Monthly Archives: February 2016

The Beginnings of German Nationalism

Posted on by

The Romantic period following the Enlightenment and the French Revolution was characterized by a push back against the rational reasoning championed by many Enlightenment thinkers. Johann Gottlieb Fichte tried to inspire his fellow Germans with his “Addresses to the German Nation” in 1806. He wrote “those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself” ((Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Thirteenth Address, Addresses to the German Nation, ed. George A. Kelly (New York: Harper Torch Books, 1968), pp. 190­91,193­94,197­98.)) which highlights his argument that the bonds of language and culture are stronger than political boundaries or forced occupation. This is a similar argument that Paul Halsall makes in his introduction to Johann Gottfried von Herder’s “Materials for the Philosophy of Mankind” where he states that most nations are developed around a single language and that new peoples are incorporated in by being forced to speak that central language as well ((Johann Gottfried von Herder, Materials for the Philosophy of Mankind, 1784.)).

Johann Gottlieb Fichte was a German philosopher who lived from 1762 until 1814, meaning that he lived through much of the Enlightenment thought and ideals being put into place in the American Revolution and the French Revolution. He wrote his “Addresses to the German Nation” in 1806 when the French, under Napoleon, occupied Germany. This event likely inspired him to write these nationalistic pieces and to go on to be considered one of the fathers of German nationalism. He criticized Napoleon’s use of religious conflict to divide the German nation-states and his use of German soldiers in his army. Fichte wrote in an inflammatory manner, intended to educate the German people about the tactics that the French were using to divide the nation-states and to inspire a sense of belonging to something larger than their individual village.

Fichte was able to use historical context and the feelings of people living in an occupied territory to make an emotional argument for nationalism and for uniting as a larger German people. Both Fichte and von Herder highlighted the importance of language to creating a cohesive nation-state, which was important as this is one of first times when a nation-state becomes a realistic concept, and is no longer separated into solely a political state or an ethnic or cultural nation.

In conclusion, did Napoleon’s conquest of these areas accelerate the unification of Germany? In other words, is being occupied the most effective method to get people to come together by uniting against a common enemy?

Finland’s Whole New World

Posted on by

The 19th and 20th century Russian population was made up of a series of smaller groups. The people of Russia were less loyal to their nationality and more dedicated to their more personalized groups based on religion, status within the community, and the region in which they resided. This meant that after the 1917 Russian revolution places like Finland, Poland, the three Baltic states, and others would start to act upon their desire for their own country and government. The people of these states felt that the Russian government was too oppressive and that independence was needed to free the people.

In Finland there was already a disconnect with Russia. During World War I the people of Finland were split between Russia and Germany. Following the 1917 revolution, Finland asked for independence, which was rejected by the Russian provincial government. The provincial government disbanded the Finnish National Assembly but with the election of a new council that was very German sympathetic they accepted Finnish independence. In December of 1917 Finland gained their independence. Their response was to put the government, the Sejm, squarely in the hands of the people. A popular government was formed and the people of Finland were given the power to control this new government. Three main articles were set forth. The first was to set the power firmly in the hands of the Sejm of Finland and keep in from Russian control. It also clarifies that Russia still had control of the military. The second article was to enforce the power of the Sejm, specifically its elections and existence. The third article stated that the Sejm had the executive control in Finland’s affairs. Finland was not the only part of Russia to gain independence, Poland and the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia also gained their independence. But many other parts still remained under the greater shadow of Russia.

 

 

Nationalism’s Evolution

Posted on by

In the readings, I began to notice nationalism’s incredible power in speaking to the people and uniting the people. The nationalism practiced in the 18th century consisted of countries such as France and Germany caring about one common identity and language for communication purposes. Herder states: an empire made up of a hundred peoples and a 120 provinces which have been forced together is a monstrosity, not a state-body. ((Johann Gottfried von Herder:
Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784)) However, there should always be some room left for accepting other languages, cultures, and ideas because these other languages can help provide important viewpoints and perspectives that the society can use to its advantage. What Herder is saying, though, is these foreign peoples should be integrated into society only if they do not pose a hindrance to society. States should let integration happen naturally. Both authors think natural societies are the most prosperous, as Herder writes: The best culture of a people cannot be expressed through a foreign language. ((Johann Gottfried von Herder:
Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784)) This perspective is much different than the common one in the world today. Many politicians and progressives believe that a country that incorporates many different identities, viewpoints, cultures, and languages will be the most diversified and as a result the most successful.

In the second reading, Fichte depicts his anti-French attitude with his heavy nationalist tone and point of view. In the early nineteenth century Germany was struggling because of its past selfishness, and as a result many Germans as well as Fichte started to become less tolerant of other cultures in hopes of achieving success. In short, both authors admire the ideals of nationalism but view it in different ways. I must ask, though: what exactly is nationalism? Herder states that it has taken on many forms – calls for cultural pride, liberal-nationalist assertions of the right to self-government, and chauvinistic claims of national superiority. ((Johann Gottfried von Herder:
Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784)) Is it the assertion that one common language and identity among the people leads to the most success? Or is it the assertion that the most successful country breeds diversity with an intersection of languages, identities, and cultures? Personally, I believe that the idea of nationalism today exists in the latter, as countries have become more accepting of other people who speak different languages and have different practices. It is interesting to see how countries have developed their goals and identities over the years. These identities are certainly different than identities from over two-hundred years ago.

Russia and Ukrainian (In)Dependence

Posted on by

It is clear that the revolutions that occurred in Russia in 1917 did not only affect Russia, but also its neighboring nation, Ukraine. The Revolutions may have even inspired the people to host their own rebellions. On June 10, 1917 the First Declaration of the Rada took place. In this Declaration, the congress explained their responsibilities to protect the rights and freedoms of the Ukrainian land and its wish to have a free Ukraine without separating from all of Russia. However, the declaration then explains how the Russian Provisional Government ignored demands by Rada delegates and did not wish to work with the Rada to build a new regime. With that, the Rada declared that they would work to reach autonomy in the Ukraine. On December 12, 1917, just about six months after the First Declaration of the Rada, was the Self-determination of the Ukraine. This all-Ukraine Congress of Soviets, like in the Declaration of the Rada, declared goals for bettering Ukrainian life. However, in the Self-determination, the congress rejected the Rada and claimed them to have a counter- revolutionary nature. The Self- determination focused on workers and peasants, the lower classes, and their rights and freedoms. Also, this congress chose to recognize Ukraine as a federal part of the Russian Republic and was far more focused on protecting worker’s rights than on Ukrainian independence.

Both congresses expressed a want for freedom from Russia but also seemed to have some anxiety about complete independence. The First Declaration only declared a want for autonomy after explaining how its original request to work with the Russian Provisional Government was rejected. The Self-determination of the Ukraine did not outwardly state a want for independence from Russia but did express Ukrainian pride and independence by stating the congress’s job to fight for the self-determination of the Ukraine in the interests of the workers and peasants. However, the Self-determination does outwardly recognize the Ukrainian Republic as a federal part of the Russian Republic and did not express a desire to change that. The declarations differed in that the Self-determination of the Ukraine was concerned mostly with workers and peasants and their rights and overall quality of life whereas the Central Rada expressed more general goals of independence from Russia. It seemed even that if the Central Rada was more concerned with the lives of workers and peasants and less so with independence form Russia, that the Congress of Soviets would not have rejected them in their Self-determination of the Ukraine.

Both congresses were simply looking for a better quality of life; the Central Rada believed that this could only happen after independence from Russia and the All-Ukraine Congress of Soviets seemed to believe unity with Russia would bring the best benefits, at least for the lower classes. Possibly the revolutions in Russia at the time confused the Ukrainians on where Ukraine stood in relation to Russia and what would be more beneficial to the people of the country, autonomy or unity.

Connections through Language and Identity

Posted on by

While reading through Monday’s selections, I couldn’t help but think about the huge connection between language and identity.  Common language makes almost every facet of life so much easier; from letters to speeches to national anthems, language is the simplest yet most crucial way in which we understand one another.  What’s a simpler way to connect with someone than with words that both can understand?

In the simplest manner this is such an easy way to create unity; if I was born in Germany and only spoke German, it would be very difficult to call myself an American, and vice versa.  It allows me to easily identify with other Germans through something as easy and casual as conversation.

We see a striking instance of how language can unite a nation in our reading for Monday.  John Halsall notes in his introduction to von Herder’s Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind that in 1789,

“most inhabitants of France did not speak French, but some other language… unintelligible to the French speakers of the north.  French national identity was created by simply incorporating such people into France and making them all speak French.” ((Johann Gottfried von Herder, Materials for the Philosophy of Mankind, 1784))

The French Revolution, albeit by force, created a sense of unity through a common language as Louis XVI obviously understood how important successful communication was to controlling France: how could his subjects obey him if they didn’t understand what he was saying?

Language is one of the most important ways to build a sense of unity in something as big as a country and something as small as a basketball team.  On a large scale, it connects us to our country and those around us, making an individual feel as if they are a representative of their country no matter where they are.  On a smaller scale, it gives these same individuals a sense of importance and pride; each person sees themselves as a vital cog to the organizations or interest groups they may be a part of, because they are the only ones that understand the acronyms and codes and nicknames specific to their groups.

In closing I ask what ways do you identify with others in your individual teams or organizations?  I know Dickinson has a fantastic network of programs and clubs that allow us all to find something in common with others of same interests.  Where do you find your connections?

Promises and Principles: The New Provisional Government

Posted on by

provgovt

With the famed abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on the fateful day of March 15, 1917, Russia experienced a drastic paradigm shift in the manner of political atmosphere and public perception of the socioeconomic status quo that had previously prevailed for centuries. The Tsar relinquishes his omnipotence as the autocratic ruler of the state with a charismatic speech venerating “the destinies of Russia, the honour of her heroic Army, the happiness of the people, and the whole future of our beloved country” ((The Times, Abdication of Nikolai II, March 15, 1917)). His declaration is a notion of nationalism; an appeal to the people to lead the country onto a noble path of wealth and power so that it may become transfigured into a prosperous utopia freed from the “obstinate war” ((The Times, Abdication of Nikolai II, March 15, 1917)) that had so dreadfully plagued the nation. The culmination of the speech is veiled with a sense of desperation and subservience to fate, as it ends with a single note of hope encompassed within the phrase: “May God help Russia” ((The Times, Abdication of Nikolai II, March 15, 1917)).

The cataclysmic prostration of the autocracy before its own people is further exemplified by the refusal of the Tsar’s heir, Grand Duke Mikhail, to take over the throne. He states that he is “firmly resolved to accept the Supreme Power only if this should be the desire of our great people” ((The Times, Abdication of Nikolai II, March 15, 1917)) and acknowledges the pressing need for implementing political change and widespread popular suffrage. This thus allowed for the bold entry of the First Provisional Government, also known as the Temporary Committee of the State Duma. The first provisional government set the stage for what would be known in the future as democratization and an attempt to establish popular sovereignty. The doctrines that it placed forth and advocated were interwoven with liberalism and bordered upon the early principles of communism, and included the desire to “abolish all restrictions based on class, religion, and nationality” as well as “an immediate and complete amnesty in all cases of a political and religious nature” ((Izvestiia, The First Provisional Government, 1917)). This legislation envisioned a blissful yet unrealistic system that consisted of sharp implementation of the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, press, and assembly, while simultaneously embodying peace. The framework of ideologies that the Duma mapped out was much to feeble to counter the strain of the political perturbation the nation underwent in such a short period of time. The Duma eventually failed in its quest to craft an immense revolution and to enforce each and every one of its progressive reforms, yet also allowed for an eruption of a new form of government that would be capable of embodying the true radical spirit of change: the Bolsheviks of 1917.

NIcholas II: The Last Tsar

Posted on by

Tsar Nicholas II

Tsar Nicholas II ruled during time of great conflict and upheaval, ultimately concluding not only with the end of the Romanov dynasty, but also the end of tsarist rule over Russia. During the 1917 February revolution in Petrograd, the people protested the food shortage as a result of war, directing their anger towards the tsar and his regime. After power struggles, Nicholas lost the people’s trust and patience. After the people gained the support of the royal army, Nicholas II was forced to abdicate the throne to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail. In Nicholas’s declaration of abdication he stated that he did not want to “separate [myself] from [my] beloved son” ((The Times, Abdication of Nicholas II, 1917)) which may be true, but Nicholas also was protecting Alexander by keeping his identity as a hemophiliac secret by refusing to abdicate the throne to him. In Nicholas’s written abdication he believes that the war must come to an end “at all costs” ((The Times, Abdication of Nicholas II, 1917)), one of which was ending the centuries long reign of his Romanov legacy.

Even as Nicholas gave up power he still managed to make a request of his citizens to “obey[ing] the tsar at the painful moment of national trial” ((The Times, Abdication of Nicholas II, 1917)). Directly after inspiring this final moment of trust, Nicholas goes on to say “May God help Russia” ((The Times, Abdication of Nicholas II, 1917)) , which appears to give up responsibility and convey that fate is taking the lead of the situation, a contradiction to his previous statement. As power is transferred to Grand Duke Michael, he soon passes it along to the Duma and the First Provisional Government in the hopes of creating a “more stable executive power” ((Izvestiia, The First Provisional Government, 1917)). The Provisional Government, consisted of Kadets and revolutionists, is led by Prince L’vov. In such a tumultuous time the Provisional Government attempted to enact many principles, some of which were too abrupt of an ideological shift to be truly successful. While the Provisional government was one step in a new political order, a lack of cohesion and realistic principles created an environment which was not se tup for success, leaving the Russian people without a strong government once again and vulnerable to the next shift of power.

The Demise of the Romanov Dynasty

Posted on by

After over three hundred years of Russian rule by the Romanov Dynasty, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated his throne in March of 1917. The Russian leader was facing popular unrest over an enormous wealth gap and then chose to thrust his nation into an expensive and bloody war against Germany. Nicholas’ rule had experienced an uprising in 1905 which persuaded him to call a supposedly representative body known as a Duma, but the Tsar’s refusal to accept any of the body’s proposals only fueled discontent among the people. By 1917, Nicholas “recognized that it [was] for the good of the country that [he] should abdicate the Crown of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power.” ((Abdication of Nikolai II)) The Tsar blamed the domestic strife for further stunting the war efforts, but he claimed that “the moment [was] near when our valiant Army, in concert with out glorious Allies, will finally overthrow the enemy.” ((Abdication of Nikolai II)) Despite his apparent optimism, he decided to leave the Crown to his brother Mikhail Alexandrovich, who was equally hesitant about shouldering the burden of the Russian State. Mikhail dubbed the power bestowed on him as a “heavy task” ((Declaration from the Throne by Grand Duke Mikhail)) and left control to a provisional government. He hoped to avoid further public outcry by promising the populace a role in deciding what type of government would next rule over Russia.

The First Provisional Government proposed a liberal set of guidelines in the wake of the Tsar’s downfall. The people the cabinet presided over were meant to have freedom of speech, relative freedom of religion, universal suffrage, the power to elect those who will hold office, and universal pardons for anyone accused of political crimes. ((The First Provisional Government)) It would not hold true to its promise of a direct vote for the constitution and form of government that would lead Russia. Multiple provisional governments would be established before the so called Bolshevik Revolution just a few months later in November of 1917. The Revolution was technically a bloodless coup, orchestrated by Vladimir Lenin who would hold power until his death.

Russian_Imperial_Family_1911

Abdication and Creation of a New Russia

Posted on by

The_Duma_leaders

After almost two hundred years of expanding a nation that would be respected as an equal to the Western European states, the Russian Empire fell. The 1917 Revolution in March called for the abdication of the Tsar, Nicholas II, as well as the need for a government of the people to take its place. When Nicholas abdicated though, he appointed his brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, as his heir; he was the next to rule what was left of this grand Empire. But the citizens weren’t calling for a different monarch, but a new form of government altogether. Mikhail seemed to sense this, since in his response to his new title, he declared that he would rule until the “will of the nation regarding the form of government to be adopted.” (( http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/abdicatn.html )) He wanted for the people to choose what they wanted out of a government and was willing to take charge just until that moment.

 
The First Provisional Government based itself on the principles that one sees in a democratic government’s ideals, such as freedom of free speech, press and assembly, anti-discrimination, universal suffrage, and elections for positions of governments. (( http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/provgov1.html )) But there are some surprising conditions that appear too in their Statute. They promise immediate amnesty to acts such as terrorism and revolts and protection for those in the military that took part in the revolution. While these may seem surprising at first, they make sense in terms of the goals of the new provisional government. These ten men were presumably at the heart of the revolution, or at least in favor of what the revolutionaries were doing, or else they would not have gotten such high positions in the cabinet, so it makes sense that they would pardon men who were arrested by the old government if they were on the same side. Both the fall of the centuries-long monarchy and the beginning of a new government were new experiences for the Russian people that changed their lives for better or worse.