Did the Japanese benefit from joining the allies in WWI?

Japan was an ally of the Entente powers from 1914 to 1918, so the whole of World War I. It helped greatly in securing the sea lanes of the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean. By doing this, it was fighting against the Kaiserliche Marine, the German Navy.
Personally, I think that Japan gained a lot from this. Firstly, Japan gained all of Germany's Pacific territory, the reason for which the Navy begun to receive double the investment of the government than the Army. After the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5, that Japan won by a great margin (destroying nearly the entire Russian navy, Japan regained territories in China. The Japanese used WWI to increase its sphere of influence further. The victory of the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war was the first time an Asiatic power had beaten a Western one and established Japan as a great power to a certain extent, however, WWI did so more.
However, the main point that I want to make about Russia benefitting from WWI was its joining of the council of the League of Nations after the Paris Treaties. This was mostly because the European powers needed a non-European one to make the League seem world-wide, however this officially made Japan a great power. Its place in the Council meant it could veto any decision and had a great power over world decisions. However, it also enabled it to invade Manchuria in 1931, as the League of Nations didn't pay attention to it until it was too late (main powers didn't want to lose Japan as an ally?). Nevertheless, the invasion of Manchuria did result in Japan leaving the League in 1933 (notice how long afterwards), with the words of Matsuoka: "We are not coming back".


Questions to consider:

1. To what extent did the successes of the Japanese Navy (military) in WWI lead to its military government two decades later?
2. Did the League actually have power anyways which Japan could therefore sway?
3. Was Japan still looked down upon slightly by the European powers?

Causes of prohibition (iGCSE HISTORY)

Prohibition was a ban in the United States, from 1920 to 1933, of the sale, purchase, transportation and importation of alcohol.

MEDICAL

By that time people were started to realise that alcohol damaged our health and could affect our lives. Many American men suffered from Sclerosis, which is caused by alcohol and lung cancer from smoking cigarettes. Those people suffered badly and eventually died. Because of this, many children fought their lives without their fathers, which led to families’ financial problems.

ECONOMIC

Many labourers got drunk and so they could not perform the job properly. The absence from work each week was very high, therefore the company was less efficient. The company could not afford to produce the same products in the time that they should and the industrialists were not satisfied.
Other people also insisted that buying beer meant that the money flew away to Germany because all of the brewers were actually located in Germany. The solution that people came up was instead of helping Germany with her economy that was to spend the large amount of money on some other necessaries.

POLITICAL

Many votes were won in rural areas because politicians promised to back up prohibition, which helped those politicians to win the election.

SOCIAL

The last point of all, which we have agreed on the most important, was that the husbands were spending their family’s saving stupidly on alcohol instead of essential items, e.g. Education. That problem led to family arguments, which eventually led to divorce. The problem pressurised women the most, therefore they set up the anti-saloon groups.

Sources on Prohibition

Were the European revolutions of 1848 caused by economic factors?

Well, in my opinion, no, not entirely, but when is a historical question's answer a yes?!
In fact the revolutions of 1848, also called the "Spring of Nations" were caused by a conjunction of reasons and political unrest had begun before the 1840s. The "success" of the Paris upheaval in February 1848, when the Second Republic of France was created, was what triggered all of these revolutions, including some in Sicily, the Germanic States, the Papal States and Austria. Although many European governors saw flight, surrender or compromise as the safest course, although individuals such as Louis-Philippe and Metternich abandoned their roles, most governing classes survived. Despite changing Europe in various ways, there was little lasting change brought about. These few changes involved: Prussia and Piedmont getting constitutions, feudal obligations abolished in parts of eastern Europe. A question many ask is "who actually gained from these revolts; the governing conservatives or revolutionary liberal parties?". In the short-term, it was surely the first, but it is easy to say that these revolutions educated Europeans politically, benefitting them in the long term (within 25 years, both Italian and German nationalist ideas had been realised).
Between 1845 and 1847, Europe suffered from a major socio-economic crisis. As a "sub-crises" of this, there was the agricultural issue and the industrial one, both linked and both extremely important.

The Agricultural Problems
European agriculture suffered from the failure of the potato blight in 1845, a severe issue. Its most dramatic impact was in Ireland, where up to 1 million lives were lost, however, it also hit the rest of Europe, causing hunger and suffering across the continent. Then, in 1846, hot and dry caused a bad harvest. As failures continued, it became impossible to make a good harvest out of the previous harvest's surplus. This caused prices to go up throughout Europe, and, inter-country trade was near impossible, owing to the lack of railways.
Facts: In Hamburg the price of wheat rose 51.8% between 1841 and 1847, 70% of the increase occurring between 1845 and 1847. In Switzerland, the price of rye doubled in the same 2 years, and bread prices doubled in the single year 1846-47. These are only two examples in two states!

The Industrial Problems
This was partly owing to overproduction. As manufacturers realised that they had saturated the markets, they reduced production, causing decrease of wages and unemployment. The crisis was worsened by factory production, which the skilled craftsmen and artisans thought were the cause of their problems. As there was no longer a demand for goods in the countryside, the factories were making less money, so unemployment and wage reduction occurred, therefore creating an even lesser demand for goods. This caused widespread hardship. At the same time, many middle class citizens were not finding "suitable" jobs, such as teaching, lawyer and civil servants, making them want change in the government. The two groups, workers and middle class, came together to cause change, however, they both had very different goals: the middle class wanted a more liberal government (such as a constitution where there wasn't one or freedom of speech, etc.), whereas the working classes wanted better working conditions, higher wages and food.

Historian Ernest Labrousse wrote:
'the wave of high prices had spread over the country like a flood, and, like a receding tide, it left behind it a ruined population.'

Brooklyn, by Colm Tóibín

Great Book! Lovely to learn about, not only what life was like immigrants in America, but also particularly Irish immigrants!

“One of the most unforgettable characters in contemporary literature” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), Eilis Lacey has come of age in small-town Ireland in the hard years following World War Two. When an Irish priest from Brooklyn offers to sponsor Eilis in America, she decides she must go, leaving her fragile mother and her charismatic sister behind.



Eilis finds work in a department store on Fulton Street, and when she least expects it, finds love. Tony, who loves the Dodgers and his big Italian family, slowly wins her over with patient charm. But just as Eilis begins to fall in love, devastating news from Ireland threatens the promise of her future.

War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy

I am currently beginning the long journey of the read of War and Peace, the historical novel by Leo Tolstoy. I shall give you updates on the way, however, this is a bit about the reception it received.

Reception

The novel which has made its author "the true lion of the Russian literature" (according to Ivan Goncharov)^[18][19] upon its publication enjoyed great success with the reading public and spawned dozens of reviews and analytical essays in the press, some of which (by Pisarev, Annenkov, Dragomirov and Strakhov) formed the basis for Tolstoy scholars' later research.^[19] Yet the Russian press's initial response to the novel was muted, most critics feeling bewildered by this mammoth work they couldn’t decide how to classify. The liberal newspaper Golos (The Voice, April 3, #93, 1865) was one of the first to react. Its anonymous reviewer posed the question which was later repeated by many others: "What could this possibly be? What kind of genre are we supposed to file it to?.. Where is fiction in it, and where is real history?"^[19]

Leonid Pasternak's 1893 illustration to War and Peace".

Hemingway asserted in his 1955 Men at War. The Best War Stories of All Time anthology.^[19]

Isaak Babel said, after reading War and Peace, "If the world could write by itself, it would write like Tolstoy." Tolstoy "gives us a unique combination of the 'naive objectivity' of the oral narrator with the interest in detail characteristic of realism. This is the reason for our trust in his presentation."<sup>[35

Source: Wikiiiii</sup>

Who was 'Le Roi Soleil'?

'Le Roi Soleil' was the nickname given to the french king, Louis XIV. He was the son of Louis XIII and Anne of Austria and King of France from 1643 to 1715, an extremely long reign. Louis XIII died when Louis XIV was only 5 years old so his mother was a regent and was assisted by Louis XIII's chief minister, Mazarin. The 'Fronde', a few rebellions conducted by the nobility whilst the king was still young, marked Louis' personality for life. Because of them, he ensured he had absolute rule and had little trust in people, always suspecting them to wanting to steal his power.
After the war with Spain, he was married to Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV of Spain. However, the king had a passion for women, and had many mistresses, the most famous one being the Marquise of Maupassant.
Louis XVI became 'Le Roi Soleil' in 1661, when Mazarin died and the young King, then aged 23, decided to rule the country alone. His reign was to be characterised by a lot of warfare and fear of France by other countries. He chose the symbol of the Sun as it is what gives life to everything and refers to Apollo, the God of Peace and the Arts. There are in fact many allusions to Greek mythology in Versailles.
 People were first and foremost struck by the King's elegance and non-fearing attitude. Louis' reign  is marked by the image of an absolute monarch, which Louis XVI lay the foundations for.

Why did the Liberals intoduce welfare reforms between 1906-1912?

There were multiple reasons why the Liberals introduced reforms, scuh as the old age pensions of 1908 or the National Insurance Acts of 1911 and 1912.

The Boer War
Between 1899 and 1902, the Boer war occured. Half of the recruits who volunteered were found to be unfit for service owing to ill health and the army had to lower the minimum height. This was because many men were undernourished, so their growth had been stunted. This was extremely alarming and showed the government that something had to be done to improve the country's health.

Key Individuals in the Liberal Government
Key individuals supported the welfare reforms. For instance. Lloyd George. Lloyd George became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1908. His father died when he was one and his mother and him had to live with her brother. Lloyd George hated the way the English upper class dominated Welsh life and sympathised with ordinary people. Another key figure that played a role in creating the welfare reforms was Winston Churchill. In 1906, he switched from the conservative party to the liberal in support of the reforms, though his ennemies said it was because he didn't want to be in opposition. Both Lloyd George and Churchill were appalled by the contrast between Britain's vast wealth and it squalid lums.

Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, 1915

Political Rivalry
In 1905, the conservatives had introduced the Unemployed Workmen Act, this made the Liberals feel that they had to compete.

The rise of Socialism
Liberals believed that these reforms would make the working class healthier and happier, making them less likey to vote for the British Labour Paryt (founded in 1900), which was calling for pensions, better education and unemployment benefit. Moreover, there were revolutionary movements happening in France, Germany and Russia; the Liberals felt that they would gain less support if these welfare reforms were implemented.

Industrial Decline
By 1900, both the USA and Germany had overtaken Britain as an industrial power. It appeared that Germany's rapid development was closely linked to its healthier, better-educated, and therefore more efficient workforce. Lloyd George was very impressed by Bismarck's welfare system. Moreover, politicians were beginning to realise that some unemployment was not because of laziness, but because of competition from the USA and Germany. The government therefore had a responsibility to help the unemployed.

The Social Reformers
Leading Liberals were influenced by the works of researchers and social reformers. One of them was Seebohm Rowntree. In 1901, Rowntree published Poverty: A study of Town Life. The book was based on 2 years of research in York, his hometown. It contained a huge amount of statistical and other kinds of evidence on wages, hours of work, diet, health and housing. It also demonstrated that approximately a quarter of the population was living below the poverty line and that people suffered from the ups and downs of Britain's trade cycle.

Before the 19th century, there was a self-help policy. This meant that people were expected to look after their own welfare by working hard and saving money. It was thought that anyone could climb out of poverty by working hard enough, and that it was your own fault for being poor. The texts of social reformers, such as Rowntree, demonstrated that this was untrue.

Could one make an interesting essay on the history of cheese?

SEE POST--> http://doindividualsmakehistory.blogspot.com/2013/11/could-one-make-interesting-essay-on.html

The History of the UNIVERSE

Did individuals create the universe?
Nopedy Doo!

                              The big bang

13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago

The first hydrogen atom

380 000 years after the big bang

The creation of Earth

4.54 × 10⁹ years ± 1% ago (2/3 of the history of
 the history of the universe has already passed).

                                                      Originally, Earth was just molten lava and 
volcanic rock. 

Oldest minerals

at least 4.404 billion years old

The creation of the moon

4.5 to 4.6 billion years old (about same time as Earth)

It was created by a huge object about the size of Mars smashed into Earth. Earth absorbed most of the impact but not the debris that later forms the moon. Later, this is what makes our days become 24 hours. The moon also gives the Earth another key ingredient to life: the seasons, as it keeps it tilted on its axis.

The creation of oceans

3.8 million years ago

The first species (simple cells; bacteria)

3.6 billion years ago

The first multicellular life
1 billion years ago

The first homonids (early proto humans)

2.6 million years ago

A documentary of the history of the Universe:

AMAZINGG!!! Only 2 hours; super interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWKijOdOloc

How did Prussia gain power in the 19th century?

Throughout the 19th century, Prussia became much more prosperous, her military improved immensely and education improved greatly, promoting Prussian nationalism greatly. How? One answer: industrialisation and economic development.

During the Congress of Vienna, Prussia got the Rhineland from France, an extremely industrial area. However, the Rhineland was not attached to Prussia and there were several states in between the two. Also, the population of the Rhineland looked down on the Prussian agricultural society and felt that they would be better off if they were independent. 

In 1818, some Rhinelanders complained to the King of Prussia about the many tariffs and customs barriers placed on goods going from the Rhineland to Prussia, through multiple states. Moreover, the different currencies throughout each state made it difficult and rather inconvenient to trade. In the same year, the Prussian   government formed the Prussian customs union. This reduced the tariffs for goods going out from the Rhineland to go to Prussia and vice versa and they were all payed at once. This was called, as well as the Prussian Customs Union, the Zolverein.

Some north and central Germanic states were impressed by Prussian's economic pressure or forced by economic downfall, joined the Zollverein, and in 1828, Hesse-Darmstadt was persuaded to join, establishing a trade route south of the river Main. 

Nevertheless, some other states were stubborn and refused to join, such as Hesse-Cassel and Hanover. Instead, they formed the Middle German Customs Union ( Hanover, Brunswick, Saxony and several smaller states ) and another, consisting mainly of Bavaria and Württemberg. 

In 1830, Hesse-Cassel, a small but vitally important state of the middle customs union, ran into financial difficulties and revolutionary upheavals. The following year, to the horror of its fellow Middle Customs Union states, it joined the Zollverein. In 1834, Bavaria and Württemberg joined, the Zollverein now including 18 states and 23 million people, and in 1836, the both important states Bade
n and Frankfurt joined, the Union being then formed of 25 states. This Customs Union was, as one can suspect, extremely successful and gave Prussia extremely tactical control of the Germanic states. The Zollverein Congress achieved multiple things: it unified the states into one currency (the Mark) and unified the units of measurements in all of these states. Additionally, huge progress was made on the railway network, which trade benefited from hugely. 

Why go through all this detail? 

Well, this Zollverein Union would later be the key of German Unification. Austria refused to join it in the beginning and when later it asked to, the Prussians simply said that they had not been willing to take the risk originally, so why should they benefit from it? (Which is fair enough, in my opinion) 

The economic power of Prussia gave it a massive influence and of course, a state with economic power also has political power. Furthermore, the developing of the Prussian economy, as previously mentioned, aided its education, military and it's society in general, which would, in 1866 help it win the Austro-Prussian war and helped it become an important European nation. 

Map of German Confederation in 1815

How likely did Italian Unification seem by 1948?

By the start of 1848, Italian unification seemed likely to a large extent. Indeed, many new ideas had been exposed, innovative revolutionary groups had been formed, a new reformative pope was in power and people were beginning to create a link between their poverty and low standard of living and politics. Nevertheless, in some ways the unification of all of the Italian states, including the ones controlled by Austria, Lombardy and Venetia, seemed considerably unlikely. This was not only because of the power and influence of Austria throughout the Italian states, but also because of the lack of progress throughout the states (therefore people cared less about politics) and the conservative authority of the Church.

    The most important reason why Italian unification seemed likely by the start of 1848 was the bad economy, affecting the entire population. The economy was failing, as the population was rising rapidly but the amount of land being cultivated was the same. This caused widespread famine and soon people began linking their poverty to politics, creating a want for change. Additionally, many moved to the cities in hope for a better standard of living, but this sudden flow of people needing jobs and accommodation caused wages to decrease and generated overcrowding and a lack of hygiene. The low standard of living and poverty of so many Italians created unhappiness and revolt; however the Austrians used their military to crush any signs of revolution.

      The huge Austrian influence on Italy certainly did make Italian Unification less likely. Not only did Austria directly control the two richest Italian states- Lombardy and Venetia- and therefore a quarter of the population, but it also had indirect power over the main duchies: Parma, Modena and Tuscany. On top of this, the Pope controlled the Papal States, who often supported Austria, as they were a Catholic country, and made Italy even more conservative. This meant that the Austro-Hungarian Empire essentially controlled Italy, suppressing any sign of liberalism or nationalism, especially as it might spread to Austria, which was made up of many different populations (Czechs, Polish, Slovaks...) . This meant that most uprisings didn't succeed and liberal ideas were often suppressed. Nevertheless, some revolutionary groups did manage to be formed throughout this period.

       These groups included the Carbonari and "Young Italy", formed by Giuseppe Mazzini. Additionally, the new pope Pius IX began his reign with many liberal ideas.

Firstly, he freed political prisoners, which meant that more liberal thinkers were around Italy; persuading and rebelling. Moreover, he brought non-churchmen into the government. This made it less conservative and therefore made the policies in the Papal States more liberal. Above all, in 1847, Pius IX proposes an Italian Customs Union, where there wouldn’t be free trade throughout all of the states in Italy. However, this never occurred as Austria was horrified and counter-reacted by placing a military base in Ferrara, a very threatening location to the Papal States.

Your turn to decide! How likely did Italian Unification seem by 1848?!

The fact is, Italian unification only occurred in 1870, after a lot of help from other powers, but maybe without the obstructions of Austria, Italian unification would have occurred much sooner!?

'The Great Reactionary', was this a fair title for Alexander III?

What does the term ‘The Great Reactionary’ mean? A 'reactionary' is someone who opposes social and political reform, such as liberalist attitudes and progress. They react to events, such as the death of AII, in a harsh manner.

What are the key themes to address in this essay? ·        abandonment of the Loris-Melikov reform proposals and AIII's change in ministers ·        the re-establishment of noble power, the land captains, and the undermining of the zemstva and dumas ·        changes in methods of control and repression, including the use of law courts, education, censorship and the police ·        Russification and the treatment of ethnic minorities ·        religious policies ·        lower classes helped + former serfs' positions improved ·        AIII's views on the government ·        Increase in Russian Industrialisation ·        His Personality (described as a ‘limited, unfit ruler whose personality dominated the statesman in him’ and his policies were doomed from the start and pushed Russia towards revolution. Alexander’s own family believed him to be ‘unintelligent, slow to learn and had a very inadequate knowledge of history, literature, economy and the law’.) ·        Alexander was trained by Konstantin Pobedonostsev and the military. In the 15 years before he became Tsar, he privately disagreed with his father about the treatment of Russia’s nationalities and he wanted harsh repressive measures against political extremists. Alexander III did not want the army to be liberalised and he actually wanted the country to aggressive militarily. He made it clear to his father that when he became Tsar he would reverse all of the reforms made under Alexander II. ·        The aristocracy liked him because he was a strong supporter of Russian nationalism and Pan-Slavism and he wanted to return to anti-German policies.

Overview: Alexander III, or Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov (Russian: Александр Александрович Романов) (10 March 1845 – 20 October 1894) was Emperor of Russia, King of Poland and Grand Prince of Finland from 13 March 1881 until his death on 20 October  1894. He was highly conservative and reversed some of the liberal measures of his father, Alexander II. During Alexander's reign Russia fought no major wars, for which he was styled "The Peacemaker" (Russian: "Миротворец").

Mao Zedong: an influential figure of history

Mao was born on 26 December 1893 into a peasant family in Shaoshan, in Hunan province, central China. After training as a teacher, he travelled to Beijing where he worked in the University Library. It was during this time that he began to read Marxist literature. In 1921, he became a founder member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and set up a branch in Hunan. In 1923, the Kuomintang (KMT) nationalist party had allied with the CCP to defeat the warlords who controlled much of northern China. Then in 1927, the KMT leader Chiang Kai-shek launched an anti-communist purge.

Although many horrors were caused by Mao and his sporadic tendencies of making the entirety of China do something (eg. burn all iron and steel), he did enable China to become a great power by, despite there being great ups and downs in his reign, increased education (at some parts of his reign), encouraged industrialisation and lifted many peasants out of poverty.


For his biography and an interesting video see: http://www.biography.com/people/mao-tse-tung-9398142

History Joke

 

 

Explanation

The Archduke's name was Franz and "sans" in French means without.

WWI began owing to this Archduke's death (so problems started when we were without Ferdinand.

Question:
Did Franz Ferdinand, an individual, cause WWI or were there broader causes?

How to fulfill the UN 1rst millenium goal (debate format- MUN)

I would like to begin by stating the first and foremost United Nations millennium goal:

eradicate extreme hunger and poverty.

How to do this? This resolution would be a big leap forward.

An important 2011 paper by economists Luc Christiaensen, Lionel Demery and Jesper Kuhl shows that agriculture is roughly three times more effective at reducing extreme poverty than non-agricultural sectors. This demonstrates the important of the industry to fulfill this millennium goal.

One may think, what about all the other developing countries in the world?

Well, Sub-Saharan Africa has the farthest to go to eradicate poverty, despite recent progress, since a large proportion of its population still lives so far below $1.25 per day, and is the only region in the world where poverty and hunger are on the increase.

Most of this extreme poverty being located in the rural areas of the continent, the development of agriculture would extremely help. Additionally, this delegate believes that once the trade in Africa's agriculture has improved, this will engender more beneficial developments, such as transport and sustainable farming.

 

Moreover, this delegate would like to bring your attention to clause 2*, which she commends Nicaragua for particularly.

The improvement of infrastructure and education would hugely African agriculture. The infrastructure could range from transport links, which would benefit small rural villages enormously, as the poor access to markets, land and resources is one of the main issues African agriculture faces, to hospitals, an example of how this would help is with HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS is reducing life expectancy and the productive capacity of farming households – in the past two decades 7 million farmers and agricultural workers have died of AIDS in the most affected countries.

Education would be greatly beneficial, as the main problem in Africa is that the arable land isn't being used efficiently. Through education, farmers could not only be taught about how to produce the maximum amount, but also how to sustainably use resources.

*clause 2:

2.      Urges countries to replace at least 5% of the money they spend on unsustainable aid with aid focused on increasing the trading capabilities of these countries through means such as, but not limited to:

a.      Investing into infrastructure and education

b.      Funding anti-corruption groups that these nations believe can make an active difference based on thorough research

Russian Empire in pictures

     

The Russian Revolution of 1905

Many historians question if this was actually a revolution. In my opinion it was. Not only because of the change it brought about in Russia, but also because violence broke out. A revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system. Although the government was not completely overthrown, a new system was indeed put in place: the October Manifesto issued effectively promised a constitution, with civil liberties and a legislative assemble elected on a relatively wide if far from universal franchise. Certainly, this wasn't the freedom of assembly and press or constitutional government that the revolutionary groups were asking for, it was a change, and did in fact calm the crowds of revolutionaries.
However, the Tsar's new "strong man", Stolypin, tamed the potential political threat of the newly-formed Duma by his constitutional coup of 3 June 1907, which drastically restricted the franchise and transformed the political composition of the Duma, to change it from a dangerous rival into a relatively tame partner. Therefore, the revolution did not in fact do much, as the Tsar still had about as much power as before.

A touch of who? what? when? why?
who? and why?
Most of the Russian Empire was in unrest, from the agricultural society to the so-called "intelligentsia". For instance, factory workers, owing to low wages and conditions, long days and disrespectful treatment by employers and arbitrary fines. Peasants disliked arbitrary interference and voiced their belief that the land, like air and water, was God's gift to those who worked, not idle landlords. Non-Russians demanded rights on their own languages and faiths and rebelled against the Russification movement. The Orthodox Church demanded the restoration of its autonomy. Schoolteachers wanted better pay and job security, and some women voiced aspirations for equality of rights.
Many revolutionary groups were formed and many began joining together.

what?
What they did.
Methods varied as every corner of Russian society had its own objectives. Some were petitions, peaceful demonstrations, strikes, etc.
What it did to Russian society.
The unfolding events of 1905 educated the entire Russian society politically. Wide swathes of the pop. were involved in demonstrations and many organisational forms which challenged the regime were developed. Autocracy was on the verge of collapse, however, many were unsure of the revolutionary aspirations, therefore letting the regime continue.

when?
The unrest was from 1904-1907 however main turning points/ dates to remember were:

• large-scale strike of the St Petersburg textile workers in 1896- development of more coherent workers' movement.
• widespread famine of 1891- brought about serious unrest
• Kishinev pogrom of 1903- one of the horrific anti-jewish pogroms encouraged by the government
• BLOODY SUNDAY 9 JANUARY 1905- symbolic event; huge significance; Tsar no longer "paternal" figure to the working class.
• loss of the Russian fleet in the Straits of Tsushima on 14 May- final straw of great Russian defeat (biggest in naval history)
• 27/08/1905 gov reopened unis
• October Manifesto

Hope it was good!!

Great Man theory

The theory to which the title of this blog refers to is the Great Man theory. I shall write on it soon (complex subject), but if interested, the Wikipedia site is very good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory

Vladimir Lenin: Background

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov was Lenin's actual name however, he changed this, after a period of exile by the River Lena in Siberia.
he read law at the University of Kazan, but was expelled in 1887 for attending a student demonstration (sentenced to 3 yrs of exile in Siberia). Nevertheless, he later graduated with top honours at the University of St Petersburg.

Lenin became a revolutionary when his brother, Alexander Ulyanov was arrested and hanged in March 1887, along with various other student members of the People's Will. They were caught preparing bombs. In 1895, Lenin helped to found the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the working class. He was an early convert to Marxism and joined the Marxist Social Democratic Party when it was formed in 1898. He believed that only a group with fully dedicated revolutionaries would be able to drive the proletarian revolution (Martov disagreed with this leading to the party split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903). Lenin lived in exile until Nicholas II was taken off the throne in the February/March 1917 revolution. In October and November of the same year he led the Bolshevik Revolution and became the first leader of the USSR. He dominated the Russian government until his death in 1924.

 

A touch of Fun:

Lenin coined a slogan on how to achieve the state of communism through rule by the Communist Party and modernization of the Russian industry and agriculture: "Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country!" The slogan was subject to popular mathematical scrutiny: "Consequently, Soviet power is communism minus electrification, and electrification is communism minus Soviet power."

Romanov Dynasty family tree (Tsars of Russia)

Overlook on Tsar Nicholas II

Nicholas II became Tsar in 1894, after his father Alexander III. In comparison to Alexander III, Nicholas had a weak character. He didn't have the personality of an autocrat: he disliked politics and preferred the arts, such as dancing, and he spoke both French and German. The main problem was however, was that Nicholas II was determined to upkeep the absolute autocracy of the Romanov dynasty. As Orlando Figes said, Nicholas II had the personality of a constitutional monarch, not of a Tsar. He was quite immature; he didn't trust his ministers, depended on his wife to make his decisions, and was even called "Nicky" in his 20s.
The big question is however: Was it Nicholas II's fault that revolution broke out in 1905? Or would it have happened to anyone in his place?

Northern Ireland's Path to Peace

BBC History Cartoon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22449987

The History of Table Manners

In my previous post, I wrote about the history of cheese. On could apply the same kind of analysis to anything. One that is particularly interesting is the history of table manners. The great German historian Norbert Elias wrote a book on this called The history of table manners (The Civilizing Process Vol.1). At the beginning, this book was misunderstood as being "social Darwinism", the idea of upward "progress" was dismissed by reading it as consecutive history rather than a metaphor for a social process. However, soon people came to understanding him. He describes the increasing structuring and restraining of human behaviour in European history, a process called "civilization" by its own protagonists. Elias  intended to analyse this concept and process dubbed civilization, and researched into its origins, patterns, and methods.

The Guardian also published an interesting article about the history of table manners: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/09/history-table-manners-etiquette-beeton

Could one make an interesting essay on the history of cheese?

1. What could the history of cheese tell us?     
2.  What could the essay be about? What could your essay title be?

NB: This will be obviously influenced by my opinion that yes, one can.


Well, you could explore many things cheese tells us. These are some ideas:

• economic development: in general, maybe higher cheese consumption shows economic prosperity, so as a country develops, the cheese consumption would increase.
• education: as people become more educated about a balanced diet, consumption decreases?
• women's figure: maybe when it was attractive for women to be robust, cheese was eaten more often?
• transport increase: more variety of cheese in a country as the transport improves
• agricultural development: better quality cheese as the methods of production changes, so higher consumption? Or, maybe, in certain countries, when there waasn't any transport each region made its own cheese, so there was more variety?
• industrialisation: higher consumption as lower prices, owing to machinery or easier packaging?
• difference in treatment in animals: better quality cheese as the animals are treated better
• influence of a country on another: for example, consumption of cheese in China has increased as Western influence has. Or maybe French influence on England has increased, also increasing cheese consumption.
• events: do wars affect the consumption? does a political party being in place induce higher consumption of cheese? etc.

You could go about making the essay in different ways.
One could be more general, such as:

• How does change in society affect the change in consumption of cheese?
• As a country develops, how does the consumption of cheese change?
• As a country develops, how does the people/classes consuming cheese change?
• As a country/area develops, how do the occasions people eat cheese on change?

However, to make it easier, you would probably have to be more specific; for instance specifying the type of cheese or when? or where? so that you wouldn't have to find an eternity of examples to use as evidence!:

• How did the consumption of cheese in England change when the number of immigrants increased?
• Did the great depression of 1929 affect the consumption of cheese around the world?
• How did the increase in railways under Tsar Alexander II affect the consumption of cheese in Russia?
• How did the changing society in Italy in the twentieth century affect the consumption of cheese?
  
  

Alexander II: Tsar Liberator?

Well, AII was a great Tsar who did change Russia for the better. However, he was determined to keep his power as an autocrat who rules over the entire country; this of course does not go with economic modernisation, which the Tsar was very keen to embrace in order to make Russia one of the great powers of the world.

After the Crimean War against the Turks, who were backed up by the Austrians, British,French and other small powers, the Russians felt hugely humiliated. This is mostly because Russia's great pride was it's military, which had, in this case failed it. The Russian military was not as up to date as the other European powers and the higher ranks were given based on status instead of achievement. 

The Crimean War was the main cause for Alexander II's reforms. But was he genuinely liberal, or did he just realise he had to reform Russia, not only for the stability of the vast Empire, but also for it to get back on it's feet and keep its status as one of the powerful nations of Europe. 

The abolition of the serfs: this is a subject of huge controversy: why did Alexander II abolish serfdom in 1861?

(Serfs were people owned by the nobility or landlords. Their owners could essentially do anything they wanted with the serfs, including torturing them and I'll-feeding them)

I shall leave you to decide, however these are the most likely reasons: 

The economy- serfdom could no longer support the economy. This was because not enough was being produced and industrialisation was not taking place as the serfs weren't allowed to move to the cities. 

AII was liberal and saw that it was morally wrong- maybe Alexander II, having toured the country and who was said to sympathise with the people saw how wrong it was for a person to be "owned" by another, and believed that this should be changed. 

The failing military- one couldn't reform the military with out reforming the serfdom system. This is because the military would select serfs who would then be in service for 25 years and then would be free (many died before owing to low life expectancy anyways). This 25 years system simply didn't work and had to be changed as soldiers lacked enthusiasm. However, if it was shortened , serfdom would be abolished within 3 to 5 generations.

The many revolts throughout the country- AII may have seen the unrest in the country at the time and known that the only way he would not be overthrown was to abolish serfdom. There was a lot of unrest as the serfs had fought for the country throughout the war, throughout the country side (not the Crimean war; the war against Napoleon), expecting to be rewarded by their freedom, however, this did not occur, causing a lot of anger. 

HOPE IT WAS INTERESTING!!

Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China, Jung Chang

Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China is a family history that spans a century, recounting the lives of three female generations in China, by Chinese writer Jung Chang. First published in 1991, Wild Swans contains the biographies of her grandmother and her mother, then finally her own autobiography. The book won two awards: the 1992 NCR Book Award and the 1993 British Book of the Year. The book has been translated into 30 languages and sold over 10 million copies.
Source: Wikipedia

I RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO EVERYONE, EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE HISTORY! DON'T BE FOOLED BY ITS SIZE; YOU CAN EASILY SKIP SOME DESCRIPTIONS IF NOT INTERESTED IN CHINESE HISTORY!!

More Info on Cavour, Mazzini and Garibaldi (follow up of other post)

Cavour was, in fact, Piedmont's prime minister, finance minister and foreign minister, and he played an extremely important role in the unification of Italy. Not only did he make Piedmont strong so that it could then dominate over other states, but he also came up with the unification strategy. Above all, he improved Piedmont's foreign relations, especially with France, by sending his troops to fight in the Crimean War against the Russians and by trade deals with Britain, France and Belgium. Therefore, he was the main cause for the help France gave to Italy and Cavour "arranged" the Austrian attack on Piedmont by making it known that Piedmont wanted to form an alliance with Massa-Carrara. Moreover, he came up with the idea of a plebiscite in order to gain control over the central duchies and he later convinces Garibaldi to hand Naples and Sicily over to Piedmont. Of course, he wasn't the only person that enabled these things to happen; there were other important figures such as Victor Emmanuel, the King of Piedmont, but he was, in all of these cases the "mastermind" behind it. Hence, Cavour handled most of the politics leading to Italian unification. Furthermore, he was an economic moderniser and managed to develop Piedmont industrially.  For example, by 1850, nearly half the Italian railways were in Piedmont and the first Italian steamship had left Genoa. However, when he died in 1861, he left Piedmont in a state of instability as there was nobody to take over his place.  One could argue that this was Cavour's fault as he was too powerful and should have been prepared by grooming somebody to take his place. Despite this, he was one of the crucial leaders of the Italian unification.   

       Another key figure was Giuseppe Mazzini, was Italian, and, although not living to see Italy unified, was very successful in his spread of nationalist ideas. Above all, Mazzini formed the group "Young Italy" in 1831, which has been called Italy's first political party as it was the first nationalist group. Their aim was to create 'one free independent republican nation' of Italy. The group was quite successful; it had 5,000 to 6,000 members and lasted for roughly two decades. "Young Italy" organised various uprisings and revolts, such as a mutiny in the Piedmontese army and a rising Savoy, however they didn't change much. The group's main accomplishments were the consolidation of the Carbonari of different regions into a national party and the gaining of support for the nationalist movement. Additionally, Mazzini's followers, the "Mazzinian Radicalists"  started the Sicilian uprising in Palermo in 1860 which enabled Garibaldi to take over Sicily. Not only does this uprising show Mazzini's huge influence, even years after his death, but also that Mazzini's followers, who were all Italian, caused the taking over of Sicily by the Piedmontese. Furthermore, Mazzini helped create the Roman Republic in 1948 and became its political leader. Settenbrini said that although the Roman Republic didn't work, this generation made Italy as it put the idea of this Roman Republic into people's heads. This is true as it, not only showed that liberals could govern effectively, but also people could later learn from their mistakes and it pulled people together. Additionally, it inspired people as Mazzini ruled in a tolerant and fair manner, for example, he abolished the death penalty and taxation was reformed to aid the poor. Indeed, Mazzini's main role in the Italian unification was being an inspirational figure that increased support for the unification. The most important of his recruits to the cause was most probably Garibaldi.

      Garibaldi, another vital Italian individual in the unification of Italy, was, as well as Mazzini, a fundamental figure of the Roman Republic, but he also did much more. Some consider Garibaldi as merely a "colourful figure" as he could never have succeeded without Cavour and he never managed to fully unify Italy. However this is untrue as he achieved many things aiding the cause of Italian unification. Firstly, he was a great military leader, enabling him to take over Sicily and Naples and later start up revolutions inside Venetia. Furthermore, Garibaldi was brave enough to take a gamble and sail to Sicily and was then courageous enough to march into the Papal States to create the Roman Republic. Therefore, without him the expansion of Piedmont would have only been in the north. Moreover, when he had achieved the annexation of Naples and Sicily, he "handed it over" to Cavour. This was a crucial step in the unification of Italy, and without Garibaldi's boldness, it would not have occurred. Above all, like Mazzini, Garibaldi was an influential and devoted Italian. He was immensely popular and won many over the cause of unification, but also he encouraged his soldiers and sparked their loyalty and enthusiasm. Although his risings in Venetia and Rome never took off as he lacked the support of the people, the unification of Italy would of been hugely improbable without him, which shows that Italians did actually play a critical role in the creation of the Kingdom of Italy.