The Russian Empire & Contemporary Russia
Contemporary Russia is in a stat
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Contemporary Russia is in a state of dramatic political flux, for the second time in the twentieth century. The regime of the Tsars, which had survived with little change in essentials since Ivan the Terrible in the sixteenth century, collapsed abruptly--though not without a long period of preceding weakness--in 1917. By the end of that year, a new regime and new system had come to power, the Bolsheviks or Soviets, though their success was assured only after two or three years of civil war and foreign intervention. The Soviet regime in turn collapsed in 1992. Unlike the Tsarist regime before it, it did not show obvious signs of crisis till the last few years as it tried to reform itself under Mikhail Gorbechev. In contrast, though, the aftermath of its fall has by no means been so clearcut. The Bolshevik regime was born in war and violence, and after three years of its power in Russia was unchallenged. The democratic system that supplanted Soviet rule came into being almost without bloodshed, but after more than three years its hold on real power is by no means secure. The traditional political order in Russia, under the Tsars and the Soviets alike, may be characterized as civil autocracy. That is, a single center of power was absolute and omnicompetent in civil and military affairs alike, and that center of power was essentially civilian. Neither the Tsars nor the Soviets were in any sense military dictatorships. Tsarist rule was a personal
. . .
y cut the Russian Foreign Ministry, and its chief envoy Baron Rosen, out of the negotiations (White, 1964, p. 104).
Rosen wanted to avoid war, but he had no authority over Alexiev, and was reduced to criticizing not Alexiev's aggressive posture, but his failure to demand sufficient reinforcements to back up his position with sufficient reinforcements to defend Port Arthur by force if need be (White, 1964, p. 105). The Russian belief that they could rattle sabers without actually having many sabers at hand had been characteristic of their Far Eastern policy from the outset; in one of the earliest discussions of an occupation of Port Arthur, the Foreign Minister had put forth the dictum: "One flag and one sentry, the prestige of Russia will do the rest" (Walder, 1973, p. 53).
By the fall of 1903, Alexiev was rattling his sabers with a vengeance. A massive military review was held at Port Arthur; one observer wrote:
I can still see the serried ranks of thousands upon thousands of white-bloused soldiers in the brilliant autumn sunshine. It was a review of defiance. Defiance of China, defiance of Russia, defiance of the world's public opinion (White, 1964, p. 106).
Rumors began to spread that Japan, Russia, and the
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Red Army, Admiral Alexiev, Port Arthur, Russo-Japanese War, Tsarist Russia, Admiral Makaroff, Russo-Japanese Soviet-Polish, Nicholas II, Count Witte, Political Deficiencies, red army, port arthur, davies 1972, russo-japanese war, walder 1973, russian military, civil government, pipes 1993, count witte, admiral alexiev, late tsarist russia, autocratic unlimited power, supreme autocratic unlimited, characterized civil autocracy, russo-japanese soviet-polish wars,
Approximate Word count = 7876
Approximate Pages = 32 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
