Doctor of Philosophy / History / Michael Krysko / David R. Stone / This dissertation examines the shifting patterns of naval reform and the implementation of foreign technology in the Russian Empire and Soviet Union from Alexander III’s ascension to the Imperial throne in 1881 up to the outset of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. During this period, neither the Russian Imperial Fleet nor the Red Navy had a coherent, overall strategic plan. Instead, the expansion and modernization of the fleet was left largely to the whims of the ruler or his chosen representative. The Russian Imperial period, prior to the Russo-Japanese War, was characterized by the overbearing influence of General Admiral Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, who haphazardly directed acquisition efforts and systematically opposed efforts to deal with the potential threat that Japan posed. The Russo-Japanese War and subsequent downfall of the Grand Duke forced Emperor Nicholas II to assert his own opinions, which vacillated between a coastal defense navy and a powerful battleship-centered navy superior to the one at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. In the Soviet era, the dominant trend was benign neglect, as the Red Navy enjoyed relative autonomy for most of the 1920s, even as the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921 ended the Red Navy’s independence from the Red Army. M. V. Frunze, the People’s Commissar of the Army of Navy for eighteen months in 1925 and 1926, shifted the navy from the vaguely Mahanian theoretical traditions of the past to a modern, proletarian vision of a navy devoted to joint actions with the army and a fleet composed mainly of submarines and light surface vessels. As in the Imperial period, these were general guidelines rather than an all-encompassing policy. The pattern of benign neglect was shattered only in 1935, when Stalin unilaterally imposed his own designs for a mighty offensive fleet on the Soviet military, a plan that was only interrupted by the outbreak of World War II.

Tsar Nicholas II was the last in a long line of Russian rulers. At the time of his death, he was the wealthiest individual in the world. The Russian revolution brought about the massacre of Nicholas and his entire family. Following the revolution, the new Soviet leaders developed a series of plans to revitalize what remained of the economy and of foreign relations. Lenin’s plans included reverting to some methods seen under Tsarist rule, while Stalin’s plans hinged on pumping much needed financial resources into military, infrastructure, industry and agriculture and expansion into new areas of natural resources, including Mongolia. Much of the needed money for Stalin’s plans came from the dismantling and selling of the possessions of the former imperial family. The Soviet Government effectively liquidated and used the Tsarist wealth in the the improved development of economic conditions and diplomatic relations.

This work provides an account of the Crimean residency of Nicholas II's mother, Dowager Empress Maria Fedorovna, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich, former Commander--in-Chief of the Russian Armies, and other members of the Romanov dynasty, from the abdication of the tsar (March 1917) until their departure aboard the H.M.S. Marlborough (April 1919). The first two chapters provide a background of conditions within the Imperial Family during the reign of Nicholas II. The remainder of the work traces their lives from arrival in the Crimea until the Dowager Empress accedes to the request of her sister, Dowager Queen Alexandra, to emigrate to England. The study concludes that the Romanovs played no active role in the Russian Civil War, although they were considered dangerous counterrevolutionaries by the Bolsheviks.

No description available.

Master thesis Religious circumstances in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century will deal with religio-spiritual situation within czarist Russia since the dawn of 20th century till the rise of Bolshevik regime in 1917. It aims not only to analyse and describe religious circumstances of contemporary Orthodox church, but also reflect those circumstances in "minority" religious communities. It introduces the state at which the Orthodox church was at and enlighten the situation, that was influenced both by Russian course to industrial society and the outbreak of the First world war and revolution at 1917.

Basé sur des documents authentiques rares et inédits, ce travail a pour but d’étoffer une nouvelle image de la Révolution russe via les revues satiriques de l’époque. Ces revues sont de véritables œuvres d’art révolutionnaires qui interrogent la liberté de la presse et l’art durant une période charnière en Russie. Il s’agit d’une témoignage direct de cette année révolutionnaire, véhiculé par des artistes avant-gardistes libérés de la censure, et qui vont, au fil des semaines, composer une image originale de l’année 2017 et des deux révolutions russes de février et d’octobre au travers des couvertures illustrées. Afin de conserver la dynamique chronologique des événements, les revues ont été mises en parallèle avec les témoignages écrits d’époque, de personnalités diverses telles que Claude Anet, Pierre Pascal, Maxime Gorki, Maurice Paléologue, ou encore John S. Reed. Tous ont accompagné les bouleversements révolutionnaires à leur manière et constituent l’écho historique de ces revues satiriques illustrées qui nous permettent de plonger au cœur même du quotidien des révolutions russes caractérisant une nouvelle image de la Révolution, mouvante, singulière et remarquable. / Based on rare and authentic documents, this work endeavors to elaborate a new image of the Russian Revolution through satirical magazines of the time. These illustrated reviews are genuine works of art that question freedom of the press and art itself during a transnational period in Russia. They serve as a direct testimony of this revolutionary year, providing an original image of the two Russian revolutions of February and October and featuring on the review’s front cover week after week avant-garde artists freed from censorship of the press. In order to preserve the chronological dynamic of the events, satirical reviews are coupled with historical testimony of various writers such as Claude Anet, Pierre Pascal, Maxime Gorki, Maurice Paleologue, and John S. Reed, among others. All of them had supported the revolutionary turmoil in their own way and constitute an historical echo of the illustrated satirical reviews allowing us to plunge into the heart of daily life during the two Russian revolutions, and thus creating a new image of the Revolution, set in motion, single-minded, and noteworthy.

<p>In 1917, the Romanov dynasty in Russia came to an end as Tsar Nicholas II abdicated during the February Revolution and the First World War. The Romanovs ruled Russia for over three-hundred years as absolute monarchs and until 1917, Nicholas II and his wife Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna fervently clung to their autocratic rule and projected an image of power and stability. Yet, their choices not only shaped Russia itself but also dictated Russia’s diplomatic and cultural relationship with their future allies in the First World War: Great Britain, France, and the United States of America. From 1896 to 1917, Tsar Nicholas II floundered amid a series of crisis and this dissertation considers five key moments in his reign that illustrate the complex relationship between Russia and the allies of the First World War. These events are: the Coronation of Nicholas II in 1896; Bloody Sunday and the Treaty of Portsmouth in 1905; the Romanov Tercentenary in 1913; the role of Tsarina Alexandra in the First World War from 1914-1917; and the abdication of Nicholas II and asylum request by the Romanovs in 1917. All of these events showcase the diplomatic and media representations of the Romanovs among allied nations and how Nicholas performed and presented his view of himself to the rest of the world. Each Tsar of Russia fashioned himself into a mythic and ceremonial figure to the Russian people and this dissertation argues that the governments of Great Britain, France, and the United States accepted Nicholas’ self-representations for many years and ignored his autocratic rule in favor of their own military and financial interests. In 1917, after years of excusing his behavior, they finally rejected him. Ultimately, the Romanovs held great power at home and abroad and were major players in international events in the early twentieth century but they were unable to reconcile their autocratic regime with modern democracies. In the end, Nicholas’ and Alexandra’s failure to adapt and perform their roles effectively cost them their throne and left Russia in a state of war and disarray.</p>