Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

[VetLegion]

I've always disliked the usual explanations of revolutions. They're explained with people being fed up with the rulers, overtaxed, hungry and what not.

IMHO they've been that for most of history and in most places.

I'd like to know how you rate the "inevitability" of these three revolutions:

1. The American

2. The French

3. The Russian

Had to happen, 80-20, 50-50, an accident?

[VetLegion]

Here is my ranking:

American: had to happen. As we've witnessed in South America, Canada and Australia: Colonies Become Independent. We can cosider that a historical rule - if we ever establish a colony on Mars, it will gain political independence as soon as possible. We will want to control their oxygen, but I'm going off topic.

French: 50-50. Things were brewing in pre-revolutionary France, but the complete toppling of the Regime? Don't tell me the harvests were bad, they weren't the first bad harvests in France. I think the chances of the sweeping French revolution as it happened weren't that big.

Russian: 20-80. I consider the rise of Bolshevism in Russia a historical accident, something that shouldn't have happened. If we had the possibility to rewind to new year 1917 and play it back from there, October revolution would happen in 2 out of 10 times we tried.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Here is my ranking:

American: had to happen. As we've witnessed in South America, Canada and Australia: Colonies Become Independent. We can cosider that a historical rule - if we ever establish a colony on Mars, it will gain political independence as soon as possible. We will want to control their oxygen, but I'm going off topic.

French: 50-50. Things were brewing in pre-revolutionary France, but the complete toppling of the Regime? Don't tell me the harvests were bad, they weren't the first bad harvests in France. I think the chances of the sweeping French revolution as it happened weren't that big.

Russian: 20-80. I consider the rise of Bolshevism in Russia a historical accident, something that shouldn't have happened. If we had the possibility to rewind to new year 1917 and play it back from there, October revolution would happen in 2 out of 10 times we tried.

agreed American independence in SOME form is a certaingty. But not necessarily via revolution. If the OTL Am Rev is avoided, its POSSIBLE, though not certain, that a later revolution doesnt happen, and America becomes a "dominion" (though the path probably is sooner, and rockier, than OTL Canada) Also some small chance of the empire being run from this side of the Atlantic.

French - I cant disagree. Last serious book I read on it was Schama, who is definitely in the "it didnt have to happen" school. Though some of his arguments are a bit stretched, I thought when I read it.


Russia - I do disagree. Russia from 1905 has mucho problems, and despite economic growth, it hasnt achieved a stable social or political settlement, IIUC. While its possible that it will peacefully become a constitutional monarchy, or that absolutism under the Romanovs will survive, Id say its at least 80-20 that there will be a violent regime change. Which doesnt mean Bolshevism of course. Could be an SR type peasant revolution with urban workers playing a lesser role, could be a liberal Cadet revolution, could be a right wing overthrow of the monarchy (admittedly not likely in the circumstances of 1905-1914, but I think a POD wouldnt be that hard) or simply a violent change of dynasty.

[BeBMan]

I see them as results of failures of the ruling elite(s). If they had to happen - IMO it depends when/where you start. For example Russia went through the so-called "Great Reforms" in the 1860ies (serfdom abolished, reforms in education systems, military, law, etc, etc.) which introduced many "enlightened" principles. A lot was done, some things didn't work too well, but things started moving. But there were major contradictions in there, like wanting some kind of a modern civil society and keeping autocratic rule at the same time.

It's actually hard to say if more successful reforms back then would have prevented later revs. When the problems became bigger some kind of aristocratic counter-revolution followed in the late 19th century which meant that much needed reforms weren't done anymore.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by VetLegion
I've always disliked the usual explanations of revolutions. They're explained with people being fed up with the rulers, overtaxed, hungry and what not.

IMHO, revolutions are a reaction to overreaching or just plain bad govering by a government which is not subject to peaceful change.

F'instance, the colonial charters in America provided that the colonies were to tax themselves. King George & the Tories, facing an empty treasury at the end of the 7 Years War decided to overstep their bounds and tax the colonies. & KaBoom! If the British would have backed off like the Whigs wanted them to, the U.S. would still be speaking English today.

France was friggin' bankrupt. Louis XV spent a fortune building fortresses around the periphery of France to fend off its enemies and build the Midi Canal. Then the French lost the 7 Years War and with it the most profitable colonies. Then they finacially supported the American Revolution. So, they ended up without a sou. This meant the people starved, while Mdm Pompedor was given a hugely expensive necklace. A well run government could have avoided these pitfalls.

(BTW: The Revolution in France sought to install a constitutional monarchy, like in Britain. The vote whether to find Louis guilty of treason came late in the Revolution and won by a single vote.)

The Russian Revolutin arose from a trampled on people, from a Czarist regime that was isolated and led the country into a disasterous war, and from a dedicated group of firebrands.

In sum, Revolutions arise when governments are disconnected with their people, and when the governments refuse to change. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

[BeBMan]

I also think that the three revolutions mentioned in the OP did not only happen due to outside factors (like bad economy, taxes, hunger etc.), but that those factors together with the "availability" of certain ideas (enlightenment, marxism/communism) and a wide spread feeling of a "bankruptcy" of the old ruling elite (not only economically, but also ideologically, morally etc.) lead to these revs as we know them.

[Kropotkin]

The october revolution in Russia was more of a coup than a revolution. A coup more the result of a revolution that couldn't solve the countries problem and - more importantly - couldn't or wouldn't defend itself.

I'm of the opinion that most revolutions is the result of a polarized society, where neither side is strong enough to crush the other. Moderates are replaced by radicals on all sides as the conflict gets worse. Sooner or later the conflict reaches a point of no return where there's no room for compromises any more.

When the reasons behind conflict is all to obvious, it's often to late to find a peaceful solution - at that point it seems like inevitable that the conflict will end with blood.

Look at many european countries in the 20s and 30s, like Germany and Spain for example.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that in order to avoid an American Revolution the British would have to have done everything almost to the colonies' liking, and that wasn't going to happen. Most peole don't realise how unimportant the continental colonies were to Great Britain. The British made more money off of a few islands in the Caribbean than they did off of the 13 colonies. The whole of the Caribbean was several times more important economically. Consequently it was simply very unlikely that the royal government was going to pamper some obnoxious backwater colonists. Someone would have had to convince the King and the Parliament that they stood to profit more by encouraging the 13 colonies to grow but no one really understood the potential of continental North America and Franklin wasn't disposed to that kind of argument.

There was a distinct possibility that the colonials could have lost. If a lucky bullet had struck down George Washington I think that would have happened. Under such circumstances the American colonies likely revolt when the UK liberates the empire's slaves.

The likelihood of a French Revolution I believe rests upon both the economic situation in France, but also on the success of the American Revolution. If the American Revolution had never occured or had failed I think that the intelligentsia would never have been bold enough to force their will upon the King. If the upper and middle classes of France did not have the model of the American Revolution to look upon then they would not have been predisposed to side with the plebians, so even if the famine and economic depression had triggered a popular uprising then the most likely result would have been an exchange of crowns instead of an attempt to found a constitutional monarchy.

The Russain October Revolution was largely the result of Russia's continued participation in a disasterous war. If the government had managed a truce before October 1917 a Soviet revolution might have been avoided, but that wsan't going to happen. I think the Russian revolution was nearly inevitable.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
There was a distinct possibility that the colonials could have lost.

We should have lost so many times, it's hard to count:

1) Washington's evacuation of Long Island was covered by a fortuitous fog.

2) Washington shouldn't have been able to make it off Manhattan either.

3) If Howe would have vigorously pursued Washington across New Jersey, the colonials could have been destroyed.

4) Congress wanted to replace Washington with that idiot Gates, a moved that would have doomed the colonies.

5) Washington exceeded his powers by promising his troops $10 each to sign on for another month, which led to the victory at Princeton.

6) Washington has something like 5 horses shot out from under him.

7) If Howe would have marched north to meet Burgoine rather than taking Philadelphia, the surrender at Saratoga would have never happened.

8) Cornwallis's plan to bring his main force to bear in our rear at Cowpens was twarted by a rainstorm.

9) Greene ran Cornwallis's army ragged, evading battle time and time, when any battle would have destroyed the colonials.

10) Washington knew his troops would desert rather than to march from New York to Yorktown because they hadn't been paid in more than a year. Only a loan from DeGrasse got the men moving.

11) DeGrasse should have never been able to get passed the British fleet and blockade Yorktown.

12) Cornwallis's plan to use small boats the breakout of Yorktown would have worked but for a fortuitous gale.

13) When the first courier arrived at Congress with news of the victory at Yorktown, members of Congress were so disbeliving that they had him thrown in jail for being drunk. When the second courier arrived with the news in Washington's handwriting, Congress believed him. They voted to pay his expenses but then learned the U.S. Treasury didn't have enough money in it. So, they passed the hat among themselves.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The likelihood of a French Revolution I believe rests upon both the economic situation in France, but also on the success of the American Revolution. If the American Revolution had never occured or had failed I think that the intelligentsia would never have been bold enough to force their will upon the King. If the upper and middle classes of France did not have the model of the American Revolution to look upon then they would not have been predisposed to side with the plebians, so even if the famine and economic depression had triggered a popular uprising then the most likely result would have been an exchange of crowns instead of an attempt to found a constitutional monarchy.

IMO that's highly debatable, for many reasons. One being - if the French couldn't pull off such a revolution without a foreign model, how could others have been able to do so, notably those Americans.

[Kuciwalker]

The Americans didn't pull off such a revolution, theirs was distinctly different from the French Revolution.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
We should have lost so many times, it's hard to count:

That's a very interesting list. And it's definitely true that the British had the advantage over us in just about every way. But if you study any war enough, will you not find similar random details that could swing it one way or the other?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Americans didn't pull of such a revolution, theirs was distinctly different from the French Revolution.

Technically, it should be the American Rebellion. We weren't trying to replace the govenment (like the French did) but rather to rebell from it and set up our own government.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Americans didn't pull off such a revolution, theirs was distinctly different from the French Revolution.

Which would only reinforce my point.....

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Revolutions - Inevitable or...?

Originally posted by Zkribbler

F'instance, the colonial charters in America provided that the colonies were to tax themselves. King George & the Tories, facing an empty treasury at the end of the 7 Years War decided to overstep their bounds and tax the colonies.

Not true.

The Crown had had the right to tax colonies; it's a piece of Benjamin Franklin's propaganda that this previously had not been the case.

Given his employment as an agent of the British government, Franklin had both opportunity and experience to know better, but was 'economical with the actualite' , to quote another British civil servant.

Colonials had simply been ignoring or bypassing many previous attempts at taxation, and had still been trading with French colonies in the West Indies when Great Britain was at war with France.

The Revolution in France was inevitable in some respects- having taken away the possibility of aristocratic revolts by bringing provincial lords and ladies to Versailles, the French Crown and government was prey to inertia and complacency and Louis XVI was not the sort of king who recognised warning signs.

The philosophes and encyclopedists had taken much of their inspiration for liberties and rights from English examples- not entirely surprising given the safe exile in England afforded French intellectuals and dissidents who upset the monarchy at home.