Week 11 and 12: Russian Revolution

This blog assignment is due Monday, April 4.

In his famous April Theses, Lenin repudiated any attempt at collaborating with the Provisional Government on the grounds of its disingenious handing of democracy: while promising to call the Constituent Assembly, new Russian government kept on withholding recognition from the Soviets and waging the war which has long lost much of popular support.

Rosa Luxemburg, on the other hand, accused the Bolsheviks of supplanting democracy with dictatorship of a small party clique. Although she saw this in the light of hardships befalling the young Bolshevik Russia, her observation concerning the emerging party state proved nothing short of prophetic.

I want you to reflect over the question which had troubled politicians, historians and ordinary citizens alike ever since the momentous events in 1917: namely, why did the Party, claiming to support unequivocally principles of democratic rule, became the basis of a new dictatorship? Was it, as Rosa Luxemburg asserted, the result of unfortunate circumstances of war and occupation into which the Republic was born? Or was that evolution inscribed into the inner code of the Party itself, as an element of its program or a part of an algorithm pushing it towards dictatorship with an ineluctability of а chrysalis pupating into a butterfly?

Week 10 World War I

You have taken a look at two documents, each of which was designed as the blueprint of the world order to be established in the wake of the First World War. The 14 Points of President Wilson were publicized while the war was still raging, its outcome being far from determined. The Treaty of Versailles, with the articles of which you had a chance to familiarize yourselves, was signed with Germany defeated and its allies (Bulgaria being the exception) fully erased from the European map.

Which of the two blueprints seemed, in your opinion, as embowering an opportunity for achieving a goal it set for itself - presumably, one of the lasting peace? Here you have to distinguish the issue of fairness from that of feasibility - i.e. treatment deemed as fair does not necessarily appear among the available options, as states (just as people) find themselves often moved and motivated by considerations other than justice (vengeance, for instance).

You might decide that none of the documents contained provisions for the lasting peace. In that case you are free to offer your own arrangement which might have indeed worked better than the solutions stemming from the seasoned diplomats.

Week 9 Road to War

The peace which Europe had enjoyed before the outbreak of the First World War was nearly unprecedented in its duration - more than forty years lie between last large-scale conflict and the catastrophe which befell the continent in 1914. Yet, at the same time that very period was pregnant with an extraordinary bellicosity, in the light of which it looked more like a necessary armistice, a temporary respite rather than a conscious decision to avoid resorting to arms in solving international disputes.

Both Mark Twain and General Bernhardi testify to the widespread social acceptance of the war; the former does it by means of sarcastic ridicule and the latter by that of lofty exhortation.

What were, in your opinion, the reasons for adopting warlike attitudes with such a facility if not incredulity? Europe was far from being inexperienced in the art of self-destruction, yet, that experience did not seem to have reduced the allure generated by visions of grand battles. Combining texts you read with the lecture materials, you need to interrogate the roots of the sentiments which, without making it inevitable, rendered the option of war by and large admissible.

Week 8 Imperialism

I offer you to take a closer look at the phenomenon of Imperialism and answer one of the two questions posed below:

1. Kipling described imperialism as the burden that "the white man" needs to carry despite the resistance and "thanklessness" of the natives.

What do you believe were the major motives behind the European and American drive towards the establishment of colonial empires? Was economics primary? How important was the issue of national prestige? How sincere were the talks of "civilizing mission" and the "white man's burden"? Perhaps reasons lie elsewhere - it is for you to discover or uncover them.

2. Together with Orwell, I would like you to consider the effects of Imperialism on Europe. Was it truly a way of depriving the colonial oppressor of his agency, as Orwell suggests? Was the European psyche habituated to violence as the result of that experience - a kind of habituation explaining much of the brutal character of the subsequent world wars?