Categories the Chinese Revolution the

¶ … Categories THE CHINESE REVOLUTION The 1911 Chinese Revolution marked the end of the monarchic system in the country. Historian Arnold Toynbee argues that the revolution that broke out was a pending evolution of the political scene in China and "the over through of the Manchu dynasty was a normal event in Chinese history. (...) the new element in the Chinese revolution of 1911 was that the deposed dynasty was replaced, not by a new dynasty, but by an exotic regime inspired by the western ideology of liberal democracy.

This new fact put this 20th century Chinese revolution into the same category as the English and French revolutions or the abortive liberal democratic revolution in Russia in 1917." (Toynbee, 1967, 1) However, despite the change in the political regime, there was minor if no evolution at the social level. Still, the causes of the revolution, along with the different distinct perspectives of the intellectual on the one hand, as well as the state of the common peasant in the 1900 are important for having a clear image of the actual events.

Finally, the failure to determine social evolution must be seen in the wider context of the revolution. The main cause of the events that took place in China focused in the first place on the political scene. The revolution was the reaction of the people to a failed political system. The monarchy was no longer an authority in the state. It lacked an important figure that could impose respect over its subjects.

Consequently, the officials proposed and placed in office in the provinces were as well weak characters that could not have control over the events taking place at the local level. Therefore, an increased sense of decentralization emerged, which influenced the independence attempts that manifested constantly during the first decade of the 20th century. Another cause that speeded the popular rise consisted in the social and economic shortcomings of the system.

Because of the increased level of corruption in the administrative mechanism, the local population and especially peasants were forced to endure a drastic system of taxes, often set without any due regard to the poor situation of the gentry. Moreover, the beginning of the 20th century saw a rapid increase in the number of population. This phenomenon was combined with the restricted access of the commoners to landownership, because of the concentration of land in the hands of few powerful landowners.

Therefore, the living conditions were precarious and they became a stringent reason for popular discontent. These multiple aspects of the reality of early 20th century China affected intellectuals and peasants alike. Therefore, on the one hand, students in particular, those who were given the possibility to enter in contact with western cultures changed their mentalities. They became either completely disappointed with the monarchic regime or tried to change it, or they adopted a revolutionary attitude.

This was largely due to the great discrepancies between the underdeveloped Chinese society and the modern western ones. Moreover, their attitude was also a reaction to the continuous discriminatory practices they were subject to in the West. The democratic ideas that were governing the French or the American societies also influenced the Chinese students and intellectuals in such a manner as to provoke their application in their country as well. On the other hand, the situation of the peasants was rather dramatic.

They had been oppressed for centuries by the monarchic rule. However, now, it was the aristocratic power that practiced numerous taxes and levies, leaving the peasants without a constant income. The final results of the revolution are worthy of notice because of their impact on the political system. The monarchic rule came to an end; still, the was little change at the local level, seeing that provincial landowners had their privileges practically unchanged.

The revolution was considered to be a failure from a social point-of-view because there was little change in the living conditions of the peasants in particular. Taxes remained almost unchanged, as they were still being oppressed. The main reason for this lack of result was the limited nature of the revolution, as it manifested mostly in the Wuhan region and therefore lacked the national impact needed for enterprising such an important change in the social order.

Overall, the revolution can be seen as an important step in the evolution of the Chinese state, from a decayed weak monarchy to a young republic, which, one the late 40s revolution, would become a communist republic. THE TREATY of VERSAILLES The League of Nations was meant to be, by its drafters, the catalyst that offered the proper environment for communication and open diplomacy. However, the Second World War proved the limits and in the end failure of the League system.

There have been numerous analyses over the reasons that determined the collapse of the League and its idealistic values. The rejection by the U.S. Congress of the Treaty and therefore the absence of the strongest state at the time to offer military guarantees was the most important shortcoming of the system envisaged by the president of the U.S. himself.

Because of the bitter rivalry that existed between the Democrats, now in minority in the legislative body, and the winning Republicans, after the loss of the Democratic majority in both Houses, being he was the only one of the leading statesmen at Paris who did not command a legislative majority in his own country." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 38), the matter of the signing of the Covenant translated into an issue of domestic policy rather than national foreign policy.

In this sense, Wilson accused Senator Lodge of opposing the plans of the League, and condemned the Senate for "refusing to sign the Treaty merely because it was the product of Democratic statesmanship, thus interposing partisan envy and personal hatred in the way of peace, and renewed prosperity in the world." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 47) Indeed, the Congress, after regaining the majority wanted to be again the one to decide on the course of foreign policy.

Another reason that would explain the refusal to sign the Treaty is given by the rejection of a position that would implicate the U.S. internationally because the historical tradition of the U.S. relied heavily on the tendency towards isolationism.

In this sense, "many historians argue that Americans wished to return to what President Harding called 'normalcy' the result of the slump in idealism which naturally follows in the wake of war." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 47) Yet another reason for the republicans to reject the signing of the Treaty lied in the philosophical perception of attaining peace. While Wilson strongly believed that peace in the world could be reached without the need of military confrontation, the republicans looked at this perspective with dismay.

Lodge even pointed out that idealist loyalists somehow wished "to have the world's peace assured by force without using force to do it." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 48) The major objections of the Congress focused especially on Article 10 of the Fourteen Points presented by Wilson to the Senate. According to it, the U.S. would, in the framework of the League, place itself available for enforcing peace in the world, through deployment of forces, in case of military aggression on one of the member states.

Cabot Lodge, on addressing this issue, argued that the nation must not be obligated to "put the soldiers and sailors at the disposition of other nations." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 49) in his turn, Wilson stood behind his proposal, arguing that it represents the essence of every political guarantee and it is "the very backbone of the whole Covenant." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 50) Historians have agreed that Wilson had a rather inappropriate approach to the debate and the arguments.

His aggressive defense of the Covenant, according to Schlesinger, brought along its defeat in the Senate, because it left no room for reaching common ground with the Republicans on this matter.(Schlesinger, 2003,) No matter the conditions in which the Senate rejected the Treaty, the reasons that stood at the basis of its decision, or the actual matter they disagreed upon, the refusal to enter the League proved to be decisive for the failure of its actions. THE BOLSCHEVIK REVOLUTION The revolutionary phenomenon in Russia manifested itself in a two-folded event.

In the first instance, the overthrow of the Romanovs destroyed the monarchic rule, and afterwards, the establishment of the revolutionary control of the Bolsheviks set the environment for the creation of the U.S.S.R. In 1921. Still, both instances influenced the actors of the society and had an important impact on the future evolution of the situation in the country. The most important cause of the revolution, as any event of this kind, was the breakup with the former political order.

(Toynbee, 1967, 2) Communist views consider that the revolution is the only means available for creating change. Therefore, in order for the country to shift its political direction, the destruction of the former one was essential. This became a reality with the killing of the tsar in 1918. The death of the tsar was the visible reaction to a series of underlining causes that would eventually encourage the raise to power of a political ideology that addressed these issues and offered political and propagandistic solutions.

The social situation of the populations was rather grim during the tsar's regime. Russia had been engaged in the First World War effort and the condition of the soldiers was disastrous. Similarly, the peasants often were subjected to oppressive taxes in order for the regime to be able to financially support the war effort. Aside from the social causes of the revolution, there were also political aspects that determined the fall of the tsar and the subsequent establishment of the communist regime.

Thus, the authoritarian imperial rule opposed the visions of politicians such as the Bolshevik leader Trotsky. He was seen as the leader of those revolting against the oppressive rule of the bourgeoisies who was enjoying a wide range of privileges while the rest of the population was on the limit of starvation. The success of the revolution and of the establishment of a new political rule depended on the way in which its leaders managed to rally popular support in favor of their cause.

Thus, it was Lenin that exploited the idea of class differentiation and the need of the proletariat to fight the capitalists. Workers were called to unite in an international workers' organization that would promote solidarity among the members of the working class. In their turn, peasants were stimulated to support the socialist cause through different propagandistic slogans such as those related to land and support for agricultural activities.

Indeed, the communist doctrine, in terms of political initiatives, was based on the idea of a powerful financial and public assistance for the population. Therefore, both workers and farmers expected financial help from the state, once the rule of the oligarchy would be ended with the revolution. Lenin and the other leaders of the revolution applied different techniques for attracting the support of the masses.

These included propaganda and slogans such as "Bread, Land, Peace and All Power to the Soviets" thus addressing exactly the essential worries of the people: the need for food, for property of land, for an end to the war and for total political control in the hands of the people. Overall, the Russian revolution was a turning point in the history of the European continent and of the world as a whole. It represented the emergence of a new perspective on the political and social organization of the state.

At the same time, it offered the theoretical and propagandistic solution for a society marked by years of war, financial misery, and oppressive rule. The establishment of the U.S.S.R. In 1921 can be seen, from this perspective, as the natural outcome of the revolution. THE NEW DEAL The New Deal program gave birth to a lot of controversy when it was first presented on March 4, 1933, in Washington.

This was largely due to the complex measures it envisaged for the recovery of the American economy that had just suffered the most dramatic economic clash in its history in 1929. The measures undertaken by President Roosevelt were the subject of heated debate because they marked the acceptance of the fact that economic liberalism in its purest form was no longer available for the society of the time and, on the other hand, it opened the door for the evolution of a more protectionist state authority.

The term of New Deal describes the period in American history from 1933 up to 1938. It comprised the set of policies promoted by the Democrats in order to redress the economic situation in America following the 1929 crach. According to most authors, there are two distinctive periods generally subscribed.