Sunday, February 1, 2009
This week we continued our discussion of nationalism, this time with expansionism and the balance of power thrown in. Bismarck had manipulated all three to his advantage: he expanded the Prussian empire by using nationalism to deflect suspicion that he was upsetting the balance of power by unifying Germany. The Crimean War was also a particularly good example of how the two clashed. We looked at the balance of power between nation states, but especially in the case of Russia, a balance was also needed to maintain internal peace. Russia had to let off this internal pressure by putting the focus on outward expansion. As we see in the Crimean War, this internal balance of power set off fears about the external balance of power in France and Britain; Russia learned the importance of the external balance of power at a high cost. This forced them towards a third balancing act, that of the internal versus the external. They recognized that they could not expand with impunity and attempted to compensate with rapid internal industrialization, something that probably eventually increased internal pressure instead of relieving it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“They recognized that they could not expand with impunity and attempted to compensate with rapid internal industrialization, something that probably eventually increased internal pressure instead of relieving it.”
ReplyDeletehttp://mehelizabeth.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-week-we-continued-our-discussion.html
What do you mean by “probably”? What mechanism do you have in mind here for this “increasing pressure?”
“The abolition of serfdom allowed the Russians to look upon themselves as an Enlightened state, instituting reforms that had no real meaning as they had in the past under Catherine the Great.”
http://mehelizabeth.blogspot.com/2009/01/p-767-781.html
Is it really without “meaning”? I ask because, whether or not I agree with your assessment that it was a bum deal for the serfs, and thus did not undermine noble power, could I offer these thoughts? With serfdom, one could not leave the farm. Now, peasants could—to go to the cities. Would the creation of an urban proletariat be a meaningful difference? Further, the holding of land within the structure of the village, as a commune, suggests the formation of one of the more enduring institutions that the communists will exploit when they come to power. The peasants did not rise up against the Reds during the Russian Civil War. Why was that?
“The sheer size of the US and its ability to have space enough for everyone who wishes to come allows for more wiggle room as different groups--religious, ethnic, political--settle in. I would say that the concept of the United States is a work in progress, and that's what makes us different.”
http://mehelizabeth.blogspot.com/2009/01/mias-post-about-this-weeks-theme-of.html
So what about the US is different from Austria-Hungary? Just size? How is it that the constitution and “American-ness” helps explain American stability? Also, Russia—was that a stable “salad bowl” of peoples? Why or why not?
“The discipline of the government forces made them a much more formidable foe.”
http://mehelizabeth.blogspot.com/2009/01/reading-732-742.html
A question: Does this mean that a revolution can only be successful if the opposed government loses the will tro fight? This would be represented by the army no l;onger willing to fight for the government—examples? Or, can power be wrested away from a government in the glow of its ascendant power? Any examples?