“Reluctant reformers.” How far do you agree with this view of Russian Rulers from 1855-1964? There is a common theme through most of the period that Russian rulers and the reforms they introduced were less than radical, and were indeed ‘reluctant’ in their approach. As the tsars were only the most recent of a long line of autocratic and orthodox rulers it is hardly surprising that they may not be particularly progressive. This essay will define reform as changes to government and processes wherein that cause a notable impact upon the population. The areas to investigate include political, economic, social and military reforms from the Russian government in order to see if they are ‘reluctant reformers’ or not.
The British could stay there because the United States didn't have an army because the government didn't have any money. Even though these outpost were in direct violation with the treaty of Paris the British kind of said what are you going to do about it and then just stayed. Because of the economic instability states began to go through a period of mass inflation and debt. Because of this the debt of individuals increased causing events like Shay's rebellion. In which a group of farmers led a armed assault on the national government and because there was no army so a local militia had to stop this rebellion.
On the other hand, the growth in population compared with national output shows less production per head, and therefore less efficient production. His policies did little for agriculture considering 80% of the population were rural peasants. It is thought he focused too much on heavy industry, neglecting others like light engineering. Finally, Russia became overly dependent on foreign loans (never good if a financial crisis were to occur and foreign loans have to be repaid). Tariffs making goods scarce and heavy taxation meant prices for Russian consumers increased, whilst their wages stayed low.
A Virginia dollar could be worth more than a South Carolina dollar, or worth less than a New England gold coin. In the table showing the “Estimated Market Value of United States Exports to Great Britain” one can see that after the Revolution, there less trade with Great Britain, which also hindered the economic situation of the United States. Politically, the Articles of Confederation was unable to maintain order. They allowed each state one vote for equality; unfortunately, many members would often fail to attend Congress, more concerned about what was going on in their state, therefore, the vote was not cast. Also among the states there were many disputes, especially about boundary lines.
Since the government could not set up a national currency, and states were allowed to make their own, this caused trade between states to be very difficult. In Joseph Jones letter to George Washington (DOC C), he wrote how war veterans felt mistreated when they were not paid and the pay that was earned did not have much value. Jones wrote “One ground of discontent in the army is the delay in complying with their requests.” By never giving congress the power to establish a set currency for the nation, money traded between each state had
The fact that Italy had a very limited industry and lack of an efficient infrastructure also meant that hardly any money was being created to pump into the economy to keep it running or pay for these debts. This subsequently led to high inflation, increased taxes and no money being spent on education or public services. Another major economic problem under the liberal regime was the north south divide. The fact that Italy’s economy was poor was only made worse by the north south divide in the country; this divide was to do with agriculture, industrial development and general standards of living. All of which the north fared in much better than the south.
The freight trains were in fact a problem for the farmers. Raising the rates threw the farmers off and with the depression of their business they didn’t have the money to spend to get their produce to markets anyhow. There was practically no competition with the railroad so prices could fluctuate almost however the man in charge wanted them to. When this happened, the little guy would reach an impasse. “That ruins me, do you understand?
Firstly the tsar did not help the peasants personally, but instead leave the burden to the prime ministers when they cannot rule like a democracy today. Also it leads to the growing economic problem which is a major factor in why the Romanov’s failed. The war came, the economy was shattered, and it could not last for 4 years of heavy warfare. A war in which it would not be over by Christmas as many wanted. But it wasn’t the prime ministers sole fault the agriculture failed, Russia did have four Dumas during this time and although their power was restricted, the tsar did come close to fall in power in 1905
And 80% would die within a week. Back then thay had lack of medical knowledge and they tried anything to cure the disease but nothing would work. The towns and cities faced food shortage. The outbreak had a huge impact on the field because the men who work in them was to sick to tend to the field and the crops would die. Animals that was being raised to eat went free because people was not able to tend to them.
Firstly there was lack of mass support since the Frankfurt Parliament was mostly made out of middle class people, with only one peasant and no workers. Therefore this overwhelming majority did not represent the people who were about 70% peasants. According thus to the demographics a revolution would fail because it would lack manpower, and instead of asking help from the peasants, the revolutionaries preferred to ask help from the rulers. Frankfurt Parliament has also been accused of wasting valuable time. Marxists argue that if the Parliamentarians, who were neither extreme nor violent, had taken faster action, Wilhelm IV and the other rulers would be unable to refuse the new state and its constitution.