Category Archives: Uncategorized

Document Analysis Paper

Posted on by

From the start, this paper was well written and conveyed a strong understanding of the material. The intro paragraph was clear and set an important path for the thesis. The thesis was clear and was original and thought provoking. The guidelines for an ‘A’ thesis state that it must be clearly in focus and must be an original or well-developed perspective. The thesis is kept clearly in focus throughout the paper. Each paragraph alludes to and promotes the general understanding of the thesis itself.

Throughout the paper, the logical argument is strong. Each paragraph looks at a few perspectives brought up in the topic sentence. Each paragraph allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the material without reading the sources for themselves. This is shown specifically in the paragraph that describes Catherine the Great’s reform policy before and after Pugachev’s Rebellion and how that affected the choices she made regarding foreign and domestic policies in the eighteenth century. This paragraph explains clearly to the reader what this rebellion was and how detrimental it was to Russia during Catherine’s reign. Each paragraph is organized in a logical way that provides a lot of evidence to prove the thesis.

The writing of this paper is clear, concise and the sentence structure is well formatted and constructed. “The Table of Ranks thus strived to create harmony within the nobility, which, in turn, would help to uphold a more general deference for rankings and thus establish Peter’s power as absolute and nonnegotiable.” This particular sentence not only ends the first paragraph clearly, but also refers back to the thesis and aids to prove it.  This paper does not read as a first draft and definitely sufficiently analyzes the documents “Table of Ranks”, “Statute on Provincial Administration”, “Charter to the Nobility” and “Charter to the Towns”.

The final paragraph concludes the paper extremely efficiently. It summarizes the entire analysis without being too repetitive. It also introduced new ideas that incorporated the thesis without coming off as something that needed an entire paragraph to explain. The paper as a whole was formatted properly, was very informative without being dry or repetitive, and is well deserving of an ‘A’ based off the paper’s formatting, structure and understanding of the material.

Peter I, Catherine II paper review

Posted on by

This paper I an A ranked paper for several reasons. It possesses all of the normal trimmings that are needed to insure that it can function as an academic piece; citations, indentations, correct spelling. It also includes the equally or even more important characteristic of being a well written essay. It has a clear statement of the characters that it will discuss (Peter I, Catherin I) fallowed by a brief statement of the timeframe they lived and worked. Fallowing that is the ever important evidence and a clear and concise thesis contained in one solid sentence. The thesis focuses on the actions that the paper is discussing, in this case the stratified and expanded government roles. The intentions of Peter the Great and Catherin II with their motivations for their actions. Later in the paper the author brings into the argument the evidence listed before the thesis. In order to do this a small amount of historical motivation is always included, often with some quotes. For example when discussing Peter the Great and the “Table of Ranks” the author mentions Peter’s affinity for the westernization of Russia and how that would be a significant motivator.

Once the Author has finished discussing Peter the Great they move on to Catherin II. They completely skip over any mention of the intervening monarchs deciding to spend more of their time properly explaining the relevance of Peter and Catherin. The transition from one monarchs to the next is seamless with a brief interlude discussing both monarchs for context. Thankfully at the beginning of the Catherin there is a much needed interlude explaining the context for Catherin’s actions and her legislation. The author tells us about the Pugachev rebellion in the beginning of her rule which shaped much of her domestic policy.

After explaining and elaborating on the actions and intentions of Catherin II the author turns their attention to what they have just learned. An excerpt from a noted authority starts off the conclusion telling us how the monarchs were perceived by the Russian aristocracy and public. Fallowing that is a brief conclusion stating what the evidence showed the author in their logical argument. There is little to no sugar coating, instead the author tells us that Peter the Great and Catherin II did not truly care about the people. Instead they did what the author believed them to have done and extended government.

Civilization and Die Weltanshauung

Posted on by

Three Points:

1) Weltanschauung offers a solution to all problems in existences by way of a comprehensive hypothesis and construction. That way, everything finds a place.

2) Religion is a negative influence on civilization, as it inhibits thought and exerts power over human emotions. Furthermore, religion is dismissed by Freud as outdated and ignorant.

3) Civilization progresses due to economic situations, and is comparable to an organic process. Evolution of civilization is brought on by the struggle for life of humans.

Two questions:

-Freud is highly opposed to both religion and destruction, believing that both inhibit thought and progress of civilization. Would civilization be best off without both of these things?

-Freud mentions that art and philosophy cannot be enemies to civilization. I think this point is controvertible. Can art and philosophy pose threats to society?

One observation:

Towards the end of his piece, Freud discusses the struggles that humankind is faced with. These struggles eventually aid in the progression of society. Freud writes of the struggle between life and destruction, and makes note of man’s natural tendency to be aggressive. Having written this either towards the end or directly following World War I, it seems that Freud must have been influenced by the extreme power of man’s aggression. He further explains that it is this aggression in men (which is expressed in war) opposes the development of civilization. He lived through a period of significant and powerful destruction in Europe, which led him to bring these points up.

Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

Three Points:

1. Germany was forced to surrender much of the territory they gained during the war.  They lost the territory that they gained from France and also had many other restrictions.  They also had many restrictions put on their control of the Rhine, saying “Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications” around the Rhine.  They were forced to return all of their newly controlled territories.

2. Germany was forced to disassemble their armed forces.  First of all their army was not allowed to have more than 100,000 members.  Those 100,000 members were only allowed to manage the territory and not actually invade any countries.  Along with this they were only allowed to have men in the army and not use any technology such as vehicles.

3. Germany was forced to accept all responsibility for the war.  The main aspect of this is that Germany would be forced to pay for all damage committed to the “Allied and Associated Governments”.  This put all the fault of the war on the Germans and that the “Allied and Associated Governments” recognized that Germany had to assume responsibility.

Questions:

1. Was there a less aggressive way to handle this and not put all of the blame on Germany?

2. How much of an impact did the Treaty of Versailles have on how Germany handled World War II.

Interesting Fact:

There was actually a second agreement, the Locarno Treaties in 1925 that was signed by the same group of countries that was used to fix relations with Germany.

Spengler’s “The Decline of the West”

Posted on by

3 main points

1. All cultures and traditions have a limited lifespan and all will eventually fail and give rise to a new set of traditions. Spengler supported this observation by providing examples which occurred throughout history prior to the contemporary time frame in which he wrote.

2. The future of warfare lies with paramilitary forces and contractors.

3. The groups that would overtake the dominant world powers were those which were developing in the East (India, China, and the like), those which he believed were Caesars to the West’s Napoleons. In other words, he believed those countries would be able to fight huge conflicts where the West couldn’t, or would spread themselves too thin.

Questions

Spengler bases his claims on precedent evidence throughout history. Have any of his predictions any merit? Have they come to fruition or are close to doing so?

Toward the end of this passage, he describes what will happen to Western culture: “The era of individualism, liberalism and democracy, of humanitarianism and freedom, is nearing its end. The masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them. Life will descend to a level of general uniformity, a new kind of primitivism, and the world will be better for it…..” His predictions for civilization sound anarchic/Hobbesian. Do you agree?

Observation

His predictions about Western civilization are probably a reflection on Germany’s performance during the war and its state of affairs afterwards. His claim that paramilitary forces are the future of warfare may reflect Germany’s problems with such forces at the time of his writing. Similarly, Germany’s defeat at the hands of the Allies during WWI and its subsequent change of governmental structure could have influenced his claims that Western civilization was dying because rather than accepting defeat, Germany, unlike Western cultures, was adapting to change in order to survive.

Serfdom in Russia

Posted on by

Within this particular chapter, there was one aspect that stood out to me. I was surprised at the number of types of serfs that were discussed. Prior to taking this course, I had thought that a serf was a single type of individual, and there wasn’t any differentiation because they were collectively seen as the lowest within Russia society. In addition to the serfs that most people associate with the title, there were also industrial serfs, as well as household serfs.

In the reading, the author discusses the development of “possessional factories” that were established by the state to assuage the difficulties associated with a scarce labor supply. These operations were run by merchants usually and had “possessional workers” attached to these establishments.  The book notes that in reality, these workers were really industrial serfs, meaning that instead of belonging to an individual, they belonged to a factory.

In contrast to industrial serfs, household serfs were seen as the lowest within the serf hierarchy. With no land to till, these individuals acted as domestic servants, within the master’s household. These people essentially were slaves, and were kept under constant control . However, the authors noted that some household serfs had the opportunity to rise socially, and even receive an education.

I found this aspect of the chapter to be interesting because I would like to learn more about industrial and household serfs compared to typical serfs (I’m assuming “regular” serfs constituted as the majority of serfs in Russia). For instance were there any stark contrasts between the groups that would have prevented them from unifying in a revolt? It would be interesting to find out if there were such differences, amongst the groups, and if subsequently they each had different goals or grievances.

Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. Territory– The following territories were taken away from Germany:

  • Alsace-Lorraine (given to France)
  • Eupen and Malmedy (given to Belgium)
  • Northern Schleswig (given to Denmark)
  • Hultschin (given to Czechoslovakia)
  • West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia (given to Poland)

Germany must relinquish power over any overseas colonies to the League of Nations as well as any additional territory seized in the war not mentioned above.

2. Military– Germany’s army was reduced to 100,000 men and no tanks were allowed. Germany was not allowed any airforce or submarines and only 6 capital naval ships.No german soldier was allowed in the demilitarized zone west of the Rhineland and 50 kms east of the River Rhine. The Allies were allowed to keep an occupational army on the west bank of the Rhine for the next 15 years.

3. Financial– Germany would be required to accept full responsibility for the war, and therefore must pay reperations for any damage caused by the war to civilian property (most of which would go to France and Belgium to pay for the damage done to their infrastructure). Germany would not be permitted to unite with Austria, for fear this would help improve the diminished German economy.

Questions:

1. Was the Treaty of Versailles an appropriate and sensible way to ensure that Germany did not pose a military threat in the future?

2. Did the Treaty of Versailles subsidize the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Did it make way for facism?

Observations:

1. The Treaty did not completely crush Germany nor did it attempt to bring Germany into the League of Nations. I found it interesting that the League of Nations understood they could not crush Germany entirely but did not understand the repercussions that would surely ensue from such strict and oppressive guidlines regarding German land, military, and economy.

2. The Treaty essentially ensures that no “spoils” from the war stay in German hands and were in turn given to the countries participant in the League of Nations.

3. I think it is also important to envisage the sentiments of internationalism, national and global security, unity and collaboration, as well as prevention of conflict and total war while reading this document, as they were prominent notions shared by the end of the war.

Keynesian Economics

Posted on by

3 Points:

Keynes compares the livelihood of Europe before and after the war. He boasts about how self-sufficient Europe was, with the population secured for itself with dedicated organization and steady income of supplies. He believes the disruption of this system has contributed to the decline in livelihood.

To follow his first point, Keynes warns the population of the lurking danger of the rapid decline in the standard of living that will leave people starved, as well as mentally and physically disabled. He fears that the population’s distress will eventually disrupt the organization and lead individuals to doing whatever they can in order to satisfy their own desires.

Keynes notes that Germany, which was once an abundant agricultural state, has become completely dependent on industry. Following the economic depression, Germany will have suffered the loss of foreign investments and will be unable to import from abroad, which will ultimately lead to the diminishing of food and lives.

 2 Questions

Why does Keynes believe those who sign the Treaty are essentially “signing the death sentence of millions of German men, women and children?”

Whom or what does Keynes blame for Europe’s growing insufficiencies?

Interesting

It is clear that Keynes is vehemently against the treaty, however, I find it rather strange that he offers no possible solutions or resolutions to the problems he addresses.

18th Century Serfdom

Posted on by

Something that stood out to me in this chapter was the quote by Sumner at the beginning of the reading.  He states that serfdom lasted longer in Russia than in the West because “humanitarian and other ideas of the value of the individual spirit were little developed.”  It is strange to attempt to reconcile that fact that Catherine the Great set up a Noble Wardship and a Bureau of Public Welfare for the peasants but that she was also the monarch responsible for entrenching serfdom the most.  I understand that there was a division between peasants and serfs, but I do not agree with Sumner’s statement.  I think that in Russia, at least on a theoretical level, there was a conception of individual rights and social duty.  In the “Charter to the Towns” for example, the merchants were granted private property based on their individual right and under law.  Obviously the concept of individual rights applied more to the upper classes than to the peasants, but I would go as far to say that serfdom became so important because of the new Enlightenment value placed on the individual.  The serfs became the patrimony of the nobles and the merchants because the upper classes were entitled to them by virtue of being a human with an inalienable right to property.  It is hard to apply humanitarian and spiritual concerns to a group of people barely considered human by law.

On a related note, I was surprised to learn that merchant run factories had the ability to own their own peasants as “industrial serfs.”  I do not think of Russian factories at this time period to be mechanized enough to support unskilled labor and had assumed that there would be more unindustrialized craft involved.

The Economic and Social Development of Russia in the Eighteenth Century.

Posted on by

Serfdom lasted much longer in Russia than in other Western countries because of the economic disadvantages Russia faced. As a result of Peter the Great and the developments he made to the social and economic structures. However, there still seemed to be a huge separation between the nobility and wealthy upper class and the peasants. It seemed that during this time, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer, even clergy lost the status they once had. Clergy became poorer as they lost more revenue and were taxed more and lost land to accommodate for the immense changes being made to the general structure of the empire. Catherine the Great’s empire grew in numbers and in strength and power, however the tsars of Imperial Russia began spending outside of their means to promote the Russian Enlightenment.

In this class, most of the material we’ve read focused mainly on the nobility and upper classes so it was interesting to read a bit more on the lower classes and the struggles they went through while the nobility and upper classes experienced the Russian Enlightenment. Which makes me question how many people were actually affected by the Russian Enlightenment and how was the response to it? How many peasants and lower class citizens aware of the tsar and was there any real contact between the two classes? And how aware were the tsars of the great difference between the lower and upper classes and was there anything really done to rectify it?