Valmy

Varennes, flightto Attempt by the French royal family, 20-25 June, 1791, to flee from Paris, where they had been effectively imprisoned since the OCTOBER DAYS (see also FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789),

To Montmedy near the border with Luxemburg. From here, louis xvi hoped to rally support from the European monarchs and induce the revolutionaries to negotiate. The flight was prompted by Louis’s disgust at the treatment of the clergy (see CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE clergy) and his desire to avoid signing a new constitution. The escape plan, which involved linking up with army detachments stationed en route, went wrong from the outset. The royal party was recognized and arrested by Drouet, the local postmaster, at Varennes-en-Argonne and returned to Paris on June 25. The king’s treachery destroyed any lingering hopes that he and the Assembly could work together, and prompted an upsurge in republican sentiment that helped to produce the monarchy’s downfall the following year.

Vatican City (see micro-states[5])

Vatican Councils The first of these assembled in 1869-70, after a 300-year interval since the Council of Trent had determined Catholicism’s response to the Reformation (see Protestantism). The idea of a new general council was mooted in

The 1840s, with a view to updating Canon Law and meeting the challenge of secularization. Yet international affairs, and particularly events surrounding ITALIAN UNIFICATION, caused delay. Once summoned by Pius ix, the Council devoted most of its energies to debating the nature and scope of the pontiff’s authority, an issue highlighted by the growth of the so-called ultramontanism (see Catholicism) that pitted the See of Rome against any secular source of guidance. The upshot - unwelcome to a substantial minority of the participants - was the dogma of papal infallibility. This was promulgated in July 1870, shortly before withdrawal of the French garrison from Rome (see franco-prussian war) enabled the new kingdom of italy to incorporate most of the city and prompted Pius into an indefinite suspension of the Council itself. Essentially, the dogma deemed popes to be incapable of error when speaking ex cathedra on issues of faith and morals. In the event, successive pontiffs were wary of invoking it, doing so unequivocally only on one occasion, in 1950, regarding the Assumption. This was perhaps wise as the first Council, along with the Syllabus of Errors (1864), seemed to have placed the church firmly in the camp of reaction. The second Vatican Council (1962-3), convened by JOHN XXIII, was a more constructive attempt to confront the modern world, in a spirit of aggior-namento (“updating”). This assembly was the largest and most representative in church history, even though it continued to marginalize the

The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789  Nicholas Atkin, Michael Biddiss and Frank Tallett

© 2011 Nicholas Atkin, Michael Biddiss, Frank Tallett. ISBN: 978-1-405-18922-4

Contribution of women (see gender). In a wide range of pronouncements it reached out to other faiths, approved the use of a non-Latin liturgy, and augmented the role of the laity without diluting clerical authority. However, many of its proclamations were largely aspirational in nature, leaving their implementation dependent on the evolving character of papacy itself. When Pope John died suddenly in the middle of the proceedings, liberals were disappointed by the lack of reforming zeal evident in his successor, Paul VI, and by the Council’s failure to deal realistically with the issue of contraception. During the long and theologically conservative pontificate of john PAUL II, which lasted from 1978 until 2005, there were frequent but unheeded calls for a further assembly.

Vendee Shorthand for a counter-revolutionary insurrection, centered on the department of this name in western France, which occurred during the FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1789. Already disaffected by the imposition of new taxes and the passage of the CIVIL CONSTITUTION OF THE CLERGY, the people of the Vendee rose in revolt following the introduction of conscription in February 1793 (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY wars). Helped by the terrain, and fighting a largely guerrilla war, the insurgents scored initial successes. But after failing to take Nantes and link up with a British fleet, their forces were destroyed at Savenay in December. Terrible repression followed. “Hellfire columns” - detachments of regular troops - burned and destroyed indiscriminately, and at Nantes thousands of rebels (half of them women) were drowned in the Loire. Fitful resistance continued until the region was pacified by napoleon i.

Vendemiaire, rising of (see under napoleon i)

Venizelos, Eleftherios (1864-1936), Prime Minister of GREECE (1910-15, 1917-20, 1924, 1928-32, 1933). As these dates suggest, Venizelos was the leading figure in national politics during the early twentieth century. He first became premier after a successful campaign to unite his native Crete with Greece by throwing off Ottoman control. He then masterminded the alliance that won more territory from Turkey (see turkey and europe) during the Balkan wars of 1912-13. Constantine I frustrated his efforts to enter world war i against

Germany and her allies so as to register further gains. Venizelos resigned over this in 1915, but finally prevailed when he returned to power after the royal abdication of 1917. At the Paris peace SETTLEMENT he negotiated the favorable sEvres treaty. When post-Ottoman Turkey managed to repudiate this, Venizelos salvaged what little he could through the lausanne treaty of 1923. His final administrations foundered amidst the pressures of the great depression [2]. In 1935 he failed in a coup, directed against the rise of the authoritarian monarchist General metaxas. Venizelos fled to France, where he died the following year.

Verdun, Battle of Fought in 1916, this was the most sustained engagement on the Western Front in WORLD WAR I, and also demonstrated both the power of artillery and the destructive capabilities of new weapons, notably phosgene gas (see also warfare). For the French, the campaign was understood to be the ultimate test of their nation. Defeat would probably have knocked France and Britain out of the war, something understood by the new German commander-in-chief, falkenhayn.

In a long memorandum supposedly dated December 1915 - a document of doubtful authenticity, probably written after the war - Falk-enhayn speculated that success was more likely to come on the Western rather than the Eastern Front. British involvement could be worn down by submarine warfare and an eventual assault in Flanders, while France could be eliminated by a war of attrition centered on a target it would defend to the last. Falkenhayn chose Verdun, a quiet garrison town on the Meuse. It had tremendous symbolic value, being the site of repeated French resistance to Germany in 1792 and 1870, and again in 1914 when it became the pivot for jOFFRE’s success along the Marne. Given the hilly terrain surrounding the town, Falkenhayn secretly congregated his artillery and infantry in bunkers. Opposite them, the French were protected in deep underground fortresses, yet much oftheir cannon had been removed for the Artois and Champagne offensives, and their supply line, comprising a single narrow-gauge railway running back to Bar le Duc, was vulnerable.

The attack commenced on February 16, 1916 with a huge artillery barrage lasting two days, and heard a hundred miles away. Though Fort

Under congress

Douaumont (one of the most important defensive positions) fell on February 24, the French were bolstered by petain’s appointment as commander. He quickly initiated measures which had brought him success elsewhere: supplies were guaranteed by the exploitation of the Bar le Duc railway (la voie sacree); frontline troops were rotated and rested; artillery and infantry worked in liaison to carry out limited operations; and morale was maintained by Petain’s steady nerve. “Courage, on les aura,” he famously declared to his men, though it is also known that he came close to admitting defeat. His defensive tactics at Verdun, including use of underground fortresses, later informed French strategic thinking in the 1920s, especially regarding the maginot line.

Despite French resolve, Falkenhayn was bleeding his enemy white in a battle of attrition. By May, three important forts had been captured: Mort Homme, Cote 304, and Fort Vaux. On June 23 the Germans deployed their deadly new weapon, phosgene gas. French losses were compounded by Joffre’s decision in April to remove Petain from the direct running of operations, which were now entrusted to nivelle who launched a series of wasteful attacks. Yet Verdun had also become a trial of strength for the Germans, a test they struggled to withstand as the Allies counter attacked elsewhere: Russia’s brusilov offensive was launched in June, followed in Julyby theBritish assault on the SOMME. Heavy German losses along the Western Front cost Falkenhayn his job in August 1916. His replacement, hindenburg, was far more cautious about the number of troops needed at Verdun, which allowed Petain (once more to the fore) to recapture lost ground. By December 1916 the defense of Verdun had been secured, albeit at great cost: 542,000 French casualties, and 434,000 German ones. Though Petain was hailed as the Victor of Verdun (a factor that later helped him to command some measure of respect as head of the vichy regime), the battle was essentially a triumph for the poilus who had fought in appalling conditions. Thus it subsequently became a central symbol of French bravery against the odds.

Verona, Congress of (see system)

Versailles, Treaty of This agreement (signed 28 June, 1919), dictated to rather than negotiated with Germany by the victorious Allies, formed the centerpiece of the paris peace settlement following WORLD WAR I. It required the Germans to forfeit their whole colonial empire, as well as to make a series of territorial concessions within Europe. France recovered alsace-lorraine, while Belgium annexed eupen-malmEdy and Denmark obtained northern Schleswig. Restored Poland took over parts of Pomerania and silesia, and also gained most of Posen and West Prussia including the DANZIG CORRIDOR that henceforth separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Other penalties imposed on Germany included a prohibition against union with Austria (see Anschluss); the establishment of a demilitarized zone covering the whole of the left bank of the Rhine (this part being due to remain under Allied occupation for 15 years) plus a 50km-deep strip along the right bank; and the transfer to France of control over the SAARLAND’s coal resources until 1935. Severe limitations were also placed on the size of the army and navy, and possession of any submarine or air forces was forbidden. Perhaps the most resented section of the treaty was that which stigmatized German “war guilt,” and thus permitted the victors to impose a liability for huge (but, in 1919, as yet uncalculated) reparations payments. These were most influentially criticized by the British economist, keynes. Although the Allies talked much of rights to “national selfdetermination,” they clearly found it inconvenient to give Germany itself any real benefit of the principle - and clemenceau in particular would have preferred even harsher measures. The authority of the weimar republic suffered greatly from its own early and unavoidable association with the acceptance of this Diktat, and the desire of most Germans to renounce it was something that hitler would soon prove supremely capable of exploiting. The USA never ratified the treaty, and the policies of appeasement pursued in Britain and France during the 1930s served to confirm that by then the other principal victors had found its provisions increasingly impracticable to sustain.

Vichy regime The form of government operative between 1940 and 1944 in part of France after its defeat early in world war ii. Following the Franco-German Armistice (June 22, 1940), the country was divided into two principal zones, the larger of which was occupied by the Germans. The French government charged with administering the unoccupied regions then settled at the spa town of Vichy, chosen because of its ample availability of pleasant accommodation. It was there that on July 10-11 the National Assembly, meeting in bizarre circumstances, suspended the THIRD republic’s constitution and gave plenary powers to Marshal petain, hero from World War I and prime minister since June 16. The new head of state was politically ambitious, defeatist, and naive about German intentions. He had earlier negotiated the armistice, hoping that this would lead to a definitive peace settlement and enable France to recover from the worst defeat in its history.

Trusting in his chief ministers - first laval, then DARLAN, and then Laval again - Petain sought COLLABORATION with Germany, but this resulted in little: the HITLER-Petain meeting at Montoire on October 24, 1940, a slight reduction in reparations, and the occasional release of French war prisoners. Hitler never intended to make real concessions to France, as ultimately he looked towards its “balkanization” and incorporation into the Greater Germany. This hardline position did not prevent a small group of far-right politicians, including doriot and dEat, from making their base in occupied paris, from where they advocated fuller collaboration and criticized Vichy’s scheme of National Revolution. This project, launched in July 1940, comprised a series of policy initiatives - some reactionary, some progressive - foreshadowing the vogue for economic planning which would be continued after the war. However, the National Revolution quickly lost impetus. It lacked coherence and suffered from the ministerial instability which has led historians to describe Vichy as a “pluralistic regime.” Conservatives, prominent in the early cabinets, were in 1941 replaced by technocrats, who in turn were ousted by opportunists and fascists after 1942. perhaps only in its final stages, when it included such extremists as darnand, deat, and philippe Henriot, did Vichy possess any real unity. In so far as the regime can be considered fascist, it was a fascism that came late in the day.

Vichy never enjoyed much popularity among the French at large. Within the occupied regions, its rejection (like that of Nazism) was more or less immediate, although the German presence severely constrained the growth of a resistance movement. In unoccupied southern France the personality cult that surrounded Petain helped him to be regarded initially as a figure of stability. However, public support for his regime was evaporating as early as 1941. Despite the Royal Navy’s attack on the French fleet at mers-el-kebir, there remained a residual sympathy for the British and a widespread dislike of the Germans. Vichy propaganda, which was hopelessly muddled, did little to dispel this, and was deliberately undermined by the Nazis. More seriously, Vichy’s policies managed to alienate more or less everybody. German dominance scarcely provided the best context in which to launch a major upheaval of the country’s institutions. Nor did the regime manage to improve material conditions, which deteriorated steadily after 1941 due largely to Nazi plundering. Vichy had promised a revival of the French values of travail, famille, patrie (work, family, homeland); yet it seemed to bring only tracas, faim, patrouilles (bother, hunger, surveillance). It is small wonder that, from 1941, resistance steadily mounted.

When in November 1942 the Allies invaded North Africa, all of France was occupied and Vichy lost its residual independence. By 1943 many were already looking towards de gaulle in Algeria as their potential leader. At the time of Liberation in 1944, the Nazis transferred the Vichy ministers to a German castle and kept them under a form of house arrest. It should not be believed, however, that Hitler simply compelled Vichy, at any stage in its existence, to pursue those discriminatory measures against Jews, Freemasons, communists, and other minorities for which the regime is best remembered. As early as July 1940, Vichy was busy passing antisemitic laws (see antisemitism). In 1942 it colluded fully in the round-up of Jews, although it preferred to expel “foreign” rather than French ones. Eventually, 75,000 victims were deported to Nazi concentration camps; barely three thousand survived. Vichy also helped the Germans to conscript 650,000 workers for the Nazi war machine. Petain’s regime was, above all, an agent of repression, keen to take revenge on its enemies, real or imagined, even if this meant assisting in the so-called final solution. Thus the Marshal bequeathed an uncomfortable legacy. Even in their postwar trials of Petain and Laval, the French barely addressed the scale of Vichy’s collaborationist record. Nor, decades later, have they yet fully confronted this part of their past.

Victor Emmanuel II (1820-78), last King of PIEDMONT-SARDINIA (1849-61), and first King of ITALY (1861-78). Victor Emmanuel came to the throne upon Charles albert’s abdication, following a failed campaign in Lombardy against the HABSBURG EMPIRE. His peace negotiations with the Austrians shrewdly left the 1848 Piedmontese constitution in place, even though this Statute contradicted his own absolutist leanings. In the 1850s, he trusted heavily in his prime ministers D’AZEGLIO and cavour. The king was especially supportive of the latter’s diplomatic maneuvers (most notably the 1858 plombiEres agreement) aimed at promoting some form of Italian unification. The villafranca peace negotiations that followed the franco-austrian war of 1859 allowed Victor Emmanuel to extend his rule to Lombardy. In 1860 he also gave covert encouragement to garibaldi’s invasion of Sicily and of the southern mainland, before advancing his own Piedmontese forces to link up with the “Redshirts.” This enabled him to proclaim a united Italy, even though he then disappointed many nationalists by declining to re-title himself as Victor Emmanuel I. In 1866 he again displayed diplomatic shrewdness by supporting bismarck in the austro-prussian WAR, acquiring Venetia as a result. Four years later, he seized Rome, until then guarded by a French garrison (see franco-prussian war; papal states), and made it the capital of this further-enlarged Italian kingdom.

Victor Emmanuel III (1869-1947), King of Italy (1900-46), Emperor of Ethiopia (1936-43), and King of Albania (1939-43). This Victor Emmanel came to the throne unexpectedly after the assassination of Umberto I, and is chiefly remembered for the manner in which he eventually allowed fascism to seize hold of his country. He was keen to establish his regime’s international presence and supported the italo-turkish war of 1911, though he was initially opposed to entering world war i. In the aftermath of that latter conflict, he was troubled by Italy’s political and economic instability and, despite his own preference for constitutional monarchy, acquiesced in Mussolini’s dictatorial takeover. Thereafter the king was little more than a figurehead, until in July 1943 (backed by the Fascist Grand council) he exercised his right to sack the Duce. Having thus recovered some freedom of action, Victor Emmanuel then used it badly. It became clear that, under Allied protection, his chief concern was to save his own position. In June 1944, with Rome in American hands, he was advised to concede most of his residual powers to his son, umberto. Victor Emmanuel formally abdicated in favor of the latter shortly before a plebiscite of 1946 favored abolition of the monarchy, largely due to his own unprincipled record. Umberto II himself reigned for only five weeks prior to the institution of a republic.

Victoria (1819-1901), Queen of Great Britain and Ireland (1837-1901), and Empress of India (1876-1901). Both as the longest reigning British monarch to date and as the mother of nine children, she became a significant factor in the dynastic history of European monarchism as it developed from the nineteenth century into its twentieth-century epoch of decline. she was the only child of Edward Duke of Kent and Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg, and came to the British throne on the death of her uncle, william IV. At that point she was, as a woman, debarred by Salic Law from succeeding him as ruler of hanover too. Though the personal dynastic union between the two realms now lapsed, Victoria’s German descent contributed to her early unfamiliarity with British constitutional practices. At the start of her reign she drew on the advice of her prime minister Lord Melbourne, but did so while also relying heavily on King Leopold I of Belgium whose views on monarchical authority did not sit easily with British traditions. Nor did those of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the cousin whom Victoria married in 1840. He frequently locked horns with the government of the day, and especially with Palmerston who, as foreign secretary in the period 1846-51, showed sympathy towards piedmont-sardinia in its attempts to free northern Italy from rule by the HABSBURG EMPIRE. It was perhaps fortunate for the constitutional balance that Victoria’s many pregnancies prevented her from playing a more active political role. on Albert’s death in 1861, “the widow of windsor” entered a long period of mourning, wearing black for the rest of her life, but also becoming the object of unsubstantiated rumors of an affair with her Scottish manservant John Brown. This remoteness made her unpopular, but she eventually re-entered the spotlight and celebrated in 1887 and 1897 the Golden and Diamond Jubilees of her accession amid much public acclaim. After Disraeli created her Indian title, she was all the readier to bask in the glory of even wider imperial expansion which, by the end of her reign, had brought nearly a quarter of the world’s population under some form of British rule (see imperialism). With reference to Europe itself, her status as a dynastic matriarch is reflected in the fact that descendants of Victoria would enter the royal families of Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, Russia, and Germany. in the last ofthese cases, it would be her grandson Emperor william ii who, during the decade or so after her death, came to play a leading role in heightening the Anglo-German antagonism that contributed to the outbreak of general war in 1914. Because of her long reign, the adjective “Victorian” is regularly applied to the values and customs of nineteenth-century Britain, often supporting caricatures of a prim, oppressive, and hypocritical society. More apt is the judgment that during her period the country witnessed vast changes and showed great inventiveness, especially in the industrial and cultural spheres. (See also Britain and Europe)

Vienna Congress This diplomatic gathering marked the end of the sequence of international conflicts known as the french revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars. The proceedings began in october 1814 and, after being interrupted by the return of the dethroned napoleon i from his first exile to Elba (see hundred days), they were concluded in June 1815 following the former emperor’s final defeat at Waterloo. The Congress was dominated by the four victor powers: Russia was principally represented by Tsar Alexander i in person, while metternich, hardenberg, and cas-tlereagh were the leading negotiators for Austria, Prussia, and Britain respectively. Talleyrand too played a key role on behalf of France’s restored Bourbon regime, and Spain, Portugal, and Sweden were particularly notable among the other countries represented.

After more than two decades of war, the overriding need was to secure the peace: by containing

France, redrawing themap ofEurope (see Map 3), and establishing machinery for future cooperation. To achieve the first objective, the arrangements originally made in May 1814 were eventually superseded by a new agreement that restricted France’s borders to those of 1790 and imposed upon her an indemnity and an army of occupation (see paris treaties[1]). Additionally, a cordon sanitaire was placed around her frontiers. In the north, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was created out of Holland and the former Austrian territory neighboring it to the south. To create a bulwark against France in the southeast, Austrian control in northern and central italy was extended through the acquisition of Lombardy and Venetia, while Habsburg relatives became rulers in Parma, Modena, and Tuscany. piedmont-sardinia acquired the republic of Genoa, serving as a buffer between France and Habsburg-controlled territories in Italy. The Rhineland was handed over to prussia with the aim of preventing further French encroachment in that direction - a decision whose significance for future german unification was barely recognized at the time. And, finally, the independence of Switzerland was guaranteed by the great powers.

The second objective, an even broader remapping of Europe, was necessary not just to contain France but also to respond to the radical modifications of political geography wrought especially by Napoleon. While it is possible to speak of a territorial “restoration” in 1815, the victors were less concerned about legitimacy than about strategic and balance-of-power considerations. It must be conceded, for example, that the Bourbon Ferdinand IV returned to Naples (see two Sicilies), that the king of Sardinia was restored in Piedmont, Nice, and Savoy, and that Pius vii resumed control over the papal states. In contrast, however, no attempt was made to revive most of the states of the holy roman empire. Instead a german confederation was established under Austrian leadership, bolstering the power of the habsburg EMPIRE in central Europe. Britain acquired former French and Dutch colonies, including Malta, ceylon, and the cape of Good Hope. This strengthened its control of vital sea lanes; while the transfer of Norway from Denmark to Sweden ensured that no single power dominated access to the Baltic. Russia received Finland from Sweden and Bessarabia from Turkey. Tsar Alexander’s designs upon the whole of Poland in return for Prussian occupation of Saxony, which would have challenged Austria’s position in eastern Europe and north Germany, threatened to upset negotiations. However, swift maneuvering by Talleyrand, who arranged an alliance between France, Britain, and Prussia against Russia in January 1815, forced the tsar to back down. Thus a tripartite division of Poland was agreed, albeit with Russia still taking the major share. Territorially, Prussia probably benefited most from the Congress settlement. In addition to tracts of Poland and much of Saxony, she acquired the Rhineland, the last remaining strip of Swedish Pomerania, and holdings in Westphalia.

Having eventually won the war by accepting the necessity of cooperation, the principal peacemakers also set themselves the objective of maintaining such collaboration. The mechanism for this was a series of interlocking alliances and ongoing consultations regarding their interests that aimed to resolve problems at an early stage, thus preventing escalation to war. Three accords emerged out of the peace settlement: the holy ALLIANCE (1815), the QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (1815), and the Quintuple Alliance (1818). Of these, the first was the haziest. Though Castlereagh refused to allow Britain to join, metternich valued the arrangement as a means of preventing Russian adventurism and checking revolution. To supplement these alliances, the great powers agreed to meet at regular congresses. Together, these alliances and ongoing assemblies comprised what has been termed the congress system (see also troppau congress).

The Vienna negotiators have been criticized for their conservatism, manifest both through their refusal to recognize aspirations towards NATIONALISM in their territorial reconfigurations and through their determination to obstruct LIBERALISM and related sources of revolutionary inspiration. Such intransigence has been contrasted unfavorably with the ideals of the 1919 PARIS PEACE SETTLEMENT, which claimed to champion the rights of peoples as against those of rulers. That judgment seems unfair. It is true that the arch-conservative Metternich, the most influential participant at Vienna, was determined to resist the growth of nationalist sentiments lest these upset the established order in Europe, and most especially in the multi-ethnic Habsburg empire; and that such efforts to frustrate them would indeed help precipitate the revolts that led to the achievement of Greek and Belgian independence around 1830, as well as deepening the ongoing tensions in Poland. Nonetheless, nationalism was generally an undeveloped phenomenon in early-nineteenth-century Europe. German or ITALIAN UNIFICATION would have been premature in 1815 (as it arguably still remained even in the 1860s). Moreover, criticisms of the Vienna settlement tend to understate its contribution towards maintaining international peace in Europe for nearly forty years, until the Crimean war, and even towards discouraging any return to generalized continental conflict until 1914. The leniency shown to France did not leave her disaffected and, due largely to the deft diplomacy of Talleyrand, she was treated as a great power capable of reintegration into the European state system. other powers, for their part, were generally satiated by the territorial remapping agreed at Vienna. If that meant ignoring nationalist aspirations, it often involved disregarding the claims of dispossessed rulers too. Moreover, Vienna produced among major countries an unprecedented degree of cooperation that persisted in the aftermath of the Congress. To be sure, war-weariness also helped prevent further outbreaks of conflict; and so too did the realization that war was the harbinger of revolution, itself capable of demolishing governments and political systems. Yet, if the Vienna settlement was not solely responsible for the preservation of peace, it still played a significant part. (See also Vienna treaties[2])

Vienna Treaties The most relevant agreements are best treated in four parts.

[1]  1809. The treaty of October 14, 1809 (also known as the Treaty of Schonbrunn), in the context of the Napoleonic wars, followed the French victory over Austria at wagram three months earlier. It required the habsburg empire to pay an indemnity and make a number of territorial concessions, as well as to recognize the legitimacy of napoleon I’s previous conquests and of his brother’s appointment as king of Spain (see

BONAPARTE, JOSEPH).

[2]  1815. Two agreements were made in 1815 that can be most helpfully assessed within the wider framework of the Vienna congress. The first, dated March 25, was the response of Austria, Britain, Prussia, and Russia to Napoleon’s return from his first exile to Elba (see hundred days). It committed them to maintaining against him an Allied force of some 150,000 troops. The second, dated June 9, encompassed the various decisions that comprised the Final Act of the Congress itself.

[3]  1864. The treaty of October 30, 1864 was imposed byAustria and Prussia upon Denmark after they had defeated the latter in a war relating to the SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION. It required the Danish monarchy to cede both provinces to joint Austro-Prussian control - an arrangement that those two powers further adjusted between themselves through the Convention of gastein the following August.

[4]  1866. This agreement, signed on October 12,1866, formally concluded the conflict between Italy and Austria that had been one aspect of the AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR. It assisted the process of ITALIAN UNIFICATION through endorsing the arrangement that Venetia should be ceded first by Austria to France and then by France to the new kingdom of Italy.

Villafranca, truce of This was agreed on July 8, 1859 as a means of suspending hostilities in the FRANCO-AUSTRIAN WAR, and was followed three days later by a meeting of the emperors, napoleon iii and FRANCIS Joseph i. Subsequent to the plombieres AGREEMENT made in July 1858, piedmont-sardinia had duly provoked war with Austria in April, and had then been quickly joined by France. After registering victories at Magenta (June 4) and Solferino (June 24), Napoleon III unexpectedly offered an armistice to the Austrians - a decision that prompted cavour to resign as Piedmont’s chief minister. These Villafranca negotiations were later enshrined in the Zurich Treaty of November 1859. Lombardy was to be given over to France and then transferred to Piedmont. However, Venetia would remain part of the habs-BURG EMPIRE and the duchies would stay under rulers from that same dynasty. An Italian confederation under the pope was also envisaged. Quite why Napoleon had second thoughts is unclear. It has been speculated that he lost the taste for battle after heavy losses at Magenta and Solferino;

He might also have been fearful of Prussian intervention; and he was certainly wounded by domestic Catholic criticism. Whatever the case, Villafranca sparked off a series of further developments towards Italian unification which were hard to control. Though feeling cheated, Cavour was soon back in office, determined as ever to achieve Piedmontese hegemony in northern Italy.

Visegrad states Label chosen for the grouping formed in 1991 by Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and POLAND with the aim of improving mutual economic, security, and cultural cooperation in the new context of post-communist central Europe. They concluded their agreement at the Hungarian town of Visegrad, evoking memories of the celebrated meeting held there in 1335 between the kings of Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary. From 1993, when Czechoslovakia was divided into the CZECH REPUBLIC and SLOVAKIA, the association continued on a four-state basis. Aided by the Visegrad linkages, all of the group were included in the wider range of countries simultaneously admitted into the European Union in 2004 (see also

EUROPEAN integration).

Vojvodina A province of present-day Serbia, lying north of Belgrade towards the borders with Hungary and Romania. The Vojvodina (“duchy”) was formerly part of the habsburg empire, where after the ausgleich of 1867 it became largely administered by Magyars. At the end of World War I, this area of particularly complex ethnicity fell under Serbian control. Thus it soon became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, formally known as Yugoslavia from 1929 onwards. Although occupied by German and Hungarian troops during World War II, the Vojvodina was regained by tito in 1945. From 1946 to 1990 it was permitted to enjoy an autonomous status within the Yugoslav federation (see also federalism[1]). This was cancelled by MILOSEVIC shortly before the onset of civil war across Yugoslavia at large. During that conflict of the early 1990s the ethnic balance inside this particular region shifted significantly, as many Hungarians and Croats fled while being replaced by an influx of Serb refugees escaping from Bosnia and Croatia (see also ethnic cleansing; migration). In 2002 the government of “rump” Yugoslavia restored a measure of autonomy to the Vojvodina. The province’s current population is estimated at some 2 million, within which Serbs comprise 65 percent of the total while Magyars (at 15 percent) still form the largest of the generally disaffected minority groupings.

Von Moltke, Helmuth Karl Bernhard (see Moltke, Helmuth Karl Bernhard, Count von) von Papen, Franz (see Papen, Franz von)

Vozhd Russian term for leader or “boss,” which in the main era of twentieth-century European dictatorships was used more informally in regard to STALIN than the otherwise comparable designations applied e. g. to hitler (“Fuhrer”) and MUSSOLINI (“Duce”).