Communism rise in Russia and a turn to Authoritarianism Ch. 22

Communism rise in Russia and a turn to Authoritarianism

             The communist revolutions shared many characteristics with the previous political revolutions that inspired them, especially the French Revolution.  Strayer sees that these “revolutions, like their French predecessor, ousted old ruling classes and dispossessed landed aristocracies” (662).  An educated group helped lead the peasants to see their exploitation, and then organized them to fight for their rights, thus inspiring these revolutions.  Another point that Strayer sees in these fights for a “good society” was that they all shared a vision “in a modernizing future, not in some nostalgic vision of the past” (662).  The communists had learned from watching the French Revolution and were wary of a military leader taking power post-revolution.  These revolutions may share and have learned from the previous revolutions, but they had their own characteristics.

            World War I, and the shortages that were being created through Russia’s involvement in the war inspired the peasants to begin to organize protests.  These demonstrations lead to the resignation of Tsar Nicholas II by February 1917.   He would be replaced by a weak Provisional Government, mostly made up of people that continued on the involvement in WWI.  With the resignation of the Tsar, many Russian soldiers left the army, trade unions began to organize in the cities, “soviets” (an organic grassroots group made up of workers and soldiers) were formed to hear all citizens voices, and the peasants in the countryside began to redistribute the large landholdings of the elites.  The ineffectual power of the Provisional Government allowed this social revolution to continue and build power.  The Bolsheviks would eventually arise to power within this radicalized environment.             

            The Bolsheviks, lead by Lenin, would demand “an end to the war, land for the peasants, workers’ control of factories, self-determination for non-Russian nationalities… called for the dissolutions of the Provisional Government and a transfer of state power to the new soviets” (664).  The Bolsheviks would seize the state through a coup, and then face a three-year civil war.  The civil war would be fought by the Bolsheviks on many fronts, from having to fight the old guard, to foreign imperialists scared of communists state, and having to deal with their own internal problem from having to forcefully keep the revolutionaries in check and enforce food rationing.  The civil war left a legacy of authoritarian power that the now Union of Soviet Socialist Republic would continue with.

            I think the legacy and the lessons of the civil war forced the Bolsheviks to become authoritarian, I also think must people who have taken power and then faced a civil war immediately upon taking power will, generally, go in the direction of authoritarianism.  This is partly from needing to coalesce ones power throughout the country in a short period of time that is already charged for resistance, and adding a civil war.  The civil war was troubling since it involved some internal resistance, but was mostly funded, and fought by, western powers that were at the time also fighting WWI.  The turning away from the soviets and towards authoritarianism helped them to build their army, get the supplies needed for the army, and eventually win the war.  Thus, painting a somewhat positive picture of authoritarianism since the Bolsheviks were able to keep in place some of the popular victories they had fought for. 

            

The End of Empire

Ch. 23

            The second wave of European conquest in Asia and Africa also had its own revolutions.  These revolutions would be unlike the first revolutions in the America’s.  Driven by ex-patriots that wanted freedom from the conquering powers, while the second wave of revolutions would be driven by a developing nationalist identity in Africa and Asia drove the revolutions in America.  This ideology would lead to a creation of a large number of states.  The fight for their identity helped these cultures to affirm “the vitality of their cultures, which had been submerged and denigrated during the colonial era” (Strayer, 693).

            Another difference was that the colonial powers had begun to lose power and interesting maintaining colonial states.  The World Wars had taken their toll on Europe, from massive amounts of deaths, to huge amounts of debt.  The Wars had also lead to Europe to question its moral superiority, even questioning its right to empires.  Europe was also influenced by the arising superpower of Soviet Union and the United States, which were interested in getting rid of the colonial empires.  The United Nations was also established after World War II and helped these future countries to communicate their interest in freedom. 

            This occurred internationally as these colonial states to develop their won thought.  These thinkers were educated in Europe, but returned to their nations and began to see the social and economic inequalities that colonial powers were creating.  They began to motivate the people, helping to create popular anti-colonial movements.  These movements were sometimes lead by a group of leaders or were movements that arose from the people.  Regardless, these movements had to be aware of being co-opted by the European administrators. 

            The administrators would do this not through outright rule, but allow the movements to gain some independence through “deliberate planning for decolonization included gradual political reform; investments in railroad; parts, and telegraph lines; the holding of elections; and the writing of constitutions” (Strayer, 695).  This slow transition left some people feeling that the Europeans had given them the right to independence, but this takes the power that the movements needed to force the Europeans out.  The final stage of these revolutions was to decide how leadership and power would be divided between its people and leaders. 

The Second Wave of European Conquets

Ch. 20

           The European takeover of Asia and Africa is considered the second conquest, while the first is the conquering of the America’s.  This second conquest was lead by different countries, instead of the Portugal, Spain, France and England; it was lead by Germany, Italy, Belgium, the United States, and Japan.  The United States was the most surprising player, and mainly gained its territories through the Spanish-American War.  There were other differences in this second conquest, the lack of a “Great Dying,” and the Europeans military might. 

            The “Great Dying” occurred in the America’s during the conquest by the Europeans, disease would strike the people of the America’s to such a large number that it is possible that up to 90% died.  These deaths meant that the conquering Europeans did not face larger armies, or very organized resistance.  Rather they came on to lands that, to them, seemed to be uninhabited and freely available to them to take over, as if God had set the land aside for them.  The lack of a “Great Dying” meant that in Africa and Asia that the Europeans would face off with a population that was much larger, more organized, and protecting their homelands.  Along with having to fight for the conquering of the land, they also had establish new administrating systems for the large number of inhabitants. 

            Faced with this large resistance, the Europeans experience with military and technology helped them get into and conquer Asia and Africa.  Some of the military developments that helped were more organization, drilled practicing, and an advanced command structure the simplified tactics.  Another major helper was the development of the repeating rifles and machine guns.  These helped to morally devastate the people of Africa and Asia.