What makes a revolution unstoppable?
Where do you think the point of no return was in a revolution you have studied?
once someone actually gets killed by the gov or rebels shit usually hits the fan
Russian revolution
Point of no return was 1905. Once given democracy they tried to vote out the monarchy twice. They were fucked beyond repair.
French revolution was actually pretty peaceful, people still loved the king and everything
Too bad he tried to flee the country
>>1
I only know a little about these three revolutions, but to start off i'll make my cases.
>English Civil War:
Once Charles I ignored Parliament completely and attacked the Scots the revolution was inevitable - there was no longer any hope of reconciliation and the two parties were now forced to fight each other for survival.
>American War Of Independence
The formation of the Sons of Liberty and other interstate organisations. Previously the rebellious elements were fractious and disconnected, but once they began to interlink and co-ordinate the Revolution really got going.
>French Revolution
The Tennis Court Oath was the first official and supported act of direct insurrection, I believe, and was done publically no less. This ensured that there was no going back and set the stage for the first wave of the revolution.
>>1704
perhaps the first wave of the revolution was peaceful, but I doubt you could say that about the overthrow of the Constituional Monarchy and the Terror.
>>1798
It turned prety ugly when the austrians got involved
In Irish history, it was when they executed the leaders of the Easter Rising. This swung popular support massively in favour of Nationalists and politicised a lot of people who would have previously been quite neutral. This was actually their plan all along and was inspired by the idea of a blood sacrifice. They knew any rebellion would be a military failure, but the hope was their deaths would invigorate the nation, and it worked. A somewhat similiar thing happened after Bloody Sunday in the early 70s.
I'd say the southamerican revolutions were unavoidable once napoleon deposed the spanish king for a while, the ammount of pent up tension was far too big to hold it if the royal institutions got shaken up.
>>1559
point of no return for russia was assassination of alexander ii, no one else was going to let the serfs free slowly and manageable, this is what i think is the major primary cause of the revolution
>>2428
What do you think the better thing to have done would have been?
>>2594
No. At that point it was a minority group of extremists who killed him. Not a socio-economic movement.
>>2717
i'm not talking about the short term effects of his assassination or the political instability at the time of the assassination. i'm saying that i believe if alexander hadn't been assassinated the revolution wouldn't of happened. he was strong enough to just be overthrown like nicholas was but he was open enough to reform that once the serfs we made free he would of modernized as western europe had done, and avoid the catastrophical rash behaviour of the government in 1905 .
i agree with you that the revolution as we know it kicked off mainly in 1905, but at the same time russia became kind of stable between 1909-1912 because of stolypins land reforms and other policies he enacted to give the citizenry what they wanted.
don't even get me started on ww1
>>3145
>he was strong enough to NOT just be overthrown
sorry
>>1421
I studied the Russian and French Revolutions in school and it seems like once the old government lose the support of the army it's over. In France royal soldiers helped storm the bastille while in Russia in 1905 they held the army but in 1917 they were sick of the Tsar's shit an it was all over then.
>>1559
Were they good guys? Did they dindu nuffin?
>>3373
It's like in Chinese history: soldiers weren't even officially considered part of their caste system, but in reality every single dynasty relied on military support. Every regime in history relied on the support of men with big, pointy sticks.
>>3481
Nah, Nicky was a reactionary douchebag in a time when monarchies were already outdated.
>>3481
>/his/ is becoming /pol/ already
no, not like this
please god, i thought i would have more time!
>>3551
More /int/ with a little mix of /pol/.
>>3551
Well besides the meme, it was a legitimate question.
>>3536
nick never wanted to be tsar, he dindu nuffin
>>3145
Had he not been assassinated he may even had implemented a constitution. In fact IIRC he was working on it in the day he was killed.
>>3732
i think he was 48 hours away from announcing the opening of the first dumas to the public when he was assassinated, it's widely believed he would of slowly transitioned to a constitutional monarchy over time had he not been killed.
>>3916
Yep, it would have been interesting to see how the public, and especially the nobility would have reacted to this. His death certainly marks the end of non-nationalistic policies and a beginning of mass russification.
better yet, which countries have never had a revolution
>>4522
The Principality of Sealand
hey did they take off nametags or something?
>>3145
He had an unsigned constitution on his desk and he was never going to sign it.
>>3481
Nicholas was shit
Everything from his coronation to abdication was a disaster
>>4672
NOT A REAL NATION
SEALANDFAGS BTFO
>>3481
Nicky was pretty incompetent. Still quite rude to shoot his entire family to be honest
>>3481
Nicholas Romanov had some redeaming qualities but absolutely none in regards to leadership. He was dedicated to his family and willing to sit down and have a talk with just about anyone at least once, but at the same time he was stubbornly unwavering in his belief of his own divine right to rule and was almost certainly aware of and possibly even leader of The Black Hundreds, a group devoted to oppressing Jews and carrying out pogroms. He also had no sense for, training in, or innate ability to lead. I think he purposely wasn't taught for some reason though, his sister wrote in a letter "Nicky should have been taught to rule and he wasn't!"
His wife was a total loon and their son was too young to judge but their daughters seem to have been very sharp, devoted and forward thinking. During the war they even worked as nurses, there was probably at least one decent Tsarina among them.
Nicholas was incompetent but also had to deal with hard circumstances, his regime never looked hopeful but he directly made a bad situation worse.
What causes a revolution to either devolve into the same shit the old government did or become successful?
>>4993
Quality post.
>not being sarcastic
I'd argue that it isn't once a revolutionary is killed, which has happened constantly throughout American history. But when the revolutionaries win an actual victory against the government.
I'd argue that the worst thing a government can do to quell a revolution is legitimize it
Like calling it a "revolution"
>>4993
Yup
>>3481
>Father planned to teach him nothing about being emperor until he was 30
>Father died when he was 26
He was unlucky.
>>5021
A revolution needs 3 things IMO
Motivation
Organisation
Military power
if any one of these things is lacking the regime will collapse into the old order
Anyone want to discuss the Haitian revolution?
No other country fascinates me so much desu
>>5539
desu to you too senpai~~
>>5233
No, father was dumbass. His pro Russian, anti western, and anti liberal policies are what drove the revolutionary from being minority extremists into a cultural movement
>>4943
though I can understand why it was done, with all of his relatives dead there could be no hope for a restoration
French, Russian, American and English CW were all started by Masons and the international lender cabal
>>5539
>Haitian revolution?
it was useless
just look at haiti now
french should have attacked again to kill them then populate with their people
>>5539
I know nothing about it. Care to give an overview?
and ignore the poltard
>>1421
How is it that now a days revolutions are almost non excistant in most shitty countries? Whats the fierence between now and then?
>>6220
The most obvious is that there was no food in the months before the French revolution. There is now in industrialized and newly industrialized countries. Developing countries that still have problems with famine often don't have enough of a government to rebel against.
>>6322
Just do what the "subversive elements" did back then and force a famine to undermine the status quo
>>6220
internatial aid generally means that things never get to a revolutionary level.
if the international community supports the regime, it aint toppling.
That said, revolutions nowadays are extremely common, so I dont know what youre talking about. what about Libya? The Arab Spring?
Note that the libyians had tried to rebel in the past but failed - the reason they succeeded a few years ago was BECAUSE the international community deserted Gaddaffi and he was left without support.
>>6220
The difference is that every single third world country is a puppet nation of a first world
>>6155
I agree that Haiti is in a bad state now, but the entire country fascinates me more than anything. The culture, the architecture, the food, the location...
>>6193
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Culture_of_Haiti
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Haiti
i'm a lil too lazy to write sorry
>>6439
Because of globalization, collapsing the food market of one country would mean having to collapse the food supply of the entire world, or cutting off that country from the world market. It's not as simple as just forcing a local famine anymore.
>>6520
Except the USA :^)
>>5106
IMO it's not really a revolution unless the revolutionaries have taken full military and political control of a sizable area of land (meaning a medium to large city at the very least). If the revolutionaries haven't done this then they're little more than activists or a low level rebel group.
>>6569
The first world is NATO, faggot. I don't care what that anon meant, industrialized nations != first world nations
>>6000
Mao at least converted the last Qing emperor to be a regular citizen of china
considering he aligned himself with the imperial japanese during the war its quite something
>>6671
Albania and Turkey aren't first world
>>6786
Turkey was first world, it was as allied to NATO as Cuba was to the Warsaw Pact. Albania was Warsaw Pact, so it's second world.
I think it's unavoidable when you have groups that willing call themselves the rebels.
>>6530
>The culture
Literally Africa tier, if Africa was even shittier
>The architecture
A few surviving buildings from French colonialism among a sea of mudhuts
>The food
Literally baked mud
>The location
You mean the lush, beautiful jungle that they completely deforested?
Seriously, how the fuck do you mess up a nation that produced half of the sugar and coffee consumed in Europe? And they didn't even just own Haiti but all of Hispaniola. How the fuck do you fuck up this hard?
>By being niggers
>>6971
earthquakes, foreign domination, slavery
don't be racist
>>6530
Thought you were messing around but it fascinates me to see someone fascinated by Haity
>>6930
That's outdated classification
Now first world = rich countries (NA, EU and those developped asian and oceanian countries)
Second world = developping nations (Russia and friends, SA, most of Asia etc)
Third world = shitholes (Africa)
>>7009
why's that?
>>7053
No you faggot, we already have a classification like that. Industrialized, newly industrialized, and developing nations. It may be an outdated classification, but it's still useful for historical discussions, and guess what board we're on.
>>6932
Oh please. There are hundreds of groups of selfimportant autists in every country calling themselves "rebels" that have no practical power or prospect of actually revolting.
>>7064
I dunno, just seems a bit lower on the tier of Countries I'd think people were fascinated by, especially on here
