In the first Havinghurst lecture of the fall, Josh Sanborn argued that WW1 was actually a war of decolonization in Europe, specifically in Russia. Dr. Sanborn of Layfette College challenged popular conceptions in his talk titled “Imperial Apocalypse” which placed the focus of the First World War on Russia’s experience and how a society functions during war. This experience combined with the long term challenges and processes occurring in the Russian Empire before the war are what lead to Russia’s decolonization according to Sanborn. First by recognizing that the word decolonization has a heavy connotation that is related in contemporary minds to a post-1945 era, Sanborn acknowledges that these processes are the same however the decolonization …show more content…
began in 1914 with Eastern Europe. Beginning in 1914, the map of Europe contained empires and few nations. Dr. Sanborn compared a map of 1914 with one from the interwar period that contained Eastern and Central Europe represented by nations instead of empires. The main example of this is the Balkan states; Sanborn places these states as the center of the decolonization with their resistance to the Ottoman Empire which led to the First World War. He argues that the key indications of the decolonization process are an imperial challenge, state failure and recognizable social collapse, and finally state-building. In his lecture, Sanborn skims over the ultimate state-building of the Bolsheviks. His in-depth analysis of the first three stages explains the Russian Revolution and why the Soviet Union took the form it did. An imperial challenge by nationalist groups in 1914 had no chance of success; however Sanborn states “their only chance is if there is a war between Russia, Germany, and Austria.” When this war occurred, he argues that the nationalists were not the force that weakened the state but the imperial government placing martial law zones on the fronts.
The weakening of the state occurred from how the military governed these zones with Sanborn discussing the Russian government’s ignorance in believing that the civilian officials would remain at their posts. The idea of the postman on the border with Germany while the armies massed at the front reinforces Sanborn’s point that the civilians would flee these areas leaving minimal government structure …show more content…
behind. The real imperial challenge that Sanborn address is after the civilians flee, those who remain have to interact with a military government which cannot control the economy. The main economic dilemma at the front was “inflation, a problem that would bedevil authorities throughout the war.” As inflation moved towards the center of Russia, the military’s response of publishing price control lists and arresting merchants only sought to exasperate the challenges to the empire. The next two stages are not clearly delineated and Sanborn addresses that decolonization does not happen in clear separate stages.
In recognizing that state failure and social collapse can occur simultaneously, Sanborn shows how these processes are built from many aspects of society that interact. The mass refugee movement from the front zones pushes into the center, Sanborn states that in 1915 there were 3 million refugees in Russia. As the refugees migrated east, the examples of how Russian society became increasingly focused on ethnopolitics or mobilized ethnic sentiment with deportations, ethnic violence, and intensified the social and state crises in Russia. Sanborn argues that the growing social crisis was only enhanced by the state crises occurring with the Tsar’s government failing at winning the war or even functioning as a
government. The people’s escalating discontent with the imperial government from the military failures, state’s incompetence, and increased ethnic sentiment became the “Question of 1916.” A question of not when the government would fail but if the new social institutions that had begun to replace the Tsar’s government would succeed first. This question represents why the First World War was a war of decolonization for Russia because there was no question if the empire would breakdown but when. Sanborn has the critical moment in 1917 with the Kerensky Offensive to reclaim the empire but really was “the last gasp of imperial power.” In examining Russia’s experience in WW1 as decolonization, Sanborn provides insight and understanding to how and why the empire failed and broke apart.
The non-fictional work Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance - and Why They Fall, by Amy Chua, evaluates how hyperpowers came to be, how they maintained strength, and how they declined. Chua’s thesis is exercised throughout many segments of her writing and is as follows, “For all their enormous differences, every single world hyperpower in history ... was extraordinarily pluralistic and tolerant during it’s rise to preeminence. Indeed, in every case tolerance was the indispensable to … hegemony. But … It was also tolerance that sowed the seeds of decline. In virtually every case tolerance … [led to] conflict, hatred, and violence.” Chua’s thesis is strongly supported through her examples of how great empires like The Persians, Romans, Chinese, and Mongols surged to power and the reasons for their deterioration.
In this installment of Harvest of Empire, we reach the third and final chapter named La Cosecha which shows the impact of Latinos in politics. Though, the two previous sections were interesting due to learning history and the history of Gonzalez himself, in this section we learn of the triumphs and downfalls of communities that were aren’t made aware of in modern textbooks or in classrooms. In Chapter 10, we are knowledgeable that the Latino vote has not only increased by sky-rocketed from the years 1976 to 2008. The revolution has been in the works since post World War II although it’s not commonly known as other legacies throughout the United States. As the years later progressed, the United States saw the rise of major radical groups such
No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporally displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One. Shortages of basic human necessities led to countless subsistence riots and the eventual power struggle between the ruling body and its people. From the beginnings of WWI to 1916, prices of essential goods rose 131 percent in Moscow and more than 150 percent in Petrograd. Additionally, historian Walter G. Moss stated that in September 1915 that “there were 100,000 strikers in Russia; in October 1916, there were 250,000 in Petrograd alone.” Moss continues to exemplify the increasing evidence of social unrest and connects the riots to a lack of resources when he goes on to point out that “subsistence riots protesting high prices and shortages… also increased.” ...
Moving forward from the Industrial Revolutions, the course emphasized World War I, as a truly world-redefining war. Stromberg may argue that the First World War was devastating and then arbitrarily move on to the next period in history, which was the rise of Communism and Fascism, but through the lecture we see the connection. “Communism and Fascism were the two big movements out of WWI” (6/1). As the lecture explains, World War I produced many extremist ideas, and the reason for these extremist ideas was the problems the world identified inherently from the conditions it was left in after the war. The role of communism and fascism did not end here though, its impact continued until after the Second World War and led to giving fuel to decolonization. In isolation, we may treat the two wars as having impact on each nation individually, the truth is far from that, and many nations leaned on common ideas in order to decolonize. “Class, religion and race were all forms of identity that transcended national borders, and movements of national independence drew from international movements” (6/3). The highlighted idea being “international movements. From this we understand that the big story was that imperially ruled nations wanted to decolonize and start anew as independent world. The big story, is not, as Stromberg may have us believe that each nation, in isolation, worked on
The Imperial Crisis was a crisis that was fought for a long time between the colonists and the parliament. This crisis happened between the years 1763 and 1775. Before the Imperial Crisis the Seven Years War was fought between the main powers in Europe. This war caused a great deal of debt to England which then was put on the colonist’s backs. This led the parliament to create many acts that would tax the colonists on many items, unfairly. Another reason why the colonists were taxed so heavily and why these acts were created was because of mercantilism. Mercantilism was a belief that the colonies were there for financial support to the mother country, which in this case was Europe. The colonists, “The Americans” eventually got sick of how unfairly they were treated by England and fought back. This crisis had many events/consequences that became more aggressive as the years passed and as the acts got more unfair. 1
The first fourteen months of the war had been a debacle of monumental proportions for the Russians. During this time, the Germans had occupied more than a...
(p.20-21) As a result of the war, Russia was severely weakened, which greatly upset the balance of power in Europe. Taylor claims that, “What gave France independence as a Great Power was the alliance with Russia, which automatically halved German strength.” (p. 35) By the end of the war the “German Problem” remained.... ...
Soldiers’ influence on the decolonization process is prominent throughout the work. The soldiers’ viewpoint and experience supports Sanborn’s thesis because there is never a chapter that does not reference either the soldiers’ relationship to an aspect of the war or society generally. One of his best pieces of evidence on the effects of the war comes from a commander in 1914 named Aleksandr Uspenskii; Sanborn describes how this war changed soldiers’ perspectives of warfare. Hence he articulates how the horrors of war appear in the soldiers’ nightmares and “Uspenskii spent one awful night in a barn, watching his soldiers screaming and thrashing in their dreams as they slept, producing an unwelcome feeling that their lodging had become a mental hospital” (35). This “shock of combat,” that Sanborn articulates aids in understanding the mental constraints of soldiers fighting in a war that they already felt inadequate for. This inadequacy of the soldiers is from the incompetency of command and lack of arms which Sanborn demonstrates throughout his
In Germany, the terms “East” and “West” do not just represent geographical regions. It runs much deeper than that, and there is still a large gap in the way of life, and political and social conditions of the whole country. While most German’s were sleeping on the night of August 13, 1961, the East German government began closing its borders. In the early morning of that Sunday, most of the first work was done: the border to West Berlin was closed. The East German troops had begun to tear up streets and install barbed wire entanglement and fences through Berlin.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
In 1860s Russia, major changes took place. Serfdom came to an end and drastic economic reforms were implemented. Raskolnikov’s home of St. Petersburg, once upon a time capital of Russia, represents the confusing mood that was felt throughout the country. His habitat is described as confined, depressing, stuffy and violent. Often, Raskolnikov’s mood and behaviors are parallel with the ...
The Russian Revolution, and subsequent civil war, was one of the most brutal and destructive power struggles in modern history. Recently, historians have started to reconsider the intent of the Bolsheviks leaders who led the revolution. Sheila Fitzpatrick, a respected modern Russian historian, formulates an argument that soon after the revolution started Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party led the revolution astray to benefit themselves. Much of the decisions the party undertook were once believed to be vehicles of the proletariat revolution, but Fitzpatrick contends that the Bolshevik Party was power hungry and used the popular uprising as an opportunity to claim power. In her book The Russian Revolution, Sheila Fitzpatrick displays how
The division of Germany into West Germany and East Germany emerged as a stopgap solution for the woeful state of the nation following its defeat in the Second World War. With the United States (US) ultimately gaining full control over West Germany, East Germany increasingly became alienated towards it, as it went under the influence of the Soviet Union (USSR). West Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), rapidly grew into one of the most politically and economically influential nations in Europe representing the democratic interests of the US in the region, while East Germany, officially the German Democratic Republic (GDR), went seemingly the other way. East Germans became increasingly disillusioned by the way their politicians have promoted communism in the GDR, characterized by oppressive measures and sheer inequality in living standards. The Stasi, the secret police unit of the GDR, closely monitored East Germans and purged those who are suspected or proven dissidents, while politicians of the nation enjoyed living standards that are way superior compared to the average East German. West Germans, on the other hand, enjoyed the benefits of political and economic reforms brought forth by the democratic influence of the US. Therefore, discontentment among East Germans increased the prospect of unification of the FRG and GDR – an issue that was never written off in consideration, only further complicated by political differences. Nevertheless, eventual unification of the FRG and GDR following the symbolic collapse of the Berlin Wall did not completely result to favorable circumstances, as problems that continued to alienate matters between the Western and Eastern sections of Germany remain unresolved (Brockman ...
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2005. Print.
Smith, Tony. The End of the European Empire: Decolonization after World War II. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1975. Print.