Death of a Language

Alex Krzyston Cardiovascular

“Latin is dead.”

This saying has become common place in our society. However, it is said with ignorance by those who understand neither what language is nor how one can die.  But, what really is a dead language? According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a dead language is “a language which is no longer spoken by anyone as their main language.”

This definition is too restrictive and short sighted. Latin may not be spoken today, but it can still be read and is even taught is schools, so clearly it still persists in some form.  Language is a form of communication with its goal being to communicate some sort of message or idea.  Language does not have to be spoken to do this.  Writing, in addition to speech, is another medium through which to use language and convey its message.  Thus, writing has the potential to keep a language alive.
 
Language consists of more than spoken word.  It has two forms, two mediums through which it can communicate.  The first medium is the spoken word, speech.  This form is purely auditory is nature.  The other form is written word.  Writing naturally evolved from speech as a means to record, remember, and preserve the spoken word.    Thus, the two are indefinitely linked.  “Through writing, one can recover the spoken word” (Deciphering the Rosetta Stone 15).  Where there is writing, there was once speech, and where there is speech, writing will inevitably follow.  In order for a language to die, both forms must be abolished.
 
In order to understand how something can die, one must first understand its origins.  Spoken language arose before speech; however, what exactly the first spoken language was is unknown.  This is because there are no records of it because writing had not yet developed.  All that remains of the origin of spoken language is the Tower of Babel, which only remains because of writting. But, even that only provides insight into the development of other languages from the first language.  However, the first visual languages are known.  They developed independently from each other in Mesoamerica, Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia.  From these four visual languages, all other writing developed.  “The independence that characterizes the invention of each of the four writing systems extends to their internal structures, social context, and the evolutionary process themselves” (Visual Languages: The Earliest Writing Systems 23). Language is unique to the culture from which it develops.  It is not only a means of communication, but a reflection of the culture that is arises from evolving and changing with the culture. 

It is this process of evolution that language can be lost.  Such was the case with ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.  As Egypt was taken over and influenced by foreign cultures, “pharaonic Egyptian culture was gradually subsumed in other cultures [and] the hieroglyphic script had almost disappeared from use” (Deciphering the Rosetta Stone 15).  This was a crucial phase in the evolution of hieroglyphs; it was the point at which the language appeared to die.  However, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs live on even today.

Writing immortalizes language, and so long as the message of the words can be understood the language lives on long after it is originally written or spoken.  For centuries, Egyptian hieroglyphs were thought to be a dead language.  It was within the ruins of ancient Egypt that archeologists uncovered the mummified language, preserved in hieroglyphs.  All means of understand these symbols were lost and it seemed they would remain so.  It was not until the discovery and eventual decipherment of the Rosetta Stone that hieroglyphs were reborn.  By the decipherment of the Rosetta Stone, hieroglyphs could be read and understood.  “While it is impossible to travel to the past, a measure of dialogue with the dead is possible” through the written words of the deceased (Decipherment of the Rosetta Stone 15).  The Rosetta Stone made possible communication that transcends time.  With it, the mystery surrounding an entire culture could be understood.
 
While writing preserves a language, writing alone cannot keep language from dyeing.  It can only immortalize a language if that writing can be read.  Otherwise, the written words are useless.  Prior to its decipherment, there was no one who could speak nor read hieroglyphs. It was the Rosetta Stone that allowed for ability to translate hieroglyphs.  It was the translation into another language that essentially saved an apparently dead language.  This in order to keep a language alive it needs to be able to be translated.  It is through translation that ideas spread and are able to persist.    Translation has kept a poem, written in classical Chinese by Wang Wei, alive for more than 1200 years. In 19 Ways of Looking at Wang Wei, Eliot Weinberger states that “the poem dies when it has no place to go” (Weinberger 1).   Thus, it is the act of translating that has kept the poem alive even outside of its original language.  Translation allows for a message to persist even when its language of origin dies out.
 
Socrates asserts that speech it superior to writing because speech is dynamic and can change whereas once the speech has been written, like painting, “it continues to signify just that very same thing forever” (Phaedrus 81).  However, it is just that static nature of writing that makes it so valuable.  “Speech is temporarily fleeting and spatially anchored.  Writing frees speech of these constrains, giving it permanence and allowing it to be transmitted over space far beyond the place of discourse” (Visual Language: The Earliest Wring System 15).  Just as a photo or painting captures and embalms an image, writing does the same for spoken words.  Writing’s permanence ensures the persistence of ideas and langue.  Once a speech is made, it only persists so long as the speaker and those who have listened remember it. Thus, it dies when they die.   In contrast, writing makes it possible to spread the message farther and for a greater length of time.  Once written, the idea persists.  This is seen in the very words of Socrates himself which persist today because they were written.  Furthermore, because they were written, which allowed for their survival, Socrates’s speech have been even more widely discussed than would have ever been possible without writing.
  
By recognizing that writing is superior to speech, society moves forward.  “The ability to represent language graphically, to make language visible, stands as one of humanity’s greatest intellectual and cultural achievements” (Visual Language: The Earliest Wring System 15).  All recent technology has been geared toward the advancement of communication through writing from e-books and iPads, Facebook and internet blogs, texting and twittering. As humans we strive towards advancing writing because “memory is finite by nature” and thus we need writing to record information “well beyond the capabilities of human memory” (Derrida 133 and Visible Language: The Earliest Writing Systems 15).  Because writing remembers what is beyond human ability, it serves not to remind one person, but an entire civilization.  The permanence of writing ensures the survival of society today.  Writing ensures that history will be remembered.  It has done so since the beginning of time with the Bible. Originally written in Latin, the Bible has become the most translated and read document of any other in history.  So long as the Bible remains, so too does Latin.  Everything in the Bible originated in Latin and through translation, it spread.  Thus, Latin is not truly dead.  “Speech is to being human, what writing is to civilization” (Visual Language: The Earliest Wring System 15).  Civilization dies when writing dies, and when human beings die, speech dies, and when this happens, language dies.


Bibliography:
Derrida, “Plato’s Pharmacy”
Woods, Christopher, Visible Language: The Earliest Writing Systems, io.uchicago.edu
Weinberger, Eliot, 19 Ways of Looking at Wang Wei.  Asphodel Press, Kingston, Rhode Island, 1987.
Plato, Phaedrus
Deciphering the Rosetta Stone

World War II Causes

Alex Krzyston Life Quotes



Alex Krzyston

“As early as 1928 the American Sidney B. Fay concluded that none of the European leaders had wanted a great war and identified as its deeper causes the alliance systems, militarism, imperialism, nationalism, and the newspaper press.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Sidney B. Fay - U.S. historian known primarily for his classical reexamination of the causes of World War I. (received his Ph.D. (1900) from Harvard University)  Fay was the first U.S. historian to challenge the widely held notion that Germany alone was responsible for initiating World War I. His Origins of the World War, 2 vol. (1928),

“By the 1930s moderate historians had concluded, with Lloyd George, that no one country was to blame for the war: “We all stumbled into it.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
“Debate over the origins of World War I was from the start partisan and moral in tone. Each of the belligerents published documentary collections selected to shift the blame and prove that it was fighting in self-defense. Serbia was defending itself against Austrian aggression. Austria-Hungary was defending its very existence against terror plotted on foreign soil. Russia was defending Serbia and the Slavic cause against German imperialism. Germany was defending its lone reliable ally from attack and itself from entente encirclement. France, with most justification, was defending itself against unprovoked German attack. And Britain was fighting in defense of Belgium, international law, and the balance of power.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Imperialism

“Italy’s pursuit of colonies in north Africa brought it into conflict with France and led in 1882 to it’s joining the Triple Alliance”
Wilhelm provoked conflict-the Moroccan Crises on 1905 and 1911 to test Britain-France alliance
“Italy’s attack on the crumbling Ottoman Empire in pursuit of the North African colony of Libya triggered a series of crises in the Balkans culminating in World War 1.”
(A.P. Euro review book)

Nationalism

“Diplomacy based on brinkmanship was especially frightening in view of the nature of the European state system.  Each nation-state regarded itself as sovereign, subject to no higher interest or authority.  Each state was motivated by its own self-interest and success.  As Emperor William II of Germany remarked: ‘In questions of honor and vital interests, you don’t consult others.’  Such attitudes made war an ever-present possibility, particularly since most statesmen considered war an acceptable way to preserve the power of their national states.” (Spielvogel)

“The growth of nationalism in the nineteenth century had yet another serious consequence.  Not all ethnic groups had achieved the goal of nationhood.  Slavic minorities in the Balkans and the Austrian Empire, for example, still dreamed of creating their own national states.  So did the Irish in the British Empire and the Poles in the Russian Empire.” (Spielvogel)

“Declarations of war were greeted with songs, flowers, wild enthusiasm, and dancing in the streets.  Crowds welcomed the battles to come with delirium of cheering a favorite team in sports match.  Some embraced war as test of greatness, a purification of a society that had become in 1914, it was a choice, not an accident.” (Civilizations in the West)

“Nationalism made it difficult for nations to compromise what they perceived as their national honor”
“Nationalism fed nationalism in the Balkans that drew Austria and Russia into conflict there.”  (A.P Euro review book)

Internal Dissent

“Leftist historians like the American A.J. Mayer then applied the “primacy of domestic policy” thesis and hypothesized that all the European powers had courted war as a means of cowing or distracting their working classes and national minorities.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

conservative historian Gerhard Ritter “The real problem, he argued, was not fear of the Social Democrats but the age-old tension between civilian and military influence in the Prussian-German government.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

A moderate German historian, Wolfgang J. Mommsen “Mommsen blamed the war on the survival of precapitalist regimes that simply proved “no longer adequate in the face of rapid social change and the steady advance of mass politics.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

“Socialist labor movements had grown more powerful and were increasingly inclined to use strikes, even violent ones to achieve their goals.  Some conservative leaders, alarmed at the increase in labor strife and class division, even feared that European nations were on the verge of revolution” (Spielvogel)

“Some historians have argued that the desire to suppress internal disorder may have encouraged some leaders to take the plunge into war in 1914.” (Spielvogel)
“To promote unity, governments promoted imperialism and fanned nationalist sentiments.  (Some leaders could have viewed world war one as an opportunity to solve domestic issues)  When war broke out, citizens celebrated in European capitals, and political dissenters called for an end to internal disputes.  Wilhelm called fro Burgfrieden, civil peace, for the duration of the war, while in Britain, female suffrage and Irish home rule were tabled.  Socialist parties, which wished to unite workers of all nations, generally supported the call to arms.  Mass politics had worked only too well in promoting popular nationalist sentiment on favor of war.”  (A.P. Euro review book)

“Germany has been blamed because she invaded Belgium in August 1914 when Britain had promised to protect Belgium. However, the street celebrations that accompanied the British and French declaration of war gives historians the impression that the move was popular and politicians tend to go with the popular mood.”
Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000.


Militarism

a moderate German historian, Wolfgang J. Mommsen “Germany's rapid industrialization and the tardiness of modernization in Austria-Hungary and Russia, he concluded, created instabilities in central and eastern Europe that found expression in desperate self-assertion.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

“The growth of large mass armies after 1900 not only heightened the existing tensions in Europe, but made it inevitable that if war did come it would be highly destructive.  Conscription had been established as a regular practice in most Western countries before 1914.  European military machines had doubled in size between 1890 and 1914.” (Spielvogel)

“Militarism, however, involved more than just large armies.  As armies grew, so too did the influence of military leaders who drew up vast and complex plans for quickly mobilizing millions of men and enormous qualities of supplies in the event of war.  Fearful that changes in these plans would cause chaos in the armed forces, military leaders insisted that their plans could nor be altered.  In the crises during the summer of 1914, the generals’ lack of flexibility forced European political leaders to make decisions for military instead of political reasons.” (Spielvogel)

“Russia's hasty mobilization expanded the crisis beyond the Balkans, initiated a round of military moves, and contributed to German panic.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

German tension

When Wilhelm dismissed Bismarck in 1890 he let Bismarck’s alliance system collapse which was designed to keep the balance of power. “Within the Bismarckian alliance structure, no great power could count on the support of any other should it initiate war.” (A.P. Euro review book)
“As it industrialized and pursued colonies more vigorously, Germany’s potential military and economic might created concern among the other great powers.” (A.P. Euro review book)
“Emperor Wilhelm 11’s world policy, which was aimed at finding Germany’s ‘place in the sun,’ created considerable ill will and unrest among other European states, especially Britain.  Moreover, the emperor had an unfortunate tendency to stir up trouble by his often tactless public remarks.  In this 1908 interview Wilhelm II intended to strengthen Germany’s ties with Britain. His words had just the opposite effect and raised a storm of protest in both Britain and Germany.”
    “You English are mad, mad, mad, as March hares.”
“The prevailing sentiment among large sections of the middle and lower classes of my own people is not friendly to England.”
“I resent your refusal to accept my pledge word that I am the friend of England.  I strive without ceasing to improve relations, and you retort that I am your arch-enemy.”
“Germany must have a powerful fleet to protect that commerce, and her manifold interests in even the most distant seas.  She expects those interests to go on growing, and she must be able to champion them manfully in any quarter of the globe.  Germany looks ahead.  Her horizons stretch far away.  She must be prepared for any eventualities in the Far East.”
(Spielvogel)

“The German historian Fritz Fischer published a massive study of German war aims during 1914–18 and held that Germany's government, social elites, and even broad masses had consciously pursued a breakthrough to world power in the years before World War I and that the German government, fully aware of the risks of world war and of British belligerency, had deliberately provoked the 1914 crisis.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
“Other historians saw links to the Bismarckian technique of using foreign policy excursions to stifle domestic reform, a technique dubbed “social imperialism.” Germany's rulers, it appeared, had resolved before 1914 to overthrow the world order in hopes of preserving the domestic order.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
“Upon completion of the Franco-Russian alliance in 1894, Germany began work on the Schliffen Plan.  When Germany mobilized troops in 1914 in accordance with the Shlieffen Plan all hopes of political negotiations to prevent war were lost.”  (A.P. Euro review book)


2 great causes of friction between Britain and Germany
!. Germany's fear of the huge British Empire.
“By 1900, Britain owned a quarter of the world. Countries such as Canada, India, South Africa, Egypt, Australia and New Zealand were owned by Britain as part of the British Empire. Queen Victoria had been crowned Empress of India. Huge amounts of money were made from these colonies and Britain had a powerful military presence in all parts of the world. The Empire was seen as the status symbol of a country that was the most powerful in the world. “
“Germany clearly believed that a sign of a great power was possession of overseas colonies. The 'best' had already been taken by Britain but Germany resolved to gain as much colonial territory as possible. “
Set their goal in Africa= “anger in London as Germany's new territories were near South Africa with its huge diamond and gold reserves. In reality, Germany's African colonies were of little economic importance but it gave her the opportunity to demonstrate to the German people that she had Great Power status even if this did make relations with Britain more fragile than was perhaps necessary for the economic returns Germany got from her colonies. “
2. Germany's desire to increase the size of her navy.
“Britain accepted that Germany, as a large land-based country, needed a large army. But Germany had a very small coastline and Britain could not accept that Germany needed a large navy.”
“Britain concluded that Germany's desire to increase the size of her navy was to threaten Britain's naval might in the North Sea. The British government concluded that as an island we needed a large navy and they could not accept any challenges from Germany. As a result, a naval race took place. Both countries spent vast sums of money building new warships and the cost soared when Britain launched a new type of battleship - the Dreadnought. Germany immediately responded by building her equivalent.”
Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000.
    “Germany’s desire to build a world class fleet of battleships antagonized Great Britain and made an enemy out of a potential ally.  Kaisar Wilhelm II was convinced that if Germany wished a ‘place in the sun’ it must develop a commercial empire akin to Britain’s.  This threat to British navel dominance represented the first of many actions by Germany upsetting the balance of power.” (A.P. Euro review book)

Balkans

Serbia supported by Russia was determined to create a large independent Slavic state in the Balkans but Austria because of its own Slavic minorities wanted to prevent it.
British ambassador to Vienna wrote in 1913:
“Serbia will some day set Europe by the ears, and bring about a universal war on the Continent…I cannot tell you how exasperated people are getting here at the continual worry which that little country causes to Austria under encouragement form Russia.. It will be lucky if Europe succeeds in avoiding war as a result of the present crisis.  The next time a Serbian crisis arises…, I feel sure that Austria –Hungary will refuse to admit of any Russian interference in the dispute and that she will proceed to settle her differences with her little neighbor by herself.” (Spielvogel)

With assassination of the Arch duke by a Serbian nationalist Austria saw an opportunity to “render Serbia impotent once and for all by a display of force.” (Spielvogel)

Austria feared Russian intervention and sought support from Germany.  Germany responded with the Blank Check and assured Austria that could rely on full support form Germany.

“German government had issued the risky “blank check” and urged Vienna on an aggressive course. It had swept aside all proposals for mediation until events had gained irreversible momentum.” (Encyclopedia Britannic)

Alliance system

“The system of nation-states that had emerged in Europe in the last half of the nineteenth century led not to cooperation but to competition.  Rivalries over colonial and commercial interests intensified during an era of frenzied imperialist expansion, and the division of Europe’s great powers into two loose alliances only added tensions.” (Spielvogel)

“In either case, by 1914, the major European states had come to believe that their allies were important and that their security depended on supporting those allies, even when they took foolish risks.”  (Spielvogel)

Triple Entante

“Wilhelm’s efforts to match Britain’s navy, and his militant personal styles, drove France and Britain together with the Entante Cordiale in 1904”  (A.P. Euro review book)

“Russia also had a huge army and with France on the west of Europe and Russia on the east, the 'message' sent to Germany was that she was confronted by two huge armies on either side of her borders. Therefore, it was not a good move by Germany to provoke trouble in Europe - that was the hoped for message sent out by the Triple Entente”
 (Russia's royal family, the Romanovs, was related to the British Royal Family.)
Chris Trueman BA (Hons), MA has written all the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years. Chris graduated with a BA (Honours) in History from Aberystwyth University, Wales in 1979 and has since studied at Loughborough University and gained a MA in management from Brighton University in 2000.


Rrefutation
“Imperialist crises, though tense at times, had always been resolved, and even Germany's ambitions were on the verge of being served through a 1914 agreement with Britain on a planned partition of the Portuguese empire. Imperial politics were simply not a casus belli for anyone except Britain. Military preparedness was at a peak, but armaments are responses to tensions, not the cause of them, and they had, perhaps, served to deter war in the numerous crises preceding 1914. Capitalist activity tied the nations of Europe together as never before, and in 1914 most leading businessmen were advocates of peace. The alliance systems themselves were defensive and deterrent by design and had served as such for decades. Nor were they inflexible.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)

ALEX KRZYSTON Quotes on Life

ALEX KRZYSTON Success Quotes

ALEX KRZYSTON

Life Quotes

ALEX KRZYSTON z ALEX J KRZYSTON z ALEXANDER JAMES KRZYSTON
ALEXANDER KRZYSTON z ALEXANDER J KRZYSTON z ALEX JAMES KRZYSTON
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY z EVANSTON z BURR RIDGE

Alex Krzyston

A well-spent day brings happy sleep … Leonardo da Vinci
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure … Mark Twain

Beware the barrenness of a busy life … Socrates

Bounty always receives part of its value from the manner in which it is bestowed … Samuel Johnson

Change is the way of life. And to those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future … John F. Kennedy

Change will not come if we wait for some other person of some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek … Barrack Obama

Chose a job you love, and you never have to work a day in your life … Confucius

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen … Albert Einstein

Everything in life is luck … Donald Thrump

I think computer viruses should count as life ... I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.  Steven Hawking

I want you to be everything that's you, deep at the center of your being.. Confucius

If you want to lift me up you must be on higher ground.. Ralph Emerson

Life I not important except for the impact it has on other lives … Jackie Robinson

Life is real simple, but we insist on making it complicated … Confucius

My formula for life is quite simple. I get up in the morning and I go to bed at night. In between, I occupy myself as best I can … Cary Grant

Nothing in the world is more dangerous that sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity … Marthur Luther King, Jr

Do unto other as you would have them do unto you … Jesus of Nazareth, 0030

 Other Web Page by Alex Krzyston
  
     Alexanderjkrzyston.com/Alexander_j_krzyston_links.html
     AlexanderjKrzyston.com/Alexander_j_krzyston_quotes.html
     AlexanderjKrzyston.com/contact_Alexander_j_krzyston.html
     AlexanderJKrzyston.com/index.html
     AlexanderKrzyston.com
     AlexanderKrzyston.com/Alexander_krzyston_links.html
     AlexanderKrzyston.com/Alexander_krzyston_quotes.html
     AlexanderKrzyston.com/contact_Alexander_krzyston.html
     AlexanderKrzyston.com/index.html
     AlexJKrzyston.com
     AlexJKrzyston.com/Alex_j_krzyston_links.html
     AlexJKrzyston.com/Alex_j_krzyston_quotes.html
     AlexJKrzyston.com/contact_Alex_j_krzyston.html
     AlexJKrzyston.com/index.html
     AlexKrzyston.com
     Alexkrzyston.com/Alex_krzyston_links.html
     AlexKrzyston.com/Alex_krzyston_quotes.html
     AlexKrzyston.com/contact_Alex_krzyston.html
     AlexKrzyston.com/index.html

RUSSIA 1917 posted by ALEX KRZYSTON

ALEX KRZYSON

ALEX KRZYSTON Society

Society Quotes

ALEXANDER KRZYSTON ` ALEXANDER J KRZYSTON ` ALEX JAMES KRZYSTON

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY ` EVANSTON ` BURR RIDGE
ALEX KRZYSTON `ALEX J KRZYSTON ` ALEXANDER JAMES KRZYSTON

Alex Krzyston

Why was there a Communist revolution in Russia in 1917?

Weakness of Tsar Nicholas II
The ruler of Russia was Tsar Nicholas II. He was an absolute monarch, meaning that he had total power in Russia.
Nicholas was a weak man. He used his secret police, the Okrana, to persecute opponents. Books and newspapers were censored. The Church supported the Tsar – the ‘Little Father of the Russian people’.
Nicholas II ruled a vast country that was almost medieval in comparison to other countries. The Tsar’s undemocratic government was a major cause of the revolution
Failure of the Duma
In 1905 Russia lost a war with Japan. This defeat caused strikes in the Russian cities, the Tsar nearly lost control. Nicholas II offered to call a Duma, or parliament, with free elections. This was accepted by the demonstrators.
When the Duma met, it began to criticise the Tsar and demanded changes. Nicholas II did not like this at all. The Duma was dismissed and new elections, controlled by the Tsar, were called.
It became clear that the Duma would be shut down if it criticised the Tsar. As long as the Tsar had control of the army, his power could not be broken.
The discontent of the Workers
Industrialisation began much later in Russia than in Western Europe. Huge iron foundries, textile factories and engineering firms were set up. Most were owned by the government or foreigners, and were located in the big cities such as St Petersburg or Moscow. By 1900 20% of Russians were workers living in cities.
Working conditions in the new industrial towns were hard. Pay was very low. Although strikes and demonstrations were illegal, they often took place. Strikers were frequently shot by the Tsar’s soldiers or secret police.
The discontent of the Peasants
Russia was a rural society with over 90% of the people being poor peasants. Until 1861 the peasants had belonged to their masters, who could buy and sell them like animals. When the peasants were freed in 1861 they were given small amounts of land for which they had to pay back the government. As a result most farmers were in absolute poverty. Agriculture was in desperate need of modernisation.
In contrast, a small number of upper-class people held most of the wealth and power. This aristocracy had large town houses and country estates.

Russian failures in the First World War
In the first few months of the First World War, Russia fought better than had been expected. Russian forces attacked Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914 and were only pushed back after fierce fighting at the battle of Tannenberg.
In 1915, Tsar Nicholas II assumed personal command of the Russian armed forces. This was a risky policy; any defeats would be blamed on him. As it turned out the Tsar was a poor commander. The Russian army lost confidence in the Tsar after a string of serious defeats. The Russian soldiers, poorly trained and equipped, lacking in basic items such as rifles and ammunition, suffered from lowering morale. Thousands of men deserted.
Without the support of the army, the Tsar’s position became increasingly precarious
Rasputin and Scandal
While Tsar Nicholas II was absent commanding Russian forces during the First World War, he left the day to day running of Russia in the control of his wife Tsarina Alexandra.
Alexandra came increasingly under the influence of Gregory Rasputin, a ‘holy man’ who appeared to be able to heal the haemophilia of Prince Alexis, the heir to the throne.
Rasputin used his power to win effective control of the Russian government. But this aroused envy and he was murdered in 1916. Rasputin’s influence undermined the prestige of the royal family, but his murder came too late to save them.
The opposition of the Communists
Many middle-class Liberals and Social Revolutionaries (who supported the peasants) opposed the rule of the Tsar, but the most revolutionary were the Social Democrats or Communists.
The Communists believed in the ideas of Karl Marx. Marx claimed that history is all about the struggles between the classes. He claimed that the capitalist system was unfair because the factory owners (bourgeois) made profits from the toils of the workers (proletariat). Marx predicted that the proletariat would violently overthrow the bosses and take control of the country on behalf of the people.
The Russian Communists were divided into the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and the Mensheviks led by Trotsky. Lenin believed that the small party of Bolsheviks should seize power and control Russia on behalf of the people. Before 1917 Lenin and many of the other Communist leaders were in exile abroad, plotting to bring about a revolution in Russia
The February Revolution 1917
Russia fared so badly in the First World War there was a spontaneous uprising against the Tsar in February 1917. This was sparked off by food riots, poor working conditions and the failure to win the war. The Russian army refused to shoot at the demonstrators and joined forces with them. Lenin, in exile in Switzerland, raced to Petrograd so that he could attempt to seize control of the revolution.
In March 1917, without the support of the army, the Tsar was forced to abdicate and a Provisional Government was set up under Prince Lvov and Kerensky. Lenin believed that this new government was weak and would not impose communism on the Russian people.
In October 1917, Lenin led an armed uprising against the Provisional Government. His aim was to take control of Russia and turn it in to a communist country.


How did Lenin impose Communist control in Russia between 1917-1924?

The abandonment of the Constituent Assembly 1917
Straight after the October Revolution of 1917, Lenin promised to hold elections for a Parliament to be known as the Constituent Assembly.
Lenin renamed the Bolshevik Party as the Communist Party in order to win wider support. However, the Communists only won 175 seats out of 700, not enough for a majority.
Therefore Lenin shut down the Constituent Assembly after only one day!
Lenin was not prepared to share power with anyone. This was the first step in setting up a Communist dictatorship.

The Cheka (or secret police)
In December 1917 Lenin set up a secret police force known as the Cheka. Cheka agents spied on the Russian people in factories and villages.
Anyone suspected of being anti-Communist could be arrested, tortured and executed without a trial.
When opponents tried to assassinate Lenin in 1918, he launched the Red Terror campaign against his enemies. It is said that 50,000 people were arrested and executed in this period.

The Civil War 1918-1921
The opponents of the ‘Reds’, Lenin and the Communists, were known as the ‘Whites’. The Whites were a mixture of aristocrats, royalists, churchmen, army officers and many others. The Whites were led by Admiral Kolchak and Generals Deniken and Wrangel.
The Whites were supported by Britain, France, Japan and the USA, countries that were alarmed at the possible spread of communism. At the same time, Lenin fought a war against Poland, a new country formed by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
Although in a very dangerous position, the Communists were able to win the Civil War. This was because the Whites were divided, while the Reds controlled the key cities, industrial centres and communication links. Trotsky’s tough leadership of the new Red Army proved decisive in the victory over the Whites.
The execution of Tsar Nicholas II July 1918
After his abdication in March 1917, Tsar Nicholas II and his family were arrested and sent to Siberia.
In July 1918, the Romanovs were in Ekaterinburg, with a White army closing in on the town. Local communists were worried that the Tsar might be a rallying point for the Whites. As a result, Tsar Nicholas, his wife, their five children and four attendants were shot and bayoneted
War Communism
To win the Civil War and impose Communism in Russia, Lenin needed a strong Red Army supplied with weapons and food.
The state took control of the factories and appointed managers to run them. Work was hard and long, food was rationed to only those who worked and trade unions were banned.
To get enough food, the Cheka seized all surplus grain from the peasants. The peasants hid food or preferred to grow less rather than give it away free to feed the towns.
Drought and famine hit Russia in 1921 – over 4 million people died.
The Kronstadt Revolt 1921
War Communism made Lenin’s government very unpopular. Discontent amongst the peasants led to violence in the cities. Workers went on strike, in spite of the death penalty for striking.
The most serious opposition to Lenin’s government came in March 1921. Sailors at the Kronstadt naval base near Petrograd revolted. They accused Lenin of breaking his promise to help the workers.
Lenin ordered the Red Army to put down the revolt. This caused 20,000 casualties and the leaders of the revolt were executed. However, the mutiny was a warning to Lenin that he might have to relax War Communism.
Success of the New Economic Policy 1921
To regain popular support, Lenin relaxed War Communism with the New Economic Policy (NEP). Smaller industries were returned to private ownership and peasants could sell their surplus on the open market. This was a return to capitalism and competition.
Lenin hoped that NEP would give Russia ‘a breathing space’ to get back on its feet. Most of the Communist Party saw the need for NEP, but some were against it.
On the whole NEP was a success. But it did create some problems. Some peasants, the Kulaks, became rich, while ‘Nepmen’ or businessmen made a profit in the towns. Some saw NEP as a betrayal of communism and return to the old system.
When Lenin died in 1924, he had been very successful in imposing a communist dictatorship in Russia.
He had defeated all of his opponents and established a strong communist government. As each of the areas formerly belonging to the Tsar came under communist control, they were turned into socialist republics. In 1923 these became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
But, Lenin failed to provide a clear successor on his death. This led to four years of bitter struggle.





How did Stalin rule the USSR between 1928-1941?



The Struggle for power: Stalin v Trotsky
After the death of Lenin in 1924, there was a four year power struggle between Josef Stalin and Leon Trotsky over the succession to the Russian leadership.
Trotsky believed that under his leadership Russia would become a catalyst for the spread of communism across the world. He had been very successful as commander of the Red Army in the civil war and appeared to have Lenin’s support.
Stalin had not played a significant part in the revolution of 1917, but since then he had gathered control of a number of key posts in the Communist Party. Stalin was determined to win control of Russia for himself. He was not interested in international communism, he wanted to make Russia strong and with himself at its head.
By 1928 Stalin emerged as the successor to Lenin and Trotsky was forced into exile.
Reasons for Stalin’s success
When Lenin died he had warned the Communist Party of Stalin’s threat in his ‘Political Testament’.
Reasons for Stalin’s success

Although Lenin had not supported him, Stalin was in a strong position. As General Secretary of the Communist Party Stalin had responsibility for appointing posts in the Party. This meant he could remove opponents and replace them with his supporters. He was also popular in the Party as he wanted to concentrate on turning Russia into a modern, powerful state; this approach was called ‘Socialism in one country’.

In contrast Trotsky was much less popular. He had been a Menshevik and had only joined the Bolsheviks in 1917. Trotsky was dismissed as Commissar for War in 1925 and from the Central Committee in in 1926. In 1927 he was expelled from the Communist Party and forced into exile in 1929. Stalin had Trotsky assassinated in Mexico in 1940.

Other leading figures of 1917, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin, were also removed by Stalin.
Stalin’s dictatorship: purges and propaganda
Even with his opponents removed, Stalin still felt insecure. He conducted a policy of purges between 1934-1938. Millions were arrested, executed or sent to labour camps.
Stalin used the NKVD, the secret police, to undertake the ‘Great Terror’. Stalin purged:
•     90% of the army’s top officers,
•     every admiral in the navy,
•     1 million Communist Party members,
•     some 20 million ordinary Russians.
At the same time Stalin encouraged a cult of personality. Propaganda was used to make people aware of the part Stalin was playing in every aspect of life – work, home and leisure.
Reasons for Collectivisation

Agriculture is developing slowly, comrades. This is because we have about 25 million individually owned farms. They are the most primitive and undeveloped form of economy.

We must do our utmost to develop large farms and to convert them into grain factories for the country organised on a modem scientific basis.
Collectivisation
In the late 1920s, Russia suffered a food crisis. To feed starving workers, Stalin ordered the seizure of grain from the farmers. But, just as happened under War Communism, the peasants hid food or produced less. In 1929 Stalin announced the collectivisation of farms.
The most common was the Kolkhoz in which land was joined together and the former owners worked together and shared everything. Stalin persuaded peasants to join by attacking the Kulaks, peasants that had grown as a result of the NEP.
Collectivisation had limited success and a terrible human cost, between 10 to 15 million people died as a result. Between 1931 and 1932, there was a famine in Russia as not enough food was being produced. By 1939, Russia was producing the same amount of food as it had in 1928. Collectivisation was clearly a disaster and the problem was even worse as its population had increased by 20 million - all of whom needed feeding.

The Five Year Plans
Stalin believed that industry could only develop through state control. Under GOSPLAN, three Five Year Plans set targets between 1928-1941 to increase production.
Russian industry changed enormously. New towns such as Magnitogorsk grew up and large projects such as the Dnieper hydroelectric dam were developed. The USSR became a major industrial country.
The human cost was high. Forced labour killed millions, working conditions were poor and hours of work were long.
The effects of Stalin’s rule on men and women
Millions of people suffered in Stalin’s purges – workers, peasants and members of the Communist Party itself.
There was brutality, persecution, executions and forced labour. Millions died of starvation and over-work. The shops were empty ; clothes were dull and badly made and household items difficult to find. Although the USSR was a Communist state, the dictatorship of Stalin was just as complete, and in some ways even more bloody, than that of Hitler.
But despite these appalling tragedies, there were some positive aspects to Stalin’s rule.
For example schools were built and social insurance schemes were introduced. Russia became a modern industrial country.
The Great Patriotic War 1941-1945

When Germany attacked the USSR in 1941, Stalin used the same ruthlessness to defend his country.

The defence of the USSR was the bloodiest war in history and cost the lives of millions of people and the destruction of thousands of villages, towns and cities.

The final victory in 1945 was, like everything else, put down to the personal leadership of Stalin by the Soviet propaganda machine.

After the war, Stalin built up the USSR as a superpower, in opposition to the USA. This conflict was known as the Cold War. Stalin died in 1953.

Arabic Calligraphy in the Year 1000

ALEX KRZYSTON Society

ALEX KRZYSTON

Famous Quotes

ALEXANDER KRZYSTON ALEXANDER J KRZYSTON ALEX JAMES KRZYSTON

ALEX KRZYSTON ALEX J KRZYSTON ALEXANDER JAMES KRZYSTON
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY EVANSTON BURR RIDGE

Alex Krzyston

In the tenth century, Arabic writing underwent a major transformation.  Arabic script became more legible as it became easier to distinguish between letters.  As result of this change in writing, “beautiful writing” took on a new meaning.  In Baghdad, a major center of these changes, “beautiful writing” was that which was fluid and delicate, as oppose to the highly geometric, angular style of Kufic. 
The Qur’an of ‘Amajur and al-Bawwab’s Qur’an exemplify this change in writing and new perspective of beauty during the tenth-century.  The folio pages in the Qur’an of ‘Amajur are horizontal.  Overall, the letters take on a geometric form and there is little distinction between letters.  All the letters rise from the baseline. The script is very angular and straight . The stroke is bold, heavy, and even.  As a result of the thick line, the eyes of some of the letters are very small.   The ductus is deliberate and slow which is reflective of the even stroke.  The spacing in Kufic is very unique.  While the spacing between groups of letters is very even, the spacing between letters and words is not.  To account for the space, and ensure each line is even, there is a high degree of mashq.  The use of mashq makes the script difficult to read because the letters are not all uniform.   The lack of diacritic marks also adds to the illegibility, making it difficult to differentiate between letters.  However, there are vowel markers, in red.  Because it is so difficult to read, there are very few words on the folio page, as a result, the Qur’an of ‘Amajur was very thick making it difficult and awkward to use.  Some Qur’ans written in Kufic had to be split up into separate volumes.  The text is the sole thing on the folio page; there is nothing to distract from the Word of God.  The area of the text is proportional to the empty space on the page.  The system of the proportions does not end there, the letters themselves are written in accordance with a system of proportions based on the width of the pen stroke; this system is revealed in the use of interlines . 
In contrast to the Qur’an of Amajur, Ibn al-Bawwab’s Qur’an is much easier to read, “the script [was] clearer, more cursive, and more elegant” (Tabbaa 130).  The ductus is much faster.  In addition, the stroke is thinner and rounded as oppose to angular .  Unlike in Kufic, the stroke is uneven, varying in thickness, which makes it less geometric and more fluid.  Because the script is so fluid and thinner, the pages are more compact because words can fit on a page.  The spacing, unlike in the Qur’an of Amajur, is even between letters, groups of letters, and words.  The pages are vertically oriented and there is much more writing on each one.  This is reflective of the fact that the script is more legible.  The increased legibility is due to the fact that the letters are easier to distinguish between.    Both vowel and diacritic marks, in the form on slashes and dots, are used making it easier to differentiate between the letters.  There is also a lack of mashq, making all of the letters uniform.  In this Qur’an, the text is not the only thing on the page.  Like the Qur’an of Amajur, Ibn al-Bawwab based his Qur’an on a system of proportions.  In contrast to the Qur’an of Amajur, the system is not based on the width of the pen stroke, but is based on the length of the alif.  In this system, the length of the alif becomes the diameter of a circle, for which all other letters are formed.  There are also illuminations in vegetal and geometric motifs as well of colophons, and markers to mark the verse of the Qur’an.  None of these features were present in the Qur’an of Amajur.
The new definition of “beautiful writing” used in the al-Bawwab’s Qur’an is described in Tawhidi’s “Treatise.”  In his “Treatise,” Tawhidi says that handwriting is “perfected by tahwik (‘encircling’) [which]means rounding front, middle, and tail […] so as to provide those letters with elegance and to increase their comeliness,” (5). Script is “embellished by tahdik (‘making eyeballs’),” the thin stroke makes possible the “perfect execution” of “wide-open eyeballs” (5).  The increase legibility is also brought up as tanmik which refers to “writing all letters in a neat fashion”(6).  This neatness allows for the increased number of words on a page which Tawhidi refers to as “forcefully compact writing” (8). The fluidity of writing due to the uneven stroke is related to what Tawhidi refers to as tadkik (‘exactness’) which “means demarcating the tails of the letters, by lettings one’s had go” (6).  This is especially prominent in the letters zaay and raa. Tawhidi also brings up the idea of mashq.  He says that “the constant application of mashk means an uninterrupted movement with a disregarded for the right proportions” (7).  The script used in al-Bawwab’s Qur’an was highly proportioned and mashq was not applied.  The proportion of the script is also brought up in other areas.  Tawhidi refers to tashkik which refers to writing letters so that “their proportion and equilibrium us preserved, for correctness and elegance of shape depend on both proportion and equilibrium” (6).  Finally, the fluidity of the script is commented on by al-Zuhri, who says that “he who has […] learned to connect two letters, then three, then four, and so on, to the ultimate number of connected letters are found in words,” (8).  These are the key attributes of the script of Ibn al-Bawwab’s Qur’an that Tawhidi describes in his “Treaties.”