Category Archives: HIST254-Archive

Nikolai and the Abdication

Posted on by

The language used in Nikolai II’s abdication says quite a bit about the man himself. Though he led Russia through a period of strife and turmoil, he uses clever writing and unclear statements to try to avoid being blamed for any of Russia’s issues.

Right from the start, Nikolai is trying to throw blame off of himself by saying, “We” before using his actual name. This promotes the idea that he was not solely responsible for the strife of the Russian people. Following this, in the second paragraph he says, “…it pleased God to send Russia a further painful trial.” when referring to the February Revolution and the unhappiness of the Russian people. He uses this sentence immediately after he spoke of Russia struggling against a powerful enemy in a bloody war, associating the nation of Russia struggling militarily against a hated foe with the “internal troubles” that had begun in Russia. This clearly throws the blame onto the revolution that is forcing his abdication.

Next, he states that the people must, “…conduct [the war] at all costs to a victorious end.” This subtly implies that if the people continue to do that which he began, they will be victorious, and it also implies that the losses that incurred in the war are not due to his leadership or decisions. He continues this by saying that, “The cruel enemy is making his last efforts and the moment is near when our valiant Army… will finally overthrow the enemy.” This clearly implies that Russia is not struggling in the war at all; instead, it tells the reader that the Russian military is nearing victory and that the war will be won because of the leadership of Nikolai.

These are some of the many examples of deceptive language that Nikolai uses in his abdication letter so that he may absolve himself of blame and escape from punishment by the Russian people.

Why abdication?

Posted on by

Nicholas II abdicated the Crown and appointed his brother, Grand Duke Michael, to be his successor (( Abdication of Nikolai II, March 15, 1917 )). However, Michael agreed to “accept the Supreme Power” only in case it was the will of the nation. ((Declaration from the Throne by Grand Duke Mikhail, March 16, 1917)) The Provisional Government had been established to serve Imperial needs before the moment people decided on the country’s new form of government. At the very beginning of its’ work new “rulers” made a few important decisions: amnesty, freedoms, abolition of restrictions based on nationality and religion, etc. ((Izvestiia, 3 March 1917.)) But why did it happen? Was that necessary?

Of course, Nicholas II made a fatal mistake by shooting into people who went to the Winter Palace. But was it necessary to leave the Throne while the country was participating in the World War? He probably knew that his brother was not going to agree being the Emperor, so why did he do that and not just gave more power to the State Duma and restricted his own? I tried to reconstruct the possible logic.

Imagine that you’re the ruler of the country, who just lost all his trust from his nation by shooting into his people, loosing the war, etc. You have a brother, whom population loves more. He says he doesn’t want to rule the country. Now you have three choices.

The first one is remain on your Throne and wait if the dissatisfaction lowers, for example, with some good news from the battlefield. But that’s going to be very dangerous if your people decide to help you understanding that it’s high time to leave.

The second one is to restrict your power and give more to some representative organ, in particular, State Duma. In this case the fundamental idea of Russian Monarchy – Ablsolutism – is lost. You and your royal family hardly will be able to return the power back ever again.

And finally, you have your brother, who speaks as if he won’t accept the Crown. But actually it could be a kind of “cheap talk” ((In game theory, cheap talk is communication between players which does not directly affect the payoffs of the game.)). Because, as he gets all the power, the future of his nation is in his hands and he probably won’t let the country to have no leader at such a hard time. If population ask him for becoming a new Emperor, he possibly accept it. And, in any case, Michael is going to face the same choice: either to rule, to restrict his power or to give the Throne to the next in line for it. Why not try?

So, summarizing all written above, I came to the conclusion that Nicholas had chosen, probably, the option which costed him and his family less among the other alternatives at that moment of time. What this decision resulted to for the country? We’ll learn soon.

The First Provisional Government

Posted on by

Russia was going through great turmoil in the year of 1917. Pressure was increasing drastically for the Russian tsar, Nikolai II. The people of the nation demanded change and Nikolai could not provide it, drastic change had risen in the years before, culturally and socially. The people of Russia felt great pressure from the way things were being handled; the war had brought economics issues as well as a drastic loss of casualties. The abdication of Nikolai II was a move forward to the future where many thought life would prosper and the First Provisional Government was a critical/crucial opportunity to move forward into the future and to push forward the change that had began to rise years before. The first provisional government was truly beneficial to the social need at the time, Although the First Provisional Government only lasted about eight months, could have it been what the nation needed if it had ran longer, was the future of Russia on the right track with this kind of authority and government. This new government did offer what the people needed; it offered the type of change and innovation to a new way of life. The first cabinet to represent the public guaranteed freedom of speech, amnesty, the removal of restrictions on class, religion, and nationality, arrangement for a Constituent Assembly, a substitution for a people’s militia, and universal and equal elections. The continuation of the First Provisional Government could’ve opened many different doors to the people of Russia as well as a new and different future.

Nikolai II: Two Little Too Late

Posted on by

The document detailing Nikolai’s abdication in 1917 shows to readers that the tsar either possessed a very poor grasp on reality or that he couldn’t bear to really tell the Russian people why he chose to abdicate. In the opening of his abdication, Nikolai remarks that ‘it pleased god to send Russia a further painful trial’ (( http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/abdicatn.htm l)). This frame of thinking completely neglects the real reason Nikolai abdicated–namely that his subjects felt angry and didn’t see him as a fit tsar if he couldn’t (and wouldn’t) change with the times and create liberal-minded policies to appease the general public.

That being said, it’s important to look at his family history in order to fully understand why he chose to be a reactionary monarch, rather than a proactive and forward-thinking one. Members of the Narodnaya Volya assassinated Nikolai II’s grandfather, Alexander II, a great reformer. Nikolai II’s father, Alexander III, adopted reactive tendencies upon ascending to the throne, presumably in response to his father’s violent death.

While there’s a chance that Nikolai didn’t know precisely why he failed as a tsar, it seems unlikely that he would know so little about the feelings of Russians in the time. Rather, did he want to change and make reforms, but felt too afraid to actually follow through with them in the end? Did his grandfather’s death, the death of a reforming tsar, frighten him into not providing the Russian people with the reforms and privileges they so desperately wanted?

Why Nicholas II was the last autocratic ruler

Posted on by

Tzar Nicholas II was the last Russian Tzar for a reason. Of all the monarchs before him, like Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander II, also known as “Alexander The Liberator”, Nicholas II does not rank amongst them. His reign was the last monarchy because of his failed militaristic ambitions as well as his disregard to satisfy the citizen’s demand for change. During the time of his reign, the Russian army was butchered in two significant wars. The first being, the Russo-Japanese War which should have been an easy victory, instead during into a ugly debacle and a loss of military technology. The second war being, World War II, an even costlier war but in the most indispensable currency; human life. However, his military blunders were just embarrassments. The spark that started the revolutionary fire was his myopic and selfish hold on power. He was a foolish ruler to assume that during his time, his citizens would still be subordinate to his unsovereign reign, when in countries all around Russia had adopted democracy. Nicholas II saw democracy in action, and so did many others; and for the rest who couldn’t travel outside of the nation, the Avant-Garde Movement was enough to vicariously experience what social change could bring about. Nicholas II, in a rather false gesture to the public, appointed a Duma in response to the overwhelming unhappiness, but as it consisted of only like-minded individuals who were content as the small percentage of land-owning individuals, there was no representation of the majority. Had Nicholas II shown a fraction more compassion for the majority, even by appointing a real and representative Duma, the revolution of 1917 could have been avoided. However, if the last Tzar had any sort of compassion whatsoever, his rule could have been much different. Instead, he chose myopic self-interest for the people only in the highest class, which is his tragic flaw, for it is not the highest class that needs strong leadership; they will be just fine with or without it, rather it is the lowest class that needs strong and representative leadership, because they are the majority, and more importantly, unhappy.

Abdication of Nicholas II

Posted on by

A close analysis of primary texts is often helpful in understanding particular political and personal perspectives. Certain phrases and word choice in Czar Nicholas II’s official abdication highlight tensions present in 1917. Nicholas II chose phrases such as “sons of Russia” and “sons of our native land” to emphasize the folk and political ideology of the Czar as a fatherly figure to his citizens. This relationship, whether personal or political, requires a commitment of respect and obedience, since honoring one’s fathers and mothers was a significant and important cultural and religious value in Imperial Russia. This sentiment is further reflected when Nicholas II wrote “we call upon all faithful sons of our native land to fulfill their sacred and patriotic duty of obeying the Tsar.” The Czar’s paternalistic rhetoric contrasts sharply with the Revolution’s community-oriented rhetoric, which used words such as “brotherhood” and “comrade.” This shows that the values and ideology driving the Revolution were founded in a sense of equality and community.The parent-child ideology perpetuated by the Czar comes with a sense of unequal power – an antithetical position to his opposition.

However, Nicholas II’s word choice also exhibits Revolutionary values and it is with this that the Czar implored Russian citizens to “conduct the Russian State in the way of prosperity and glory.” He also used words such as “foreign enemy” to illustrate the severity of a Revolution in the midst of an international crisis and the need for unification against it. The Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich also took up Revolution rhetoric when he claimed that he was “animated by the same feelings as the entire nation – namely, that the welfare of the country overshadows all other interests.” He called for elections to determine whether the monarchy should continue, an act that shows his respect for the values of his opposition.

History and Analysis

Posted on by

It is both fascinating and disappointing to learn that many find the liberal arts History degree of study to be of no importance and have next to no value outside of a classroom setting.  It is sad because these ill informed individuals do not see the bigger picture as to why historian scholars and students take such an active interest in the field of the “what has been”: to be able to analyze an event and place it in a larger significant story of the past.  From this practice, historians are able to craft a thesis based on evidence of past historical events and explain the effect that this particular occurrence has on a separate but related happening.  Is this not how the human race lives from day to day?  Is it not in all of our natures to identify what sequence of events led to our current situations?  That is history: to be able to identify patterns of past decisions which in turn will influence future decisions.  Being a student of history (as we all are) equates to a lifetime of detailed analysis and evidence backed argument, anything less than that is no more than a fallacy.

The value of learning the historical method of research and appreciation is unfortunately not recognized by many in the workforce as it is not a “technical skill” or a STEM based field of study. Not that these fields are not important (they are in fact essential to a modern society), but they lack a major element that is present with that of a historian: detailed analysis and thesis creation from understanding a recorded human event.  At the same time however, these recorded events must be looked at from an unbiased perspective as accounts from multiple fields of view must be considered.  That is the value of seeing through the eyes of a historian, having the ability to not only interpret and understand a historical claim, but to be able to challenge that claim.

Abdication of Nikolai II

Posted on by

By 1917, Russia’s populace faced a combination of very severe acute food shortages caused by the unorganized and uncontrolled war effort, and social disorder subsequent of several Liberal and revolutionary groups split in their ideas and desires but all dissatisfied with the minimal (or even lack of) reform afforded to them by the Dumas. Nikolai was therefore advised to abdicate, whereupon he drew up a manifesto abdicating his position and naming his brother, Grand Duke Michael, as the next Emperor. Nikolai had not genuinely tried to make any reforms to advance the lives of the general public, with the justification that he did not fathom the outlook or everyday condition of the people and consequently resorted to the Russo-Japanese War and the publication of the October Manifesto as endeavors to maintain the people’s allegiance to him and the autocracy. From Nikolai’s contracted abdication document we are able to see that even at the culmination of the Romanov dynasty, Nikolai had an idealistically optimistic vision of the future. He wrote in his abdication letter, “We call upon all faithful sons of our native land to fulfill their sacred and patriotic duty of obeying the Tsar… and to aid them, together with the representatives of the nation, to conduct the Russian State in the way of prosperity and glory.” This primary source is further evidence that Nikolai did not have a complete awareness of what the underlying problem was and what had gone wrong – the state was not only in chaos because of World War I but a massive social revolution was breaking out. The legislative institution had broken away from the government, more revolutionary tensions and activisms were arising, and the crushed army was motivated by the peasants’ aspiration to obtain land. In a time of anarchy within his State, Nikolai was speaking of an “organized” and “victorious conclusion” of the war. Nikolai’s inability to make decisions is also reflected by carefully worded explanation for not handing his “heritage” to his son (as he had in first abdication letter favored of his hemophilic son Alexei for the “Throne of the Russian State,” over his brother).

Life beyond the Liberal Arts Degree

Posted on by

Life beyond the Liberal Arts Degree

Grafton and Grossman highlight that today many do question the value of a liberal arts education. Realistically we all know that the economic situation today is quite different than it was even a generation ago. Despite the ever changing job market, the level of skills, imparted to students within the humanities, enables them to remain competitive. Attaining a job today takes more than just a degree, it takes having connections and the ability to think critically about the best way to use these connections to your advantage. When you receive your degree from Dickinson, you have the backing of other alumni who are prepared to network and possibly open doors that would not be available to you on your own. They do this because they realize that you have benefited from the same high standards of academic integrity that they themselves received. Years of studying, researching, and analyzing topics have made you a critical thinker with the ability to think outside of the box. This happens to be an essential quality for any profession, imparting far more on you than just a piece of paper. This piece of paper stating your degree from your beloved college is the first step to getting an interview for your potential first job. The incite gained because of that piece of paper walks with you for your entire life because you have been trained to communicate not just what you desire to undertake today, but what you know you will be able to accomplish through strategies and discovering solutions to tomorrow’s problems.

The Importance of Historical Thinking

Posted on by

In the article “Habits of Mind” authors Anthony Grafton and James Grossman advocate for the usefulness of historical training in a time where many humanists struggle to communicate well and are forced into specialization.[1] With many humanists using illogical narratives and unclear communication, Grafton and Grossman emphasize that the methods of communication and questioning historians use are important.[2] Historians learn to ask critical questions, research diverse topics, and communicate their arguments in a clear fashion.[3] Also, historians who research in archives are able to connect the significance of events from the past to the present.[4] Research in archives gives historians the opportunity to relate events and values from the past to themselves and their lifestyle in the present.[5] Grafton and Grossman stress that students who do archival work learn to construct strong historical arguments and strive to convey their work in a clear and strong way.[6] Also, research gives historians the ability to form their own original narratives.[7]

 

Anthony Grafton and James Grossman stress that the success of historians is found in their ability to communicate clearly and critically think.[8] They write that the value of historical training is not necessarily what knowledge one learns throughout their education, but their ability to analyze information at a deep level and communicate their thoughts in a persuasive and clear method. The educational tools a historian learns transcend into other fields of study because they help scholars develop a strong argument, hypotheses, or theory. Historical methods encourage people to question ideas and make connections between events, people, and beliefs. Does the value of studying history lie more in the pursuit of knowledge or in the knowledge itself?

[1] Grafton and Grossman, “Habits of Mind,” December, 10, 2014

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid.