History questions not worth their own thread

[Agent327]

Ok, good, good. But uh... King William I of the Netherlands is of the House of Oranje... He is a descendant of the Prince of Orange and all the other Stadholders. And the 1830 Revolution was inspired by Louis-Philippe more than anyone else.

No, what he's saying is that the Netherlands never got a king until 1814-5. He wasn't talking about the king's national origin.

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]

@Harvin: Have you tried Google Books?

 

[Harvin87]

thanks for the suggestion ... I think... I'll head to the library . . . precisely what I didn't want because of time issues ..

 

[Lord Baal]

Weren't any candidates. Kolokotronis might've been the most serious but frankly he was just a bandit. None of the Ypsilantis were realistic kings. And the first Greek Republic had just kicked off right before the Great Powers decided to make the place a kingdom, but its elder statesman kinda got assassinated.

Kolokotronis is who I was thinking of. Bandit or not, he had some popular support.

 

[Dachs]

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?

 

[Tee Kay]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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...

 

[Louis XXIV]

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]

1870 is an interesting starting point. You're missing the Jeffersonian/federalist debates over protectionism, and also the Corn Laws in Britain.

 

[Dachs]

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?

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.

1870 is an interesting starting point. You're missing the Jeffersonian/federalist debates over protectionism, and also the Corn Laws in Britain.

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]

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]

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?

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.

 

[Yui108]

I think 1918-1939 would be more interesting. An essay on the quad-polar world of finance between the Sterling group led by Britain, the gold group led by France,the dollar group led by America, and the Communists.

 

[Quackers]

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]

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.

 

[Lord Baal]

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

"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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

 

[Lord Baal]

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]

I was referring to Russia's seemingly endemic problems with peasant issues

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]

I found my old Russian book on the era and it appears your right Russian economic growth was impressive during this peroid. tyvm anywayz