Tag Archives: Russian Revolution

The issue of millions of refugees

Posted on by

Peter Gatrell is a professor of economic history at the University of Manchester. In his work Introduction: World Wars and Population Displacement In Europe in the Twentieth Century, he speaks about the World Wars as well as the Russian Revolution. He spends much of the work talking about how there millions of refugees after the Russian Revolution, World War I, and World War II. While the number of people who were displaced after the wars is not agreed upon, all of the potential numbers were in the millions. [1] Gatrell mentions that after some time, sociologist Edward Shils wrote about “a widespread psychological regression, i.e. a collapse of adult norms and standards in speech, behavior and attitude, and a reversion to less mature patterns.”[2] He says that this was due to a loss of “original community and family connections.”[3] Gatrell talks about how in postwar Europe, relief workers thought that showing compassion towards the refugees was critical in restoring “moral order” for the displaced people.

We see a large number of refugees today due to events like the war in Syria, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are still millions of refugees and displaced people all over the world. While the problem was more obvious after the World Wars and the Russian Revolution, it is still a major problem in the world today. Do you agree that a loss of community and family connections could cause the phenomenon that Edward Shils wrote about? Do you believe that the relief workers had the right idea when thinking that compassion is the key to restoring “moral order” for refugees? Or do you think that they were wrong in thinking this?

[1] “Introduction: World Wars and Population Displacement in Europe in the Twentieth Century,” Peter Gatrell, 419.

[2] Ibid, 421.

[3] Ibid.

Unity of All Laborers: Soviet Ideals in the Wake of Post-February Revolution Independence Movements

Posted on by
The Red Army occupying Moscow, during the Russian Civil War

The Red Army occupying Moscow, during the Russian Civil War

 

((Bolsheviks in Moscow. Digital image. The Russian Civil War: 1917-1920. Accessed February 7, 2016. http://www.emersonkent.com/wars_and_battles_in_history/russian_civil_war.htm))

In the U.S., there seems to be a commonly held misconception about the emergence of Soviet Russia and its relationship with its surrounding neighbors. From my history classes, I remember learning about Russia leaving World War I and the basics of the Russian Revolution. However, after that period, it seems that Russian history just disappears until World War II. Suddenly, Russia became our uneasy ally. I recall hearing the negative effects of the Great Depression on the Russian economy, like it had for all major global economies; however, aside from that, it was mostly Roaring Twenties and the New Deal. Since Soviet Russia grew in size from WWI to WWII and, as a class, we never really touched upon Russia; we were left to assume that the leaders of Russia thought it best to expand immediately. Reading these documents proved my assumptions wrong.

 

Russia’s transition from a new government to the might USSR was not as smooth. In fact, the documents provide evidence of the Bolsheviks pushing to help like-minded individuals in neighboring areas. For example, in the “Council of People’s Commissars, Decree on Recognizing the Independence of the Estonian Soviet Republic,” the response detailed in the document pushed for Estonian independence. This concept is contrary to what many students in the US are likely led to believe. The Council of People’s Commissars not only recognized the independence of the newly founded Estonian Soviet Republic, but pushed for both military and economic aid. These ideas are supported in two of the other documents, which essentially both call for the unity of Russian laborers in a global fight for freedom against the bourgeoisie and imperialists. It appears, however, that once Stalin took over control of the government, he sought to enforce these ideals strictly and militarily, as opposed to in a friendlier manner.

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.

 

 

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.

The Fathers of the Russian Revolution

Posted on by

The Decembrist Revolt of 1825, although an immediate and clear failure, succeeded in setting the stage for later revolutionaries to topple the Russian autocracy. The Decembrists were a group of disgruntled, educated elite calling for the security of the individual in Russian society and the improvement of Russian administration, particularly in regards to the corrupt judiciary. Most of these men were young, some even adolescent, and their age showed in the uprising’s lack of organization. The three thousand men who formed in Senate Square assumed that their cause would attract other guard units who were angered and confused by the succession of Nicholas to the throne, but no additional mutineers rose up and Nicholas quashed the display without a problem. The Decembrists were largely the product of European influence and domestic disappointment about the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleon’s invasion of Russia helped to foster significant amounts of nationalist pride within the country. When he was ultimately defeated, many of the countries he previously occupied, including Poland, received constitutions. Many of the enlightened Russian elite felt snubbed as some of Tsar Alexander’s prior reforms bred optimism about Russia moving towards a constitutional monarchy, but this did not come to fruition. Raeff attributes the distinction between the Decembrists and the generation before them to this optimism, which led to disappointment when Russia remained largely stagnant. The static nature of Russian culture starkly contrasted Western Europe. Much of the Decembrists inspiration came from the enlightenment and other Western ideals so the changes abroad became increasingly important in the actions of Russian Revolutionaries.

Enlightenment ideals developed into the Decembrist distrust for autocracy. The young men who orchestrated this uprising were the dregs of the previously powerful Russian nobility, but they found themselves increasingly at odds with their all powerful ruler. The rise of the bureaucracy had absorbed most of the responsibilities and powers previously reserved for the nobility and the threat of obsoletism was real. Despite the issues surrounding their decline in prominence, these young elite truly took on the ideals of the enlightenment. They felt the plight of the serfs in Russia and most believed the abolishment of serfdom was a necessary part of making their society just. The physical act of the Decembrist Revolt closely mimicked many of the eighteenth-century coups put on by palace guards, but their ideals set them apart and gave them a lasting legacy. Their sincere desire to better the lives of all their fellow Russians earned them the title of “the fathers and first martyrs of the Russian Revolution.”

decembrists_martyrs

Works Cited

 

Raeff, Marc. The Decembrists.

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/NatIdentity/FSU/Russia/prerevolution/decembrists_martyrs.gif

 

Lenin, What is to be Done

Posted on by

Lenin asserted five points regarding what a successful revolution needs. Firstly, he stated that no movement could succeed without “a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity.” Secondly, that revolutionary organization becomes more important “as the masses are spontaneously drawn into the struggle,” which basically means that the larger the movement is, the more cohesive it must be. Thirdly, that the revolutionary organization must “consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession.” Fourthly, that in countries with autocratic governments, the revolutionary organization would be harder to catch if it restricted people “who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police.” Fifthly, that if the revolutionaries “professionally trained in the art of combating the political police” were restricted, a larger amount and a wider variety of people would support the revolution.

What Makes a Revolution

Posted on by

In Lenin’s What Makes a Revolution, he discussed the differences between the economic and socialist view of a revolutionary. His friend, an economist, discussed revolutionaries in terms of trade unions and mutual aid societies. However, a true revolutionary, in the eyes of Lenin, is far more than a union member. Unions, while they may be illegal, still have certain standards they must uphold. In addition, unions have goals such as improving wages or working conditions, but they do not seek to change to system entirely. Revolutionaries, seek to create radical change, and must operate in secrecy. Revolutionaries are not simply men who are angered by current conditions. Rather, they are men trained in the art, so to speak, of revolutions. They have practice in spreading the revolutionary message, while keeping the organization itself as secretive as possible. Revolutionaries need the support of the working class, although revolutionary leaders are necessary to organize the outrage and make the revolution a success. Choosing specific leaders may seem undemocratic, although Lenin believed establishing a core group of leaders was needed to accomplish the goals of a revolution. A revolutionary may be involved in labor politics, but union organizers are not necessarily revolutionaries. Revolution, not factory work, must be a revolutionary’s full-time occupation. Training is necessary in establishing an effective revolution because outrage needs to be harnessed and exploited in order to affect change. A worker who protests the long working conditions will be appeased by a ten-hour workday. A true revolutionary, however, cannot be appeased by minor changes, and will continue to protest until the system has been dramatically changed.

 

Metropolis’ Status in German Society

Posted on by

In 1927, Metropolis premiered to critical acclaim, citing both the incredible new film making techniques of Fritz Lang as well as its story, in light of recent political developments in Europe. While the film is seen as revolutionary movie in cinematography, it has undergone quite a few changes in the years since its original release in Berlin. I happened to watch the restored version (2010), which is the “most complete” version and is the one deemed closest to Lang’s original release. However, the movie that most audiences saw was not this release, but rather a fraction of the film due to cuts made at the studio level for commercial reasons.

The reasons for the cuts was profitability and recent political developments in Europe. The movie in its original length ran two and a half hours, a long stretch even for some modern films. The film released was pared down to ninety minutes, removing much of the thematic content and motivation for some of the action. For example, the entire plot line of Rotwang’s revenge was removed in order to speed the movie up. While this has little to do with its impact on Europe, it is the other cuts that change the thematic content of the movie.

There is an entire sub-plot of communist revolt that was not released to the masses during Metropolis’ original theatrical run. This theme was originally developed by the author of the short story in response to the Russian (and other subsequent) revolutions; but in light of recent political changes and the economics behind this content, the decision was made to cut this from the film. While there was no political body behind this decision, this is one of the first major examples of self-censorship by the studios. This decision, although it had little impact on movie-goers, set a precidence for future studio executives, leading to further censorship in cinema.

sources

http://www.fipresci.org/undercurrent/issue_0609/pena_metropolis.htm

Mazower and Battleship Potemkin’s Violent Overthrow in Russia

Posted on by

Mark Mazower’s book Dark Continent and the film Battleship Potemkin provide insights into the causes of the Russian Revolution and the victory of the Bolsheviks over the other political parties of the time.  Although the film does not go into as much depth as Mazower’s book, both address the motivations behind the violent overthrow that occurred in Russia after World War I.

Mazower details the different types of governments that succeeded each other during the interwar period in Europe, from the autocratic Tsarist Empire to Bolshevism to communism.  The Tsarist Empire was the highest authority in Russia but the working class and peasant population of Russia no longer wanted to accept an autocratic, repressive government.  The workers and peasants of Russia believed that their voices were never heard and were suffering from massive food shortages and lack of land rights.  After the overthrow of the Tsar, Russian liberals thought that the lower classes would accept a constitutional government, but as Mazower points out: “ Russia’s liberals turned out to be the first, but not the last, to assume mistakenly that a deep-rooted social crisis could be solved by offering “the people” constitutional liberties. Such liberties were not what “the people”- and especially Russia’s fifteen million peasant conscripts—wanted. (Mazower 11). The people of Russia wanted land, food and respect.  The liberal bourgeoisie did not offer a solution to these needs and the workers and peasants opted for a radical revolution that claimed to vest power in the proletariat, or working class.

The 1925 silent Russian propaganda film, Battleship Potemkin, depicts the oppression of sailors on the battleship and of common Russian by the Tsar’s armed forces in Odessa.  The film shows the resilient behavior of the sailors and Odessans (workers) as they stand up for themselves in the face of Tsarist repression.  The sailors rebel against their officers at sea, while workers and common Russians oppose the Tsarists on land. Throughout the movie, the quote “All for one, one for all” appears frequently, demonstrating that as early as the Potemkin mutiny of 1905, the people of Russia began to unify against the tyranny of the Tsarist government.  The most dramatic depiction of that tyranny is the violent massacre of innocent Odessans by the soldiers of the Tsar.

In both the book and the film, one can see that the common people of Russia were crying for help. They wanted to be heard, but the Tsarist autocracy turned a deaf ear to their appeals.  After the overthrow of the Tsar, the liberal provisional government did nothing to reassure the people that its voice would be heard.  The people ultimately opted for a radical political solution proposed by the Bolsheviks that promised them a central role in the division of property and wealth.

Two Portraits of Revolution (Re-post)

Posted on by

Revolution has proven to be an incendiary topic throughout history, thus becoming the subject of countless different interpretations across various mediums.  Mark Mazower’s Dark Continent, a rigorous portrait of early twentieth-century European governments, and Battleship Potemkin, a Russian propaganda film relating the story of a Russian sailing crew’s mutiny against the ship’s oppressive officers, present two equally informative images of the Russian revolution that vary drastically in perspective.

Mazower’s text revisits the topic of interwar European government from a perspective that does not presuppose the primacy of democracy.  Consequently, he presents the Russian revolution as a quasi re-imagination of liberal democracy.  The author recounts the revolution’s optimistic origins as a move toward the unification of Russia behind the “‘universal democratic soul’” described by Prince Lvov (Mazower, 10).  However, Mazower acknowledges the divisions that arose due to the ambiguity of the revolution’s goal (i.e. “‘bourgeois democratic’” vs. “‘proletarian socialist’”) and how this ultimately led Russia to be “squeezed increasingly tightly between the twin extremes of communism and fascism” (Mazower, 10 & 13).

Conversely, in Battleship Potemkin, the sobering relative objectivity that pervades Mazower’s work vanishes into overt propaganda.  The plot is simple and quickly established by the on-screen dialogue, which is dominated by rallying cries for revolution such as “All for one and one for all!” and “Let nothing divide us!”  These lines originate in the mouths of the mutinous sailors and eventually find their way to the people of Odessa, who rally against the Tsarist regime upon hearing the story of the death of sailor Vakulinchuk (“Killed for a plate of soup”).  This text in conjunction with the insistently dramatic bombast of the score and several poignant images (the destruction of the Odessa Opera House, a baby carriage careening down a flight of steps in the midst of a riot) creates a poignant albeit transparent appeal to the pathos of the viewing audience in an attempt to glorify the concept of a Russian revolution.

Ultimately, Mazower’s view of the Russian revolution is one of factual pragmatism that benefits from several decades of hindsight and research, while Battleship Potemkin (much like Triumph of the Will) is equally useful as an image of one faction’s ambitions created in the climate of the revolution it advocated.