The Cold War Test Notes

Summary of the Cold War 1945-1991 

What Was It?

War of words with tension and rivalry between the two sides.

The Cold War was the result of tension and rivalry between the USA and the USSR to rule the world.

Superpowers fought the war with espionage and propaganda and competed with each other over arms and the space race.

Key aspects: 

Space race;

Propaganda;

Arms race;

Prestige competition; (Sport, cultural events & living)

Threats;

Espionage;

Treaties;

Military & economic aid to countries to gain influence.

Who Was Involved? 

Capitalist countries led by the USA and the Communist countries led by the USSR.

Why Did It Occur?

1. The USSR would not give up territory gained during WWII;

2. USSR was afraid of the USA’s atomic bomb;

3. USA thought the USSR wanted to spread Communism;

4. Both powers couldn’t talk calmly about the issue.

Beginnings:

In February 1945 the Allied leaders met to determine what would happen to Europe after the war. This was called the Yalta Conference. There were three countries: UK, USA and the USSR.

Churchill: 

Leader of the UK;

Anti-Communist;

Anti-Hitler/Germany; (Wants them to pay)

Facing an election.

Roosevelt:

Leader of the USA;

Sick man;

Believed in peace and cooperation;

Did not believe in revenge;

Peacemaker of the meeting

Stalin: 

Leader of the USSR;

Anti-Capitalist;

Anti-Hitler/Germany; (Has been invaded twice in 20 years)

Concerned about USSR security; (Invasions, USA’s atom bomb)

Holds complete power.

After Germany is defeated, Stalin breaks Yalta by occupying Eastern Europe.

After the war, there was a second conference called the Potsdam Conference. The USA has a new leader – Harry Truman.

Harry Truman: 

Extremely anti-Communist;

Opposite of Roosevelt;

Truman Doctorate: America must get involved to stop aggressive powers.

Before that there was the Monroe Doctorate which said the US should stay out of Europe.

USA hold the upper hand as they have demonstrated the destructive power of the atomic bomb.

This conference was held in Berlin spanning July – August 1945. Churchill was replaced by Attlee midway through.

The USA and the UK disagreed with the USSR on three important issues:

1. What to do with Germany; (USA wanted to make Germany self-sufficient while the Soviet Union wanted her to remain permanently crippled)

2. Reparations for war damages; (The USA said this was a bad idea as it had allowed Hitler to gain power after the IWW)

3. The existence of a buffer zone. (The USSR wanted all of the countries immediately on her boarders to be ‘friendly’ countries to lower the risk of attack)

The Berlin Blockade & Wall: 

During the Berlin blockade (June 1948-May1949) Stalin lay siege to the city which was in Soviet territory. He blocked all rail, road and canal traffic so the Americans were forced to airlift vital supplies of food and fuel.

Brinkmanship: 

A foreign policy in which a state is prepared to go to the brink of war in pursuit of its objectives.

The Iron Curtain: 

The boundary between the Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe and the West European countries.

Containment Policy & The Marshal Plan: 

In 1947 America announced its Containment Policy: its intention to prevent the spread of Communism by dealing with the economic and social conditions in which Communist appeal might prosper. This meant providing assistance to any government threatened by Communist expansion.

Treaties: 

1949 NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Anti-Communist

Automatic response

Members:

1. UK;

2. USA;

3. Canada;

4. Belgium;

5. Denmark;

6. Greece;

7. West Germany;

8. Iceland;

9. Lux;

10. Netherlands;

11. Norway;

12. Portugal;

13. Turkey.

1951 ANZUS

Anti-Communist

USA promised to help Australia and NZ if they were attacked

1954 SEATO South East Asian Treaty Organisation

1. Australia;

2. UK;

3. USA;

4. NZ;

5. France;

6. Pakistan;

7. Philippines;

8. Thailand.

CENTO Central Treaty Organisation

Anti-Communist

1. Turkey;

2. Pakistan;

3. USA;

4. UK;

5. Iran;

6. Iraq. (Left 1958)

1955 Warsaw Pact

1. USSR;

2. Bulgaria

3. Czechoslovakia;

4. East Germany;

5. Hungary;

6. Poland

7. Romania.

The Korean War: 

1950-1953 USA & UN with South Korea against North Korea and China.

Korea was divided at the 38th parallel by the USSR and the USA when they liberated the country from the Japanese. North Korea became Communist while the South became fervently anti-Communist.

The North invaded the South and pushed toward the Capital (Seoul)

The 1970 Thaw: 

From 1970-1979 there was an improvement in relations between the US and the USSR. This involved improved communication with more conferences as well as arms reduction talks. (SALT – Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) First SALT I was signed in 1972 and then 1979 SALT II was signed.

Ended when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. This was a USSR attempt to bring its power to bear on the Gulf in order to secure the Soviet Union’s own oil supplies and provide bases to attack Western oil supplies should the need arise.

When relations improved again in the ‘80s START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) began. It started in 1982, was suspended, and then began again in 1985. The goal was to significantly reduce the amount of strategic arms held by both sides.

Vietnam: 

The US decided to get out of Vietnam by changing its foreign policy. The Nixon Doctorate which involved the US maintaining current treaty obligations but they would allow a countries own government to sort out its own problems.

Solon of Ancient Greece Speech

Solon's Reforms

“The city stood on the brink of revolution, and it seemed as if the only way to put a stop to its continual disorders was to set up a tyranny.” (Adams, J. 2001) Thus wrote Plutarch of the time preceding my ascent to power in Athens. It was I Solon who, in the year that would come to be known as 594 BC, “was entrusted with special powers to revise the political, social, and economic structure of Athens.” (Holoka, J. 1995) It was I who averted the deepening crisis of the factional conflict between both rich and poor. For, as I recall writing in one of my many poems: “If someone other than I had gotten this power, a foolish man, a greedy man, he would not have kept the ordinary people under control.” (Ohio University. 2008) The beneficial effects of my great work here in Athens were recorded by three men, whom I consider to be primary sources on my life’s work. They lived relatively close to the era of my reforms and would have been able to access sources concerning my life that were available at the time. These men are Aristotle, Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius, whose writings I shall refer to frequently throughout my speech. For the reason why I have called you all here to the ecclesia my friends, is to remind you before I depart, that it was my reforms which reduced the conflict within our magnificent Polis, and set Athens along the path towards democracy. For, I can foresee that although my laws “did not establish a democracy as radical as what would follow, nevertheless [they] became the template for all future Athenian government.” (Blackwell, C. 2003) The democratic elements of my laws which reduced the conflict here in Athens include my economic, legal, social and political reforms, which I will be discussing here today.

The economic reforms that I, Solon devised, reduced conflict and paved the way for a more equal and democratic society in Athens. The historian Aristotle recorded how before my appointment as Archon: “The poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich... the whole country was in the hands of a few persons, and if the tenants failed to pay their rent they were liable to be haled into slavery... many were in slavery to the few” (Stevenson, D. 2000) Aristotle may be regarded as a reliable source since he lived relatively close to the events he described, and the historical facts in his writings are consistent with those of other primary sources. This statement emphasises the awful conditions in Athens for the lower classes before my rise to power. There was very little democratic equality among the Athenians. As you can see behind me, this urn depicts people gathering the olive harvest in Athens - something which many Athenians, enslaved to the rich, were forced to do for their creditors. However, upon my appointment as Archon, I soon put a stop to this. As Plutarch recorded, my “first official act was to cancel existing debts and forbid the practice of taking the person of the debtor as loan guarantee.” (Holoka, J. 1995) However, there is a discrepancy between this account by Plutarch of my economic reforms and the account of Diogenes Laertius, who recorded that I “was the first person who introduced among the Athenians, an ordinance for the lowering of debts,” (Peithô's Web. 2008) not the abolition of them. Regardless of how history has remembered the precise details of my economic reform, which was known as the Seisachtheia, it nonetheless had the effect of improving the livelihoods of many Athenians. For, as Aristotle acknowledged, “the most democratic of Solon's enactments [was] the forbidding of loans on the person.” (Adams, J. 2001) After enacting this decree, I even went to the lengths of trying to free Athenians who had been enslaved outside of Athens. I referred to this policy in one of my poems, where I reflected: “I brought the people back to their homeland... those who suffered the shames of slavery.” (Ohio University. 2008) Although it may be argued in the future that my reforms “really didn't solve the economic crisis... [for] within a few years, Athens was collapsing in anarchy.” (Hooker, J. 1996) The purpose of my decrees was to create a more equal and democratic society in Athens, where no-one was enslaved. The effect of these reforms was the abolition of “the economic dependence of the Hectemoroi,” (Fotopoulos, T. 2004) who were the farmers of Athens. By freeing Hectemoroi from their dependence on their landlords, I reduced the conflict between the rich and poor and set Athens along the road towards equality and democracy. My legal reforms also reflected this personal objective.

As Archon of Athens, my reforms of the legal system led to more democratic laws, which resulted in a subsequent reduction in conflict amongst the Athenians. Originally it was the aristocrats who held the legal power in Athens, because of their hereditary role. However, under this oligarchic system of government “there was civil strife for a long time between the notables and the multitude,” (Adams, J. 2001) according to Aristotle. Although Aristotle’s views could be biased towards the democratic systems of governance, since later Greek historians tended to glorify the democratic system in which they lived, he is still a useful and relevant source. Aristotle recorded how I revised the Athenian laws so that they were more fair and democratic in regards to the people. He stated: “Solon drew up a constitution and enacted new laws; and the ordinances of Draco ceased to be used, with the exception of those relating to murder. These laws were inscribed on the wooden stands.” (Stevenson, D. 2000) This is consistent with the writings of the historian Plutarch, who also wrote that “Solon... revamped the law code of Draco... [which were said to have] been written in blood, not ink... all his laws... were written on axones that revolved on their rectangular frames.” (Holoka, J. 1995) These axones or wooden tablets were kept in public so that everyone was able to see the written laws of Athens. You can see an example of one behind me. Through my reforms of Athenian law, I laid the “foundations for Isonomia [or] (equality in law), as it is now known.”(Fotopoulos, T. 2004) I declared in my poems how “I... wrote laws that made justice fair for everybody,” (Ohio University. 2008) and how I had “set straight laws alike for lords and lowly.” (Holoka, J. 1995) Aristotle recorded how another one of my achievements was allowing “the possibility for anyone who wishes to sue over wrongdoings... [and] the right of appeal to the dicastery,” (Adams, J. 2001) which increased democracy by strengthening the power of the majority. This took the ultimate authority for interpreting the law from the Nine Archons and put “it in the hands of a more democratic body” (Blackwell, C. 2003) by allowing the Athenians the right to appeal to a jury of their peers. Although some of my laws have been criticized, as dispute arose about them since they were not drawn up in a simple and explicit fashion, as Aristotle speculated, I “deliberately made the laws indefinite, in order that the final decision be in the hands of the people.” (Stevenson, D. 2000) These legal reforms that I made set the foundations for the future democracy in Athens, and reduced the conflict between the social classes.

My social reforms amongst the Athenians reduced conflict and set the stage for the democratic reforms that would occur in the future. As Archon of Athens, I passed the “constitutional reforms that divided the Athenian subjects into four classes based on their annual agricultural production rather than birth.” (Kreis, S. 2000) An Athenian needed to be a member of the three upper orders in order to be eligible to run for public office. Nevertheless, as I stated in my poems, concerning my reformations: “I allowed neither group to bully the other unjustly.” (Ohio University. 2008) As Plutarch recorded, my intention was “to give the commoners an unprecedented share in the organs of government” (Holoka, J. 1995) Plutarch was renowned for going into intricate detail about his writing subjects, and while he did tend to glorify any democratic elements that he perceived in the history he recorded, he is still a useful and reliable source. Plutarch recorded how, while the Thetes were not allowed to hold public office, “they were eligible to attend the ecclesia... and to serve on juries.” (Holoka, J. 1995) My intent with these social reforms was to end the practice of only the individuals born into a select few families in Athens being able to advance. This set Athens along the path to democracy, for although it was not a pure democracy, as you needed to be wealthy to have a say, the social class that you were born no longer restricted how far you could advance both socially and politically in Athens. As testament to my reforms, Aristotle was to record how in Athens there was “a statue of Diphilus, bearing the inscription: The son of Diphilus, Athenion hight, did raised from the Thetes and became a knight.” (Stevenson, D. 2000) Although my reform of the Athenian social system has been criticised because it excluded all “people who did not own any productive land – women, children, slaves, resident aliens, artisans and merchants.” (Kreis, S. 2000) The purpose of this policy was to collapse the traditional monopoly that the aristocrats held on the higher offices in Athens merely because of birthright. With my constitutional reforms, “men from newer and less-established families could work their way up economically and achieve positions of political leadership.” (Kreis, S. 2000)

I prepared Athens for the democracy that would later characterise this city state through my political reforms which reduced conflict. As Aristotle was to record, until my ascent to the office of Archon “political relationships were in every respect oligarchical” There was no real political power since the real power existed within a “few influential families who controlled economic and military power.” (Fotopoulos, T. 2004) Conflict arose as a result of this unfair distribution of power, for as Aristotle recorded: the different “parties were ranged in hostile camps against one another.” (Stevenson, D. 2000) During that period the “right to be elected to the higher offices was monopolised... by the upper social and economic strata.” (Fotopoulos, T. 2004) I reformed the political system so that “the two wealthiest classes were allowed to serve on the Areopagus.” (Hooker, J. 1996) This council, as Aristotle described, was entrusted with “the duty of superintending the laws.” (Stevenson, D. 2000) I also established the council of four hundred, which served as a means to keep the power of the Areopagus in check. The only political rights that I allowed for the poorest class, the Thetes, was that they were allow to participate in an assembly which “voted on affairs brought to it by the council of four hundred, and even elected local magistrates.” (Hooker, J. 1996) I limited the office of Archon to the top three classes, and changed the system of election to one where the Athenians elected a short-list of candidates for the Archonship, from which “the Nine Archons were chosen by lot.” (Blackwell, C. 2003) My reforms made the Athenian political system more democratic than before, where it was the Council of the Areopagus, “which consisted of former Archons, [that] chose the Nine Archons each year,” (Blackwell, C. 2003) instead of the people. This was an unfair system that meant only aristocrats were able to hold the office of Archon. As Aristotle recorded: “The election to the various offices Solon enacted should be by lot, out of candidates selected by each of the tribes.” (Stevenson, D. 2000) While it has been argued that my political reforms were not democratic, as they merely substituted aristocracy for timocracy, I made the most fair reforms that I could without losing total support of the aristocrats. For while it was true that my reforms in Athens meant that public “office was still limited to citizens of a certain class, it was no longer limited to members of a few families.” (Blackwell, C. 2003) My reforms set the precedent for political democracy later on in Athens, and were more democratic than the traditional aristocratic ruled that had resulted in the tension amongst the social classes.

My laws set Athens along the path towards democracy, thereby reducing conflict within the Polis. As Archon, my economic, legal, social and political reforms each contributed to creating a more democratic society than the aristocratic form of rule which predated me. Aristotle would later describe me “the champion of the people,” (Stevenson, D. 2000) for I stood up for the ideals of both the rich and the poor. My friends, having instituted these reforms which have set Athens along the path towards democracy and equality, my work here is done. All I ask of you is that you obey these laws, unchanged for the next ten years, whilst I go into self-imposed exile abroad.

Annotated Bibliography 

Adams, J. (2001). Solon of Athens. Retrieved 2008
from Source
The author’s name was clearly visible on this website, along with a link to his email address. The author of this webpage was employed by Californian State University, which was the organisation hosting this webpage. The author lists a wide range of sources in his bibliography, and there is no evidence of any bias present. The author lists a variety of primary and secondary sources on Solon, and does not offer an opinion himself. This webpage is very current, as it was updated in 2006, and its web-links are frequently updated. This source provided excellent coverage of the topic, offering a variety of perspectives from multiple sources.

Blackwell, C. (2003). The Development of Athenian Democracy. Retrieved 2008
from Source
The author of this webpage had his name and email address clearly visible. This webpage took a balanced and unbiased look at Solon’s reforms, listing both the positive and negative consequences of his actions. The website is relatively recent, only being created five years ago so the information is still current and useful. The author had an extensive bibliography with numerous references towards his sources of information. The author provided a great deal of information and coverage of the topic.

Fotopoulos, T. (2004). Direct and Economic Democracy in Ancient Athens. Retrieved 2008
from Source
There author referenced a wide variety of sources which he included in his bibliography. His name was clearly visible. The purpose of this page was for education and the author provided a balanced and unbiased look at the topic. This website is only a few a couple of years old, so the information was still current and valid. The author of this webpage provide a great deal of information on the topic, which he adequately covered.

Holoka, J. (1995). Solon, Poet and Lawgiver. Retrieved 2008
from Source
This source provided an introduction to the topic of Solon’s reforms, which then hosted a variety of primary sources. Although the author’s name was not visible, this source was still accurate because the information on it was consistent with my other research and the author had provided a bibliography. Although this source is 13 years old, it is still relevant because it is based on primary sources which are timeless. The author provided a great deal of coverage on the topic of Solon, examining a variety of sources. The purpose of this source was for education, and no bias was evident in the author’s writing method.

Hooker, J. (1996). The Athenian Empire. Retrieved 2008
from Source
This author of this webpage had his name clearly displayed along with his contact information. I could tell that this was a reputable source, as it was posted by Washington State University. The author maintained a neutral tone throughout the page, and no bias was evident. He covered a great deal of relevant subject matter which I found extremely useful for my assignment. This website was updated in 1999 so it is not to old, and I found its information to still be current and up to date.

Kreis, S. (2000). The Athenian Origins of Direct Democracy. Retrieved 2008
from Source
This was a recent website that was only updated in 2006. The author’s name was clearly visible along with contact information. I found this source to have excellent coverage of the topic and I found it extremely useful. It was written in a neutral and unbiased manner for educational purposes. The information contained in this source was written for history lectures at the Florida Atlantic University, so I knew that it was from a reputable source.

Ohio University. (2008). Poems of Solon. Retrieved 2008
from Source
This website was posted by Ohio University for educational purposes. It contained a number of primary sources from the poems of Solon himself. This website is very current since it is an active university website. The university did not offer an opinion on the information that was presented, the source was purely primary evidence. I found this website to be very useful for my assignment and I made numerous references to it.

Stevenson, D. (2000). Classics Archive. Retrieved 2008
from Source
This webpage was devoted entirely to the primary source of information: The Athenian Constitution by Aristotle. It also named the man who had translated this source. The author’s name was clearly visible, as was his contact information. This webpage was updated in 2000 so it is still current, especially since it is a primary source of information. This website was started for educational purposes and contains a wide range of primary sources on a variety of topics. I found this source extremely useful for my assignment.

Peithô's Web. (2008). Life of Solon. Retrieved 2008
from Souce
This webpage contained the primary source on the life of Solon written by Diogenes Laertius. The source was referenced and even the name of the translator was referred to. This was a reputable educational sight which I found extremely useful for my assignment. I contained a variety of primary sources on ancient Greeks. The coverage of the source was excellent as the whole primary source was included in the website, which had been recently updated this year, so it had been checked for inconsistencies and the information on the site was current and up to date.

Russian Revolution Essay

The Great War Catapulted Russia into Revolution

The Russian revolution saw the downfall of the Romanov dynasty which had ruled Russia for over three hundred years. In just a few days, political discontent merged with anger at military defeat and economic and social grievances. (Gibbons 1965, p.175) The implications of this turning point in history were immense, and its impact upon the international community shaped the world for generations to come. The fall of Tsarist Russia has often been likened as the greatest event since the fall of the Bastille, (Gibbons 1965, p.175) yet what was the spark that set off a revolution? What had aroused the wrath of a nation so fiercely that they were willing to rebel against their Tsar – a man whom they had loved and respected? Only a significant event could spark such a reaction, which was destined to shake the very foundations and boundaries on which Europe was built. This event was the First World War, which generated conflict of an unprecedented scale and formed the basis for the downfall of the Tsars. It is this event in world history that was the catalyst for all of Russia’s problems, and united the people against their Emperor. It can therefore be stated, that the conflict of the Great War was the reason for the downfall of the Tsars. Although it has been argued that Tsarist Russia’s economy, regime and revolutionary leaders were responsible for its downfall, the war intensified these problems to such a degree that Russia could no longer cope.

The downfall of the Tsars can be traced directly to the Eastern Front, [where] desolation and conquest gave way to the Russian revolution. (Shermer 1973, p.134) Ironically, the war was perceived by the Tsar as a means of relieving pressure on his rule and indeed, for a brief period of time it united the Russian people. (Robottom 1972, p.57) However, as Russian defeats mounted in 1914 and 1915, the Russian novelist Bunin described the mood of the Russian people: ‘They don’t understand what they are fighting for. The war isn’t their business. They grow more furious every day.’ (White 1994, p.24) Finally the Tsar decided to take matters into his own hands, and assumed leadership of the army. Now every foot of ground that was lost, every death was directly attributed to him, for his subjects began to no longer see him as a God, but as very plainly human. With military defeat, came distrust; and the Russian people lost faith in their Tsar, for as Margot Tracey; the daughter of a Russian Industrialist remembered in 1939: ‘Everyone was fed up with the Tsar because they thought he was weak.’ (White 1994, 24) Furthermore, the Tsar’s decision to leave his wife – an Austrian princess – in charge of the country simply increased the royal couple’s unpopularity, and his decision to adopt conscription alienated him from the Russian people. Peasant families that struggled before now lost their breadwinner to a war that they had been dragged into by their Tsar. The repercussions upon the families of the millions of Russians killed in action (Appendix A) did little to help the image of the Tsar, and Russia’s economic plight offered no form of assistance. Both on the Eastern and Home Fronts, people were hit hard by Russia’s dwindling resources, as her economy struggled to keep up with the needs of a nation. Even before the war, Russia ‘both in trade and industry… lagged far behind the main foreign states,’ (Halsall, P. 2007) and the war simply exacerbated these problems. The Tsar recognised and admitted these deficiencies, when he wrote in a letter to his wife: ‘If we had a rest from fighting for about a month, our condition would greatly improve.’ (Learnthings. 2006) Socially, politically and economically, Russia was simply not prepared for the consequences which war would bring.

Tsarist Russia was a country whose economic deficiencies were rapidly pushing her over the abyss and into revolution. As Sergei Witte remarked in 1900 on the state’s budget: Russia’s ‘industry is still very backward both by comparison with foreign states and in relation to the needs of the population.’ (Halsall, P. 2007) Although these problems were evident before the outbreak of war, conscription exacerbated Russia’s economic deficiencies because the absence of peasants from the land led to food shortages in the cities. (Oxley 2001, p.23) Durnovo, a high-ranking Russian official in 1914 attributed Russia’s dwindling economy to the country’s ‘great dependence on foreign industry… [and its] insufficient network of strategic railroads.’ (Rempel, G. 1999) Russia’s dependence on foreign aid placed her in dire straits when she was blockaded upon Turkey’s entry into the war. The blockade separated Russia from its allies and destroyed it economically and militarily, for it could no longer be supplied from abroad. (Laffin 1980, p.13) The impact of this blockade impaired Russia’s war effort so significantly that the Allies were compelled to launch an attack at Gallipoli; with the purpose of opening the trade route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. As history has shown, the ultimate failure of the Dardanelles campaign sealed Tsarist Russia’s fate. Unable to import supplies, the impact on the Eastern Front was felt almost immediately. Felix Yusupov remarked on the state of the Russian soldiers fighting on the front line in 1915: ‘Our troops were underfed, ill-equipped, and had no ammunition, yet… they fought against the best-equipped army in the world.’ (Learnthings. 2006) As more peasants were conscripted into the army, and fewer supplies were imported, the Russian economy found itself floundering in a war with no end in sight. Families struggled to survive as more and more men were called to the front, and the Tsar; with his position at the head of the army, was now seen as responsible for the entire war effort. He now found himself at the forefront of his people’s displeasure, and because of the war many of his subjects began to explore alternative sources of government.

Ineffective and despotic rule by the Tsars was a key factor in the 1917 revolution; which ended over three hundred years of autocratic rule in Russia. Throughout their rule, the Tsars had ruthlessly suppressed numerous rebellions with scant regard for human life. An American diplomat who saw first hand the brutal manner in which the 1905 revolution was suppressed commented: ‘All classes condemn the authorities and more particularly the Tsar. The Tsar has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people.’ (White 1994, p.22) Despite this, the Tsar retained power in 1905 simply because he held the loyalty of the Russian Army. All that changed on the Eastern Front upon the outbreak of war, for as Russia’s difficulties mounted in August 1915, the Tsar… decided to take over the command of the armed forces. (Gibbons 1965, p.175) For a man with no military training or prowess, this was a mistake. In the past, any decisions he had made, had simply meant the difference between hunger and prosperity for many of his subjects. Now on the Eastern Front they meant the difference between life and death. Hamilton Fyfe; a reporter at the front echoed the thoughts and feelings of many soldiers: ‘The Russian troops… were being wasted because of the incompetence, intrigues, and corruption of the men who governed the country.’ (Learnthings. 2006) Poor judgment by the Tsar had led Russia into a war it was not prepared for, and now he was feeling the consequences. As Russian defeats continued, the soldiers grew to despise their leaders; who they began to see as synonymous with defeat. One particular group of troops was overheard to comment that: ‘When ten or fifteen generals are on the gallows we shall begin to win.’ (Robottom 1972, p.55) As dissent in the army grew, the Tsar’s Ministers begged him to reconsider his position at the head of the army with the words: ‘Your adoption of such a decision threatens Russia, yourself and your dynasty with serious consequences.’ (Oxley 2001, p.23) Unfortunately for the Tsar it was too late. Now every defeat, every casualty rested squarely on his soldiers; and from then on his people’s anger and resentment about the war was directed solely at him. The difference between the 1905 revolution and the one that occurred in 1917 was that the Tsar had lost the loyalty of the one force that could assert or destroy his rule.

Political opposition to the Tsar inspired the widespread uprising of the 1917 Revolution. Powerful leaders such as Vladimir Lenin emerged; inciting widespread opposition to Tsarist rule. While such opposition had always existed, the political upheaval it wrought had, in the past always been suppressed by the army, under the direction of the Tsar. This had occurred during the 1905 revolution. However, when the Great War broke out, the majority of the Russian army was tied up fighting on the Eastern Front and as military defeat ensued, many revolutionaries saw the possibilities of turning; as Lenin put it: The ‘imperialist war into a civil war.’ (Learnthings. 2006) As public opinion turned against the war, the revolutionaries seized their chance. They promoted a smear campaign against the Tsar, portraying him as the foundation of all Russia’s problems. Milyukov, a Cadet Leader in 1916 was one of many who believed that the grievances of the Russian people were because of: ‘the incompetence and evil intentions of the present government.’ (White 1994, p.23) Just like in 1905, the Russian people revolted and soldiers were sent to suppress the revolution. However, unlike 1905, of the troops and police [who] were sent to break up demonstrations… many army units refused. (Shermer 1973, p.123) With the majority of his troops fighting on the Eastern Front, the Tsar was powerless to prevent the uprising. Powerful revolutionary leaders and the disasters on the Eastern Front had swayed public opinion against him. The few troops who remained in the capital were unable to assert his rule, deserting him and joining the revolutionaries. The Great War had been the Tsar’s downfall; for when the whisperings of revolution reached his ears, his army was bogged down on the Eastern Front, too far away to be of any use.

Based on compelling evidence, the conflict of the Great War clearly led to the downfall of the Tsars. The consequences of the armed conflict with Germany resulted in millions of Russian lives being lost; leaving an economy in tatters and a Tsar fallen from grace. The Great War sucked all of Russia’s resources to the front, draining government coffers and slowing the production of food. In such conditions, revolution was inevitable, with the masses turning on the monarchy and replacing it with a system of government that was arguably more draconian than Tsarist rule had ever been. All this could have been avoided had Nicholas II paid a little more attention to the moods of the people on which his rule was based. For, at the end of the day; the people cared more for potatoes than a constitution. (Robottom 1972, p.57)

Appendices:

Appendix A: Smele, J. (2004). War and Revolution in Russia 1914 – 1921. (Online).

Available: Source

[There] were rumours that the Tsarina, Alexandra, and her favourite, the infamous Rasputin, were German spies. The rumours were unfounded, but by November 1916 influential critics of the regime were asking whether Russia's misfortunes - including 1,700,000 military dead and 5,000,000 wounded - were a consequence of 'stupidity or treason'.

Annotated Bibliography

Gibbons, S. (1965). World War One. Essex : Longman Group

The author of this book holds a doctorate in international history, and has written several articles on the First World War. All sources are duly acknowledged, and the information was presented in a factual and unbiased manner. The purpose of this book was to provide a detailed description of the Great War, and included both primary sources and the author’s own inferences. Although this book was published in 1965, the information it provided is still current, and its coverage of the Great War was excellent. I found this book to provide a useful insight into the difficulties Russia encountered upon, and indeed before enter the war in 1914.

Halsall, P. (2007). Sergei Witte on the tasks for economic policy. (Online).

Available: Source

This website contained the original budget for Russia in 1900 and was extremely useful for my paragraph on Russia’s economy. The site had recently been updated, but since it is a primary source it never loses its credibility. The budget report was written in a factual manner and no bias was evident, it was published solely for educational purposes.

Laffin, J. (1980). Damn the Dardanelles. Lane Cove : Doubleday

The author has written many volumes on war and military history. He has provided an extensive bibliography, and his work is based on both primary and secondary quotes and sources. Throughout this source the author maintained a neutral tone, and there was no evidence of bias from the range of information provided. There is sufficient coverage of the topic to prove that the failure of the Dardanelles campaign had massive ramification upon Tsarist Russia, and this was an excellent resource for researching my essay. This source was published in 1980 so the information was still valid and useful.

Learnthings. (2006). Revolutionary Russia. (Online).

Available: Source

The section of this website that was used for this assignment consisted of a series of primary quotes. Although the organisation that established this site had its name prominently displayed, no individual could be found to be the author. Nevertheless I found this site to be an excellent resource, and since only primary quotes were listed on the site, no bias was evident.

Oxley, P. (2001). Russia. Oxford : Oxford University Press

This resource was published by Oxford University in 2001, so it contained recent information from a reputable source. It contains a wealth of primary sources, which are analysed throughout the volume. The information is presented in a factual and unbiased fashion. All resources are acknowledged and its extensive coverage of Tsarist Russia was extremely useful when researching this topic.

Rempel, G. (1999). War and Revolution. (Online).

Available: Source

The author of this website is a professor at the Western New England College. The information presented on this site was presented in a neutral tone with no bias evident for purely educational purposes. Primary sources were analysed, and I found the author’s insight on the revolution very useful to my assignment. The website was last updated in 1999 so the information was not outdated.

Robottom, J. (1972). Modern Russia. Essex : Longman Group

The author’s name was clearly labelled on the front page of this book, and all of its resources were acknowledged. Both primary and secondary sources were referred to in this volume and I found it a useful resource throughout this essay. The information was presented in a factual and unbiased manner, and no hidden agenda was evident. Although this book was published 35 years ago, I still found it an excellent resource and the information presented was not outdated.

Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books

The information presented in this small book was extremely helpful, and the primary resources quoted in it were insightfully analysed. The author’s name was prominently displayed on the cover, and all resources were duly acknowledged. The information presented was still relevant today, 34 years on and I found it to be extremely useful. No bias was evident in the text, as the information was presented in a strictly neutral manner as the books purpose was for education.

Smele, J. (2004). War and Revolution in Russia 1914 – 1921. (Online).

Available : Source

The author of this site held a doctorate, although admittedly the type was not specified. This website was published relatively recently, so you could be sure that the information was up to date. The site contained a wealth of primary and secondary quotes which were both insightful and unbiased. This website was extremely useful and I would readily recommend it as an excellent resource.

Unknown. The Great World War. Unknown

This source was a very old book that had had its bibliographic details torn out. The book provided a detailed description of the Great War and found it very useful. Although the information contained in this volume was consistent with other research, no quotes were used in this assignment because of the lack of bibliographic details. Nevertheless, it provided a mixture of excellent primary and secondary sources which was presented in a factual and unbiased manner.

White, A. (1994). Russia and the USSR. London : HarperCollins Publishers

Although no background information on the author was visible in the book, an extensive list of referenced sources was available at the back. The information appeared to be presented clearly and in an unbiased fashion, focussing on a multitude of primary sources. Although this book could have gone into greater detail about Russia’s involvement in the Great War, on the whole I found it to be a useful and informative source.