Anti Alcohol Campaign Poster

1985 was a tumultuous time for Soviet Russia. Gorbachev took over as the Secretary General and saw that it was part of his mandate to see an end to a rampant problem in the Soviet states. Alcohol had long been a cultural and traditional part of Russian society, usually accompanying celebration. Alcohol itself held a prominent place, and does so currently, in Russian society. However, statistics of the day showed that alcoholism was greatly tied to a large amount of social problems that plagued society and made the dream of a pure communist ideal harder to achieve through problems of absenteeism from the work place, domestic abuse, suicide, divorce, and work place accidents as workers were found to be drunk or drinking on the job.

Alcohol Leading the Way to Social Corruption

Alcohol Affects the Brain

 Gorbachev’s first two years saw the beginning of a crackdown on alcohol production, and sales, but ironically not consumption. The vast majority of the populace turned to methods of home brewing various types of alcohol in order to subsidize their own consumption in light of the government crackdown. This is reminiscent of the effects of prohibition in the United States. Although the Soviet crackdown was not a complete outlaw of alcohol, it was certainly close to it when it came to prosecuting these home brewers. Organized crime spiked as a result of the downsizing of the substance’s availability for public purchase. The crime involved bootlegging and the sale of liquor, beer, and wine in a fashion that promoted a black market for alcohol in Soviet Russia, as well as producing an increase in the production of moonshine, or samogon.

The state controlled media sources jumped on the bandwagon in order to produce anti-alcohol propaganda and write compelling news articles against the consumption of alcohol while condemning alcoholics to the level of being worthless to society.

“Just what are they being treated for? Undisciplined parasitism, absenteeism and hooliganism? But there’s just one remedy for these ailments-punishment. They must receive treatment in mines and the logging camps, be held to a strict regime, and fed a semi starvation diet-then perhaps, all this nonsense will be driven out of them. Every alcoholic is a potential criminal. They must be treated with the most resolute severity…protect society from drunkards!” – Newspaper article link.

The campaign, although produced with good intention, was not an effect way to counter the issue of alcoholism. The government went to the extremes of limiting the kinds of shops that could sell alcohol, similar to ABC stores in Virginia, the shutting down of many vodka distilleries, as well as the destruction of vineyards in the regions that had climates acceptable for wine production such as Moldavia, Armenia, and Georgia. Perhaps the greatest hit to the Soviet government, aside from the rise of organized crime and home distilleries, was the loss in revenue that was felt sharply in the budget from the decrease of sales tax derived from alcohol purchasing. In 1979 alone the state was able to gain 25.4 billion rubles from the sales of alcohol, this alone actually eclipsed the revenue from income tax to put it into perspective.

 Needless to say the campaign was eventually abandoned in the latter part of 1987. The resulting loss of revenue and apparent failure to actually curb any sort of consumption led to the state returning to normal and allowing the party to continue. Still, the government had great intentions to help save the society from the ravishing effects of what was surely a problem, and continues to be a problem. A quick Google search will produce results that show Russia, along with many other former Soviet republics, as being in the top 5 contenders for the most alcohol consumption globally per capita. The top five per liter of consumption countries in 2010, in order of succession, were Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Romania, and the Ukraine. Coincidence? I think HET.

Works Cited

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1985drylaw&Year=1985&navi=byYear

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=article&ArticleID=1985boikova1&SubjectID=1985drylaw&Year=1985

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&show=essay&SubjectID=1985drylaw&Year=1985&navi=byYear

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com/2011/11/anti-alcohol-campaigns-nice-art-little.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption

http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/19986564

Rock&Roll takes off in Soviet Russia among the youth in the early 1970’s

Rock Goes Red

It did not take long for rock and roll culture to begin to permeate the Iron Curtain. The 1960’s spawned the era of rock with the advent of some of the most influential bands, such as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, producing some of the most famous music in modern history. The west was producing great bands and great music, exporting yet another form of cultural imperialism around the world, but the west was not the only place where rock and roll gained momentum and popularity. Behind the Iron Curtain the youth of Soviet Russia began to party, and not in the communist way, pioneering yet another underground movement that put rock in full swing by the 1970’s in Russia.

Rock music was very similar to other forms of western influence in the Soviet Union. The Soviet party did not allow for the distribution of records, airing of songs, or performance of any of the music that was becoming so popular in the west. Rock and roll became popular and proliferated through the country the same way that most other illegal things did, such as American blue jeans, secretly, and underground. Although the state controlled record label and largest controller of music, Melodiya, did eventually allow some hits to air and be sold on record, the hunger for more music was already set in motion and Russian bands began forming across the country.

Beatles album distributed by Melodiya. The record label is still alive today.
http://melody.su/en/

Early music emulated the sound of their western originators and found success in the underground scene by primarily performing rock and roll covers of popular western music, undoubtedly the performers were blue jean Levi clad and away from the prying eyes of officials. The first band to eventually popularize and champion true Russian rock would be a Moscow based group named “Mashina Vremeni“, or Time Machine, in the 1970’s. Rock was not allowed to be performed publicly, and bands did not receive permission from the state to participate in festivals or concert series for quite sometime. Not until the 1973 did Russian rock make it’s first actual appearance by official channels. The song “My Address is the Soviet Union” was a break through, overly patriotic song, that made Soviet approval while maintaining the rhythm and sound of early western rock. Shortly after, rock bands were allowed to perform under the state approved category of VIA (Vocal-Instrumental Assembles), a title less offensive and less western than Rock and Roll.

So what is the big deal? Why should anyone care about rock and roll invading Soviet Russia? The issue was never necessarily the music itself, but rather the message that rock and roll carried. Rock wasn’t an all age phenomenon in the west either, largely championed by the younger generation, but Soviet’s saw rock as yet another conduit towards the rebellion and materialism that they categorized as their capitalist western counterparts. However, Russian rock was actually unique and should be considered a source of national pride. Elsewhere in Europe, rock was considered an English language phenomenon and was reproduced, written, and created primarily in English. Russian rock took the lead in producing the genre in their own language, with a message for their own people.

Russian rock breaks out and hits the west later on in the 1980’s, carrying with it an organic sound that is unique and completely their own.

Early Russian Rocker sporting a Fender Stratocaster prototype guitar featuring three pickups, 6 strings, but with no whammy bar installed, or electricity invented yet for the amplifier

*** Side note, Time Machine actually sounds pretty good. Kind of like a Russian version of The Beatles…kind of. Here’s a Youtube link to one of my new favorite songs.

Works Cited

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&show=music&SubjectID=1973rock&Year=1973&navi=byYear

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1973rock&Year=1973

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_rock#The_late_1960s_and_1970s:_First_signs

http://www.russia-ic.com/culture_art/music/380/#.VGlKMvkc60E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_rock#mediaviewer/File:Beer,_Russian_boy_with_balalaika.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_rock

Krushchev looking at corn as if it were made of pure gold on his trip to the US in 1959. Campaign to bolster his own program for USSR corn production.

 Corn seems fairly common place to just about anyone who grew up in the western world, especially the United States. We are used to seeing the familiar crop in brands such as Corn Flakes, movie theater snacks in the shape of pop corn, or off the grill as “corn on the cob”. Simply put, corn is not that big of a deal to us and it is basically every where. If you have ever traveled by air and been over one of the many marvelous “fly over states” that the US has to offer, you may have noticed fields upon fields of corn being grown. Corn is virtually grown every where there is land to do it in the United States. We pioneered high fructose corn syrup and all the super healthy products that come from it, we can even power our vehicles with the ethanol produced from the crop. Believe it or not though, there was a time when the Soviet Union deprived their people of the illustrious corn life, that was until the 1960’s when Khrushchev saw that corn was the way of the future, and an absolute necessity for his people to have in order to compete with the west.

Russian lady celebrating a most bounteous harvest of corn, most likely from a field in the Ukraine. Propaganda poster circa 1956. “Hybrid seeds are the rule for high corn growing!”

In the propaganda poster to the right, there is a woman holding up an ear of corn showing that the harvest was good, and that there is plenty of food to go around. The poster is from 1956, two years after Khrushchev initiated the virgin land campaign to add to the production of grain crops to alleviate hunger throughout the USSR.  Corn was not a staple of the Soviet diet, but with the ever so common trend of food shortages continuing, and the virgin lands campaign in full swing, Khrushchev turned to introducing corn as a kind of savior crop to the people. He even established a corn research institute in the Ukraine, while the United States had things like Virginia Tech since 1872 that researched corn on the side.

The picture above,Time magazine cover, depicts Khrushchev in 1959 still on the campaign to improve the notion that corn production and consumption in the Soviet Union would be a good thing. The bottom line, if this build up isn’t indicative enough, is that corn pretty much failed to become of any note in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev saw corn as the salvation of the Soviet people. The crop was intended to greatly bolster the livestock industry and produce greater amounts of meat and dairy products as a secondary affect while providing another grain option for consumption.

Corn actually began to ruin agriculture production. The crop itself takes a significant amount of water and fertilizer to produce effectively. The seed was not native to the region, and the affects on the soil made crop rotations produce less yield than before in other crops that had done fine in previous harvests. Corn harvests went from 4 million tons in 1953 to 14 million tons in 1965, but the price to do so was staggering. Labor input was roughly three times higher than that of wheat, and the plant itself was not accustomed to surviving the harsher climates of the USSR, although much of the agricultural belt is on the same latitude as that of the American plains, the Soviets planted the crop in strange places, like Kazakhstan, the Caucasus, and even parts of Siberia…mostly because they were virgin lands, and why not,it’s not like Siberia was a hot spot of contested resources.

However, with terrible droughts and food shortages being a constant reminder to the Soviet regime of their failure at central planning, corn was not going to the wayside easily. In a 1962 news article named “Bounteous Corn”, the dream is set forth by a Russian columnist about the future possibilities of corn.

“The Ministry of Trade has given orders to several state farms and to the Russian Republic Ministry of Production and Procurement of Agricultural Products for the delivery of 40,000,000 tons of corn ears for Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, and other industrial cities. It must be hoped that lightly salted boiled ears-tasty, succulent and nourishing-will be sold at stands, on pushcarts and in stores. There should be no fewer such pushcarts and stands than there are for ice cream.”  http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/13789239

Once cannot be certain as to whether or not the author of the article was paid off by Khrushchev, but there is a good chance. Trying to mobilize the people and the state to buy into the corn fad was a work in and of itself. It is somewhat comparable to President Nixon saying that Nebraska should grow nothing but beats, and that everyone in D.C., New York, and L.A. should be excited and ready to eat borscht and see borscht stands become more common place than hot dog stands.

The greatest line in the article “Bounteous Corn” sums this up nicely, “The propoganda of corn and its products is a matter of great importance, which demands daily attention and control. Let all of us together help corn take its deserved place on our dinner table.”http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/13789239

So long story short, corn and Khrushchev shared a similar fate. Neither had a legacy that made a great impact in the Soviet Union. Corn faded away around 1965, and never really became the cash crop instant sensation that Khrushchev had hoped for. Although his intentions were noble in that he wanted to provide a steady source of grain that would provide abundantly for his people, his efforts were miscalculated and proved to be a historical flop.

Khrushchev visiting Iowa. http://www.weirdir.com/weird-ir/khrushchevs-diplomatic-overture-to-iowa

Works Cited:

http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/13789239

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Lands_Campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1961corn&Year=1961

http://www.weirdir.com/weird-ir/khrushchevs-diplomatic-overture-to-iowa

Anti-Bomb Campaign Poster

In 1953, the Soviet Union detonated their first hydrogen bomb, a fusion bomb that was many times greater than the fission bomb dropped by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan to end World War Two. The project was being developed as early as 1946, three years before the Soviet Union even detonated their first atomic bomb.

The lead architect of the project was Igor Kurchatov, a Soviet physicist placed in charge by Stalin in order to create an atomic bomb. During World War Two, Soviet espionage had caught wind of the United State’s progress towards their own nuclear project. The Soviets used the lessons learned from the Manhattan project to help fuel the advancement of their own atomic program. The first fusion nuke was tested by the Soviet Union in 1949, four years after the first US test which took place in 1945.

First Soviet Nuclear Test 1949, RDS-1

On the first of November, 1952, the United States detonated their first hydrogen bomb. The bomb was over five hundred times more powerful than the fission bombs dropped to end World War Two. The bomb was dropped on a small island in the pacific, the results left a mile wide crater where the island of Elugelab used to be.

This was big news for the Soviets, and Stalin further impressed upon Kurchatov to create a hydrogen bomb to rival the United States and stay competitive in the arms race. The subsequent testing of the Soviet Union’s hydrogen bomb signaled the true beginning of the arms race between the two greatest super powers on earth. The cold war was finally in full swing. Protests and peace movements grew from both sides of the populace, as the destruction from the testing showed that a thermonuclear war outbreak could spell the end for civilization. The nuclear arms race build up would continue until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s, and would mean the creation of thousands of nuclear bombs that are still present throughout much of the former Soviet states.

Works Cited

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&show=essay&SubjectID=1954bomb&Year=1954&navi=byYear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&show=&SubjectID=1954bomb&ArticleID=&Year=1954

http://www.pbs.org/opb/citizenk/superbomb/stalinsend.html

http://www.pbs.org/opb/citizenk/superbomb/index.html

The Kursk Front 1943

The battle of Kursk was the largest tank battle of World War Two and marks a turning point for the war where the Nazis were dealt a major defeat, and the Red Army triumphed. The battle of Kursk was initiated by the Nazi aggressors in their eastern front campaign, the Red Army staged one of the greatest resistance and eventual counters of the entire war.

The battle lasted between July 5th and August 23rd, 1943. The Germans had brought an extremely sizable force of tanks, divisions, aircraft, and roughly 900,000 men, however the Russians were able to counter their strength with even more numbers of tanks, aircraft, and men, numbering around 1.3 million troops. The response of Russia to the attack in Kursk was a matter of national pride. The Germans had recently been repelled from Stalingrad and were on the defensive, even though they were attacking in Kursk, modern day Ukraine. Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, dealing great losses to the Red Army. Within two years, Russia was able to mobilize, modernize, and equip their soldiers with weapons and armor to counter the modern and well equipped Nazi attackers. This is indicative of the Soviet system of communism and their ability to rapidly dictate the production of industry and mobilize the population to repel invasion.

German Tanks, Kursk 1943

The battle consisted of daily tank and troop engagement from both sides in a costly and decisive outcome. The soviets succeeded in their mission of preventing further incursion into their lands from Nazi German troops, but at a great cost. The Soviets lost hundreds of thousands of men, roughly half of their tanks, and multiple aircraft. Although they won the battle, their losses were that of five to one for German troop and equipment.

Works Cited:

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&show=images&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943&navi=byYear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/kursk.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

The Moscow metro signified one of the first and greatest public work projects undertaken by the Stalin in Soviet Russia, completed in 1935. Currently the Metro has 12 lines, 195 stations and services over 6 million riders a day. The metro began operation on May 15th, 1935 and opened as a monument to Soviet working class success, rivaling the metros of other countries such as France, Germany, and England.

The metro was designed and named after the project manager Lazar Kaganovich. British engineers were implemented in the construction and actual process of developing a metro system for the Moscow underground. Moscow has an a-typical geological sub-layer system that created a constant challenge for engineers to overcome the variable conditions of earthen materials.

First passengers 1935

Essentially, what was to be done in Moscow has never been done before, as the undergrounds in previously constructed metros exhibited a more homogeneous geological structuring. The ability to adapt and overcome lends to the greatness of the Moscow metro system and understanding the obstacles that the Soviets overcame at a rate that was comparably more efficient and productive then their capitalist counterparts.

The expansion of the metro continued into the cold war and took upon itself the dual purpose of being bomb shelters and nuclear fallout centers for the city of Moscow.

Kiev Station art in Moscow

The metro held great significance for the party and the people of Russia. This excerpt taken from the “Report Metrostoi Party and Government” is from the day prior to the opening of the Metro, May 14th, 1935.

“High distinction, given by the Government to the builders of underground, poured into them more power for further work on the construction of socialism.Long live the Communist Party, under the leadership of which are lagging behind and uncultured pre-revolutionary Russia was transformed into a great prosperous country tips!Long live Comrade Stalin – leader and organizer of the world proletariat, leading us to victory!”

“We have a metro” 1935

Works Cited

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1934metro&Year=1934&navi=byYear

http://www.metro.ru/library/kak_my_stroili_metro/107/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro

Lenin at the Finland Station in Petrograd in Spring 1917

“Few contemporaries imagined that, after three centuries of rule, the Romanov dynasty could vanish in several days.” (Freeze, 273.) 

February 1917, the stage is set for change and progress as Tsar Nicholas abdicates his throne at the demand and protest of an unhappy Russian people. A provisional government was established out of a crippled Duma and appointed Soviet leaders from multiple socialist parties. This uneasy dual governmental system proved ineffective and would lead to instability that prompted the October revolution.  World War One continued to rage on, and the people demanded not only revolutionary change, but a revolutionary leader. They received just that in the return of an exiled Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin arrived to Petrograd from exile in Switzerland and was greeted the night of April 3rd to a crowd of Bolshevik supporters. Lenin brought with him an unprecedented fervor and belief in his system of communist administration for a newly liberated Russia. The strength of Lenin’s determination to ensure that Russia accepted a Bolshevik system of a proletariat empowering future was driven home by his April Theses, delivered in Petrograd on April 4th.

Lenin Speech at the Tauride Palace (April 4th 1917)

The theses itself was short, but deliverable in that it had realistic and identifiable goals. One of the most simplistic, but striking, characteristics about Lenin and his theses is that he picked a path that was easily discernible, but nonetheless bold. Lenin called for the people to do mainly two things. One was to dismiss the duality coalition of the provisional government set up between petty bourgeois leaders left in the wake of the Tsar, and semi-soviets from lesser hard lined socialist parties. This was a pseudo emancipation from the Tsar and the regime of old, and to accept it would be like returning to the bondage of the state that brought them to this point in the first place. Secondly, it was for the people to accept the uncompromising Bolshevik tenants of revolution that would empower the people and create a completely different free society branded under a new name with a hope of succeeding where the name of other liberal socialists failed, and that was communism.

Lenin left no one guessing what his views were concerning the future for Russia, and as history revealed in the October revolution, he succeeded.  The power of Lenin’s theses lay in that he openly and honestly addressed the public that they had failed in revolution thus far. They had stopped short of wresting power and emancipating themselves, stopping at stage one and consequently they “placed power into the hands of the bourgeoisie to the second stage, which must place power into the hands of the proletariat and the poor strata of the peasantry” (Lenin, April Theses.)

The theses laid out a plan to have a total revolution that would set Russia apart on the world stage as a leader of of a liberally left sided thought of political and personal emancipation. The theses was driven to success by the historical tyranny of the Tsar, and the raging European war spurred on by capitalist imperial bourgeoisie of European states who would see Russia implode after the end of the war and return to a despotic monarch rule. Lenin spoke directly to the people, the peasants, the soldiers, the middle class, and empowered them to create a destiny separate from the common place practice of ruling elites. The theses had ten main points, and even outlined party tasks to include 1.) immediate summoning of a party congress, 2.) altering the party platform, 3.) renaming the party as communists, (Lenin, April Theses.) However, the majority of the speech was directed at choosing the path of emancipation and for the people to join Lenin and his Bolsheviks to accept nothing less than true freedom in a communist future for the Russian people.

Lenin at Finland Station

Works Cited:

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=article&ArticleID=1917theses1&SubjectID=1917april&Year=1917

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917april&Year=1917

http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&show=images&SubjectID=1917april&Year=1917&navi=byYear

V. I. Lenin, Selected Works in Two Volumes (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1952), Vol. 2, pp. 3-17.

Freeze, Gregory L. Russia: A History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Theses

Protest

“In a country ruled by an autocracy, with a completely enslaved press, in a period of desperate political reaction in which even the tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest is persecuted, the theory of revolutionary Marxism suddenly forced its way into the censored literature before the government realized what had happened and the unwieldy army of censors and gendarmes discovered the new enemy and flung itself upon him. ” – Lenin (“What is to be done: Criticism in Russia”) c.1901

20th century Russia and protest go together like bread and butter, or vodka and angry Siberian bears, depending on which side of the peasantry you viewed it from. The earliest uprisings, and most notable for the eventual 1917 revolution, took place in 1905. As unrest and peasant disparity increased throughout the end of the 19th century into the early 20th, the people began to react accordingly with protests and strikes that took various forms.

In 1905, the Russian state was dealing with a broad range of problems that led to civil unrest and peasant disobedience. They included overall problems in agriculture production and development, problems with internal national perception (especially following failures such as the Crimean War), problems with labor, and problems with the disproportionate levels of education throughout the population.  Although the serfs had already become “emancipated”, Russia lacked the internal governance ability to maintain good order and fair practice of trade for produce and overall population well being. The vast majority of the population was comprised of small scale farmers on a communal system of shared land and labor. This proved to be ineffective as the farmers could not create enough produce to sell in order to break even, or even feed themselves, let alone ever become wealthy and prosper. This provides obvious reasons for protests and in 1902 they went to the streets in mass, angry that their farm systems were failing, and that there was no work to be had elsewhere. Strikes, looting, and pillaging took place in the provinces of Kharkov and Poltava, to name a few.

 Bloody Sunday 1905

Another area of interest that sparked unrest was in deciding national prominence by birthright, or through citizenry conversion and immigration. Russia was a large territory that encompassed a lot of ethnic and religious minorities. Polish people, and Jews, began to exemplify this problem in the early 20th century when they found contention with the state and greater population during assimilation. The emancipation of the serfs left a more or less “free” populace, however, codes of civil rights and liberties had not been established for those who would fall out of the realm of being ethnically and traditionally Russian. The lack of a homogeneous population who fully understood their path as a nation led to a subtle forms of unrest that played into the overall greater problem faced by twentieth century Russia.

Labor was a major issue in pre-1917 revolution Russia. Wage workers were expected to work regularly up to eleven and a half hours a day, if not more. Penalties were harsh state wide for things like tardiness, or failure to produce at an effective level, and unions or workers organizations were barred from existence. Wages paid out were the lowest in all of Europe at the time, and factory workers could, like their agrarian cousins, barely make a living.

All of the workers within a factory were at the will of the assembly and could be fired as a whole without notice if there were any infractions. The lack of jobs and abundance of willingness of people to work led to deplorable working conditions. One such strike in 1904 led to the firing of the entire Putilov factory giant, (Freeze, 251.)

“Bloody Sunday”, as it is so appropriately named, took place in 1905 when one such protest and worker strike occurred on January 22nd in St. Petersburg Russia. A peaceful city wide protest and general worker strike was shattered by gunfire from state military forces, and the consequences would largely bring upon the 1917 revolution and subsequent downfall of the Tsar. This is the culminating strike of many smaller ones that dotted the country side. The people had in a sense “woken up” to the failure of their own state to provide the freedom to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Russians sleeping in the city streets. C.1908

Works Cited:

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/quotes.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_1905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_1905#mediaviewer/File:Shestviye_u_Narvskikh_vorot.jpg

Freeze, Gregory L. Russia: A History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b42933/0

The Russian Empire survived a conflict ridden existence of violent political change and internal reform from 1721 up to the Russian revolution in 1917. One point of interest, in this vast historical time period, is the Crimean War that took place in the mid-19th century from October 1853 to February 1856, culminating in a Russian defeat by a coalition of French, British, and Ottoman Turks. Understanding the history and relation of Russia and Crimea play into current events and understanding Russian interest in the region from a historical aspect.

Battle of Sinop 1853

The Crimean war was spurned on by poor relations between Russia and the ruling Ottomans in the contested area of Crimea. Russia viewed their rights to protect ethnic and Russian Orthodox citizens from Ottoman subjugation, within the region that is now largely the Ukraine and Romania, as paramount in maintaining sovereignty of the empire. The expansion and protection of Russian Orthodox Christianity in the region was viewed as an affront to the supremacy of the holy Roman Church, of which France had a vested interest in maintaining at the time.  This led to violations of multiple treaties and the escalation of full blown naval and land based warfare between the aforementioned parties.

Historical Map of the Area of Operations

The heaviest fighting was seen when the allied troops landed a coalition fighting force in Russian controlled Crimea. The battle of Sevastopol began, a siege that would last a full year and mark the focal point of the fighting. Russians eventually retreated and gave up Sevastopol late in 1855. The amount of casualties in the war is viewed in retrospect as costly and unnecessary by all sides, totaling near 750,000 deaths combined.

Siege of Sevastopol

The Crimean war brought upon some valuable lessons to be learned by all parties, but specifically Russia. The realization that Russia had become weaker than the rest of the modernizing European powers was highlighted by their inability to effectively wage war for their own national interest. Technologically, they were far behind the French and British in naval superiority, and socially it had become apparent that the feudalistic ways of serfdom were no longer effective in maintaining and implementing national interest. The eventual emancipation of the serfs in 1861 can be drawn back to, in part, the failure of Russia to succeed in this costly and embarrassing war that reshaped the political geography of the region and set the tone for World War one, as well as the following revolution that would prompt a great change in Russian history.

Works Cited

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.02161/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1854%E2%80%9355)#mediaviewer/File:Panorama_dentro.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War#mediaviewer/File:Battle_of_Sinop.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/143040/Crimean-War