Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome Class of 2011
Welcome
This blog is intended as a resource and means of communication for students studying the VCE Revolutions course. I wish you well in your studies and hope that you find this site not only useful, but also fun.
Many Thanks
Mr G.
Many Thanks
Mr G.
Useful links
Wider Reading
- A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes
- China: From Empire to People's Republic 1900-49 by Michael Lynch
- China: Revolutionary Leadership by John Wood & Andrew McManus
- Spirit of Change: China in Revolution by Margot Morcombe & Mark Fielding
- The People's Republic of China since 1949 by Michael Lynch
7 comments:
Ok i will try to answer this.
No, it wasn't. Certainly imperialist Russia before Nicholas II had some problems, which were largely induced by the repressive regimes instituted by the previous Tsars as well as the flawed social structure, but they weren't sufficient to bring Russia to total collapse. In fact, certain policies adopted by very few wise Tsars have alleviated some of the problems. For example, Tsar Alexander II issued an Edict of Emancipation in 1861 which abolished serfdom and subsequently freed 40 million peasants. In addition, he created the zemtvos---an attempt to institute democracy in the countryside and towns, as well as building infrastructures and improving healthcare, education and agriculture. Consequently, people instilled greater faith in the Tsar, and most importantly, they believed in autocracy. By the time Nicholas II had become Tsar, people's support of the regime was still very strong. It was Nicholas's political incompetence, rigid ideologies and complete obstinacy that led Imperialist Russia to its downfall. Other like-minded ministers in the court had only strengthened his style of governance. Ministers with incredible foresight, such as Witte and Stolypin who adopted a similar reformist approach to Alexander II, had proposed fine economic plans which sought to improve Russia. But they were wholly rejected by Nicholas II, who adhered to his suspicion of reforms. By that time, there had been growing discontent across Russia. Resistance in some areas were adamant. However, the Tsar's rejection to reforms during this turbulent period had become a precipitant for uprisings. Together with the Tsar's violent reaction towards opposition, as evidenced by the Bloody Sunday massacre, Nicholas had become a reason that led to the inevitable revolution. Therefore, it can be said that Imperialist Russia had been weakened before Nicholas II' s reign but was by no means doomed. It was Nicholas II who was largely responsible for the fall of imperialist Russia.
Great answer Vania, well done. you can take the next few lessons off for private study if you want. (JOKE!)
Also remember that Nicholas II was obsessed with the notion that he must hand on the autocracy in-tact to his son. As it had been handed down to him by his father etc.
Ok, the only thing that i don't understand is the obsession.
why was he so determined to hand down the autocracy to his son?
it just doesn't seem very logical to let the autocracy crumble if you wanted it to be carried on. why didn't he try to make improvements so the likelihood of the autocracy surviving for another generation would increase? he was aware of all the issues plaguing his monarchy so why didn't he address them to provide a more positive light for the autocracy????
1. We have the benefit of hindsight, so to us it all seems very logical to conceed to reform.
2. The whole autocracy was immersed in tradition over hundreds of years. Each Tsar saw it as their duty to preserve this.
3. Nicholas II was stubborn, poorly advised and not too bright.
To Anonymous:
I think it also has to do with his conservative education. He was taught to believe in and preserve autocracy--something his father and forefathers indoctrinated in the royal family and the monarchy itself.
vania, how often do you change the name of your blog? (totally unrelated)
in answer to the question, as i think i wrote a lot on the other q, i will make this one shorter.
Imperial Russia suffered drastically from the conservative views held by Nicholas II and his father Alexander III, yet reformation of laws particularly in regard to social conditions would have solved many of the problems faced by Nicholas in later life. The peasantry's long awaited emancipation under the reign of Nicholas' grandfather displayed that reform in Russian society and thinking was necessary to continue the Romanov rule. However, despite the progress of Alexander II to address key issues and change them, Nicholas' father reversed the progress and instead enforced his conservative values upon Russia.
Unfortunately, by the time the ill-prepared Tsarevitch Nicholas came to power, Russia had slumped behind its fellow Empires in terms of industry(most countries had had their industrial revolution a considerable time before) showing that reform should have been the first thing implemented by Nicholas in his reign. Instead, he held firm to his conservative roots, believing at all costs that his son Alexei should also have the throne and in order to do that he failed to create reform and enforced the autocracy. By doing this, he sentenced his family and Imperial Russia to death as it were.Late Imperialist Russia was not doomed when Nicholas ascended the throne, but his lack of action made it so.
i have a "Russian name" but its virtually unpronounceable i think^^ and I'm updating so have me.
Post a Comment