RUSSIA (again)

1905

In 1905, people were upset with Tsar Nicholas' government. Bloody Sunday had incited a widespread revolutionary fervor. After an embarrassing defeat by Japan, Russian citizens lost total faith in the tsar and revolution commenced. The revolution was characterized by strikes, peasant uprising, minority revolts, and troop mutinies. In response to the revolution, the tsar issued the October Manifesto and introduced a popularly elected Duma, giving the revolutionaries a false sense of representation in government. However, when the Duma failed to comply with what the tsar wanted, he dismissed them, greatly upsetting the masses. He basically gave them a taste of freedom and took it away. 

How are the events of 1905 connected to the events of 1917?

World War I was the major reason why Nicholas was overthrown. Russia basically quit the war with the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. Russia failed in the war as a result of poor industrialization. The tsar's failure to modernize and industrialize Russia resulted in a shortage of military arms, supplies, and technology. WWI was the first war fought with industrialized, modern technology, and Russia was not equipped to fight a modern war and was forced to withdraw. (The one industrial success of Russia during this time was the trans-Siberian railroad). 

The secondary, and still majorly influential, reason for this second revolution was the leftover resentment of the Russian government from the revolution of 1905. When Alexander II dismissed the Duma, he took away the peoples' power - the power that they fought for and got only a brief taste of when the Duma was first set up. 

These two reasons coupled with growing unrest in the mass populations of Russia resulted in two revolutions. First was the fall of the tsar, the forced abdication of Nicholas II, and second was the following fight as to whether or not Russia would be a communist nation. 

Quick review and video of the Russian Revolution of 1917

The big question - "It is easy to explain why Nicholas II should not be in charge, but it is not easy to explain why a communist revolution occurs in an agrarian society."

Essentially, it is easier to explain why Nicholas lost power vs. why Lenin gained power. Communism is best suited for an urban society, but the majority of Russians were peasants and farmers. So, how did Russia become communist when it's full of agrarian society? Lenin was successful because weaknesses in the provisional government set up after the abdication of Nicholas allowed him to create an anarchical situation. The provisional government was supposed to be revolutionary but really wasn't. The tsar was a puppeteer for the 'representatives', and once he was gone, the puppets didn't know what to do. This was a perfect set up for anarchy and for Lenin's rise to power. 

Background on Lenin

Lenin had a history of radicalism in Russia, which explains his exile. Lenin's older brother was part of the People's Will that assassinated Alexander II, and he actually led the plot of Alexander III's assassination (which never happened). Lenin led the radical Marxist party called the Bolsheviks which seized power during the 1917 Russian Revolution, leading to a communist Russia.

Britain, Bismarck, and Bad Guys

Britain and India:

In their imperialistic pursuits, Britain had come to control India. Select Indians retained a lot of power, however they remained British puppets. 

Britain had brought improvements to the India. For example, the British created a unified powerful state where none had existed before. The British thought the Indians should thank them for bringing the white man’s culture to India and “civilizing them.” 

As we all know, this is wrong on many levels. In the previous era of imperialism, countries would extract resources from their colonies to improve their economy. In this era of imperialism, countries like Britain were expanding their sphere of influence and in turn taking away the culture, and therefore the identity, of the areas they gained control over. 

Bismarck and Europe:

Bismarck wanted to keep the peace in Europe through a system of alliances. He had this system in order to restrain Russia and Austria-Hungary (who threatened the peace). He first created the Three Emperors’ League, which linked the monarchs of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia in an alliance against radicals. Bismarck thought it was crucial for Germany to be in an alliance with at least three of the Five Great Powers (Germany, France, England, Austria, and Russia). At the same token he believed on should not be caught in too small of an alliance. Bismarck’s alliance system was working until Kaiser (or Krazy) William fired Bismarck and began to mess with the balance of power. First, he refused to renew the Russian-German Reinsurance Treaty, which lead France to become military allies with Russia. As a result, Europe was divided into two. Second, Krazy William stuck it to the British by increasing the German navy, which caused a bitter Anglo-German rivalry. This gets the ball rolling for Britain, France, Russia, and the US to become allies and view Germany as a threat. Eventually, Germany ends up in an alliance of just two (Germany and Austria). In essence, Krazy Kaiser William touched the but. Kaiser William’s actions got the ball rolling for World War I. So, does this mean the punishment Germany received from the Treaty of Versailles (which was would eventually lead to WWII) justified?

Bad Guys vs. Good Guys 
World War I was a war of attrition. This means that both sides kept fighting while making little to no advances. The straw that broke the camel’s back which lead to war was the assassination of Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist. The Balkan era had been a war zone among ethnic and religious groups since the fall of the Roman empire. Soon, countries began to take sides. The bad guys or the Central powers consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman empire, and Bulgaria. The Good guys or the Triple Entente consisted of France, Russia, Finland, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, and Ireland. 

The white man's true burden: his ego

The various rulers of Europe all competed for the best imperial possessions. Many sought-after locations, such as Africa, brought little value to the home country, but no ruler wanted to miss out and lose an opportunity to improve their economy. Europeans saw the Africans, Chinese, and other foreigners as uncivilized and barbaric. However, these “barbarians” saw the Europeans in the same light- as savage and cruel. For the Europeans, using violence to civilize tribes was seen as a means to end. The Europeans didn’t see themselves as violent, they were simply “taming the beast”.

No one wanted to be left behind in the scramble of Africa. This goes to explain the impetuousness of Kaiser Willy. He was envious of the other countries and their acquisitions of new land, and he scrambled to join them and keep the balance of power equal between all of them. Bismarck, AKA Henry Clay reincarnated, makes a reappearance in this chapter to vie for lands in Africa. Originally, he viewed the African colonies as wasteful and unnecessary to the European economy. But Bismarck could be classified as a megalomaniac, although he was more obsessed with securing power for his state than for himself. This is why he changed his opinion on the usefulness of African colonies. He, like Kaiser Willy, didn’t want his country to fall behind economically or territorially.

Different than what was done in previous years, the colonization of new lands at this time also entailed civilizing and teaching the natives there. Many were inspired to migrate because of a missionary zeal or the disillusioned “white man’s burden” that it was the white man’s job to make everyone as awesome as them.

How all the missionaries felt about their work in these new colonies:

Countries got involved in investing their extra capital abroad because they had an excess of money. They did this instead of wasting their extra income on material goods, Inversely, Europeans migrated to different countries because they had a lack of money and needed to find more available jobs.

But why did foreigners migrate into Europe if they were against the presence of Europeans in their own countries? It’s simple: they went for the same reasons that Europeans migrated into their land: better opportunity, more jobs, and also economic freedom. The Europeans’ reaction to their arrival, as could be expected, was quite poor. It was even said that it would be better to allow flocks of sheep to vote than to let the Chinese partake in elections.

Rapid Review: 4 main reasons causes of World War I:

1.     Arms race between European countries, especially between Britain and Germany (Kaiser Willy threatened Britain by increasing the German naval presence)

2.     Imperialism

3.     Nationalism

4.     Alliances

Imperialism's Back Story

Chapter 26's main "ism" is.........imperialism.

 

Although this 'ism' may seem unrelated to nationalism, the two actually flow together. The strong foundation of nationalism allowed for imperialism. Once a people felt confident in themselves, they felt the need to share their importance with the rest of the world. Many Europeans resorted to imperialism because they felt that they could offer unique  benefits to other countries. 

In order to understand this chapter, you must first understand the chart on page 856. This chart highlights three important facts we would have written down if we had read this portion of the chapter.

Fact number 1: In 1750, the average income was about the same throughout the whole world. 

Fact number 2: It was industrialization that opened the gaps in wealth and well-being in countries. 

Fact number 3: Income per person stagnated in Third World countries, which was the opposite of industrialized nations 

Fact number 2 begs the question of whether industrialization was needed for imperialism. Industrialization provided the wealth needed to conquer another country. Without the capital, these countries would not have been able to focus their efforts abroad. Industrialization also kept countries modern so that they themselves would not be conquered. A country without industrialization had the potential of themselves becoming conquered. 

***

Also at this time, the Great Migration was occurring. 

Thousands of Europeans were leaving their home country and traveling throughout the globe. They could be moving as far as the country next to them or the other side of the ocean. Although Americans are led to believe all the Europeans came to the US, less than half of them immigrated to that destination. Hundreds of others moved to places like Argentina and Brazil. Additionally, many of them returned to their homeland after immigrating. Once they had their needed money, they immigrated back to the land of their birth. 

The Great Migration and Nationalism set the backdrop for the Imperialism that ran rampant in Europe at this time.  

**On a completely unrelated side note, the old imperialism used in the D2L discussion for next week refers to the imperialism that founded the New World. **

Finding William and Other Stories

Apparently William II had a bad finn arm just like Nemo!

Once upon a time their was a clownfish emperor named William II. William II thought he could touch the butt run Germany on his own so he fired his the iron of chancellor of Germany, Bismarck, so he could have more power. However, this did not work out well for him. He could not control the rising socialist party in Germany and soon the Socialists had control of the German  parliament. *Side note because Mr. Yarnall said we had to be aware of this the German parliament is made up of two parts...the lower house called the Reichbeg and the upper house called the Bunedsrats (have fun pronouncing that).

Previous to being fired, Bismarck had been trying to keep the Socialists under control. He had little success by trying to control their meeting and publications but had great success with his Social Security system. it established pensions and retirement benefits and most importunely made people rely on the government deterring them from socialist thinking. Bismarck was so successful because even though he didn't always listen to Parliement, he still maintained one in order to make the people feel in control. (any good dictator can say that people are more cooperative when they think they're in control.) Howvere despite his hard work, Bismarck was still fired and his termination was remembered in the politic cartoon  "Dropping the Pile of Bismarck." 

When William fired Bismarck, I think everyone could relate to Troy in this moment. "What are you doing, William? Bismarck is the OVP of Germany"

While this was occurring in Germany, France was having its own problems (because when isn't it). To begin with, was the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was a Jewish captain accused of treason in the French army. This case divided France in two. One side, the army, had evidence against Dreyfus. The army was also joined by anti-semites. The other side who supported Dreyfus consisted of civil libertines and radical republicans. Dreyfus was eventually declared innocent but the conflict divided France.

The conflict also lead to France's other issue: the church. After Dreyfus, the republicans has a revived hatred for the church. This lead to France ending all its ties with the church. The government did no t pay priest;s salaries, catholic schools fiancee themselves, and state schools were instituted. However, for once this did not erupt into a full-blown revolution because eventually even Catholics came around to the new third estate, patriotic France.

The last issue happening in France was the convict between Leon Gambetta and Marshall MacMahon. Gambetta wanted parliament supremacy and MacMahon favored an autocratic president. Eventually Gambetta won and MacMahon was fired.

Finally, there was England and Ireland. England had been doing well so far. Their second and third reform bills increased the number of people voting and Disreali and Gladstone, two politicians, though from opposing political parties, helped lead Britain in to what it is today. Where England was having trouble though was with Ireland. As we know from Paddy's Lament the British were terrible to the Irish. They had attempted to colonize Ireland and tried to make it just a land for their cattle. Eventually, the question of Ireland and a possibility of home rule was put up to Parliament. However, not everyone supported it. Even some Irish known as the Ulsterities who were Irish protestant from the north, wanted to be British. The bill failed and Irish home rule failed as well. 

MOTHER RUSSIA

"The Case For Nationalism"

Patriotism, we defined, is the loyalty to and love of one's nation. On the other hand, nationalism is a more extreme form of this love and loyalty, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries. The main thing that distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism can be used as a political tool, and involves not just a love of country but a sense of unity among its citizens. Nationalism can be created to strengthen a nation, and throughout history, nation-building has been approached by transportation, industrialization, and social reform.

Nationalism vs. patriotism  - "Nationalism is patriotism transformed into a sentiment of superiority and aggression toward other countries."

RUSSIA

According to Gyarn, the manifestation of nationalism seems to be having issues. While most of European nations were thriving with the Industrial Revolution and becoming modern states, Russia was still primarily agricultural and practiced serfdom. Russian had always been a pretty strong nation-state, but as the rest of the world was modernizing, Russia's leaders realized that they too had to embrace this change in order to maintain its power and compete in the modern economy. 

Because 90% of the Russian population lived on the land where the open-field system reigned supreme, and serfdom was still the long-instilled social institution, Alexander II had to make some "great" reforms in order to embrace modernization. The Crimean war in the 1850s brought crisis to the Russian nation-state. Russia's old systems of transportation, which relied on rivers and wagons, failed to supply the distant Russian armies, and Russia humiliatingly lost the war.

This military defeat signified Russia's falling-behind to the modern nations of Europe. It also tested Russian nationalism, as citizens no longer felt the same kind of pride and unity in their country. Russia approached this problem with some of the basic tools of nation-building - better railroads, better armaments, and the reorganization of the army. Because the war also caused massive hardship, in addition to the loss of faith in the state, peasant rebellion arose, making the reform of Serfdom imperative.

The first "great" reform was the emancipation of the serfs. Human bondage was abolished, but they still had to pay really high prices for their land, and lived more like tenant farmers or share-croppers than independent farmers. They embraced collective responsibility over the land in order to save money, and the government hoped that this would unify them and strengthen the peasants as a social unity, but in reality, the peasants' lifestyles changed little since they were lineage-bound serfs. All in all, this reform did make a change, but not a "great" one.

In 1864 the government established an institution of local government called the "zemstvo". This assembly was elected by a three-class system of towns, peasant villages, and noble landowners. The idea was "great" - a local government to embrace local problems. In practice, however, the zemstvo did not have much power, because they remained subordinate to the traditional bureaucracy and the local nobility.

The greatest of the "great" reforms was the reform of the legal system, which established independent courts and equality fore the law. Education and politics toward Russian Jews were also moderately liberalized, and censorship was "relaxed but not removed".

Russia also had to approach industrialization at this time. Industry and transport, which were both vital to the success of the military, were transformed in two surges. First, the government encouraged and funded private railroad companies resulting in a boom of construction. This encouraged the growth of the agricultural industry, increasing trade opportunities. Money gained from this trade allowed for even further industrialization, and a class of modern factory workers began to grow. 

Industrialization, which helped strengthened the military, also allowed for territorial expansion. This expansion excited many ardent nationalists and patriots, who began to more enthusiastically support the government, helping to fix the problem of nationalism.

Of course, there were still some people who were not happy with the government. A group of revolutionaries called the "People's Will" assassinated Alexander II, pretty much because his great reforms were just not great enough. Alexander III, a determined reactionary, took the throne. Russia was experiencing some hard times economically, and while political modernization remained stagnant, economic industrialization surged forward. Nationalism "played a decisive role" in this advancement. Sergei Witte, minister of finance, believed that Russia's industrial backwardness was threatening Russia's greatness and power. 

Witte helped to build state-owned railroads, notably the trans-Siberian line, established high protective tariffs to help build industry, and put the country on the gold standard of the "civilized world" to strengthen the nation's finances. Witte's "greatest innovation" was to "use the West to catch up with the West," encouraging foreigners to use their abundant capital and advanced technology to build factories in Russia. This policy was majorly successful, allowing for great modernization in Russian industry.

Russia was embracing imperialism in order to help strengthen the nation-state, but suffered a humiliating defeat by the Japanese in 1905. Russia had established a sphere of influence in Chinese Manchuria, and was casting greedy eyes on North Korea, when imperialist Japan launched a surprised attack. Military disaster, like it often does, incited political upheaval at home. Factory workers were organized in a radical (and illegal) labor movement, and Peasants were suffering from poverty and over-population. These grievances converged in the revolution of 1905. Bloody Sunday marked the beginning of this revolution, where a peaceful protest in St. Petersburg led by Father Gapon turned horrifyingly violent when troops opened fire.  (Think - Boston Massacre) Bloody Sunday stimulated the revolution by creating indignation for the tsar, as Nicholas II had pretty much ran away from all the problems by fleeing the city. The revolution was characterized by strikes, peasant uprising, minority revolts, and troop mutinies. The tsar issued the October Manifesto which granted full civil rights and promised a popularly elected duma (parliament) with some actual power. The first Duma, elected indirectly by universal male suffrage, met in May 1906 and the government issued the Fundamental Laws, a new constitution. The middle-class liberals, who served as the largest group in the Duma, saw the Laws a step back. The tsar dismissed the Duma after efforts to cooperate with his ministers deteriorated. He then dismissed a second, more radical Duma after three months of deadlock. He therefore rewrote the electoral law to increase the weight of the propertied classes at the expense of peasants, workers, and minorities, so that land owners assured half the seats in the Duma. 

"In 1914, Russia was partially modernized, a conservative constitutional monarchy with a peasant-based but industrializing economy." The Revolution of 1905 was not all that successful, as there was no great changes, but it was a step in the right direction to re-establish nationalism in the Russian state.