Abstract
This essay argues that the Russian revolution of 1905 was a protest against the Tsar's refusal to make political concessions, and that once the concessions were given, the revolution was doomed to failure. It argues that the opposition was disorganized and not united in its objectives, and that generally the people of Russia still revered the Tsar, despite his faults.

From the Paper
"On 9 January 1905, a worker's procession in St Petersburg calling for social and political reform was fired upon by panicked troops and two hundred people were killed. A resultant wave of strikes and protests across the country threatened to overthrow the monarchy; indeed, as most of the army was engaged in the war against Japan, the Tsar had little protection. Opposition to the Tsar had been building up for many years, and was made up of a broad range of political groups, including peasants and workers, moderates and revolutionaries, liberals and socialists."

Tags:1905, bloody, communist, duma, manifesto, nicholas, october, petersburg, revolution, russia, tsar, witte, russian

Abstract
This paper analyzes the origins of the Russian Revolution. Economic and social problems in Russia at the turn of the century are discussed, as well as the outdated nature of the autocratic regime, industrialization, the development of the railways, and the October manifesto.

From the Paper
"The Russian Revolution of 1905 took place for a number of different reasons. It was a culmination of the discontent among different groups of people in Russia. It was caused because of long-standing social and political problems in Russia caused by conflicting aims of the Tsarist regime. There was a drive for modernization and industrialization which proved incompatible with a persistent and rigid resistance to political change. The outcome of the disturbances can not be entirely attributed to the way in which the authorities dealt with it with concessions and oppression. The nature and aims of the different groups of opposition to the regime dictated the outcome to a large extent. I will be arguing that there is a degree of historical appropriation in the accepted referral to the events of 1905 as a "Revolution". There was not a change of regime as a result of the disturbances. However, the events did dramatically change the political and social climate in Russia in ways which were vital to the 1917 Revolution.
The unique nature of the Tsarist regime in Russia created many of the circumstances which led to revolution in 1905. The regime was an absolute monarchy with the Tsar answerable to no one but God. Much of the events of 1905 have been attributed to the personal weakness of the Tsar. There seems little doubt that Tsar Nicholas II was not up to the task of governing Russia. Rogger states that he was intellectually and emotionally immature and busied himself with a daily regime of clerical duties to avoid pressing affairs of state. Indeed, many believed that a strong autocratic ruler would have been able to solve Russia's problems. However, there was a "complex filter of bureaucracies" that controlled what information about Russian affairs got to the Tsar, thereby limiting his administrative power."

Tags:bolshevik, communism, communist, menshevik, socialist, tsar

Abstract
This paper discusses how in the Soviet Union, interpretations of history were used to promote the various political agendas of the day by successive Soviet governments. It looks at how various historical figures were condemned or rehabilitated in line with the changing political climate and how history was also manipulated to help create a stronger sense of shared national identity in the Soviet Union and to promote patriotism. It shows how in this way there developed a tradition of imposing historical interpretations from above and how during Perestroika the government continued this policy of manipulating history to its own ends although there were a number of important developments. It also examines how the expansion of Glasnost in the Soviet Union led to open questioning of official interpretations of the past and increased calls for new investigations of the key events in the history of the Soviet Union.

From the Paper
""The Week of Conscience" was an event organized by Memorial and members of Moscow's intelligentsia in November 1988. During this week people came to pay tribute to the victims of Stalin's terror in an act of remembrance. The event also served to attempt to fill in "gaps" in the history of the Soviet people by sharing information about the Gulag camps and victims of Stalin's persecution whose fate is not officially known. This event marked the emergence of an unofficial "public" history which attempted to fill in the "gaps" in official accounts of the era. The huge success of the event shows the importance for the Soviet people of finding the historical truth."

Tags:glasnost, russia, government, stalin

Abstract
This paper attempts to analyze how far Russia managed to overcome its perceived economic backwardness by 1914, the start of World War I. It provides an overview of the Russian economy between 1856 and 1914 and attempts to show why WWI was the reason for its rapid decline by also looking briefly at Russian reasons for going to war and what was hoped to achieve by doing so. It presents a picture of the Russian economy and its place in the world in order to show to what extent the Russian economy had "caught up" by 1914. It also looks at the way in which the Tsarist regime in Russia slowly lost the respect of the people, as they tried to compete with other developed countries.

From the Paper
"As the rail network expanded, there was a growth in urban areas and cities. This led to a build up of industrial areas, and urban populations. This in turn led to a growth in demand for more consumer goods, and created a demand for the food that was now being produced in vast amounts in the countryside. This was a definite improvement in the Russian economy, but still only provided a small amount of growth in comparison to other countries around the world. As well as improving the economy, but also led to social change by bringing people and ideas together and so created the intelligentsia that would become so influential in Russia's future development. Despite the amount of change that was still going on, the peasants were not happy with the distribution of land, as they had been given the poorest, least productive plots. Because of the vast (and growing) task of constructing and maintaining enough rail line, there was little spare time or money left after financing the military to help the peasants."

Tags:economy, industrialisation, world, war, 1

Abstract
In this article, the writer examines Stalin's control following the war. The writer notes that what the post-war situation demonstrated was a change, most of all, in Stalin's personal circumstances, which meant that, increasingly, he had to rule while away from Moscow. But far from this geographical position placing limits on his power, it inflamed his suspicions that those he entrusted would soon plot against him when their backs were turned against him. The writer maintains that it would be right to say that efforts amounted neither to denting power Stalin wielded nor did such initiatives imply that actions were overtly anti-Stalin. The writer concludes that, even though Stalin did not ultimately operate in dictatorial mode per se, still insisting at least nominally on the Council of Ministers and the Politburo, in the final analysis his grip on the country was as 'total' as it could have been after 1945.

From the Paper
"What this far from untypical episode reveals is the way in which Stalin ruled the Soviet Union after 1945. Living for extended periods away from Moscow, Stalin conducted his day-to-day affairs from a distance. While away, it was the inner-circle of his most trusted advisors who stood by him and with whom he reached the majority of his political decision. Most significantly, as the Ilichev case reveals, important judgements were often made not at formal meetings, which invariably took place in the early evenings so as to suit Stalin's work habits, but within an informal setting during dinner, for example, as the editor found to his cost. Finally, the episode also illustrates the way in which those who dealt with Stalin were supposed to think and behave. What Ilichev had not been alert to, as he put off emptying his wine glass in one go, compared to the inner-circle, was this instinctive sense of what pleased and displeased Stalin. When Robert Service recounted this encounter in his biography of Stalin, he could have chosen countless other examples that conformed to a pattern of dictatorship which stood in marked contrast to how Stalin operated before and during the Second World War."

Tags:Ilichev, power, Comrade, dictatorship

Abstract
This paper discusses how the seeds of the Cold War were already sown at the 1945 Yalta conference between Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill and Theodore Roosevelt. It tracks the antagonism that grew between Russia and the other two countries culminating in the development of Soviet nuclear technology. It also looks at the rise of communism and the west's attempt to stop it from spreading including the formation of NATO.

From the Paper
"Many important decisions were made at Yalta, most notably the
re-establishing and giving back independence to the countries, which
had been conquered and destroyed by Nazi Germany. At the end of World War Two, most Western nations wanted to re-establish the liberated states of Eastern Europe as democratic states with capitalist
economies. However the Soviet Union dictator, Joseph Stalin believed
that the Soviet Union had the right to control Eastern Europe. Stalin
had argued that since the Soviet Union had twice been invaded by
Germany in less than twenty-five years, it was necessary for him to
protect his country through the creation of Eastern European Communist
buffer states, controlled by the Soviet Union and protecting it at the
same time."

Tags:yalta, churchill, stalin, roosevelt, communism, nuclear, truman, nato

Abstract
To understand a present-day culture one must look to its past, its formation and foundation. In the case of modern day Russia, the author contends that the domination and repression imposed by the Mongol Horde forever changed the course of the Slavic people. Specifically, he believes that there was a great impact upon the cultural makeup, the arts and architecture, and the development of science and technology. An examination of Proto-Rus and its evolution is essential in understanding the formation of modern Russia.

From the Paper
"From 862 -1237 AD, the first proto-Russian political entity was founded by Rurik in the vicinity of Novgorod in 862 AD, when the Varangians had controlled many of the trade routes leading from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea by way of lakes and river. All Russian leaders for the next 700 years would descend from Rurik. In 880-882 AD, another Varangian named Oleg assumed rule of Kiev, which quickly became the political center of the territory known as Kievan Rus (Lawrence 1993). The city of Kiev rose in importance in an era known as "the Golden Age of Kiev" until the 13th century, when Kiev's stature as the political center of the Russian Empire declined rapidly owing to variety of factors, such as familial infighting and the Mongol invasion. The lasting achievements of the Kievan Rus era were the Christianization of Russia following the Eastern Orthodox faith and the formulation and acceptance of the Cyrillic alphabet (Ragsdale 1996)."

Tags:khan, russia, russian, slavic

Abstract
This paper examines Vladimir Bukovsky?s "To Build a Castle" and Anatoly Sharansky?s "Fear No Evil", two memoirs of life as a political prisoner in the Soviet Union. It looks at how as two Soviet dissidents they both had a shared belief that the regime was unjust, corrupt and they did not want to submit to its power. It also explores how, as dissidents they were from two different backgrounds one concerned largely with Jewish emigration and the other with general human rights issues. It shows how they both dealt with the hardships of imprisoned life by retreating into personal fantasy worlds which were very different in character.

From the Paper
"Both men give accounts of their upbringing as children and link this to their later experiences as dissidents. Sharansky describes his growing realisation of an underlying anti-Semitism that was prevalent in the Soviet state. As he grows up he becomes aware of prejudice against him and how his opportunities in life are restricted because of his Jewish background. It was this anti-Semitism that drove him towards his faith. As a student he began to protest against some of the injustices of the regime. However his real conflict with the regime began when he was denied an exit-visa from the USSR when he attempted to leave for Israel. This led him to become involved in the dissident Zionist movement in the USSR. He campaigned on behalf of those who had been denied an exit visa (refuseniks), taking part in demonstrations and exchanging dissident samzidat literature. Although his main focus was on the issue of Jewish emigration from the USSR, he was also involved with the more general human rights movement especially the Helsinki Watch group that was formed to monitor Soviet compliance with the Helsinki accords."

Tags:camp, dissident, gulag, kgb, khruschev, prison

Abstract
This paper examines how literature became an effective source of opposition to the regime in the U.S.S.R. because of a number of complex factors. It explores how the Russian literary tradition of forming a "second government" dates back to the 19th century and provided inspiration to literary dissidents in the Soviet Union. It discusses how the failure of "Socialist Realism" to sufficiently replace genuinely critical literature meant that there was a desire for a form of literature that more accurately reflected the reality of life in the U.S.S.R and how the relaxation of censorship immediately after the fall of Stalin saw literary boundaries pushed through journals and then through unofficial samizdat literature. It also looks at how when the samizdat writers began to be prosecuted the movement became one of dissidents and how these writers who defended their right to free speech against the regime became the start of the democratic movement in the U.S.S.R..

From the Paper
"Literature on the experiences of Russian people in Soviet camps had been restricted under Stalin's regime. According to Toker, the only accounts of life in the gulags that were permitted were "loyalist" narratives in which the protagonist remained loyal to the regime. It was notable that in his secret speech Kruschev did not denounce camps as such and merely condemned the unjustified persecution and discrediting of loyal communists. Therefore, literature on camps was still restricted under Khruschev. According to Toker, through his secret speech Khruschev had been essentially oppressing a wider truth by revealing a small amount. By showing up some of the previous regimes brutality he meant to imply that any kind of public exposal of the Stalinist regime was superfluous."

Tags:brezchnev, dissident, glasnost, gorbachev, khruschev, kompanii, perestroika, samizdat

Abstract
This paper examines how under the reign of Stalin, literature that was not approved by the regime was violently oppressed with show trials and purges. It looks at the reasons why literature had such a vital role in the development of internal opposition in the U.S.S.R by examining the Russian tradition of literature as a form of opposition dating back to the 19th Century. It analyzes the way in which the U.S.S.R had attempted to control literature from its very conception and also how the fall of Stalin saw literary boundaries pushed through journals and then through unofficial Samizdat literature. It also shows how the writers who defended their right to free speech against the regime became the start of the democratic movement in the U.S.S.R.

From the Paper
"According to Kochan, Tsar Nicholas' Minister for Education, Uvarov once remarked that only when literature ceased to be written would he be able to sleep peacefully?. This shows something of the fear with which the government regarded writers. A class of 19th century writers who were largely critical of the tsarist regime were often referred to as a "second government". Writers who assumed this role were able to do so because of the sense of moral authority inherent with their occupation. The intelligentsia of Tsarist Russia was largely inspired by various modern philosophical and political doctrines from Western Europe that ranged from socialism to anarchism. They were united as a group only by a shared concern for individual liberty. Bergman, shows how the soviet dissenters in post Stalinist USSR identified with the intelligentsia as a group."

Tags:communist, democratic, denosovich, khruschev, stalin, samizdat