Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ummagumma, the Decembrists WERE the landowners themselves, since they were from the upper class, but they were the ones that understood the debilitating effect of the serfdom on Russia both in moral and economic terms. They were not alone among the landowners, since they were the members of the "Northern" and "Southern" societies ( i.e. groups of people sharing similar ideas in different parts of the Russian empire.) So essentially it was not just an attempt of the "military coup," but reflection of split ideas among the Russian nobility.
The only reason the Decembrists didn't have sufficient support in the society was precisely because Russia didn't have a strong "middle class" at that point in time, which would have played a role of a leverage in deposing Tzar, in the same manner as it happened say in France. The Decembrists ( being originally from the upper level of aristocracy) didn't have anyone to back them up other than the soldiers that knew them as military commanders and trusted them; they couldn't count on mass support of peasantry, since peasantry en mass wouldn't even understand what these people were all about.
That's basically what civil wars are for.
But weren't they just a tiny group of young aristocrats ? At least that was my impression based on the book I read - although it was decades ago, so perhaps I am mistaken. I mean, they didn't get any real support outside of the two regiments that they personally commanded. It was really a rather sad and poorly planned affair.
If they tried to eradicate the serfdom that was the cornerstone of economic power of Russian nobility, they would have to take on the entire ruling class, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It took almost two more generations and the wave of revolutions in Europe and the well understood fact that Russia was falling behind other world powers and a brave and determined Tsar to end the serfdom, and even then he did a half - assed job.
Ariete: why would they make any territorial concessions ? They were still nationalistic. They just believed that the old regime had to be replaced with a Constitutional republic but this didn't mean dissolving the Empire.
At that point the whole country was in turmoil, not just Finland.
But why?
The Grand Duchy was in a personal union with the Czar personally, and only with the Czar. Not Russia itself. No Czar = no legitimacy for Finland to stay a part of Russia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma
Ariete: why would they make any territorial concessions ? They were still nationalistic. They just believed that the old regime had to be replaced with a Constitutional republic but this didn't mean dissolving the Empire.
Most likely not. But if there would be a huge turmoil, something could've happened. And during that time there was a revanchist attitude in Sweden, that some day we'll take the eastern half of the kingdom back.
The Grand Duchy was in a personal union with the Czar personally, and only with the Czar. Not Russia itself. No Czar = no legitimacy for Finland to stay a part of Russia.
Most likely not. But if there would be a huge turmoil, something could've happened. And during that time there was a revanchist attitude in Sweden, that some day we'll take the eastern half of the kingdom back.
In 1825 Sweden was not in a position to launch an attack on the Russian Empire, and any such move would've invited a Russian invasion once things stabilized internally. It would take another 20-30 years at least before technology advanced to the point it would make a real difference, until then the size of the army was the biggest advantage. And even then, it would not be like the Crimea when the battle theatre was remote for both sides and the ability to project nautical power became paramount for success.
I don't think there was any power in Europe in 1825 ready or willing to challenge Russia. It was probably their highest point.
But weren't they just a tiny group of young aristocrats ? At least that was my impression based on the book I read - although it was decades ago, so perhaps I am mistaken. I mean, they didn't get any real support outside of the two regiments that they personally commanded.
No, not exactly, because those that came on Senate Square that day in December were not ALL of them. There were couple of two secret societies ( "The Northern" and the "Southern" one in Kiev one in St. Petersburg, to which they all belonged, not to mention that they've had some support in upper class society, so even Pushkin had to be interrogated by Tzar. )
Quote:
It was really a rather sad and poorly planned affair.
Yes, plus a lot of things went wrong, not the way they originally expected. So all in all, 5 of them were hanged and 121 banished to Siberia.
Quote:
If they tried to eradicate the serfdom that was the cornerstone of economic power of Russian nobility, they would have to take on the entire ruling class, hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It took almost two more generations and the wave of revolutions in Europe and the well understood fact that Russia was falling behind other world powers and a brave and determined Tsar to end the serfdom, and even then he did a half - assed job.
As I've mentioned earlier - they were part of that class themselves, and interestingly enough they paved way for others, because the whole "liberation movement" in Russia that ended in 1917 Communist revolution, has its "starting point," the reference point from the Decembrists. The next stage of this development was represented by Alexander Herzen, the father of Russian socialism,
who was greatly affected by this revolt, ( he was 12 at that time,) and it determined his future activities. So ironically, the rebellion started in the upper class, and it was the upper class that brought it to fruition in 1917 in the most radical manner.
Quote:
Ariete: why would they make any territorial concessions ? They were still nationalistic. They just believed that the old regime had to be replaced with a Constitutional republic but this didn't mean dissolving the Empire.
P.S. Actually, now when I looked into some Russian article, it looks like the Decembrists ( at least some of them,) were conspiring together with their Polish counterparts, so if they would have succeeded, Poland could have gone free after all - that's what it looks like to me at this point, but I'd need to know more on a subject.
Does it matter the expense? It is easy to look back and think of this, but in terms of history, it is a non-issue; what significant country has ever expanded without being at the expense of others? I assure you the US just mere decades before did not think jack about anyone when full filling its Manifest Destiny.
Not saying I agree at all with brutally victimizing millions of people, but it was not something unusual other than the time period it occurred, if it would have happened 100 years earlier, it would be a topic hardly ever brought up. But even at that, many more people benefited from it, something that gets ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
What about the alternatives; what if the Decembrists had succeeded in setting up a democracy?
Lol, seriously? A very poor challenge to Nicholas I? As if that even had a remote chance of succeeding, and even if it did, who said what would become of it? The statements of "they were classical liberals" is ridiculous, these people would not have revolted at all if Constantine did not step down, and they took the opportunity to try to give themselves power, to be the tsar, thinking the monarchy, and Nicholas I, was weak. Nicholas I of course showed he was not weak, and went on to rule Russia with an iron fist and arguably as the last strong tsar (Alexander II being given credit for being the last strong one).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Russia had the know-how to develop and industrialize. It didn't need Stalin in order to achieve that.
Of course they had the know-how, they were industrializing, and it was a disaster, becoming a feeder into the socialist revolution. The elite class ruled the industrialization, and they had great influence on the laws created around it, to the point factory workers could be arrested for not showing up to work, and property rights trampled for industry. This industrialization was not benefiting Russia, but only a small class. It was this that set in motion the revolution, I doubt it would have even gained much traction if Russia was not ever being industrialized. At that, it was far, far behind the West. Mother, kind of gives a small insight into the general feelings of things in the years before the revolution.
They did not need Stalin to do it, but it was under him that it got done, others before him did not do it, someone had to be first.
Without him, change might have been more gradual (or, not--we'll never know), but I don't think such extreme measures were necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Yes, but at what expense?
Does it matter the expense? It is easy to look back and think of this, but in terms of history, it is a non-issue; what significant country has ever expanded without being at the expense of others? I assure you the US just mere decades before did not think jack about anyone when full filling its Manifest Destiny.
Not saying I agree at all with brutally victimizing millions of people, but it was not something unusual other than the time period it occurred, if it would have happened 100 years earlier, it would be a topic hardly ever brought up. But even at that, many more people benefited from it, something that gets ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
What about the alternatives; what if the Decembrists had succeeded in setting up a democracy?
Lol, seriously? A very poor challenge to Nicholas I? As if that even had a remote chance of succeeding, and even if it did, who said what would become of it? The statements of "they were classical liberals" is ridiculous, these people would not have revolted at all if Constantine did not step down, and they took the opportunity to try to give themselves power, to be the tsar, thinking the monarchy, and Nicholas I, was weak. Nicholas I of course showed he was not weak, and went on to rule Russia with an iron fist and arguably as the last strong tsar (Alexander II being given credit for being the last strong one).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Russia had the know-how to develop and industrialize. It didn't need Stalin in order to achieve that.
Of course they had the know-how, they were industrializing, and it was a disaster, becoming a feeder into the socialist revolution. The elite class ruled the industrialization, and they had great influence on the laws created around it, to the point factory workers could be arrested for not showing up to work, and property rights trampled for industry. This industrialization was not benefiting Russia, but only a small class. It was this that set in motion the revolution, I doubt it would have even gained much traction if Russia was not ever being industrialized. Mother, kind of gives a small insight into the general feelings of things in the years before the revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Without him, change might have been more gradual (or, not--we'll never know), but I don't think such extreme measures were necessary. And what about Lenin's role, with the New Economic Plan? His methods weren't so austere, yet gave some positive results.
The "more gradual" was not working, and what was working was not benefiting the population. Creating laws where a factor can seize land without compensation, and force people to work is not going to go over anywhere, and it became just another form of serfdom. Sure, not work and die of starvation and exposure, or work in the factory, not a great choice, but a choice that funneled people to the socialist cause.
So point is; at the time, the alternative was looking great, who would not buy into the socialist ideals at the time living in such a place?
But hindsight will show that Russia and alter the USSR would not have time to gradually industrialize, it was because of their rapid industrialization they were able to defeat the Nazi led invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
And what about Lenin's role, with the New Economic Plan? His methods weren't so austere, yet gave some positive results.
It gave some positive results, but not fast enough. The USSR was way, way behind the West, and the Plan was not allowing industrialization fast enough. The USSR was coming back from basically zero, and the West had already determined it to be an enemy, which put in forth industrialization for economic (thus defense) purposes as a top priority for preservation of the state. Stalin basically obtained support for his abolishing of the Plan in favor of his 5 year just due to the threat the West presented.
There are two statues standing of Alexander II in the world today. The first one is on the Helsinki Senate Square, and the other one is in Sofia.
There is one in Moscow and one in St. Petersburg, both of them rather new though. I think it is unfortunate, especially in any society that was under the Russian Empire, because for all of his faults, he did do one grand thing; free the serfs (of course not all serfs were freed at that time and the execution of it went horribly). Which may seem like some small thing, but it was a very big deal, and a break from tradition that was deeply rooted in society.
There is one in Moscow and one in St. Petersburg, both of them rather new though. I think it is unfortunate, especially in any society that was under the Russian Empire, because for all of his faults, he did do one grand thing; free the serfs (of course not all serfs were freed at that time and the execution of it went horribly). Which may seem like some small thing, but it was a very big deal, and a break from tradition that was deeply rooted in society.
Oh, so in Helsinki and Sofia they are the ones which were never torned down. Finland raised the statue as Alexander II decreed "the Grand Duchy of Finland will have their senate and autonomy forever". He was also the first Czar to invest any money in Finland instead of just taking taxes.
Oh, so in Helsinki and Sofia they are the ones which were never torned down. Finland raised the statue as Alexander II decreed "the Grand Duchy of Finland will have their senate and autonomy forever". He was also the first Czar to invest any money in Finland instead of just taking taxes.
The statue couldn't be in a better place:
Thank you for the photo, Ariete. It's beautiful. If I ever make it to Helsinki again, I'll look it up.
Yes, but at what expense? What about the alternatives; what if the Decembrists had succeeded in setting up a democracy?
No way, they were a very small group of revolutionaries in a contry in which over 90% of population were illiterate, superstitious and deeply religious peasants, about half of them serfs. And the rest mainly reactionary noblemen / clergy / a very small urban middle class.
Even if they've succeeded, which was impossible from the start, the country would most likely end up with a major bloodshed and restoration of monarchy. Or, in an even less possible case, an aristocratic oligarchy. There's no way the majority of population would get voting rights. They would be very easily manipulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Rgussia had the know-how to develop and industrialize. It didn't need Stalin in order to achieve that. Without him, change might have been more gradual (or, not--we'll never know), but I don't think such extreme measures were necessary.
Such extreme measures became necessary when the NEP was shut down. There was simply no way for the Soviet Union to exist while buying every piece of technology from the West. They didn't have the time to wait for another war, which seemed inevitable, while seeing themselves falling more and more behind with each passing year. There was huge fear and mistrust on both sides. They believed (and not without reason) that the USSR would eventually either be strangled economically, or drawn into a war it could not win without a modern industrial base.
They ended up building the biggest mechanized army on Earth, yet even having more tanks than the rest of the world combined in the 1930s, they were still afraid of the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
And what about Lenin's role, with the New Economic Plan? His methods weren't so austere, yet gave some positive results.
Only in the light industry and agriculture, because that's where the money could be made with the little initial capital that these NEP entrepreneurs had. They would not be setting up steel foundries and heavy machinery plants. Or especially the advanced defense manufacturing that the Soviets felt they needed so badly. And they really couldn't anyway, the core principle of communism is state control of the means of production.
Even if NEP was allowed to continue, the Soviet leadership would still have to force the rapid industrialization, one way or another.
And another thing - the labor camps full of prisoners weren't set up because of industrialization. The same mass forced labor effect could be achieved by "volunteering" people and providing them with modest rewards for participation and harsh punishments for avoiding the service. This worked in the last years of USSR when a large percentage of their conscripted soldiers were nothing more than forced labor in uniforms. Actually, using the labor of starving prisoners would be far less productive than even the awfully unproductive labor of relatively well fed conscripts. These people were arrested and thrown in camps for political and security reasons, to get rid of anyone even remotely capable of fighting against the regime. Using them as slave labor was just an added bonus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
