assume mainly negative connotations, the concept was employed principally not only to condemn but also to compare the machinery of state coercion serving Soviet COMMUNISM on one hand and NAZISM on the other. Critics of these regimes, which were seen as transcending any conventional divisions between “left” and “right,” traced back the deeper intellectual origins of the totalitarian menace to a confusing diversity of sources, including Plato, Calvin, Rousseau, and HEGEL. There was, however, greater consensus about the features that Stalinism and Hitlerism now possessed in common. These included their fundamental contempt for representative democracy and individual liberties; their annihilation of all meaningful distinction between the public and private realms; their insistence on the unfettered dominance of a single party; their promotion of an all-encompassing ideology embodying deterministic laws of history, whether focused on CLASS or race (see RACISM); their development of a charismatic leadership cult; their determination to exploit unscrupulously the new potentialities of mass propaganda (see also MASS SOCIETY; COMMUNICATIONS); and, perhaps above all, their readiness to use their policing and military systems to sustain rule by terror (see also TERRORISM). On this analysis, the Nazi network of CONCENTRATION CAMPS, in parallel with that of the Stalinist GULAG, came to symbolize the essence of totalitarianism. For at least a generation after the downfall of Hitler, the concept continued to flourish in the West amidst the rhetorical battles of the COLD WAR, serving the argument that, thus far, only one of the twentieth century's two greatest threats to “the free world” had been removed. More recent scholarship concerning the SOVIET UNION, and especially the post-Stalinist half of its history, has treated the term with greater restraint so as to explore more rigorously the tensions and factionalism that can survive even behind such a state's self-image of monolithic unity and control. For similar reasons, the historiography of Nazism and fascism has also tended to move towards a more skeptical appraisal of simplistic applications of the earlier “totalitarian model.” Carefully used, however, this concept still retains some value as a tool for comparative historical analysis of the major European dictatorships during the 1930s and 1940s. Conversely, the temptation to apply it indiscriminately to other settings of time and place is best resisted.

trade unionism This phenomenon emerged in the nineteenth century out of mutual-aid and friendly societies, with the aim of offering, in the absence of social welfare schemes, a safety net to workers who fell ill or faced redundancy. It was skilled members of the industrialized labor force (see INDUSTRIALIZATION), particularly those in the mining, shipbuilding, and metallurgical sectors, who took the lead in forming unions, though ARTISANS also had comparable associations. By the end of the century semi-skilled workers were starting to mobilize, and Social Catholics were also becoming more prominent, notably in Germany where the Christliche Gewerkvereine Deutschlands were established in 1899 despite mistrust from the church hierarchy.

Unions were generally feared by government and employers, yet gradually became tolerated. In Britain, where the Trades Union Congress was founded in 1868, they were formally recognized in 1871 and four years later obtained negotiating rights. Here the entitlement to strike was also increasingly accepted, notably in 1906 when unions won immunity from prosecution for damages caused to employers' property during disputes. Within France, where workers had often been participants in revolution, unions were legalized in 1884 yet strikes were often met with a show of force from the police and military. In the new GERMAN EMPIRE, BISMARCK attempted to reduce the appeal of trade unionism and SOCIALISM through state-sponsored WELFARISM. Even so, between 1881 and 1899 unions gained legal recognition, and by 1914 counted 4 million members (a figure roughly similar to that in Britain). Elsewhere the situation varied enormously – trade unions being least encouraged in Russia, where legislation of 1886 threatened strikers with imprisonment. Though unions were briefly legalized in the aftermath of the RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS OF 1917, the savage treatment of the KRONSTADT RISING illustrated the BOLSHEVIKS' intolerance of dissent.

By the eve of WORLD WAR I, European trade unionism had already increased in militancy. It was frequently influenced by SYNDICALISM, most notably in France and Spain where the CONFÉDÉRATION GÉNÉRALE DU TRAVAIL and the CONFEDRACIÓN NACIONAL DEL TRABAJO respectively favored direct action rather than the ballot box. Greater moderation prevailed in Britain, although the so-called Triple Alliance of railwaymen, transport workers, and miners was a formidable combination. Unions were also developing close links with political organizations, such as the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GERMANY, or the Labour Party in the UK, where members generally paid a political levy. After the war there was much anxiety in Europe lest trade unions should attempt to emulate the Bolsheviks, yet on the left schism prevailed over solidarity. The establishment of Communist parties (see COMMUNISM), separate from Socialist ones, was often accompanied by the creation of new unions that were similarly inspired by such sectarian loyalty (e.g. the Confédération Générale du Travail Unitaire in France). In Britain there was reluctance to politicize strikes, and the 1926 General Strike (in reality, not so very general) shunned revolutionary action. Fear of worker unrest remained, however, and in those countries which succumbed to FASCISM unions were outlawed and often replaced by state-run corporations (see CORPORATE STATE).

The fortunes of trade unionism varied after WORLD WAR II. In the Eastern bloc, workers' organizations remained generally under firm government control, although the dissident SOLIDARITY movement eventually played a crucial role in the collapse of Polish communism. Elsewhere, unions tended to remain stronger in northern than in southern Europe. In the Federal Republic of Germany they were incorporated into a modernized system of industrial relations. Though the British unions were active in guarding and extending their privileges until the 1970s, they lost ground thereafter, not least as a result of THATCHER'S curtailment of their powers. Across Europe at large, the influence of trade unionism was generally in decline by the start of the twenty-first century, due to the retrenchment of the manufacturing industries that had previously provided its core support and to the accompanying reduction in the size of the WORKING CLASS as hitherto conceived.

Trafalgar, Battle of Fought on October 21, 1805, during the NAPOLEONIC WARS, this was a five-hour naval engagement occurring off the Spanish coast some 19 km (12 miles) southeast of Cape Trafalgar. Of the combined fleet of 33 French and Spanish ships, 18 were captured by a 27-strong force of British vessels commanded by NELSON (who was himself killed during this action). The prelude to the engagement had been NAPOLEON I'S insistence that his naval commanders break out of their bases, where they had been blockaded, in order to cover his intended invasion of Britain. By the time of the sea battle the invasion scare was already over, as Napoleon had withdrawn the Grande Armée to deal with a renewed threat from the Austrians and Russians (see also ULM and AUSTERLITZ). In that respect, Trafalgar had little immediate effect on the Franco-British struggle. It was, however, hugely significant in securing British control of the sea and thereby her continuing economic prosperity, which in turn allowed her to fund continental allies and thus continue the war. It also reduced Spain, whose fleet constituted her principal strategic asset, from the status of a great power. Above all Trafalgar set the seal on British maritime dominance, which had been developing over the previous century and would endure until the start of the twentieth.

Transleithania (see under CISLEITHANIA).

Transnistria (see under MOLDOVA)

transport (see under COMMUNICATIONS)

Transylvania A region of present-day ROMANIA, well-favored in terms of agricultural and mineral resources. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it formed part of the HABSBURG EMPIRE, and after the Austro-Hungarian AUSGLEICH of 1867 it became increasingly the object of Magyarization as pursued by the devolved imperial administration operating from Budapest. Following WORLD WAR I Romania, which had eventually entered the conflict on the Allied side, gained Transylvania under the terms of the TRIANON TREATY of 1920. Thereafter, newly-independent HUNGARY aspired to reclaim the region (see also IRREDENTISM). Early in WORLD WAR II, Germany and Italy attempted through the so-called Vienna Award of 1940 to impose a territorial compromise. However, the peace settlement contained in the PARIS TREATY of 1947 entailed reversion to the Trianon arrangement. Thereafter, discrimination against the Magyar minority (which today amounts to around one-fifth of Transylvania's overall population of some 6 million) continued to be a constant feature of Romanian society and politics. In the later twentieth century, it was most brutally evident during the period of CEAUÇESCU'S dominance from 1965 to 1989.

trasformismo Term awkwardly anglicized as “transformism,” and carrying similar connotations to IMMOBILISME as applied to the French THIRD and FOURTH REPUBLICS, which describes a central feature of parliamentary politics as conducted in “liberal” ITALY during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Because Party discipline was weak and because there existed several issues likely to give rise to intense debate, especially in colonial and foreign policy, leading politicians developed a system of informal personal negotiations and revolving coalitions so as to make government possible. A master of such trasformismo was GIOLITTI, prime minister on five occasions between 1892 and 1921. The system was largely accepted by the main parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, as neither was heavily driven by ideology. By the early 1900s, trasformismo was increasingly criticized for its corruption and its hindrance of reform. MUSSOLINI viewed it as evidence that liberal democracy was unsuited to Italy. Since the fall of FASCISM versions of trasformismo have again been a frequent characteristic of the country's politics.

Treaty on European Union (see MAASTRICHT TREATY)

trialism (see under HABSBURG EMPIRE)

Trianon, Treaty of Agreement imposed on newly independent HUNGARY in June 1920 by the victorious Allies as part of the PARIS PEACE SETTLEMENT following WORLD WAR I. The treaty reduced by two-thirds the scale of territory governed by the Magyars, as compared to that which they had previously controlled as Austria's leading partners in the “dual monarchy” of the HABSBURG EMPIRE. It was ROMANIA that benefited most, through its acquisition of TRANSYLVANIA. However, gains at Hungary's expense were also registered by Czechoslovakia, Yugolsavia, Italy, and Poland – and even by defeated Austria, which was permitted to annex Burgenland as its own easternmost province. The Trianon settlement left one-third of Magyars living outside their homeland, and thus stimulated strong pressures towards revisionist IRREDENTISM.

Trieste Major Italian city-port, located on the northern Adriatic near the border with what is now Slovenia. Part of the HABSBURG EMPIRE until 1918, Trieste and its hinterland of ISTRIA were then acquired by ITALY. Thereafter this annexation was increasingly challenged by YUGOSLAVIA, which managed to occupy most of the surrounding Istrian peninsula towards the end of World War II. After continuing border skirmishes Trieste itself was placed under UNITED NATIONS protection in 1947 and designated a Free City. It kept this status until 1954 when the rival parties reached a compromise, which allowed Italy to retain sovereignty over the city while conceding nearly all of the remaining hinterland to Yugoslavia.

Triple Alliance This was formed when, in 1882, Italy agreed to augment the DUAL ALLIANCE of 1879 between Germany and Austria-Hungary. The three powers pledged military assistance to each other should one or more of the alliance partners be attacked by “two or more great powers.” Through a supplementary clause, Germany and Italy pledged mutual support lest either nation should find itself at war with France. Renewed at regular intervals, the Triple Alliance was part of BISMARCK'S wider design to keep France diplomatically isolated. As for the HABSBURG EMPIRE, its participation was aimed at containing Italian NATIONALISM and discouraging IRREDENTISM in connection with the South Tyrol and TRIESTE. The reasons for Italy's involvement were complex. Newly united, it wanted recognition as a great power; it sought compensation for the recent French seizure of Tunisia; and its king, Umberto I, desired closer involvement with Catholic Austria so as to mend his troubled relationship with the papacy. However, the alliance was never popular with Italians, who generally mistrusted Austria-Hungary. Nor did Italy ever envisage going to war against Britain, something made clear by a supplementary note released shortly after 1882. By the turn of the century, Italy no longer viewed France as an enemy and, in 1902, issued a note pledging NEUTRALITY should its Triple Alliance partners attack in that direction. Though the Triple Alliance has subsequently been condemned for exacerbating international tensions, in the event of war it was always uncertain which way Italy would jump, and so it proved. The terms of the Triple Alliance did not strictly commit the Italians to supporting the attack on Serbia that resulted from the JULY CRISIS of 1914, nor had the Rome government been given proper advance warning of German and Austro-Hungarian intentions. Thus, upon the outbreak of WORLD WAR I, Italy felt no obligation to join the CENTRAL POWERS. Indeed, in May 1915, it entered the conflict on the Allied side, believing that this was the best means of consolidating its position in the Adriatic and of promoting its colonial ambitions.

Triple Entente Agreement signed between Britain, France, and Russia in late 1907. France and Russia were already bound together through the DUAL ALLIANCE of 1892, Britain and France through the ENTENTE CORDIALE of 1904, and Britain and Russia through the ANGLO-RUSSIAN ENTENTE of 1907. It made sense therefore to bring all three partners together, at least through some loose association. Although the Triple Entente was not a military agreement and did not carry the same obligations as a formal alliance, it already provided a counterweight to the TRIPLE ALLIANCE during the period immediately preceding WORLD WAR I. Thus it gave further confirmation, if any were needed, of Europe's division into two armed camps.

Tripolitanian War (see under ITALO-TURKISH WAR)

Troppau, Congress of Meeting of the great powers called by Tsar ALEXANDER I in October 1820 with a view to taking collective action against incipient revolution. His move was prompted by revolts in Naples and Portugal, student disturbances in Germany, and unrest in Spain and her colonies, all of which threatened the international order established at the VIENNA CONGRESS (see also CONGRESS SYSTEM). At Troppau, Russia, Austria, and Prussia agreed a protocol authorizing intervention, using force if necessary, should events in any state threaten the security of another. CASTLEREAGH, who had only sent an observer to the Congress, protested strongly against any general right of intervention. Nevertheless, METTERNICH, who transferred the Congress to Laibach (Ljubjana) in the Austrian duchy of Carniola, secured British and other great-power approval for Austria to intervene in Naples. No action was taken with regard to the Spanish and Portuguese revolts. Troppau was the last occasion on which the members of the QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE acted in concert.

Trotsky, Leon (1879–1940), leading BOLSHEVIK and ideologue. Born Lev Davidovich Bronstein, he was the son of a wealthy Ukrainian farmer. Attracted early to Marxist COMMUNISM, Trotsky was arrested when aged 19 and expelled to Siberia, where he joined the Russian Social Democratic Party. In 1902 he linked up with LENIN in London, but when the party split a year later he initially opposed the latter and sided with the MENSHEVIKS. The RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1905 found Trotsky in St Petersburg where he displayed his talent for organization by establishing the first SOVIET. On the collapse of the uprising, he was again deported to Siberia, but once more escaped to lead a peripatetic existence in Europe and America. The outbreak of the RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS OF 1917 prompted his return from New York. Now identifying with the Bolsheviks, he chaired the Petrograd Soviet and played a prominent role in organizing the takeover eventually achieved in early November. After promotion to foreign commissar, he negotiated the Treaty of BREST-LITOVSK in March 1918, having deliberately prolonged discussions so as to secure time for the revolution to establish itself. He was subsequently appointed commissar for war and oversaw the creation of the RED ARMY. After his successes in the RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR, many viewed him as Lenin's natural successor. However, Trotsky's preoccupation with foreign and military affairs, coupled with poor health, allowed STALIN to tighten his own control over the party apparatus. The former's intellectualism and Jewish origins may also have cost him friends. On Lenin's death in 1924, Trotsky's theory of “permanent revolution,” originally articulated during Siberian exile, directly conflicted with his rival's advocacy of “socialism in one country.” While Stalin sought to consolidate revolution at home through massive state-led INDUSTRIALIZATION and COLLECTIVIZATION, Trotsky feared that this would lead to bureaucratic stagnation and argued, instead, that the new SOVIET UNION should use the Comintern (see THE INTERNATIONAL) urgently to prioritize the spread of revolution abroad. Increasingly associated with such opponents of Stalin as ZINOVIEV and KAMENEV, he was excluded from the heart of government in 1925. Two years later Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party, and in 1929 deported. After exile in Turkey and then France, he settled in Mexico where he believed himself safe from Stalin's GREAT PURGES. However, in 1940 Trotsky was murdered by a Spanish-born Soviet agent wielding an ice-pick. By then he had become a fierce critic of what he called Stalin's “degenerated workers' state” and had founded the Fourth International as a little-known rival to the Comintern. His legacy of Trotskyism continued to distinguish itself from orthodox Marxism through its emphasis on permanent revolution and international workers' solidarity, and found particular resonance among left-wing movements in Central and South America.

Truman doctrine The principle that the USA should actively support “free peoples” endangered by Soviet forces or internal communist insurrection (see COMMUNISM). It was enunciated by President Harry S Truman in March 1947, after the UK declared itself incapable of sustaining assistance to GREECE and Turkey (see TURKEY AND EUROPE). Congressional approval signaled that, in contrast to the isolationist line adopted in 1919–20, the USA was now willing to accept, even in peacetime (but also under the circumstances of a deepening COLD WAR), some continuation of its direct involvement in European affairs. The financial implications of this doctrine of “containment” became clearer with the MARSHALL PLAN proposal of June 1947.

Tudjman, Franjo (1922–99), President of CROATIA (1990–9). During WORLD WAR II he was conscripted into the fascist-style militia of the Croatian Ustaše (see also PAVELIĆ), but ended the conflict fighting for COMMUNISM as one of TITO'S partisans. Having become in the 1950s YUGOSLAVIA'S youngest army general, Tudjman then directed an institute of labor history. There he showed separatist leanings, which led the regime to impose two spells of imprisonment (1971, 1981–4). By the time that the European REVOLUTIONS OF 1989–91 were beginning, he was heading the Croatian Democratic Alliance in resistance to the growing NATIONALISM being cultivated by MILOŠEVIĆ among the Serbs (see SERBIA). As the FEDERALISM of Yugoslavia began to fragment, the great majority of Croats supported Tudjman's ultra-nationalist program. He led them into adopting a new constitution in December 1990 and into secession in June 1991. Though Serbs both within and beyond Croatia reacted by taking up arms against it, Tudjman's new republic obtained formal recognition from the European Community early in 1992. This creation survived the Yugoslav civil war, under an increasingly autocratic presidency that continued until his death. Although the Tudjman regime often operated during the 1990s with scant respect for the human rights of dissident Serbs and Bosnians, most of the international community found it convenient to overlook that fact while these abuses were actually in progress.

Tuileries, attack on the (see under FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789)

Turkey and Europe However much the frontiers of the area ruled by Turkey may have shifted over the centuries, most of its territory has always been located outside the boundaries of Europe proper. Moreover, the country's predominant religion has kept it largely within the historic sphere of MUSLIM rather than Christian culture. These factors, in combination, go far towards explaining why uncertainties about the nature and extent of Turkish identification with Europe have persisted for so long.

From the end of the thirteenth century until the early 1920s Turkey was governed by an Ottoman dynasty whose original power base lay in northern Anatolia. From there the authority of the sultans had spread across the rest of Asia Minor, as well as around the Eastern Mediterranean and along the coast of North Africa. It had also expanded into southeastern Europe by way of Constantinople. That city on the strategically vital BOSPHOROUS (at the margin of Asia and Europe alike) was captured by the Ottomans in 1453, and soon became their capital. By the early sixteenth century Turkish rule stretched beyond it as far as Hungary. In 1529 Ottoman forces conducted temporary advances that brought them close to the seizure even of Vienna, which was similarly imperiled again in 1683. However, during the next hundred years or so, and particularly towards the end of the eighteenth century, the HABSBURG EMPIRE and that of the Romanovs (see RUSSIA) registered their own series of territorial gains at Turkey's expense. Thereafter the highly autocratic Ottoman regime developed its unenviable reputation for being “the sick man of Europe,” as rivalries aimed at obtaining benefit from its further retreat destabilized the BALKANS (see Map 7). These conflicts of interest operated not simply between the major powers but also among the smaller and increasingly self-assertive nationalities of that region (see NATIONALISM). Such tensions resulting from the ongoing decline of Turkish influence gave rise to what became generally known as the EASTERN QUESTION.

The first of the RUSSO-TURKISH WARS of the nineteenth century began in 1806 and brought about the loss of Bessarabia, as confirmed by the BUCHAREST TREATY of 1812. By the end of the 1820s the area of Ottoman control had been further eroded as a result of the GREEK WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. The rebels had been aided by Britain, France, and Russia, and in 1829 the last of these powers used the Treaty of ADRIANOPLE to take further advantage of Turkish weakness elsewhere in the Balkans. The threat of Russian expansion down the western coast of the Black Sea was decisive in internationalizing the CRIMEAN WAR of 1853–6, when Anglo-French forces became involved on the Turkish side. This conflict showed how the Eastern Question encompassed also that of the STRAITS, where the central issue was rights of access to the maritime route running between European and Asian Turkey and thus connecting the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Though the peace concluded at the Paris Congress of 1856 gave the Ottoman empire some respite, the pressure from the tsarist regime was strongly reasserted in the 1870s. By the time that ABDUL HAMID II took over the sultanate in 1876, Turkey was facing not only a crisis of finance but also growing rebelliousness among its Balkan subject nationalities. Risings in BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA (where the “horrors” of repression by Turkish irregulars during 1876 triggered international condemnation), SERBIA, and MONTENEGRO all contributed to the onset of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–8. Although the losses that Turkey was compelled to accept under the initial peace terms contained in the San Stefano treaty of March 1878 were moderated by the BERLIN CONGRESS four months later, even this second settlement left the Ottoman position gravely weakened. ROMANIA, Serbia, and Montenegro now became fully independent states, while most of partitioned Bulgaria achieved autonomy. The sultan's theoretical sovereignty over Bosnia-Herzegovina was preserved, but so too was its de facto subjection to Austrian occupation.

On the domestic front, Abdul Hamid's reformist promises came to little. Though his reign had opened with the promulgation of Turkey's first constitution, this was suspended in 1878. Thereafter he reverted to predominantly repressive habits of governance. Within what was left of his European domain, the insurrection of 1898 in Crete, aided from mainland GREECE, added that island to the list of Ottoman territories that were now effectively autonomous in their administration. Beyond that stage, the sultan's authority was increasingly challenged at home by the YOUNG TURK movement, whose Committee for Union and Progress sought to combine nationalism with constitutionalism. In 1908 it launched an open revolt. During these disorders, the Bulgarians took the opportunity of proclaiming their full independence, while the Austrians formally incorporated Bosnia-Herzegovina into their own empire. Though Abdul Hamid allowed a parliament to be summoned, he was soon plotting counter-measures and in 1909 the Young Turks achieved his replacement by Muhammad V.

The Italian annexation of Libya in 1911–12 (see ITALO-TURKISH WAR) completed a long process of Ottoman retreat from North Africa that had included the losses of Algeria (1830), Tunisia (1881), and Egypt (1882). It was also the immediate prelude to further Turkish collapse beyond the Bosphorous, in the first of the BALKAN WARS of 1912–13. This was launched against Turkey in October 1912 by Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Montenegro, and while it was being fought ALBANIA took the opportunity of declaring independence. The conflict was concluded in late May 1913 by the LONDON TREATY. After the victors quarreled over their spoils, the second Balkan War was fought in July 1913 when Serbia, Greece, and Romania combined to reduce Bulgaria's gains. Although this renewed warfare allowed Turkey to regain Adrianople, the general thrust of the ensuing BUCHAREST TREATY (August 1913) was to confirm that its European holdings would now be restricted to Eastern Thrace and thus be contained within a frontier lying only some 150 miles distant from Constantinople.

While the first Balkan War was in progress the Young Turks, led by Enver Pasha, had undertaken a further coup. This allowed them control of the government even as the latest stages in the dismemberment of Ottoman imperial authority contributed to the onset of WORLD WAR I. During 1914–18 Turkey sided with the CENTRAL POWERS, while also raising the level of persecution of its own Armenian Christian population (see ARMENIAN GENOCIDE). At the eventual PARIS PEACE SETTLEMENT the French and British victors were able, under MANDATES, to share between themselves most of the previous Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. The SÈVRES TREATY of 1920 also envisaged transfers to Greece that would have involved even further withdrawal within Eastern Thrace as well as some losses in Anatolia. This compact was never ratified, however, as its terms became inoperative amidst the GREEK–TURKISH WAR of 1921–2 and were then superseded by those of the less punitive LAUSANNE TREATY of July 1923.

By that time Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK had secured the sultan's abdication and the general acceptance of his own presidency at the head of a new Turkish republic with its capital at Ankara. Until his death in 1938 he dominated the political scene, combining elements of reformist Westernization with an authoritarian nationalism strongly supported by the army. He also abolished the caliphate so as to develop instead a secular form of statehood aimed at limiting the authority of Islam to the strictly religious sphere. Atatürk's commitment to international NEUTRALITY was sustained by his successor and close associate, Ismet Inönü (president 1938–50). Thus Turkey, though potentially vulnerable to aggression from HITLER or STALIN alike, succeeded in staying out of WORLD WAR II – at least until February 1945 when it entered on the Allied side as a means of ensuring its admission to the UNITED NATIONS as a founder member.

As the COLD WAR intensified and some Western European states sought to strengthen their defenses through joint participation in NATO, the question of Turkish military collaboration moved up the agenda. In 1952, three years after the organization was formed, Turkey did indeed enter it. This abandonment of neutrality allowed US bases to be established on Turkish territory along NATO's newly-extended eastern flank, and also permitted improved monitoring of movements made by the SOVIET UNION'S Black Sea Fleet. Though Greece had joined the alliance at the same time, the mutual distrust of the two new members strongly persisted (see also BALKAN PACT). Tensions grew particularly over treatment of the Turkish minority in CYPRUS, which with its predominantly Greek population had been transferred from the Ottoman empire to British protection back in 1878 and which eventually achieved independence in 1960. In 1974 the Ankara government launched a military occupation of the northern part of the island, where the Turkish settlements were mainly concentrated. It eventually designated that region as an independent “republic” – one whose legitimacy nonetheless failed to gain any international recognition.

Thereafter the “Northern Cyprus” dispute remained one of the factors that complicated the question of Turkey's relationship to the wider processes of EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, and prompted Greek threats of veto against its potential membership of the European Union (EU). Moreover, like the country's geographical position, the relative poverty and sheer size of its population (exceeding 70 million by the early twenty-first century) were often cited as further problematic features. Growth of Turkish migrant labor (see MIGRATION) within the EU, and in Germany especially, was also a cause of difficulty. Religious considerations too strongly affected the debate, as fundamentalism gained ground in much of the Muslim world and as the tradition originally stemming from Atatürk's secularist vision became more frequently challenged even within Turkey itself. There was also considerable concern in the EU about the republic's record on human rights, including its restrictions on freedom of expression and its treatment of the Kurdish and Armenian minorities. Despite Turkey's post-1945 transition from single-party to multi-party politics, its democratic credentials were similarly questioned – particularly under circumstances where bouts of political instability tended to trigger direct intervention by the powerful military elites, such as occurred in 1960, 1971, and 1980. Senior officers strongly committed to the secularist ethos also influenced the removal in 1997 of Necmettin Erbakan, the republic's first explicitly Islamist premier. The elections of 2002 and 2007 were won by the AKP (Justice and Development Party), but this movement was widely viewed among the military as one bent on concealing its deeper religious agenda for the nation's future. Such tensions constantly threatened Turkey's stability and meant that, though the first of its repeated bids for full membership of the European Community/Union dated as far back as 1987, an eventually successful outcome still remained far from certain.

Two Sicilies, Kingdom of the After the dynastic wars that ravaged early-eighteenth-century Europe, the realm that linked Naples and the southern half of the Italian peninsula with the island of Sicily was confirmed in 1735 as a possession of the Spanish BOURBON DYNASTY. However, upon ceding these territories, Habsburg Austria (see HABSBURG EMPIRE) imposed the condition that the so-called Two Sicilies should never be united with Spain under one crown. Thus it was that in 1759, when the rule of Charles III commenced in Madrid, his seven-year-old son succeeded him on the Neapolitan-Sicilian throne as Ferdinand I. His long reign (1759–1825) began with the reformist Bernardo Tanucci continuing to be the main source of ministerial guidance. But by the 1780s the king had come increasingly under the influence of a reactionary aristocracy and a particularly obscurantist version of Catholic clericalism (see CATHOLICISM) that served to resist the ideas of the ENLIGHTENMENT, and soon those of the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789 as well. In December 1798, during the FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS, Ferdinand joined the Second Coalition against France. By the end of January 1799 his mainland domain had been overrun, and his own escape from Naples to Sicily had been secured only through the availability of NELSON'S flagship. The French DIRECTORY then briefly operated a client-state of its own, the so-called Parthenopean Republic. This survived for only a few months, after which British intervention ensured Ferdinand's restoration to Neapolitan rule. However, during the ensuing NAPOLEONIC WARS, he again lost this part of his kingdom to the French. Thus NAPOLEON I was able to confer the title “king of Naples” first on his brother (see BONAPARTE, JOSEPH) in 1806, and then two years later on his brother-in-law Marshal MURAT. Following Ferdinand's second reinstatement in 1815, the Two Sicilies became a bastion of autocratic CONSERVATISM. Faced with revolution in Naples in July 1820, the king initially conceded a constitution similar to that introduced into Sicily, under British prompting, in 1812; but this grant was reversed the following spring after military intervention by the Austrians, as authorized by the TROPPAU CONGRESS. The reign of Francis I (1825–30) was followed by that of Ferdinand II (1830–59), who earned himself the label of “King Bomba” because of his uncompromising methods of suppressing dissent. When the European REVOLUTIONS OF 1848–9 began with a rising in Palermo that swiftly spread to the mainland, a liberal constitution was again promptly yielded – only to be revoked at the earliest opportunity in 1849, when under Austrian influence the general Italian tide had turned towards reactionary measures. The hegemony of Bourbon autocracy over the economically deprived south (see MEZZOGIORNO) survived for only 11 years longer. Having succeeded his father in May 1859, Francis II found himself faced with further Sicilian revolt in April 1860. This was swiftly exploited in the interests of ITALIAN UNIFICATION by GARIBALDI who, through the celebrated expedition of his “Thousand Redshirts,” led the capture first of the island and then, by September, of Naples too. In October there was overwhelming plebiscitary endorsement of union with the north, to be effected under VICTOR EMMANUEL II of Piedmont and the House of Savoy whose Kingdom of Italy became formally proclaimed in March 1861. Nearly a century later, Giuseppe di Lampedusa's novel The Leopard (1958) would capture the final phase of Bourbon rule over Naples and Sicily with brilliant imaginative insight.