Both were useful for corroborating cross references for facts and statistics (such as industrial figures where official statistics would have been misleading). Lynch and Waldron provided an understanding of, for example, reform prior to the revolution of 1917. Lynch’s approach is chronological whereas Waldron looks at particular themes, for example education in the pre revolutionary period. Waldron was particularly useful in comparing society in Tsarist times and under Stalin. Riasanovsky, Freeze and Service were very influential.
When human beings castigate authors of America’s past on a cool autumns day (Chronographia), they are condemning the olden days itself. How can humanity try to discredit the authors without additionally discrediting the olden days they document? One of the crystal clear actions in this tale is when young Washington's hacking goes unseen. For what reason doe the haters have to want to discredit it? An individual may remark, "The plantations slaves would have noticed his hacking."
There can be no ignoring the effect that World War I had on Russia, with the crippling affects of a major war and the resulting breakdown of infrastructure within the Russian Empire. From 1903 when the Bolsheviks were formed a rising threat had emerged to Tsardom, The Marxist intellectual Vladimir Lenin was emerging as an influential light in the revolutionary movement. His earlier pamphlet entitled ‘What is to be done?’ outlined his need for more organisation, discipline, and leadership within the socialist parties. His idea of having a tight-knit exclusive organisation of professional revolutionaries showed he had the coherent theories to be a real threat to Tsarism. According to Alan Wood, Lenin described the 1905 revolution as a ‘dress rehearsal’.
The consequences of the Russo Japanese war caused problems with the working class conditions, which were the main grounds of a revolution in 1905, and also the main aim of the opposition groups, which further triggered a revolution. The effects that the loss of the Russo-Japanese war had on the Government lead people to feel negatively towards the government and encouraged them to start a revolution. The Russo-Japanese war was not the most important factor, but was an important factor which leads to the revolution. The Russo-Japanese war also affected the Russian citizens’ attitudes towards the
Firs was born a serf on Madame Ranevsky's estate, and although the serfs have been freed, Firs had remained on the estate because he had no other opportunities. Although he and Lopakhin share the same background, Firs has not been able to adapt to the changing society as Lopakhin has. Firs is also a figure who represents time, and a character who symbolizes the old class system. He was the only surviving link to the estate's glorious past, and he also comes to symbolize that past, but at the end of the play, he is accidentally left behind and he presumably dies onstage. Even his death has contributed to the play abundantly marking the passing of the old class system, the passing of the aristocracy's reign on the cherry orchard.
John is also just as isolated in the new state. ‘ At Malpais he had suffered because they had shut him out from communal activities of the pueblo, in civilised London he was suffering because he could never escape from the communal activities, never be quietly alone.’ This reveals that still in two completely different societies he fits in to neither, for two different reasons. Also on the final page after his death it says, ‘ Slowly, very slowly, like two unhurried compass needles, the feet turned towards the right; north, north-east, east, south-east, south, south-south-west; then paused, and, after a few
“Political repression was the most important factor in bringing stability to Russia after the 1905 revolution.” How far do you agree with this statement? When analysing how Russia stabilised itself after he 1905 revolution, we have to consider the main factors: political repression and reform. The statement “political repression was the most important factor in bringing stability to Russia after the 1905 revolution” it’s suggesting that one is more important than the other. I’m going to analyse to what extent both factors helped in stabilising the country and how they did so. Looking at repression, the problems they dealt with and how they solved them: the terrorist attacks and harsh punishments, reform groups and the black hundreds and finally the revolutionary ideas and closing of newspapers and trade unions.
She even claims in her sixth law that Russia is a Europeon State. Catherine II's laws helped Russia become a force in the western cultures, although, she kick started a downhill slope to an increasing poverty in Russia. The laws were not very just to the citizens besides the high upper class. But Catherine II was a leading force in the remodeling of Russia. You can also see from this document signs of oppression the serfs.
One of the main aspects identified in the discussions was that of the change that was observed with time, such as the transformation, from the aristocracy and noblity of 'Old Russia', to the more rational, secular and materialistic 'Modernity'. Cultural futility was evidently observed, as there were futile attempts of both, the aristocracy to maintain its status, and of the 'bourgeoisie' to find meaning in their new found money. Another important and highly-discussed point was that of the Transformation of the Social Classes that took place, the downfall of the aristocrats, and the uprising of the Serfs. Thus, at this point when the work was written, there was a moment of class instability. Furthermore, the emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, discussed by my fellow members in the group, allowed former Serfs to gain wealth and status, while some aristocrats became impoverished.