Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks
Was revolution more far-reaching in Russia than elsewhere because of the superior organisation and efficiency of the Bolsheviks? Since 1613 Russia had been ruled by members of the Romanov dynasty who were absolute autocratic monarchs; there was no parliament, political parties or local governments. A strict press censorship was in organisation and 90% of the population were serfs. Despite this, Russia was a country of revolutionary tradition, which can be seen in the Decembrist revolt of 1825(which resulted in assassination of Tsar Alexander I). This shows there was national discontent throughout the Tsarist period. To combat this, Alexander II (The tsar liberator) passed the Emancipation Edict in 1861. However, most found this emancipation legislation unsatisfactory (due to redemption payments, the Mir etc) and it is said that the 1905 revolution was a result of the anticlimax of the emancipation, however revolution was always on the agenda in Russia and it was eventually the masses that made it happen. Nicholas II managed to survive this revolution but it did have consequences such as the October manifesto In 1900 Lenin a member of the Social Democrat Party, left Siberia(where he was exiled) and travelled to Europe where he founded a new revolutionary underground newspaper called Iskra (the spark) with which he intended to develop a strong organizational party network.
"By 1849 the supporters of the Risorgimento had achieved nothing towards creating a free, united and independent Italy" - How far do you agree?
Mateusz Odziemczyk G11 For Mr.Morris "By 1849 the supporters of the Risorgimento had achieved nothing towards creating a free, united and independent Italy." How far do you agree? The fall of Napoleon led to the Vienna Settlement of 1815, by which the Austrians effectively restored the old ruling class. Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, did all he could to foster any local loyalties that might weaken the appeal of unity, yet the years between 1820 and 1849 became years of revolution. Uprisings began in Sicily, Naples and Piedmont, when King Ferdinand introduced measures that restricted personal freedom and destroyed many farmers' livelihoods. A makeshift army quickly gained popular support in Sicily, and forced some concessions, before Ferdinand invited the Austrians in to help him crush the revolution. In the north, the oppressive laws enacted by Victor Emanuel I in the Kingdom of Piedmont sparked off student protests and army mutinies in Turin. Victor Emanuel abdicated in favor of his brother, Carlo Felice, and his son, Carlo Alberto; the latter initially gave some support to the radicals, but Carlo Felice then called in the Austrians, and thousands of revolutionaries were forced into exile. Carlo Alberto became King of Piedmont in 1831. A secretive, excessively devout and devious character, he did a major volte-face when he assumed the throne by forming an alliance
"Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution" Do you agree? Justify your answer.
"Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution." Do you agree? Justify your answer. I partially agree with the statement that Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution. During the reign of Alexander III, discontent of people grew as a result of his repressive rule and policies. Peasants' discontent grew because of the heavy redemption payments and land taxes, insufficient land and poor harvests. The discontent and economic hardship all passed to Czar Nicholas II. It is no doubt that when Nicholas II took over the Russian Empire, the familiar problems still existed, and some were even worse, such as the problem of peasantry. However, discontent alone could not turn to be a revolution. It was Nicholas II who made it a real one. The first revolution broke out in 1905. The chaotic situation was somehow inherited from Alexander III. The peasantry problem was a traditional problem of Russia. It became worse when in Nicholas II's time. The emancipation of serfs in 1861 liberated lots of peasants, but in turn they needed to pay redemption payments to their landlords and heavy land taxes to the government. However, due to poor harvests and insufficient farmland, the redemption payments and land taxes became a large burden of the peasants. As a result, discontent of peasants increased. In addition, the revolutionary activities had been generated in the 19th
"Do you agree with Bismarck's opinion that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened?"
"Do you agree with Bismarck's opinion that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened?" Bismarck claimed that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened. I disagree with this, as it was definitely not the case. Events happened before 1848 such as cultural nationalism, the Industrial Revolution, the Zollverein and the growth of roads and railways. This was due to the increasing progress of German Nationalism. Germany was split into 39 different States, which were totally independent and able to make its own laws. It was this separation of Germany that enabled so much to happen in Germany between 1815 and 1848. Cultural Nationalism assisted the growth of nationalist ideas. Linked with the Romantic Movement it consisted of literature, music, art and national traditions. Scholars and poets concentrated in writing in their native tongues and even National Anthems were composed to arouse a German feeling. People also started taking an interest in the history that surrounded them. Someone in particular who contributed to these new ideas was Hegel, a German writer and philosopher. Having such a Nationalist philosopher present gave people a vision of a United Germany as did many other academics and University lecturers. Cultural Nationalism helped spread pride in Germany and encouraged movement towards unity. Another factor that did
Were there any significant ideological differences between Nazism and Fascism during the inter-war period?
NAZISM + FASCISM * Were there any significant ideological differences between Nazism and Fascism during the inter-war period? * Behind the official image of the new regimes in Italy and Germany was to be found the decomposition of nineteenth century liberalism. The 'new orders' established a different set of values and purposes as a reaction to western individualism and the laissez-faire society that was seen as decadent. The entry of the masses into politics and the intellectual revolution in social thought where 2 important developments at the turn of the century. In contrast to Britain and France, Italy had achieved national unification in the 1860's. Strong regionalism and weak inefficient governments presiding over an agricultural economy created social tensions. These were greatly heightened in 1896 when Italy was defeated in Ethiopia whilst trying to expand its fledgling empire. In Italy, in 1919 Mussolini's Fascist movement emerged onto the political scene. A revolutionary radicalism of the right, action orientated, ultranationalism, anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, anti-pacifism. Later that year a similar movement but far more racist and violent, Adolf Hitler's National Socialism, emerged in Germany. Ideologically the state, not the individual, counted. Politically, dictatorship from above, not consent from below was imposed.
Would you agree that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start? Discuss this with reference to the events of 1814-15?
Would you agree that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start? Discuss this with reference to the events of 1814-15? It is not fair to say that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start, because even though there were immediate drawbacks of association with an unpopular peace, this was more than balanced by the fact that France possessed economic and social potential. The good economy was demonstrated by the fact that much of Europe had suffered dislocation and devastation at the hands of warring armies, but only France had escaped lightly with only a few temporary difficulties. Also land was productive and populated by skillful peasantry and the industries could meet the demands of the country. Socially many of the tensions that had led to revolution in 1789 had been removed, due to the peasants been free and owning most of their land and so apposing any revolutionary activity, the bourgeoisie were no longer prevented from gaining social and political distinction and so would give support to any regime that would maintain the status quo and finally the church had more influence over the people therefore could teach people that existing social and political role was important. However even though it can be said that the Bourbon monarchy had not been doomed from the start, the events of 1814-15 did begin to question the future of the
Industry and Community - View of the Agriculture of Middlesex, 1807.
Student Number: 9906884 Tutor ~ David Wrench Module: Industry and Community. Primary Source Document: Enclosure, John Middleton, 1798, View of the Agriculture of Middlesex, 1807 The parliamentary enclosures of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were controversial and stimulated collective debate amongst contemporaries. Whilst enclosure was not a new concept and had been in existence since the Tudor period, the enclosing of common land by enforcement was considered radical. As a result, enclosure encountered opposition from contemporary writers who postulated upon its adversary effect on rural life and the long-term social consequences. Yet despite criticism, the enclosure movement also attracted enthusiasm and gained support. The objective of this analysis is to examine John Middleton's excerpt and support his argument with both contemporary and recent historiography. Importantly, it is necessary to briefly discuss the process of enclosure and the agricultural developments that physically, economically and socially transformed Britain's countryside. The chronological history of enclosure was a continuous process that spanned over four hundred years in a somewhat sporadic fashion. Enclosure or engrossment of land was implemented in various manners, some less disruptive than others. Non-parliamentary enclosure occurred either by a gradual piecemeal
How the Mexican revolution changed attitudes towards the "Indians", looking at race and class.
How the Mexican revolution changed attitudes towards the "Indians", looking at race and class In this essay I will first try to explain how the title is not as simple to answer as it may seem; I will then move on to give some background history to how the revolution came around and its consequences. Then finally I will look at how attitudes changed towards "Indians", if such a group really exist. The first problem I came across while trying to research material for this essay, is that I couldn't seem to find much information, concentrating on how attitudes changed in racial terms, towards the "Indians" before and after the revolution. Another thing I also noticed is that in a lot of texts, the group termed as "Indians", just seemed to pop out of nowhere. I soon found it very difficult and confusing to what exactly a lot of texts were referring to. I even wondered if the people writing them, knew exactly themselves. "Indians" are socially defined, mainly by "non-Indians" defining what is meant to be "Indian". There were lots of different groups of indigenous people in Mexico before the revolution, many even fighting each other and all of them affected to some extent by cultural "mestizaje". When the Spanish colonised Mexico they decided to group all the people that already lived there, and termed them as "Indians". What it meant to be "Indian", was to be exploited and
Why was Eire neutral during the Second World War?
Why was Eire neutral during the second World War? Introduction. In order to fully answer this question, it is necessary to identify any ambiguities within the title - the most important being the expectation that the reader agrees with the statement that Ireland did in fact hold a position of neutrality during WW2. There are several points that contrast this statement - The British Prime Minister himself never accepted Ireland's neutrality- he held the belief that she was still a part of the Commonwealth and was therefore legally 'at war - but skulking'. There are some differences between Irish neutrality and the traditional types of neutral states, the most notable of which regards the consent of foreign military within neutral territory - Ireland allowed military aircraft of different nations to refuel at Shannon airport. A neutral state may, however, allow its citizens to serve in the armed forces of other nations, whether they are belligerent or not. Ireland did not in any way restrict its citizens from serving in foreign armies and as such around 200,000 men and women served in the Allied Forces against the Axis Powers. Ireland followed the guidelines in some cases, but in others, such as in the repatriation of Allied airmen but not Germany's, chose to act in such a way that made certain states question her neutrality. It can therefore by ascertained that
Landlord Essay
What do you understand by Landlord Landscapes in Ireland? Discuss their origin, distribution, scale and demise Landlords were owners or lease holders of property who rented some or all their land to others. By 1703, most Irish landlords were of English or Scots origin, and had got their property during the plantations and land confiscations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most of them rented it out to Irishmen while themselves remaining residents of England1. The subject of landlordism was a highly significant issue in the history of Ireland. This essay will examine the origin, distribution, scale and demise of Landlord Landscapes in Ireland. All the counties of Ireland were owned and controlled by a minority, the landed gentry. When the county is broken down by barony and parish units we can get a more accurate picture of landscape variations in the mid-nineteenth century. These baronies were taken by force of arms and settled by successive invading societies, spawning adjacent dependent towns and villages2. Examples of this are the North Salt barony in Kildare, controlled by Fitzgerald. The differences in barony sizes were immense, ranging from 8,748 statute acres for Kilcullen to 48,264 acres for Carbury. The great estates and houses, such as Carton and Castletown, may create the impression that Kildare's landscape was dominated by such grandiose enterprises.
