History is a continuum. European affairs before and since 1848 all had an effect on what went on in the future. The Revolutions of 1848 were due to the Congress System (set up after the Napoleonic Wars) and the European nobilities inability to deal with their own and others' internal and external stability. The Great War would not have happened unless numerous other events happened before 1914. Hitler would not have peacefully come to power in 1933—only to unleash six years of war on the continent and Great Britain—had it not been for fiscal, social, and psychological strains, and Europe's inability to deal with them, that were brought about after the First World War in Europe. History is, indeed, a continuum: encompassing science, political theory, humanities, the arts, and everything else that mankind may pursue.

Speaking of the arts and history—at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts resides a rather famous painting by Paul Gauguin entitled "The Tahitians." In one corner of this painting are inscribed those three lines, which, in my best Franglais attempt, translate as:

D'ou venon Nous? or Where do we come from?
Que Sommes Nous? or What are we?
and Ou Allons Nous? or Where are we going?

I will put them in less esoteric terms: thus –

Who are we? That is, who are we as a civilization?
How did we get here - to this point in time/history?
Where are we going - that is, what is our future?

The first one of these questions can be answered in purely personal terms or generally: In this case, we shall endeavor to answer it in the more general sense. To put it in a more understandable context, I need only repeat that oft-cited quotation from Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The second question—How did we get to where we are in history—is, perhaps, the nut of this course. What events allowed history to propel us to the point where old enemies were not only willing to contemplate the reunification of Germany, but were keen to act on it? To where the Soviet Empire crumbled? To where the U.S. ostensibly "won" the Cold War? So that the events in the Balkans came virtually full circle to those that occurred at the beginning of the century? How did we get into this mess? And how can we survive it? What will happen next?

The last question is as important, if not more so, than any of the other speculative ones—though it is certainly fraught with great caveats and pitfalls. Though we may predict and prognosticate, we should always remember, "he who lives by the crystal ball will end up eating ground glass." Even so, that is the task of those who make policy the world over, and as such we cannot ignore it. So speculate we will, but always based on a sound understanding of what went before. After all, one doesn't expect that Gorbachev or Reagan used a crystal ball to predict the events of the decline of the Soviet Union of November 1989. Or that Yeltsin foresaw the trouble he would have in Grozny? Or that George Bush could have seen the catastrophic events of September 11th? Right?

The point is that, the better informed one is the better armed with a knowledge of what went before, the better, at least generally speaking, one is able to understand the present and, thus, perhaps anticipate the future. That is, after all, why we study history.

Or is it?

Perhaps some of you are here to study history as a dead subject. After all, it was not that long ago that Francis Fukiyama's article entitled Is History Dead? speculated that History—as such—was over, done for, kaput. Don't laugh. This article had gained considerable prominence among historians and policy makers. Is history dead? Can history ever be dead? Has my profession suddenly been made superfluous through some turn of events? These and other burning issues will be investigated throughout this course.

Speaking of burning issues: I have become deeply disturbed by an increasing tendency among students and professional historians alike to adhere rigorously to a linear approach to history. While this approach certainly does have its merits—indeed, I was taught in this fashion and am no worse for it—I do have a strong objection to the fact that it has become more or less de rigour that history be taught with a "beginning" and an "end" that is this course: Europe Since 1848. History here begins with 1848 and ends, presumably, with yesterday.

I have to admit, this concept is based on the rather logical—and, I must add, valid—assumption that without knowledge of the past, the present would be incomprehensible. While I consider myself to be a faithful disciple of Cleo, that demanding muse of History, I must admit that I have been forced to reassess this approach recently; perhaps it would be more valid, more valuable, to begin with the assumption that the study of the past without regard to the present—and indeed, to the future—is irrelevant.

To the students I have encountered recently—a group that perhaps may include you—this is certainly the case. To them, history has had little relevance to the world as it stands today. It is somehow all separate, disjointed, unconnected. I have had the pleasure to teach Modern European history at various levels at several universities, including one in England as well as here at Penn State. Subsequently, I have discovered that very few of my erstwhile students are intrinsically interested in what they perceive to be "ancient" history; that is, anything before the Second World War. This course is slated to begin at 1848, the so-called "Springtime of Nations," the glorious revolutions of 1848 that gave impetus to the formation of many of the modern nation-states of Europe including the formation of the unified nations of Italy and Germany.

Students generally find the study of this period about as exciting as George Bush the elder found eating broccoli. Moreover, by the time I have dragged myself up, chronologically, to the more modern periods that do interest today's students—topics that get them excited and breathing heavily—I have, more often than not, run out of time. The students are left sweating with unfulfilled anticipation. Not only do I feel that such a let down is unfair, but it also does great harm to something I adore reading, studying, teaching—that is, HISTORY!

In an attempt to address this problem I have decided to try teaching history with regard to the present—integrating bits of current events into the lecture whenever possible. History is very much a part of our present—indeed, it is what makes us what we are—answering in part Gauguin's first question: Who are we? History has also shaped the world in which we live, answering the second of his questions: How did we get here? And it will certainly play a role in determining the future course of world events—you guessed it, providing some clue as to where we are going in the future.

What better way to capture your interest than to show how the present—seemingly unconnected events—fits in the scheme of things historically? And this, my friends, can lead to the larger issues of history itself, a subject that is politically charged; that causes infighting and backbiting among the various "schools of thought" that have been spawned through varying "interpretations" of "facts." And here you thought history would be DULL. Wrong-O! If it were no more than a compendium of facts—whatever they may be—we would surely just have you all read encyclopedias. But history is much, much more than that.

So. What is History? Simply, it is the written record of Mankind. Is History, therefore, objective? Hardly.

The character Catherine Moreland, in the novel Northanger Abbey, was moved to observe that she thought it odd that history should be so dull, "for a great deal of it must be invention." While this is not quite true, the question remains: Can there ever be such a thing as "the definitive history" about anything? Is the Task of the Historian simply to show how it "really" was? Nothing ticks me off more than to have a student ask, after I have painstakingly gone through an elaborate debate on one issue or another, "so, which one is right?" AAARGHHH!!!

To be sure, history undoubtedly consists of a corpus of ascertained "facts" (that is the so-called "objective" side of history. Simplistically, that there was a man named Hitler who served as a Corporal in the Austrian Army during the Great War and who later rose to fame as leader of the German Nation…blah blah blah…) But as soon as the historian starts mucking with these facts—say, by writing them down in some fashion—that is, interpreting them, history ceases to be objective. Enter the realm of historical debate and the development of schools of thought.

And you thought all this would be simple! It is. There are people who judge Ronald Reagan a great president, and others who judge Bill Clinton to be a superb president. How about George W. Bush with his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Was his decision to launch an invasion warranted or not? Now, consider how YOU may write about good old Ronald Reagan, or George Bush the elder, Bill Clinton, or George Bush the younger as compared to one of your colleagues who does not hold your particular biases (and they most certainly ARE biases, make no mistakes there).

But there is nothing WRONG with biases so long as the historian does not distort or alter the "facts." "Ahha! You cry; "those horrid things called facts reappear." Here, I must emphasize that accuracy (that is, towards facts) is a duty, not a virtue, and an historian who is less than honest with his "facts" quickly becomes discredited. Toying with, altering, ignoring or just plain "making it up as you go along" simply will not be tolerated! When historians are found to be guilty of these heinous crimes, they are quickly drummed out of the profession.

Even so, an historian's primary function is to interpret facts. The historian decides which ones are important. The historian is necessarily selective, and aren't you glad for THAT? The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the Historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one that is very hard to eradicate; to whit, my complaint of students demanding to know which interpretation is "correct." The status of a "fact" as an historical fact turns on a question of interpretation. This element of interpretation enters into every fact of history.

In his book What is History?, Geoffrey Barraclough observed that "The history we read, though based on facts, is, strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgments." But what about the raw sources? Primary documents? Caveat Emptor here as well: No document can tell us anything more than what the author thought, or more significantly, what he wanted others to think.

Facts and documents are essential to the historian, to be sure, but do not make a fetish of them. They do not by themselves constitute history: They provide in themselves no ready-made answer to this tiresome question—What is History? While I am not sure I can give you a simple answer to that question, I can give you certain guidelines that will help you to be a better student of history, or, indeed, just about anything else.

One of these guidelines to remember is that "facts" never come to us as pure, as they do not and cannot exist in a pure form. They are always refracted through the mind of the recorder. As soon as the historian or observer enters the picture (and this can be a journalist or a person recording observations in a diary), the event or facts become filtered.

Another axiom: History cannot be written unless the historian can achieve some kind of understanding of the mind of those about whom he is writing. After all, how can we say that Hitler REALLY meant "A," though he said "B," unless we feel confident that we understand how he thought and processed information? How can we read a biography written by an historian if we have no faith in the historian's ability to "crawl inside the mind" of the person about whom he is writing? We can view the past, and achieve an understanding of the past, only through the eyes of the present.

So, what is history? It is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and its facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past. That is precisely what I hope to do here, by drawing threads of continuity through time, thereby linking the past and the future. With that, I'll leave you with a repeat of Gauguin's three questions, crudely paraphrased by myself:

Who are we?
How did we get here?
Where are we going?

After reading the rest of the Introduction, go on to complete the Prologue to the course and do the assigned reading by Craig.

The main objectives for this course are to ask yourself again, when you have completed the course, the three questions posed in the Course Overview:

• Who are we? That is, who are we as a civilization?
• How did we get here - to this point in time/history?
• Where are we going - that is, what is our future?

1. Reading Assignment
   The assigned readings are critical in complementing the Commentary for each lesson. They will help you successfully complete both the Lesson Assignments and the exams.


2. Learning Objectives
   The Learning Objectives for each lesson will help you identify what you should be learning from each lesson. At the end of each lesson, re-read these objectives to see if you meet their requirements for the lesson.


3. The Commentary
   The Commentary gives you the background on the course subject. It may also serve to supplement the readings for the course.


4. Lesson Assignment
   In each Lesson Assignment, you will complete a brief identification section of people, places, or things. Then, you will answer several essay questions. When you've finished the assignment, you will submit it to your instructor for evaluation.

Both the mid-course and final are "take home" exams. This allows you to ponder the deeper meaning of the question—or come up with something else you might deem to "wow" my socks off. There is no word limit, just be sure that you place everything you’ve cited in quotation marks and footnote it, and proof read your essay(s).

You will have 12 assignments worth 50 points each so 12x50=600 points

The Mid-Course Exam is worth 500 points.

The Final Exam is worth 1000 points.

Your grade in HIST 120 will be determined as follows:

96-100%=A
90-95%=A-
87-89%=B+
84-86%=B
80-83%=B-
76-79%=C+
71-75%=C
65-70%=D
Below 64%=F

Part I of the Final Exam will be comprehensive (e.g., it will cover material from the ENTIRE course), while Part II of the Final Exam will test you on material covered since the Mid-Course Exam.