1. Why was collectivization necessary?
- Collectivization was necessary in order to grow more corps and farm land more efficiently, and free up the amount of workers who could go from being rural workers, to become city workers. Collectivization also made it easier for the government to collect their crops and distribute them to cities for export. This was also necessary because they were able to find a 'socialist' solution to the agriculture problems of the USSR.
2. What is kolkhoz?
- A kolkhoz is a collective farm where the Russian people would be forced to work and live. On the kolkhoz's everyone lived, worked, and harvested together. This is the same word as collective. These farms were acreage of land where they were farmed as a collective effort.
3.Who is a kulak?
- A kulak was a 'better-off' peasant, one who during the times of the NEP did well for themselves, the may own more than one horse, and during good times they might even hire out help of their own. They were typically the more enterprising of the farmers, and the ones with more animals, and better skills.
4.How were the kulaks dealt with by the government?
- The kulaks were essentially eliminated by the government, they were killed off if they would not go quietly, or they were sent far away from their wealth to different collectives. They were the class enemy and in 1929 Stalin called for the liquidation of the kulaks.
5.How did the peasants resist collectivization? What happened as a result?
- The peasants burned crops, slaughtered their animals, and ate gluttonous amounts of food in order to keep it from going to the government. This eventually lead to famine, the people on the collectives ended up starving and the people of Russia inevitably starved as well, they did all of this to insure that they would not have to give up their grain to the government.
6.What is a MTS station?
- A MTS station was a machine and tractor station. These were used to supply and maintain the machinery used on the collectives, and in the cities.
7.What were the dual purposes of the MTS's?
-One purpose of the MTS was to give the USSR the giant leap it needed into the 20th century, having mechanized labor, they would be able to keep more laborers in the cities, also this was a way for the government to keep tabs up on their farmers and collectives.
8.How did a kolkhoz work and what was its relationship with the nearby town and its MTS?
- A kolkhoz worked with everyone farming the largest portion of the land together, with an acre for themselves to do with it as they pleased. All the food that was farmed in the collective portion of the land had to be given up to the government. The relationship with the nearby town was that this is where the food would be sold off, the MTS would monitor the amount of food produced as well as the use of the machinery.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
In Class: Lenin Between the Revolutions
1. According to Documents C, D and E Lenin and Stalin worked to secure the supremacy of the party by- in Document C dispersing of all groups within the party, they wanted a completely unified party and the division would cause potential criticism of the party that could be viewed as negative. In Document D Stalin speaks about absorbing all the best elements of the working class, their experience, spirit to revolutionize, and their devotion to the cause of the proletariat, however Stalin makes it clear that he will need to keep the dictator ship of the Proletariat, essentially Stalin and Lenin were enabling the party to gain supremacy by destroying any other parties, keeping itself unified, and keeping all of the criticism about the party out, Lenin also made it clear that he would be eliminating anyone who " free spoke" poorly about the party. Basically, it was not allowed, to speak poorly about the party; and the entire party must remained unified. As for Document E, ( cartoon ) the strength of the party is clearly shown through the larger man, with some sort of weapon; although this party is a minority- this is an instigation-propaganda, showing that the bolsheviks are a "power" in the revolution, and that the presumed mensheviks who are trying to hold the Bolsheviks back, are smaller and cannot stand in their way.
2. According to documents A,B, and C; the assertion that Lenin wanted power, and that his opponents did not want power is supported through the one thing Lenin seemed to have a real handle on, which was giving/telling the people exactly what they wanted. The Provisional Government, Duma, and Tsar- were all weaker examples, they never much thought into what the people really wanted, the provisional government was, like it clearly says simply provisional- they were not expecting to gain/maintain much power, so they never strove for any expansion; the duma is directly correlated because the men chosen by the Tsar to be in the Duma were the same who then made up the provisional government. In document B this is described, and also it is described that even after the unfavorable vote for the bolsheviks they merely decided that they would set themselves up as a one party state, anything to keep socialist revolutionaries from being the government. Document A talks about completely eliminating the need for party, class, estate and national difference, which on the surface seems mildly pro Lenin and the Bolsheviks, this would be true, however it says that the Duma had " forgotten party differences" which is essentially untrue- they would then set up the Provisional Government, which would essentially fail to break down party/class lines, and would itself ONLY be run by higher wealthier Russians. Lastly document C, as discussed above; talks about the party rules, * given by lenin * that would eliminate anyones freedom of speech to speak badly about the party anyway.
( JUST KIDDING! I wrote this on the ENTIRELY WRONG DOCUMENTS) sorry- i'll go back and fix it later. TIME: 1:03pm-- i was wondering why it made NO SENSE.
3. What can be inferred from Document D? About A) why the soldiers wanted to go home, and B)Why the soldiers supported the Bolsheviks.
A) The soldiers wanted to go home simply for the purpose of land, they knew that the peasants back at home were already going forth in taking the land from their former Squires. They wanted to make sure that they wouldn't miss out on their chances to have land for their own.
B) The soldiers would support the Bolsheviks because one of their main platforms was to bring the Russian troops back from the home front, and stop the war with Germany; and since the people fighting the war wanted to go home in order to get their land, they more than welcomed this, they would be getting two of the 3 platform gains; Peace and Land.
CORRECT NUMBER 2 BELOW::>>>>
2) According to the REAL documents A, B, and C the assertion that Lenin wanted power, and the other parties did not rests with the fact that Lenin, would essentially just take the power from the Socialist Revolutionaries when it came down to it. According to document A was that Lenin forbid any support to other parties, he made sure that he shed light on the "lies" of that party, and made himself the only " legitimate" party leader to be listening to. Document B, it was neccesary for the Soviet to overtake the political influence of the Provisional Government and "democratically" decide to stop the support and protection of the provisional government. Document C lastly, talks about the different parties and their willingness to simply let the Provisional government govern, but still while slandering and criticising the way it was done, the only party that would do more than criticize was the Bolsheviks, who- essentially challenged the Provisional government * and win*, while everyone else sat by and let it happen, only verbally criticizing.
2. According to documents A,B, and C; the assertion that Lenin wanted power, and that his opponents did not want power is supported through the one thing Lenin seemed to have a real handle on, which was giving/telling the people exactly what they wanted. The Provisional Government, Duma, and Tsar- were all weaker examples, they never much thought into what the people really wanted, the provisional government was, like it clearly says simply provisional- they were not expecting to gain/maintain much power, so they never strove for any expansion; the duma is directly correlated because the men chosen by the Tsar to be in the Duma were the same who then made up the provisional government. In document B this is described, and also it is described that even after the unfavorable vote for the bolsheviks they merely decided that they would set themselves up as a one party state, anything to keep socialist revolutionaries from being the government. Document A talks about completely eliminating the need for party, class, estate and national difference, which on the surface seems mildly pro Lenin and the Bolsheviks, this would be true, however it says that the Duma had " forgotten party differences" which is essentially untrue- they would then set up the Provisional Government, which would essentially fail to break down party/class lines, and would itself ONLY be run by higher wealthier Russians. Lastly document C, as discussed above; talks about the party rules, * given by lenin * that would eliminate anyones freedom of speech to speak badly about the party anyway.
( JUST KIDDING! I wrote this on the ENTIRELY WRONG DOCUMENTS) sorry- i'll go back and fix it later. TIME: 1:03pm-- i was wondering why it made NO SENSE.
3. What can be inferred from Document D? About A) why the soldiers wanted to go home, and B)Why the soldiers supported the Bolsheviks.
A) The soldiers wanted to go home simply for the purpose of land, they knew that the peasants back at home were already going forth in taking the land from their former Squires. They wanted to make sure that they wouldn't miss out on their chances to have land for their own.
B) The soldiers would support the Bolsheviks because one of their main platforms was to bring the Russian troops back from the home front, and stop the war with Germany; and since the people fighting the war wanted to go home in order to get their land, they more than welcomed this, they would be getting two of the 3 platform gains; Peace and Land.
CORRECT NUMBER 2 BELOW::>>>>
2) According to the REAL documents A, B, and C the assertion that Lenin wanted power, and the other parties did not rests with the fact that Lenin, would essentially just take the power from the Socialist Revolutionaries when it came down to it. According to document A was that Lenin forbid any support to other parties, he made sure that he shed light on the "lies" of that party, and made himself the only " legitimate" party leader to be listening to. Document B, it was neccesary for the Soviet to overtake the political influence of the Provisional Government and "democratically" decide to stop the support and protection of the provisional government. Document C lastly, talks about the different parties and their willingness to simply let the Provisional government govern, but still while slandering and criticising the way it was done, the only party that would do more than criticize was the Bolsheviks, who- essentially challenged the Provisional government * and win*, while everyone else sat by and let it happen, only verbally criticizing.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Lenin in Power (2)
1.They are the most angry that the things that they were promised, were not being given to them, the workers were not free they were more like slaves. The peasants however, i would not expect to feel the same way because they were not workers, they had not fought as strongly for the revolution.
2. Source 23 is in support of NEP calling it a overall success, per- the chart, however the other sources are mixed reviews, one says that they are in agreement of the NEP's success, however the other says that nothing had really improved since the New Economic Plan was implemented.
3.Yes, i agree that Lenin was able to pull Russia out of the unrest that was left after the Tsar's abdication. He was able to create more jobs, create more political and social peace, and give the people of russia more hope that they would be able to obtain food, peace, an the things that they would need to contain more of a stable economical life.
2. Source 23 is in support of NEP calling it a overall success, per- the chart, however the other sources are mixed reviews, one says that they are in agreement of the NEP's success, however the other says that nothing had really improved since the New Economic Plan was implemented.
3.Yes, i agree that Lenin was able to pull Russia out of the unrest that was left after the Tsar's abdication. He was able to create more jobs, create more political and social peace, and give the people of russia more hope that they would be able to obtain food, peace, an the things that they would need to contain more of a stable economical life.
Lenin in Power
1. What was the Sovnarkom?
Answer: The Sovnarkom was the Bolshevik appointed Council of People's Commissioners, they're first decree was to end the war with Germany which was followed by more decrees by the Council.
2. Why was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk bad for Russia?
Answer: The treaty was bad for Russia because huge, and very important land was lost to Germany. It was also damaging to the country because it looses industry, coal mines, population, railways, and agricultural land.
3. Who were the Whites?
Answer: The whites were anti-bolsheviks, it was a combination of Russian and Non-Russian Bolshevik opposition, they were called the Whites in contrast to the Bolshevik Reds.
4.Lenin's--> Political Skill, Ruthlessness.
a) As a political leader, he is able to rile people up, in order to gain their support and get them to support him. He also, never names names in the blame for the troubles of Russia, he simply states that he will fix them, and he will lead to the revolution.
b) His ruthlessness however, could be dangerous he was not afraid to blatantly state the problems that are in front of him, he is also not afraid to fight for what he needs, and is not afraid to push a little in order to get there, and get people to support the revolution.
5.Sources 5&6 to describe the experience for the ordinary people.
Answer: The common people, are not able to enjoy their lives either although they are not struggling for work and food in the city, there is much violence occurring in their front yards as well. They were constantly being beaten, or killed over food, and overwhelmed by the armies, who concerned for their own lives, would not stray far from what they were ordered to do, because they too would be killed.
6. Although the abdication of the Tsar and the rise of the Bolshevik's was a decent thing for the people of russia, with the creation of Jobs, and better conditions, the violence greatly increased for the people living in Russia, regardless of your status there was violence among the individual groups, that then; ensued with inter-status group violence.
Answer: The Sovnarkom was the Bolshevik appointed Council of People's Commissioners, they're first decree was to end the war with Germany which was followed by more decrees by the Council.
2. Why was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk bad for Russia?
Answer: The treaty was bad for Russia because huge, and very important land was lost to Germany. It was also damaging to the country because it looses industry, coal mines, population, railways, and agricultural land.
3. Who were the Whites?
Answer: The whites were anti-bolsheviks, it was a combination of Russian and Non-Russian Bolshevik opposition, they were called the Whites in contrast to the Bolshevik Reds.
4.Lenin's--> Political Skill, Ruthlessness.
a) As a political leader, he is able to rile people up, in order to gain their support and get them to support him. He also, never names names in the blame for the troubles of Russia, he simply states that he will fix them, and he will lead to the revolution.
b) His ruthlessness however, could be dangerous he was not afraid to blatantly state the problems that are in front of him, he is also not afraid to fight for what he needs, and is not afraid to push a little in order to get there, and get people to support the revolution.
5.Sources 5&6 to describe the experience for the ordinary people.
Answer: The common people, are not able to enjoy their lives either although they are not struggling for work and food in the city, there is much violence occurring in their front yards as well. They were constantly being beaten, or killed over food, and overwhelmed by the armies, who concerned for their own lives, would not stray far from what they were ordered to do, because they too would be killed.
6. Although the abdication of the Tsar and the rise of the Bolshevik's was a decent thing for the people of russia, with the creation of Jobs, and better conditions, the violence greatly increased for the people living in Russia, regardless of your status there was violence among the individual groups, that then; ensued with inter-status group violence.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
October 1917 Revolution
How Effective Was the Provisional Government?
1. Decisions
A. What to do about the war?
-- When the Provisional Government took its power, upon asking the peasants to wait to take over land until after elections were held the government also made statements to its allies that they would be continuing the war, regardless of what happened in Russia. This was the opposite to the Petrograd Soviet, who wanted to end the war with Germany and bring their soldiers home. The result to this was the war effort failing, many soldiers backed out of their service and upon German counter-attack they decided to pack it in and head home.
B. What to do about land?
-- As I mentioned earlier, it was the idea of the Provisional Government to stop the peasants from " gobbling" up too much land before the elections were held, therefore they announced and asked the peasants that they hold off from acquiring any land until after elections were held. The result to this was that the peasants ignored what the government had told them and quickly moved to acquire land, this also impacted the soldiers, because the mostly peasant-army all headed home quickly not wanting to miss out on their share of the land.
C. What to do about food?
-- The Provisional Government struggled with what to do about getting food to the workers in the cities, the basic idea was that the peasants would help to feed the workers in the city. But with the recent Bolshevik down fall, and the Kernesky vs. Kornilov fights this could not happen and the people in the cities continued to starve, the Petrograd Soviets promise of bread was beginning to look better and better.
2.Harm by the opponents to the Provisional Government.
A. Members of the Soviets
-- The Provisional Governments choices were battered by the counter arguments by the Petrograd Soviet, when the Pro. Gov. tried to find a solution to the hunger, the soviet promised bread, when the Pro. Gov promised to their allies that they were going to continue the war, the Soviet promised peace. Everything that the Provisional Government tried to instate, the soviet tried to break down with more appealing promises.
B. Bolsheviks
-- The Bolshevik party was able to weaken the Provisional Government by becoming more favorable to the workers, and more favorable to the soldiers, they offered them food, chances at land, and to end the war. All the opposites of what the provisional government were offering.
C. General Kornilov
-- This showed how easily the Provisional Government could be weakened, they quickly needed to call on the Soviet military power to help defend them against General Kornilov, this showed the lack of support for the government, and the strength of the Soviet.
3.
Based off of the answers above I believe that there are two major reasons for the ineffectiveness of the Provisional Government. The first major reason for the lack of effectiveness would be that they're plans were weakly supported by the majority. Most of the people living in Petrograd at the time were workers and soldiers, these were the people who were in support of the Soviet as well as the people who were gearing up to start a revolution and support the Bolshevik-Soviet party.
A second reason for the Provisional Government's major weakness would be their inability to control the peasants, and since the peasants controlled the food, this was a major problem. The peasants controlled the land in the countryside that they had recently captured for themselves, therefore the food that they grew there would be the same food that would nourish the people of the cities, without the support and favorability of the Provisional Government, they allowed the city people to starve.
The Appeal of Lenin and Trotsky
1. Add extra details to the appeal of Lenin
Lenin appealed to people because he was able to promise them the things that they wanted the most, such as food, peace, and land all things that under the Tsar they could not have. He also, was vindictive, and incredibly persuasive, he was able to empower his audiences and persuade them that they needed a " professional revolutionary".
3. The two Men, Trotsky and Lenin were exceedingly important to the success of the Bolsheviks in 1917. The main component that the two men shared, and implemented was their abilities to motivate the people of their party to empower them, and trust them to lead them into the revolution. They explained to the people of the soviet power when they came to take over, that they were going to be " professional revolutionaries" and that they would be able to help lead the Bolsheviks into the the revolution where they could come out on top and gain power to the government.
1. Decisions
A. What to do about the war?
-- When the Provisional Government took its power, upon asking the peasants to wait to take over land until after elections were held the government also made statements to its allies that they would be continuing the war, regardless of what happened in Russia. This was the opposite to the Petrograd Soviet, who wanted to end the war with Germany and bring their soldiers home. The result to this was the war effort failing, many soldiers backed out of their service and upon German counter-attack they decided to pack it in and head home.
B. What to do about land?
-- As I mentioned earlier, it was the idea of the Provisional Government to stop the peasants from " gobbling" up too much land before the elections were held, therefore they announced and asked the peasants that they hold off from acquiring any land until after elections were held. The result to this was that the peasants ignored what the government had told them and quickly moved to acquire land, this also impacted the soldiers, because the mostly peasant-army all headed home quickly not wanting to miss out on their share of the land.
C. What to do about food?
-- The Provisional Government struggled with what to do about getting food to the workers in the cities, the basic idea was that the peasants would help to feed the workers in the city. But with the recent Bolshevik down fall, and the Kernesky vs. Kornilov fights this could not happen and the people in the cities continued to starve, the Petrograd Soviets promise of bread was beginning to look better and better.
2.Harm by the opponents to the Provisional Government.
A. Members of the Soviets
-- The Provisional Governments choices were battered by the counter arguments by the Petrograd Soviet, when the Pro. Gov. tried to find a solution to the hunger, the soviet promised bread, when the Pro. Gov promised to their allies that they were going to continue the war, the Soviet promised peace. Everything that the Provisional Government tried to instate, the soviet tried to break down with more appealing promises.
B. Bolsheviks
-- The Bolshevik party was able to weaken the Provisional Government by becoming more favorable to the workers, and more favorable to the soldiers, they offered them food, chances at land, and to end the war. All the opposites of what the provisional government were offering.
C. General Kornilov
-- This showed how easily the Provisional Government could be weakened, they quickly needed to call on the Soviet military power to help defend them against General Kornilov, this showed the lack of support for the government, and the strength of the Soviet.
3.
Based off of the answers above I believe that there are two major reasons for the ineffectiveness of the Provisional Government. The first major reason for the lack of effectiveness would be that they're plans were weakly supported by the majority. Most of the people living in Petrograd at the time were workers and soldiers, these were the people who were in support of the Soviet as well as the people who were gearing up to start a revolution and support the Bolshevik-Soviet party.
A second reason for the Provisional Government's major weakness would be their inability to control the peasants, and since the peasants controlled the food, this was a major problem. The peasants controlled the land in the countryside that they had recently captured for themselves, therefore the food that they grew there would be the same food that would nourish the people of the cities, without the support and favorability of the Provisional Government, they allowed the city people to starve.
The Appeal of Lenin and Trotsky
1. Add extra details to the appeal of Lenin
Lenin appealed to people because he was able to promise them the things that they wanted the most, such as food, peace, and land all things that under the Tsar they could not have. He also, was vindictive, and incredibly persuasive, he was able to empower his audiences and persuade them that they needed a " professional revolutionary".
3. The two Men, Trotsky and Lenin were exceedingly important to the success of the Bolsheviks in 1917. The main component that the two men shared, and implemented was their abilities to motivate the people of their party to empower them, and trust them to lead them into the revolution. They explained to the people of the soviet power when they came to take over, that they were going to be " professional revolutionaries" and that they would be able to help lead the Bolsheviks into the the revolution where they could come out on top and gain power to the government.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Lenin and The Bolsheviks Take Power.
1. Why was Lenin reluctant to compromise with the Mensheviks or Socialist Revolutionaries?
Answer: Lenin was reluctant to compromise with the Mensheviks or Socialists Revolutionaries because he was worried that their willingness to compromise would ruin his revolutionary agenda.
2. List two reasons why the Provisional Government under Kerensky could not govern.
![]()
Answer: During the civil war, 13 million russians were killed, in addition 2 million russians emigrated out of the country.
Answer: Lenin was reluctant to compromise with the Mensheviks or Socialists Revolutionaries because he was worried that their willingness to compromise would ruin his revolutionary agenda.
2. List two reasons why the Provisional Government under Kerensky could not govern.
Answer: Two reasons why the provisional government under Kerensky couldn't govern is because neither groups ( the socialists or liberals ) trusted or respected him, trust was very necessary because the country needed to believe in their leader even if he was provisional, also; the lack of respect for him was key because they would not listen to a man who they did not respect.
3. The Bolsheviks did not have a majority at the Congress of Soviets after the October Revolution. How did they manage to assume power?
Answer: The Bolsheviks managed to gain power because the other groups the SR's and the Mensheviks walked out, denouncing the events and loosing their change to help in making the decision over who will be leading the country.
4. What did the Bolsheviks have to give up in order to get out of World War I? What was the name of the Treaty?
Answer: He realized that he would have to make peace with Germany and her allies, this was done through the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
5. What was the Checka?
Answer: The Checka is an all Russian- commission that would defend against counter revolutionaries, sabotage, and speculation.
6.What supporters joined the Red Army? White Army?
Answer: The white army was supported by the old middle and upper classes of the Tsarist russia. The red army however was supported by the old Tsar's army; their loyalty however was shifted in order to serve the red army.
7. How many Russians died during the Civil War? How many emigrated to other countries?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
1905 Revolution
1. Why was modernization needed?
Answer: Modernization was necessary in because in order for Russia to become a great power in the twentieth century; the Tsar wanted his country to be an elite on the world stage. In order to have an important military power, ( which would sustain Russia as a great power) you must have means of providing weapons, ships, munitions etc... ( industrialization ). Another reason Russia required such modernization was due to their extreme poverty, the agriculture in Russia was not sufficient as they were still using outdated methods, because of this and lack of using new machinery and methods, as well as russia's ever growing population hundreds of thousands of peasants starved.
2. Why was modernization dangerous to the Tsar?
Answer: The modernization of Russia would be particularly dangerous to the autocratic Tsar because he would be unable to maintain the institutions of a Tsarist Autocracy in a modern russia, most modern industrial countries had democracies or parliaments where the middle class was strongly favored over that of monarchs. Also, people would have to be more educated in order to perform their duties and jobs, therefore with the new education, they might be more apt to challenge their government. Lastly the growth of the middle classes would create pressure for political change, and for a more accountable and representative government.
3. How did Witte try to build up industry?
Answer: Witte tried to build up industry by ensuring that a huge investment would be made within the field to cause an industrial upturn. Witte based his plan of increased industrial upturn off the " domino" effect, of one demand leading to another, so on and so forth. Witte soon realized that what he had planned would not be enough to skyrocket Russian into an economical-industrial place of high power, therefore Russia would need to buy heavy machinery from large powers such as Germany, in order to manufacture their own goods for export, the money had to come from two places, A. foreign investment- huge foreign loans ( France ) which, came along with the issues of interest payments, and B. the Peasants- where taxes were upped- at the state level, and on the goods they used everyday.
4. How successful was Witte's policy?
Answer: Essentially this policy was a flop, although Russia's railroads were nearly doubled in length an over all international Eco-Industrial downturn was experienced, leaving nothing coming in; and nothing going out, making Russia even further in debt then they would have accounted for. The "home-market" in Russia was at a downturn, due to the Peasant's lack of money to buy their goods, thousands of people lost their jobs at factories causing strikes to break out.
Answer: Modernization was necessary in because in order for Russia to become a great power in the twentieth century; the Tsar wanted his country to be an elite on the world stage. In order to have an important military power, ( which would sustain Russia as a great power) you must have means of providing weapons, ships, munitions etc... ( industrialization ). Another reason Russia required such modernization was due to their extreme poverty, the agriculture in Russia was not sufficient as they were still using outdated methods, because of this and lack of using new machinery and methods, as well as russia's ever growing population hundreds of thousands of peasants starved.
2. Why was modernization dangerous to the Tsar?
Answer: The modernization of Russia would be particularly dangerous to the autocratic Tsar because he would be unable to maintain the institutions of a Tsarist Autocracy in a modern russia, most modern industrial countries had democracies or parliaments where the middle class was strongly favored over that of monarchs. Also, people would have to be more educated in order to perform their duties and jobs, therefore with the new education, they might be more apt to challenge their government. Lastly the growth of the middle classes would create pressure for political change, and for a more accountable and representative government.
3. How did Witte try to build up industry?
Answer: Witte tried to build up industry by ensuring that a huge investment would be made within the field to cause an industrial upturn. Witte based his plan of increased industrial upturn off the " domino" effect, of one demand leading to another, so on and so forth. Witte soon realized that what he had planned would not be enough to skyrocket Russian into an economical-industrial place of high power, therefore Russia would need to buy heavy machinery from large powers such as Germany, in order to manufacture their own goods for export, the money had to come from two places, A. foreign investment- huge foreign loans ( France ) which, came along with the issues of interest payments, and B. the Peasants- where taxes were upped- at the state level, and on the goods they used everyday.
4. How successful was Witte's policy?
Answer: Essentially this policy was a flop, although Russia's railroads were nearly doubled in length an over all international Eco-Industrial downturn was experienced, leaving nothing coming in; and nothing going out, making Russia even further in debt then they would have accounted for. The "home-market" in Russia was at a downturn, due to the Peasant's lack of money to buy their goods, thousands of people lost their jobs at factories causing strikes to break out.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Russia 1861-1905
1. List the general goals of the:
a. socialists
--- classless society, ending exploitation of workers,dismantling the capitalist economic system, taking means of production from owners and giving to state, needed to get peasants and workers on their side.
b. liberal reformers
based on ideals of enlightenment,western constitutional practices,
2. List three characteristics of serfs' lives.
1. They lived in many small villages, about 750,000 in the countryside.
2.They lived extremely harsh and short lives, 35 years was the life span; they lived in small, dark, and dank cottages.
3.Most were uneducated because their villages lacked any sort of schools.
3. List four reforms of Tsar Alexander II.
a.Elimination of Serfdom.
b.Expansion of Russian Railroads.
c.Increase industrial production.
d.Jury trials and censorship laws.
4. Why did the populists go "to the people" in 1873-1874?
They went to the people because they were more for the people, they wanted to be able to keep the communities of peasants together, because they believed that it kept equality.
5. List two consequences of the famine of 1891.
A. 36 million peasants were stricken with disease.
B. The grain exports were up during the food famine; so all the food that they could have potentially had, was being exported.
6. Why was Karl Marx important to Russian intellectuals?
Karl Marx was so important to the russian intellectuals because it helped them base their ideas of what they thought their government should be, ( communist ) and their plans.
7. What were the Goals and Methods of the following political groups in early twentieth century Russia? (see page 8 of the reading)
a. Liberal Democrats
Favored evolutionary change toward Western-ized ways, two different kinds called Octobrists, and Kadets.
b. Socialist Revolutionaries
Favored transferring land to the peasant run communes. Radical group that utilized terrorist methods.
c. Social Democrats
Developed political ideology based on Marxism.
8. How did Bloody Sunday change people's attitudes toward the Tsar?
Bloody Sunday changed peoples attitudes toward the Tsar because they no longer looked at him as the protector of the people of Russia. They were now fearful and nervous about the Tsar's actions.
9. List four reforms in Tsar Nicholas's October Manifesto.
a. freedom of press.
b. freedom of assembly
c. freedom to form political parties.
d. the tsar had to share his power with two parties.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Russia 1905 to 1914
1. How did Tsar Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?
Answer: Tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the 1905 revolution for a few reasons, one being that his opponents were not a unified group therefore they could not defeat Russia successfully ( getting rid of the Tsar ) another reason why the Tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the revolution was due to the lack of centralized power, the revolution just began on its own, and there was no way to know how it had begun. A last reason for his survival would be the loyalty of his army, since most of his army stayed loyal to the Tsar when the fighting broke out, he had a protective force.
2. What was the Tsar's general attitude about the Dumas?
Answer: The Tsar did not really take the Duma's seriously, he didn't take their purpose as valid and pretty much ignored everything that they said or did. To the Tsar the Duma's were unnecessary and unimportant because the Tsar was still the highest power.
3. What specific improvements occurred following the 1905 revolution?
Answer: Post-Revolution in 1905 the abolishment of the redemption payments were over and the Peasants were encouraged to buy their own land, also post revolution Russia many more schools were opened beginning a new educational reform. Lastly the revolutionaries had stopped their uprising.
4. Summarize 5 major weaknesses of the Tsar's regime.
Answer: The tsar's regime post- revolution also had weak points some of which would be the failure of the land reforms with the peasant population growing rapidly the originally proposed plan would not be able to support the people, industrial unrest stemming from the strikes that occured post shooting of 270 striking miners. Another weakness is government repression with the secret police rooted out the revolutionaries, as well as Revival of the revolutionary parties they were beginning to gain money and influence again. Lastly the royal family was discredited, the trust that the people had in the royal family was no longer the main power and trust for the people of Russia.
Answer: Tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the 1905 revolution for a few reasons, one being that his opponents were not a unified group therefore they could not defeat Russia successfully ( getting rid of the Tsar ) another reason why the Tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the revolution was due to the lack of centralized power, the revolution just began on its own, and there was no way to know how it had begun. A last reason for his survival would be the loyalty of his army, since most of his army stayed loyal to the Tsar when the fighting broke out, he had a protective force.
2. What was the Tsar's general attitude about the Dumas?
Answer: The Tsar did not really take the Duma's seriously, he didn't take their purpose as valid and pretty much ignored everything that they said or did. To the Tsar the Duma's were unnecessary and unimportant because the Tsar was still the highest power.
3. What specific improvements occurred following the 1905 revolution?
Answer: Post-Revolution in 1905 the abolishment of the redemption payments were over and the Peasants were encouraged to buy their own land, also post revolution Russia many more schools were opened beginning a new educational reform. Lastly the revolutionaries had stopped their uprising.
4. Summarize 5 major weaknesses of the Tsar's regime.
Answer: The tsar's regime post- revolution also had weak points some of which would be the failure of the land reforms with the peasant population growing rapidly the originally proposed plan would not be able to support the people, industrial unrest stemming from the strikes that occured post shooting of 270 striking miners. Another weakness is government repression with the secret police rooted out the revolutionaries, as well as Revival of the revolutionary parties they were beginning to gain money and influence again. Lastly the royal family was discredited, the trust that the people had in the royal family was no longer the main power and trust for the people of Russia.
Monday, September 27, 2010
What caused WWI, and Who's to blame?
What Caused World War I, and Who Was to Blame?
A: Alliance System
Germany loosing all allies.
Russia and France; two front war vs. Germany.
GB defending France.
A-H w/ Germany still
EVERYONE- wants to be all up in the Balkans
Serbia most powerful;other balkan nations want to be part of Serbia
B: Colonial Rivalry
Rivalry within Africa for "choice" of which colonies they would be ruling.
Navies necessary in order to keep control of their colonies.
Fights over boarders, land,etc
also colonies within the Balkans
C: Naval Race
Germany says it needs a bigger army in order to protect themselves from GB incase.
GB is an Island Nation, with many colonies across the ocean, they NEED their navy.
Russia would like to have access to the sea in order to have a Navy NOT bottled up in the BlackSea.
Dreadnought.
D: Economic Rivalry
A-H limits the Serb's from getting pigs across
germany seeks to gain the upper hand
E: Russia Supported Serbia
Agreed to help them fight off AH, although they had originally declined.
F: Germany Backing Austria at Crucial
(?)
G: Mobilization Plans
russia plans to mobilize troops when germany heads off to attack France.
Britain will help defend france if need me,
AH helps no one
Serbs fight eachother
and agains AH
H: A "Tragedy of Miscalculation"
Germany did not expect france to be ready or for them to miss Paris, and they also did not understand that russia would be ready and therefore germany got the two front attack
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Churchill Criticizes the German Fleet
Questions:
1. Explain in your own words what Churchill sees as the difference between the significance of the German and the British fleets.
- Answer: Churchill basically thinks that the German navy is more of an unnecessary luxury, something that the country really didn't need to have but, could afford any way. Britain had many colonies in far away places that the navy helped keep in line ( also Britain is clearly a island nation). Germany, however had none of these things, their navy was not as necessary as Britain's.
2. Look carefully at the language Churchill uses in describing the German fleet. What impression of the German fleet does his choice of language give?
- Answer: When talking about the German fleet, Churchill commonly refers to Germany as a " great friendly empire", and remises about Germany being respected an honoured before " she had a single ship", therefore Churchill is using neutral terms, either glorifying Germany and her " luxurious" fleet, or speaking neutral as to not offend Germany.
3. What does Churchill mean by "the ratio which our naval strength will have to bear to other great naval Powers"?
-Answer: Churchill is saying that when other countries/empires increase their naval power, it is up to Great Britain to do the same, as they are the greatest naval power. It also means that Britain will have to continue to increase its naval power, and strength/influence.
4. How exactly is Churchill threatening Germany in this speech?
-Answer: Churchill is threatening Germany in this speech because he is warning them that if they continue to increase their ships, and their naval power that he will be forced to do the same, and although Britain has never used their naval powers as a aggressive thing before, ( it had always been used as a defensive measure ) they would use it for aggression if they needed to.
5. This speech was studied very carefully by the German government (as Churchill knew it would be). Which parts of it might give the German government grounds to complain to the British government? What do you think was the effect Churchill intended this speech to have in Germany?
- Answer: I think that Churchill had intended for this to be a friendly warning to Germany, telling them that they would not use their giant navy to show aggression to Germany unless they were provoked, and by saying that they hoped that Germany would remain their friends, but Churchill reminds Germany that this is a naval race now, and that if need be Britain will always increase. I think that Germany could complain to the British government because it could be shown that Britain was threatening Germany with an arms race, and with naval aggression.
1. Explain in your own words what Churchill sees as the difference between the significance of the German and the British fleets.
- Answer: Churchill basically thinks that the German navy is more of an unnecessary luxury, something that the country really didn't need to have but, could afford any way. Britain had many colonies in far away places that the navy helped keep in line ( also Britain is clearly a island nation). Germany, however had none of these things, their navy was not as necessary as Britain's.
2. Look carefully at the language Churchill uses in describing the German fleet. What impression of the German fleet does his choice of language give?
- Answer: When talking about the German fleet, Churchill commonly refers to Germany as a " great friendly empire", and remises about Germany being respected an honoured before " she had a single ship", therefore Churchill is using neutral terms, either glorifying Germany and her " luxurious" fleet, or speaking neutral as to not offend Germany.
3. What does Churchill mean by "the ratio which our naval strength will have to bear to other great naval Powers"?
-Answer: Churchill is saying that when other countries/empires increase their naval power, it is up to Great Britain to do the same, as they are the greatest naval power. It also means that Britain will have to continue to increase its naval power, and strength/influence.
4. How exactly is Churchill threatening Germany in this speech?
-Answer: Churchill is threatening Germany in this speech because he is warning them that if they continue to increase their ships, and their naval power that he will be forced to do the same, and although Britain has never used their naval powers as a aggressive thing before, ( it had always been used as a defensive measure ) they would use it for aggression if they needed to.
5. This speech was studied very carefully by the German government (as Churchill knew it would be). Which parts of it might give the German government grounds to complain to the British government? What do you think was the effect Churchill intended this speech to have in Germany?
- Answer: I think that Churchill had intended for this to be a friendly warning to Germany, telling them that they would not use their giant navy to show aggression to Germany unless they were provoked, and by saying that they hoped that Germany would remain their friends, but Churchill reminds Germany that this is a naval race now, and that if need be Britain will always increase. I think that Germany could complain to the British government because it could be shown that Britain was threatening Germany with an arms race, and with naval aggression.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Bismarck & Europe 1871- 1878
1. What were Otto von Bismarck's aims in foreign policy following Germany's victory over France in 1871?
A: After the victory over France in 1871, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's leader was satisfied with Germany as the superior power in Europe, in his eyes Germany had all the territory it needed, and all the power it was to have. Now, Von Bismark's main goal in life was to ensure that Germany would stay safe and be able to maintain its control and power without an attack. Von Bismark aimed to keep France and Russia away from each other to ensure that they would not become allies, and " sandwich " Germany to a defeat as well as keep their territory where it belonged, in their eyes to Germany. Also, the conflict within the Balkans concerned the Germans, in theory the only thing that they could do as a nation was isolate completely their only threats.
Another form of combatant against the inevitable was to bring on change, to keep other change from happening. One way he succeeded in this was through planting the ideas of nationalism and imperialism in the minds of the population however, these were things that the people of Germany could not fully understand nor could he control which he unleashed into the population.
2. Why did events between the years 1875-78 in the Balkans lead to a crisis between the Great Powers?
A: During the years of 1875-78 in the Balkans there was much social unrest, which in turn created crisis and uneasy feelings from the Great Powers. The question of who would have control in the Balkan reason raised much unrest between the Great Powers of Europe, especially challenging Otto Von Bismark, to see what kind of government man he was. Another problem stemming from the Balkans that was concerning to the Great Powers of Europe was the inability to reach an agreement in what was to be done in that region. Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary could not seem to reach an agreement about what should happen to this region of the former Ottoman Empire.
A: After the victory over France in 1871, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's leader was satisfied with Germany as the superior power in Europe, in his eyes Germany had all the territory it needed, and all the power it was to have. Now, Von Bismark's main goal in life was to ensure that Germany would stay safe and be able to maintain its control and power without an attack. Von Bismark aimed to keep France and Russia away from each other to ensure that they would not become allies, and " sandwich " Germany to a defeat as well as keep their territory where it belonged, in their eyes to Germany. Also, the conflict within the Balkans concerned the Germans, in theory the only thing that they could do as a nation was isolate completely their only threats.
Another form of combatant against the inevitable was to bring on change, to keep other change from happening. One way he succeeded in this was through planting the ideas of nationalism and imperialism in the minds of the population however, these were things that the people of Germany could not fully understand nor could he control which he unleashed into the population.
2. Why did events between the years 1875-78 in the Balkans lead to a crisis between the Great Powers?
A: During the years of 1875-78 in the Balkans there was much social unrest, which in turn created crisis and uneasy feelings from the Great Powers. The question of who would have control in the Balkan reason raised much unrest between the Great Powers of Europe, especially challenging Otto Von Bismark, to see what kind of government man he was. Another problem stemming from the Balkans that was concerning to the Great Powers of Europe was the inability to reach an agreement in what was to be done in that region. Russia, Germany, and Austria-Hungary could not seem to reach an agreement about what should happen to this region of the former Ottoman Empire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)