Friday, November 06, 2009

Nidal Malik Hasan

An eye witness to the Ft. Hood shooting stated that Hasan cried out before gunning soldiers down: "He yelled, Allahu Akbar," (Arabic for "God is Great," a standard jihadist phrase).

An eye witness added: "He had laser sights on his handgun and yelled `Allahu Akbar' at the top of his lungs - blood was everywhere."

During the shooting, one eye witness reported Malik shouting the Islamists typical cry of "Allah Akbar!" (Arabic: God is Great) before shooting.

Another eye witness, from Northern Utah, also heard Hasan shout out, `Allahu Akbar,' but is afraid to come forward and be identified for fear of reprisal from her superiors.

Dr. Walid Phares, Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracie's Future of Terrorism Project, is interviewed about Ft. Hood. He referred to the "Ft. Dix Six," a reference to the five of six Muslim immigrants who were convicted of plotting to massacre U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey; and, he noted that one private was killed--Private Long--and another soldier was wounded by a Muslim terrorist, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, at a Little Rock, Arkansas, Army recruitment center (in which a Muslim protester later appeared to proclaim "Islam is the religion of peace"). The American military has been a terrorist target according to Dr. Phares.

The shooting attack at Ft. Hood by a Muslim soldier, the Ft. Dix convictions, and the Little Rock shooting are anything but isolated incidents. Leaving out the numerous attacks on American soldiers overseas, by soldiers in uniform or in fake uniforms, attacks have continued in the U.S.

1) On 23 March 2003 there was a grenade attack by Muslim Sgt. Hasan Karim Akbar that killed Army Captain Christopher Seifert and Air Force Major Gregory Stone and wounded 14 others. He was convicted of two counts of premeditated murder and three counts of attempted premeditated murder on April 21, 2005. Notably, during his trial Akbar smuggled scissors out of a conference room, then asked the Military Police Officer guarding him to remove his hand cuffs so he could use the restroom. When the officer removed Akbar’s restraints, he stabbed the officer in the neck and shoulder before being wrestled to the ground by another officer.

2) While serving as a naval signalman on board the USS Benfoldin the months following the attack on the USS Cole, Hassan Abujihaad (a/k/a Paul R. Hall) actively provided Islamic terrorists with sensitive information about the location of Navy ships and their weaknesses. He also discussed sniper attacks on military personnel and attacks on U.S. military recruitment sites with Muslim terrorists as well. For his crimes, Abujihaad is currently serving a ten-(10) year sentence. On 5 March, 2008 Abujihaad was convicted by a jury and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

3) There is also the case of U.S. Army captain James “Yousef” Lee, the former Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Lee was arrested at a U.S. airport on charges of espionage after he was caught in possession of detailed maps of the detention facility along with other classified materials.

4) In addition to Lee, two other Islamic Arabic translators stationed at Guantanamo were convicted of unauthorized possession of classified documents.

Ultimately, the U.S. Army opted not to proceed with the espionage charges against Lee due to national security concerns arising from the evidence that would be made available to the public at the trial.
The list just continues on and on:

• Army reservist Jeffrey Battle in 2003 pleaded guilty to conspiring to wage war against the U.S., confessing he enlisted "to receive military training to use against America."

• Army reservist Semi Osman in 2002 was arrested for providing material support to al-Qaida and pleaded guilty to weapons charges after agreeing to testify against other terror suspects.

• Marine Abdul Raheem al-Arshad Ali trained at a suspected al-Qaida camp and was charged with selling a semi-automatic handgun to Osman.

• Army Sgt. Ali Mohamed trained Green Berets at Fort Bragg's elite special warfare school before stealing military secrets for al-Qaida and helping plan bombings at three U.S. embassies in 1998.

• Army Spec. Ryan Anderson in 2004 was convicted of leaking military intelligence to al-Qaida terrorists, including sensitive information about the vulnerabilities of armored Humvees.

• Army sniper John Muhammad was put on death row after fatally shooting 10 in the nation's capital a year after 9/11.

And yet, the military has made no apparent effort to identify ongoing security threats. For example, take the case of Ali Mohamed, al-Qaeda’s military chief who served as a U.S. Army sergeant at the Special Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg and gathered extensive intelligence in his position that advanced the terror group’s understanding of warfare and helped to plan the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. As documented in Peter Lance’s book Triple Cross and the National Geographic documentary of the same name, Mohamed was allowed to continue in his position at this sensitive facility despite warnings from the Egyptian military and acknowledgment from his Army superiors that he held jihadist ideas. In light of what we presently know about Major Nadal Malik Hasan, it already seems clear that there were many obvious warning signs that were intentionally ignored, giving proof that very little has been learned from Ali Mohamed and several other similar cases since 9/11.

Colonel Terry Lee, a co-worker of the Ft. Hood suspect stated that Hasan made "outlandish" comments condemning U.S. foreign policy. In addition, numerous acquaintances who knew Malik recalled anti-American sentiments but no one filed a formal, written complaint about Hasan's comments out of fear of appearing discriminatory. As a captain, Hasan violated the patient-doctor relationship in that he advocated prosecuting American troops for war crimes.

The Muslim Hasan was upset and said that Muslims should “stand up”. Muslims should not be fighting Muslims. He also publicly posted his ideas on Scribd.

Malik stated:

Scholars have paralled [sic] this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees [sic] in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) [sic] knows best.

The shooter's, Malik Hassan Malik, Facebook page states: "i love Islam; i love allah," and links to Islamist Facebook pages. "The apostates, they must be killed," according to Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taiymiya, also linked on Facebook.

Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues. Hasan received poor evaluations for his sub-standard work.

The day of the shooting Malik was viewed calmly going about his typical schedule of buying coffee and hash browns that morning. In the days before his terrorist activity he visited a local strip club and met with a jihadist accomplice.

Fort Hood Shooter Before the Massacre

Hasan gave out business cards and Korans just before the shooting. A photograph taken on Friday, Nov. 6, 2009 in Killeen, Texas, shows a copy of the Quran and a briefcase holding this business card that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gave to his neighbor a day before going on a shooting spree at the Fort Hood Army Base. (Graphic source: AP)

SOA is shorthand in jihadist circles; it stands for Soldier of Allah. Likewise, when writing the name of God (Allah), Muslims often follow it with the abbreviation "SWT." These letters stand for the Arabic words "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala," or "Glory to Him, the Exalted." Muslims use these or similar words to glorify God when mentioning His name.

Army Major Shooter served on the Homeland Security Policy Institute’s presidential transition task force between April 2008 and January 2009.

According to a PowerPoint presentation reported by the Washington Post, Hasan was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.

Nidal Hasan is listed on p. 29 of the Homeland Security Policy Institute's Report dated April 2008-January 2009: "A Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force." Nidal Hasan is listed under the list of Task Force Advisors as: "Nidal Hasan....Uniformed Services University School of Medicine"(2300 Eye Street NW, Suite 721, Washington DC 20037, Hasan traveled in Homeland Security circles.

In Hasan's conclusion, he argues that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!" Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic] The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!" The final page, labeled "Recommendation," contained only one suggestion: "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." Janet Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security, spoke from the United Arab Emirates and is working to prevent Americans from engaging in a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood. There is no evidence that Americans have begun a backlash but Muslims are on the streets of America honoring Hasan. Revolution Muslim is mocking the dead American soldiers on their web site.
Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wis., joined the Army after the 2001 terrorist attacks and had vowed to take on Osama bin Laden, her mother, Jeri Krueger said. The Muslim group labels a picture of her likeness as "Fail." Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by Islamic imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on 9/11.
There is evidence that Hasan reached out to Islamist groups and colleagues noted his anti-American, pro-Muslim ideas. Research has revealed that Hasan may have sent money to Pakistan; he earned $90,000 a year, he had no dependents, and yet he lived in a small apartment which he rented for only $400 a month and lived in by himself. A logical question would be where did his money go? The Dallas News reported that Hasan may have wired money to Pakistan.
9/11 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hazmi came into contact with al Awlaki at the Rabat mosque in San Diego, though The 9/11 Commission Report notes that “We do not know how or when Hazmi and Midhar first met” him. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, the two “may even have met or at least talked to him the same day they first moved to San Diego.” Al Midhar and al Hazmi “reportedly respected al Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him.” The Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 labels al Awlaki “their spiritual advisor” and asserts that there were reports of “closed-door meetings” involving the three. In January 2001, al Awlaki moved to Virginia and became the imam at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, a mosque with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In April 2001, al Hamzi and fellow hijacker Hani Hanjour showed up at Dar al Hijrah. The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that al Hazmi’s “appearance may not have been coincidental. We have unable to learn enough about al Awlaki’s relationship with Hazmi and Midhar to reach a conclusion,”
Cf. Wikipedia. The U.K. press is running stories describing the background of Hasan.
The sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas earlier this week was linked with radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was a “spiritual adviser” to three of the hijackers who attacked America on September 11, 2001. Major Nidal Malik Hasan attended al-Awlaki’s Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists. Anwar al-Awlaki is an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organizations. A fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree told the Telegraph that Hasan’s eyes used to light up when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings. Relatives said that the death of Hasan’s parents, in 1998 and 2001, turned him more devout.
Malik's professional background is sparse and he counseled for only a year according to his records.
"I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Barack Obama, quoted in his Cairo speech. Obama has consistently maintained his position:
"I shall stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
--Barack Hussein Obama, Audacity of Hope

Muslims are hailing Hasan as a hero.

WH II: 6 November 2009


Current Event:

Section 3 The Age of Napoleon

Consul and Emperor

Napoleon's Domestic Policies

Peace With the Church

Codification of the Laws

A New Bureaucracy

Preserver of the Revolution?

Anne Louise Germaine de Staël

The date of the beginning of what Mme de Staël's admirers call her duel with Napoleon is not easy to determine. Judging from the title of her book Dix annees d'exil, it should be put at 1804; judging from the time at which it became pretty clear that the first man in France and she who wished to be the first woman in France were not likely to get on together, it might be put several years earlier. Napoleon said about her, according to the Memoirs of Mme. de Remusat, that she "teaches people to think who never thought before, or who had forgotten how to think."

The whole question of this duel, however, requires consideration from the point of view of common sense. It displeased Napoleon no doubt that Mme de Staël should show herself recalcitrant to his influence. But it probably pleased Mme de Staël to quite an equal degree that Napoleon should apparently put forth his power to crush her and fail. Both personages had a curious touch of charlatanerie. If Mme de Staël had really desired to take up her struggle against Napoleon seriously, she need only have established herself in England at the peace of Amiens. But she lingered on at Coppet, where she was shadowed by Napoleon's spies due to her tendency to defy Napoleon's orders, firstly that she keep away from Paris, and later out of France altogether, leaving her restless and lonely in rural Switzerland and constantly yearning after her beloved Paris.

In 1802 she published the first of her really noteworthy books, the novel Delphine, in which the femme incomprise was in a manner introduced to French literature, and in which she herself and not a few of her intimates appeared in transparent disguise. In the autumn of 1803 she returned to Paris. Had she not made her anxiety about the question of exile so public, it remains a question whether Napoleon would have exiled her; but, as she began at once appealing to all sorts of persons to protect her, he seems to have thought it better that she should not be protected. She was directed not to reside within forty leagues of Paris, and after considerable delay she determined to go to Germany.

Reading Check


What was the significance of Napoleon's Code?

Napoleon's Empire

Building the Empire

From 1804 to 1812, Napoleon furthered his reputation on the battlefield. He successfully battled the combined forces of the greatest European powers. He took great risks and even suffered huge losses. “I grew up on the field of battle,” he once said, “and a man such as I am cares little for the life of a million men.” By 1812, his Grand Empire reached its greatest extent.

As a military leader, Napoleon valued rapid movements and made effective use of his large armies. He developed a new plan for each battle so opposing generals could never anticipate what he would do next. His enemies paid tribute to his leadership. Napoleon’s presence on the battlefield, said one, was “worth 40,000 troops.”

Vocabulary Builder

anticipate—(an tis uh payt) vt. to foresee or expect

The Map of Europe Is Redrawn
Interactive Map of Napoleon's Empire, 1812

As Napoleon created a vast French empire, he redrew the map of Europe. He annexed, or incorporated into his empire, the Netherlands, Belgium, and parts of Italy and Germany. He also abolished the tottering Holy Roman Empire and created a 38-member Confederation of the Rhine under French protection. He cut Prussian territory in half, turning part of old Poland into the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

Napoleon controlled much of Europe through forceful diplomacy. One tactic was placing friends and relatives on the thrones of Europe. For example, after unseating the king of Spain, he placed his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte, on the throne. He also forced alliances on European powers from Madrid to Moscow. At various times, the rulers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia reluctantly signed treaties with the “Corsican ogre,” as the monarchs he overthrew called him.

In France, Napoleon’s successes boosted the spirit of nationalism. Great victory parades filled the streets of Paris with cheering crowds. The people celebrated the glory and grandeur that Napoleon had gained for France.

Napoleon’s Power in Europe, 1812

Go Online
For: Audio guided tour
Web Code: nap-1841

Map Skills

Napoleon’s empire reached its greatest extent in 1812. Most of the countries in Europe today have different names and borders.

1. Locate:

(a) French empire, (b) Russian empire, (c) Germany

2. Region

Locate the Confederation of the Rhine. What is this area called today?

3. Make Comparisons

Compare Europe of Napoleon’s empire to Europe of today on the maps above. How has Europe changed?

Spreading the Principles of the Revolution

In the end, Napoleon’s Continental System failed to bring Britain to its knees. Although British exports declined, Britain’s powerful navy kept vital trade routes open to the Americas and India. Meanwhile, trade restrictions created a scarcity of goods in Europe, sent prices soaring, and intensified resentment against French power.

French armies under Napoleon spread ideas of the revolution across Europe. They backed liberal reforms in the lands they conquered. In some places, they helped install revolutionary governments that abolished titles of nobility, ended Church privileges, opened careers to men of talent, and ended serfdom and manorial dues. The Napoleonic Code, too, influenced countries in continental Europe and Latin America.


How did Napoleon come to dominate most of Europe by 1812?

Reading Check


What were the three parts of Napoleon's Grand Empire? (i.e., identify which areas or countries make up the following): French Empire, Dependent states, and States allied with Napoleon.

The European Response

Britain's Survival (Napoleon Strikes Britain)

Britain alone, of all the major European powers, remained outside Napoleon’s European empire. With only a small army, Britain relied on its sea power to stop Napoleon’s drive to rule the continent. In 1805, Napoleon prepared to invade England. But at the Battle of Trafalgar, fought off the southwest coast of Spain, British Admiral Horatio Nelson smashed the French fleet.

Refight Trafalgar! is an online game built in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar.

With an invasion ruled out, Napoleon struck at Britain’s lifeblood, its commerce. He waged economic warfare through the Continental System, which closed European ports to British goods. Britain responded with its own blockade of European ports. A blockade involves shutting off ports to keep people or supplies from moving in or out. During their long struggle, both Britain and France seized neutral ships suspected of trading with the other side. British attacks on American ships sparked anger in the United States and eventually triggered the War of 1812.


In 1812, Napoleon continued his pursuit of world domination and invaded Russia. This campaign began a chain of events that eventually led to his downfall. Napoleon’s final defeat brought an end to the era of the French Revolution.

Nationalism Works Against Napoleon

Napoleon’s successes contained seeds of defeat. Although nationalism spurred French armies to success, it worked against them too. Many Europeans who had welcomed the ideas of the French Revolution nevertheless saw Napoleon and his armies as foreign oppressors. They resented the Continental System and Napoleon’s effort to impose French culture on them.

From Rome to Madrid to the Netherlands, nationalism unleashed revolts against France. In the German states, leaders encouraged national loyalty among German-speaking people to counter French influence.

Reading Check


Why did being a sea power help Britain survive an attack by the French?

Spain and Austria Battle the French

Resistance to foreign rule bled French-occupying forces dry in Spain. Napoleon introduced reforms that sought to undermine the Spanish Catholic Church. But many Spaniards remained loyal to their former king and devoted to the Church. When the Spanish resisted the invaders, well-armed French forces responded with brutal repression. Far from crushing resistance, however, the French response further inflamed Spanish nationalism. Efforts to drive out the French intensified.

Spanish patriots conducted a campaign of guerrilla warfare, or hit-and-run raids, against the French. (In Spanish, guerrilla means “little war.”) Small bands of guerrillas ambushed French supply trains or troops before retreating into the countryside. These attacks kept large numbers of French soldiers tied down in Spain when Napoleon needed them elsewhere.

Spanish resistance encouraged Austria to resume hostilities against the French. In 1805, at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon had won a crushing victory against an Austro-Russian army of superior numbers. Now, in 1809, the Austrians sought revenge. But once again, Napoleon triumphed—this time at the Battle of Wagram. By the peace agreement that followed, Austria surrendered lands populated by more than three million subjects.

The Fall of Napoleon

Disaster in Russia

Primary Source

As shown in this painting, the Russian winter took its toll on Napoleon’s army. Philippe Paul de Ségur, an aide to Napoleon, describes the grim scene as the remnants of the Grand Army returned home.

What were the effects of this disaster in Russia?

Primary Source

“In Napoleon’s wake [was] a mob of tattered ghosts draped in . . . odd pieces of carpet, or greatcoats burned full of holes, their feet wrapped in all sorts of rags. . . . [We] stared in horror as those skeletons of soldiers went by, their gaunt, gray faces covered with disfiguring beards, without weapons . . . with lowered heads, eyes on the ground, in absolute silence.”

—Memoirs of Philippe Paul de Ségur

Tsar Alexander I of Russia was once an ally of Napoleon; they had signed the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807, a period when Napoleon was in no position to attack Russia (Glover, p. 160; Marshall-Cornwall, p. 219). The tsar and Napoleon planned to divide Europe if Alexander helped Napoleon in his Continental System.

Many countries objected to this system, and Russia became unhappy with the economic effects of the system as well (Glover, p. 161). Yet another cause for concern was that Napoleon had enlarged the Grand Duchy of Warsaw that bordered Russia on the west, all without notifying his supposed ally (Glover, p. 161; Marshall-Cornwall, p. 219). In addition, Napoleon at first proposed to marry for the second time to a Russian princess but he snubbed Russia to engage the Austrian Marie-Therese without notifying the Russians (Glover, p. 161).

In any case, perhaps the biggest but unstated reason was that Europe could not accommodate two egos as large as Napoleon's and the Tsar's on one continent. The war could have been avoided but it was not.

The causes which brought about the rupture between the Emperor the Tsar are numerous and complex; Napoleon's main motive was that he could not tolerate a on the boundary of his Empire the existence of a Power which was not entirely subservient to his own will. Napoleon had already beaten the Russians in battle (1806-1807 leading to Tilsit, Marshall-Cornwall, pp. 177-178) and he had formed a poor opinion of their leadership. Once they were finally beaten, he could create a strong Poland as a buffer state and satellite of France. Unfortunately, Napoleon decided to conquer Russia before he had succeeded in conquering Spain (Marshall-Cornwall, p. 219).

These and other slights led the tsar to withdraw his support from the Continental System. Napoleon responded to the tsar’s action by assembling an army with soldiers from 20 nations, known as the Grand Army.

In 1812, with about 600,000 soldiers and 50,000 horses, Napoleon invaded Russia. To avoid battles with Napoleon, the Russians retreated eastward, burning crops and villages as they went. This scorched-earth policy left the French hungry and cold as winter came. Napoleon entered Moscow in September. He realized, though, that he would not be able to feed and supply his army through the long Russian winter. In October, he turned homeward.

The 1,000-mile retreat from Moscow turned into a desperate battle for survival. Russian attacks and the brutal Russian winter took a terrible toll. Fewer than 20,000 soldiers of the once-proud Grand Army survived. Many died. Others deserted. French general Michel Ney sadly concluded: “General Famine and General Winter, rather than Russian bullets, have conquered the Grand Army.” Napoleon rushed to Paris to raise a new force to defend France. His reputation for success had been shattered.

Discovery School Channel (Video)

Watch Napoleon’s Lost Army on the Witness History Discovery School™ video program to learn about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812.

Napoleon's Lost Army (5:52)


In Vilnius, Lithuania, scientists are studying the remains of an army that Napoleon lost. This segment explores Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 and the terrible retreat that followed. Napoleon entered Russian with some 500,000 troops, but when his retreating army reached the town of Vilnius, only about 20,000 remained.

Questions from the Video

Multiple Choice

What Russian action prompted Napoleon to launch his invasion of Russia?

What strategy did the Russians use against Napoleon's army?

Writing Practice

How are archaeologists, forensic scientists, and historians able to reconstruct the story of Napoleon's invasion of Russia?


What challenges threatened Napoleon’s empire and what led to the disaster in Russia?

Reading Check


Why did Napoleon invade Russia?

The Final Defeat

The disaster in Russia brought a new alliance of Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia against a weakened France. In 1813, they defeated Napoleon in the Battle of the Nations at Leipzig.

Napoleon Abdicates Briefly

The next year, Napoleon abdicated, or stepped down from power. The victors exiled him to Elba, an island in the Mediterranean. They then recognized Louis XVIII, brother of Louis XVI, as king of France.

The restoration of Louis XVIII did not go smoothly. He agreed to accept the Napoleonic Code and honor the land settlements made during the revolution. However, many émigrés rushed back to France bent on revenge. An economic depression and the fear of a return to the old regime helped rekindle loyalty to Napoleon.

As the victorious allies gathered in Vienna for a general peace conference, Napoleon escaped his island exile and returned to France. Soldiers flocked to his banner. As citizens cheered Napoleon’s advance, Louis XVIII fled. In March 1815, Napoleon entered Paris in triumph.

Prince Clemens von Metternich

As Austria’s foreign minister, Metternich (1773–1859) used a variety of means to achieve his goals. In 1809, when Napoleon seemed vulnerable, Metternich favored war against France. In 1810, after France had crushed Austria, he supported alliance with France. When the French army was in desperate retreat from Russia, Metternich became the “prime minister of the coalition” that defeated Napoleon. At the Congress of Vienna, Metternich helped create a new European order and made sure that Austria had a key role in it. He would skillfully defend that new order for more than 30 years. Why did Metternich’s policies toward France change?

Crushed at the Battle of Waterloo

Waterloo Interactive Battle Simulator

The Battle of Waterloo Game

Napoleon’s triumph was short-lived. His star soared for only 100 days, while the allies reassembled their forces. On June 18, 1815, the opposing armies met near the town of Waterloo in Belgium. British forces under the Duke of Wellington and a Prussian army commanded by General Blücher crushed the French in an agonizing day-long battle. Once again, Napoleon was forced to abdicate and to go into exile on St. Helena, a lonely island in the South Atlantic. This time, he would not return.

Napoleon's death was not without controversy and there is evidence that he may have been poisoned (Cf. The Murder of Napoleon by Ben Weider. As a fascinating sidelight to the story of Napoleon, it appears that Count Charles-Tristan de Montholon, an aide to Napoleon and a member of the "pre-Revolutionary aristocracy" poisoned him slowly with arsenic (a poison) on St. Helena (Weider, p. 33).

Napoleon, although it was widely known that he had suffered from physical ailments his entire life (it appears to be the scratching disease, scabies, Napoleon's Glands, Arno Karlen, p. 7), had nonetheless a legendary reputation for work; yet, he succumbed at the relatively young age of 51 thus at the very least his death should raise questions.

At the time of Napoleon's death, the arsenic poisoning went unnoticed and it was not until a Swedish researcher in 1955, Sten Forshufvud, reconstructed the accounts and medical evidence of Napoleon's death that a modern, forensic connection could be established determining that Napoleon was murdered. Montholon had a motive, he was attached to the pre-Revolutionary aristocracy, and he appeared to be an agent of Count d'Artois, brother of King Louis XVIII, and later Charles X in the restored French monarchy who hated the Revolutionary Napoleon (Weider, pp. 144, 254).

Napoleon himself may have sensed something was amiss in his last days. Six days before his death he directed:

After my death, which cannot be far off. I want you to open my body. . . . I want you to remove my heart, which you will put in spirits of wine and take to Parma, to my dear Marie-Louise [Napoleon's second wife]. . . . I recommend that you examine my stomach particularly carefully; make a precise, detailed report on it, and give it to my son. . . . I charge you to overlook nothing in this examination. . . . I bequeath to all the ruling families the horror and shame of my last moments.

(Wieder, preface).

Napoleon’s Legacy

Napoleon died in 1821, but his legend lived on in France and around the world. His contemporaries as well as historians today have long debated his legacy. Was he “the revolution on horseback,” as he claimed? Or was he a traitor to the revolution?

No one, however, questions Napoleon’s impact on France and on Europe. The Napoleonic Code consolidated many changes of the revolution. The France of Napoleon was a centralized state with a constitution. Elections were held with expanded, though limited, suffrage. Many more citizens had rights to property and access to education than under the old regime. Still, French citizens lost many rights promised so fervently by republicans during the Convention.


Europe After the Congress of Vienna, 1815

Go Online
For: Audio guided tour
Web Code: nap-1842

Map Skills

At the Congress of Vienna, European leaders redrew the map of Europe in order to contain France and keep a balance of power.

1. Locate

(a) German Confederation, (b) Netherlands, (c) Vienna

2. Region

Name three states that were in the German Confederation.

3. Recognize Cause and Effect

Why did the Congress enlarge some of the countries around France?

On the world stage, Napoleon’s conquests spread the ideas of the revolution. He failed to make Europe into a French empire. Instead, he sparked nationalist feelings across Europe. The abolition of the Holy Roman Empire would eventually help in creating a new Germany. Napoleon’s impact also reached across the Atlantic. In 1803, his decision to sell France’s vast Louisiana Territory to the American government doubled the size of the United States and ushered in an age of American expansion.


How did Napoleon impact Europe and the rest of the world?

Leaders Meet at the Congress of Vienna

After Waterloo, diplomats and heads of state again sat down at the Congress of Vienna. They faced the monumental task of restoring stability and order in Europe after years of war. The Congress met for 10 months, from September 1814 to June 1815. It was a brilliant gathering of European leaders. Diplomats and royalty dined and danced, attended concerts and ballets, and enjoyed parties arranged by their host, Emperor Francis I of Austria. The work fell to Prince Clemens von Metternich of Austria, Tsar Alexander I of Russia, and Lord Robert Castlereagh of Britain. Defeated France was represented by Prince Charles Maurice de Talleyrand.

Congress Strives For Peace

The chief goal of the Vienna decision makers was to create a lasting peace by establishing a balance of power and protecting the system of monarchy. Each of the leaders also pursued his own goals. Metternich, the dominant figure at the Congress, wanted to restore things the way they were in 1792. Alexander I urged a “holy alliance” of Christian monarchs to suppress future revolutions. Lord Castlereagh was determined to prevent a revival of French military power. The aged diplomat Talleyrand shrewdly played the other leaders against one another so France would be accepted as an equal partner.

The peacemakers also redrew the map of Europe. To contain French ambitions, they ringed France with strong countries. In the north, they added Belgium and Luxembourg to Holland to create the kingdom of the Netherlands. To prevent French expansion eastward, they gave Prussia lands along the Rhine River. They also allowed Austria to reassert control over northern Italy.

To turn back the clock to 1792, the architects of the peace promoted the principle of legitimacy, restoring hereditary monarchies that the French Revolution or Napoleon had unseated. Even before the Congress began, they had put Louis XVIII on the French throne. Later, they restored “legitimate” monarchs in Portugal, Spain, and the Italian states.

Congress Fails to See Traps Ahead

To protect the new order, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Great Britain extended their wartime alliance into the postwar era. In the Quadruple Alliance, the four nations pledged to act together to maintain the balance of power and to suppress revolutionary uprisings, especially in France. Another result of the Congress was a system known as the Concert of Europe, in which the powers met periodically to discuss any problems affecting the peace of Europe.

The Vienna statesmen achieved their immediate goals in creating a lasting peace. Their decisions influenced European politics for the next 100 years. Europe would not see war on a Napoleonic scale until 1914. They failed, however, to foresee how powerful new forces such as nationalism would shake the foundations of Europe and Latin America in the next decades.

Portrait of Louis XVIII


Explain the chief goal and outcome of the Congress of Vienna.

Links, resources, and bibliographical references

Video clips about Napoleon

Map of Napoleon's Empire

Refight Trafalgar!

Napoleon's Empire in 1812

Napoleon's army retreating from Moscow

Waterloo Interactive Battle Simulator

The Battle of Waterloo Game

The Napoleonic Alliance

The Napoleonic Collection

Institute on Napoleon and the French Revolution at Florida State University

The Napoleon Foundation

The War Times Journal: Napoleonic Wars

The Napoleonic Guide

Email HW to

AP Economics: 6 November 2009

Current Events:

Chapter 4 Market Efficiency, Market Failure, and Government Intervention

Markets are efficient mechanisms for allocating resources. However, in the real world, markets can “fail” as a result of departures from the idealized competitive market structure. This chapter assesses the efficiency of markets in terms of maximizing consumer and producer surplus, and explains the circumstances under which market failures can occur. Government intervention in markets in the forms of price floors, price ceilings, and taxes is also examined.

We have the Short Answer Questions to consider.

We can re-arrange the class into small groups for the review of the Short Answer Questions.

We will review Chapter 1 Short Answers - Chapter 3 Short Answers:

Chapter 1 Short Answer Questions:

1. What are some examples of the types of issues analyzed by microeconomics? What are some topics examined by macroeconomics?

2. Briefly describe how macroeconomics and microeconomics are related. How do they differ?

3. Explain: Economic theories must be tested.

4. Why do economists develop models (“stylized facts”) to help with analysis? Discuss the strength and weakness of such an approach.

5. Evaluate: “There is more than one concept of economic efficiency.”

6. At the start of the war in Iraq, homeowners in the United States found it difficult to find plywood. The U.S. military, at the same time, was constructing buildings in Iraq. How do the two situations reflect economic tradeoffs?

7. What is the opportunity cost of you taking this economics class?

8. What are some ways you use marginal analysis in your life?

9. Explain the meaning of the phrase “People respond to incentives.”

10. Briefly explain why private markets are generally efficient at providing goods and services.

Chapter 2 Short Answer Questions

1. Explain how a free market economy decides what to produce.

2. Briefly describe the four types of resources used in production.

3. Suppose you are a restaurant owner. What is your output? What resources do you need and how would you classify them under the four categories?

4. Describe the main differences between production efficiency and allocative efficiency. Do you think the economy is efficient? Why or why not?

5. Suppose a worker decides to become a stay-at-home mom or dad. What are the opportunity costs of the decision?

For #6 and in the time being, just explain your answer, I will post a reference to a link that permits graphing online for our use.
6. In 2007 a tornado wiped out the town of Greensburg, Kansas. The governor complained that not enough National Guard units could be sent to the town because so many were deployed to Iraq. Use a production possibilities curve to illustrate this situation.

For the time being, just explain your answer, I will post a reference to a link that permits graphing online for our use.
7. There is much debate regarding immigration into the United States. Using a production possibilities frontier graph, show what would happen if all immigration were halted.

8. Economists maintain that there is a tradeoff between current consumption and future consumption. Explain what they mean.

9. What are some of the factors that contribute to economic growth?

10. What is meant by the statement “International trade is a positive-sum game”?

Chapter 3 Short Answer Questions

1. What are the determinants of demand?

2. Evaluate the following in terms of the shifts in demand: Industries that sell inferior goods do well in an economic downturn.

3. Explain the difference between a change in demand and a change in quantity demanded. Why might this distinction be important to a business manager?

4. What happens to the supply curve when certain inputs used to make the products are banned? What are some examples of such cases?

5. Suppose a union successfully raises wage rates. How would the increase result in a decrease in supply?

6. Assume that Wal-Mart finds that its inventory of pink leather jackets is unexpectedly rising. Illustrate this situation using a supply/demand diagram. Explain how price adjustments would be used to reduce the excess inventory.

7. Using supply/demand analysis, explain the reason that the increased production of ethanol (a gasoline additive made from corn) is raising the price of tortillas (a type of bread made from corn). What effect would this price rise have on poor people?

8. Suppose suppliers expect a sudden drop in the market price. How might the expectation become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

For the time being, we can skip #9, I will post a reference to an online link that allows graphing illustrations online.
9. Graph the following table and find equilibrium price and quantity. Suppose that the demand for good XYZ rises by 5 units at every price because of clever advertising. What happens to equilibrium price and quantity? Under what conditions would it be profitable to advertise?

10. Suppose there is an outbreak of E. coli (a harmful bacteria) in a certain type of vegetable. If the authorities were to remove the vegetable from the market, what would happen to the price of the vegetable? Suppose the growers could not reassure consumers that future outbreaks will not occur. What would be the long-term effect on equilibrium price?

Begin Chapter Five: Powerpoint Introduction.


Finish Short Answer questions if we do not finish them in class.