That is correct. As to the Belgian Revolution: there were several national revolts, following the Julirevolution's example in France, but the causes of these were local/national - in the case of Belgium the mentioned pro-Dutch policy caused a lot of bad blood.
History questions not worth their own thread
- Thread starter philippe
- Start date
- Status
That is correct. As to the Belgian Revolution: there were several national revolts, following the Julirevolution's example in France, but the causes of these were local/national - in the case of Belgium the mentioned pro-Dutch policy caused a lot of bad blood.
Yared
That Guy
@Harvin: Have you tried Google Books?
Harvin87
The Youth
thanks for the suggestion ... I think... I'll head to the library . . . precisely what I didn't want because of time issues .. 
Kolokotronis is who I was thinking of. Bandit or not, he had some popular support.
Does anybody think that a discussion of the global trend towards protectionism between ~1870 and the end of World War II is too broad a topic for a not-particularly-in-depth introductory economic history term paper?
If I was writing it, probably not. However, you do have an ability to fill pages upon pages on even the most minor obscure topics.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
You'd have to talk in generalities and only pull in a few specific examples if you don't want it to be too long of a paper, but it is possible. The only things that make me hesitate are the scope (the entire world, more or less) and the timeframe (since 1870). Also, weren't there instances of protectionism before 1870? Was protectionism after that period different?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
1870 is an interesting starting point. You're missing the Jeffersonian/federalist debates over protectionism, and also the Corn Laws in Britain.
It wouldn't be the entire world, but mostly Europe and the United States, and of those, probably restricted to the Great Powers, plus possibly Canada. Which, admittedly, is still rather broad. But since the course itself is an introductory one (as far as economic history goes) I'd be uneasy about getting much more precise.
If the date were moved earlier, I'd have to deal with the massive trade liberalization in Europe that began with the British abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846. 1870 means that the trend is more or less uniform.
Harvin87
The Youth
I have learned to limit myself when writing university papers.The Schlieffen Plan history article that I've never finished is about twice as long as the paper that spawned it...
can I read your Schlieffen Plan article?
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
Yes. The 1914-1918 War is more than a discontinuity in a single trend; it is a punctuation between two different worlds. The protectionism of the post-war world is different in both scope and intent from the 1870-1914 period. Government revenue needs, strategic materials control, immigration laws, money itself, the conceived role of industry within the state -- all these things suffered fundamental changes in their nature.
Quackers
The Frog
Why did Sergi Witte's industrial expansion fail? I've seen the figures and increases in output were not very significant from about 1890 - 1900. I assume it's because of the "state-capitalist" direction - the free-market's magic wasn't allowed to work...
meh thats all i got and it's an idealogical bit at best. we were not given many sources on him
meh thats all i got and it's an idealogical bit at best. we were not given many sources on him
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Sergei Witte's policies were tremendously effective. IIRC Russia's relative economic growth during this period exceeded that of Germany, while a very major factor in the economic limits of it had more to do with drastic political upheavel and military defeat during this period.
"State-capitalism" is actually very effective at promoting industry. Look at China. Sergei Witte was vas very successful, as PCH says. But Russia was already crumbling, so that definitely detracted from the success of the programme.Why did Sergi Witte's industrial expansion fail? I've seen the figures and increases in output were not very significant from about 1890 - 1900. I assume it's because of the "state-capitalist" direction - the free-market's magic wasn't allowed to work...
meh thats all i got and it's an idealogical bit at best. we were not given many sources on him
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Crumbling in what way? It's unfortunately simplifying and very whigghish that we tend to look at it as just an issue of decline. While it was politically tottering, it was at teh same time asserting itself again on the world stage. In fact, I think theres a lot to be said about Neil Ferguson's thesis that rapid economic growth actually caused Russia to be politically unstabilized and vulnerable.
Such economic growth often does. Look at Ching China. It collapsed after it reversed its policy on reform and started industrialising and reforming its political system.
I was referring to Russia's seemingly endemic problems with peasant issues and it's increasingly poor military performance in the period. Of course, I'm no expert on the period, but at a glance they do seem to have been taking one step forward and ten steps back.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
True, the agrarian question of lack of land for the peasants was a major thing in destabilization of the empire. The only solution to it was forced partial governmental takeover of the aristocracy's lands - something that that the majority of the aristocracy and the Tsar would've never agreed to.
Quackers
The Frog
I found my old Russian book on the era and it appears your right Russian economic growth was impressive during this peroid. tyvm anywayz
- Status
