https://www.dailyhistory.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=IncantoX&feedformat=atomDailyHistory.org - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T12:18:59ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Why_was_Nikita_Khrushchev_deposed_as_the_leader_of_the_USSR&diff=2527Why was Nikita Khrushchev deposed as the leader of the USSR2016-06-14T17:21:18Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nikita Khrushchev assumed leadership of the Soviet Union during the period following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. Khrushchev served as a General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, and as a Chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1958 to 1964. When in 1964, Nikita Khrushchev was forced to leave his post and the Party leadership, a special “troika” representatives consisting of Alexey Kosygin, Leonid Brezhnev and Anastas Mikoyan initially replaced him. Brezhnev eventually assumed the central role among the three and, under Brezhnev’s rule, the Soviet expanded its sphere of influence to include much of Southeast Asia, Africa, parts of Central America and the Caribbean. Until his death, in 1971, the government closely monitored Khrushchev.<br />
<br />
Khrushchev became famous and mostly recognized for his rejection of the “personality cult” that Stalin had fostered during his own thirty-year rule. Khrushchev also attempted revival of the Communist campaign to suppress all remnant religious institutions in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Khrushchev supported the invasion and crackdown on Hungary in 1956, the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 and the deployment of Soviet weapons in Cuba in 1962. <br />
<br />
In this regard, Khrushchev is something of an enigma and complex personality. In terms of his foreign policy and his position on religion and on Marxist-Leninist doctrine, he was clearly a hardliner. However, he was a reformer in the sense that, although not allowing any criticism of Marxist-Leninism, Khrushchev did allow criticism against Stalin and even permitted some anti-Stalinist literature to be published and disseminated in USSR’s society. Khrushchev did hope to raise Soviet citizens’ standard of living so they could benefit from the transference of the ownership of “the means of production” to the State. <br />
<br />
His De-Stalinization policies reduced the powers of the secret police and opened up new academic and cultural freedoms. Historians believe that Khrushchev’s efforts in these areas provided a context for the reformist policies of Mikhail Gorbachev later. Khrushchev’s downfall largely resulted from his lack of clear ruling strategy, true diplomatic skills and the complex multifaceted aspects of domestic and international destabilization that occurred during his tenure in office. Without Khrushchev being removed from office, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union could have experienced the revival and the growth of its sphere of influence that occurred during the Brezhnev era.<ref>"Nikita Khrushchev: Rise to power, personality & legacy" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nikita_Khrushchev</ref><br />
==Struggle for power and assuming leadership of the Soviet Union==<br />
<br />
On March 6, 1953, the Soviet Union announced Stalin’s death and the need of new leadership. A struggle for power between different factions within the Communist Party began. Fearing that the powerful state security chief, Lavrenty Beria would eventually eliminate other elite party officials as he had so many others, Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin, and others united under Khrushchev to denounce Beria and remove him from power. They imprisoned Beria and sentenced him to death. After the quick execution engineered by Khrushchev, he engaged in a power struggle with Malenkov, who was Stalin’s apparent heir. Khrushchev soon gained the decisive margin and in September 1953, he replaced Malenkov as First Secretary and nominated Marshal Nikolay Bulganin as the new Soviet Premier.<ref>Nikita Khrushchev Complex Personality - http://www.biography.com/people/nikita-khrushchev-9364384</ref> <br />
<br />
==De-Stalinization and domestic policies==<br />
<br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-B0628-0015-035,_Nikita_S._Chruschtschow.jpg</ref><br />
By the end of 1955, due to the policy, pursued by Khrushchev, thousands of political criminals had returned home, and shared their experience in the Soviet labor camps. With several million political prisoners newly released, Khrushchev eased and freed the domestic political atmosphere. <br />
<br />
Continuing investigation into the abuses further revealed Stalin’s crimes to his successors. Khrushchev believed that once he successfully removed the stain of Stalinism, the Party would inspire even greater loyalty among the people. Beginning in October 1955, Khrushchev insisted on revealing Stalin’s crimes before the delegates to the upcoming 20th Party Congress. Some of his colleagues opposed the disclosure and managed to persuade him to make his remarks in a closed session. <ref>Nikita Khrushchev: Consolidation of power & his Secret Speech - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Consolidation_of_power.3B_Secret_Speech</ref>The 20th Party Congress opened in 1956 and Khrushchev delivered his so-called “Secret Speech” to a closed session of the Congress and strictly limited to a number of Soviet delegates. The speech was the nucleus of a far-reaching de-Stalinization campaign intended to destroy the image of the late dictator as an infallible leader and to revert official policy to an idealized Leninist model. Observers outside the Soviet Union have suggested that Khrushchev’s primary purpose in making the speech was to consolidate his own position of political leadership by associating himself with reform measures while discrediting his rivals in the Presidium (Politburo) by implicating them in Stalin’s crimes.<br />
<br />
The secret speech, although subsequently read to groups of party activists and “closed” local party meetings, was never officially published. Nonetheless, it caused shock and disillusionment throughout the entire Soviet Union, harming Stalin’s reputation and the perception of the political system and party that had enabled him to gain and misuse such great power. It also helped give rise to a period of liberalization known as the “Khrushchev thaw”, during which censorship policy was relaxed, marking a literary Soviet renaissance. Thousands of political prisoners were released, and thousands more who had perished during Stalin’s reign were officially “rehabilitated”. <br />
<br />
The speech also contributed to the revolts that occurred later that year in Hungary and Poland, further weakening the Soviet Union’s control over the Soviet bloc and temporarily strengthening the position of Khrushchev’s opponents in the Presidium. Furthermore, through his Secret Speech Khrushchev effectively denounced the "cult of personality" that surrounded Stalin and accused Stalin of the crimes committed during the Great Purges. This denunciation effectively alienated Khrushchev from the more conservative elements of the party. Moreover, it also resulted in a deepening wedge between the Soviet Union and China that led to the so-called Asian Cold War and the Sino-Soviet split later in 1960. <ref>Khrushchev’s Secret Speech and its effects - http://www.britannica.com/event/Khrushchevs-secret-speech</ref> <br />
<br />
==First unsuccessful attempt to remove Khrushchev and his further policies==<br />
<br />
In June 1957, Khrushchev was almost overthrown from his position, and, although a vote in the Presidium actually went against him, he managed to reverse this by replacing Bulganin as prime minister and establishing himself as the clear leader of both the Soviet state and Communist party. With the help of Marshal Georgy Zhukov, Khrushchev managed to prevent what he referred to as an Anti-Party Group that attempted to oust him from the party leadership and he became Premier of the Soviet Union in March 1958. <br />
<br />
Confirmed in power and in his new role, Khrushchev promoted and set a new policy of “Reform Communism” throughout the Soviet Union. In an attempt to humanize Soviet system – but without sacrificing its ideology – he placed greater emphasis on producing consumer goods, in contrast to Stalinist emphasis on heavy industry. Khrushchev begun seeing the US and the West much more as a rival instead of an evil entity. He aimed at showing off the superiority of Soviet over American and Western products. This position further alienated Mao Zedong. As the Chinese Cultural Revolution proceeded, there was no worse insult than to be scorned for being a "Chinese Khrushchev," the equivalent of an ideological turncoat. Unsurprisingly, during the following years all this also led to further alienation with the People’s Republic of China and what would soon become their own "Cold War" triggered by the Sino-Soviet Split in 1960.<br />
<br />
==Liberalization, political, military and agricultural reforms==<br />
<br />
During Khrushchev’s time in office, for the first time, the Party leadership permitted Soviet tourists to go overseas, and Khrushchev often seemed amenable to widening exchanges with both socialist and capitalist countries. Furthermore, by 1954 Khrushchev effectively managed to reform the Stalinist security apparatus by subordinating it to the top party leadership. He divided Stalin’s Ministry of Internal Affairs into criminal police and security services – KGB (now Federal Security Service – FSB), which in turn reported directly to the U.S.S.R’s Council of Ministers. The head of KGB was also Khrushchev’s nominee. However, the Soviet military bitterly resisted Khrushchev’s desire to reduce conventional armaments in favor of nuclear missiles. His attempted decentralization of the party structure begun antagonizing many of those who had previously supported his own rise to power. According to various authors, political terror as an everyday method of government was replaced under Khrushchev by his administrative means of repression. <br />
<br />
In 1958, Khrushchev for the first time opened a public Central Committee meeting to hundreds of Soviet officials. This, however, actually allowed Khrushchev even greater control, since any dissenters would have to make their case in front of a large, disapproving crowd. By this time, after all, the Communist Party had solidified into the so-called nomenclature – 10 million-strong elite of bureaucrats, managers and technicians intending on guarding their power and prerogatives at all cost. <ref>Nikita Khrushchev: Domestic policies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Domestic_policies</ref> <br />
<br />
The central crisis of Khrushchev’s administration, however, was agriculture. He optimistically based many plans on the crops in 1956 and 1958, which fueled his repeated promises to overtake the United States in both agricultural and industrial production. He opened up more than 70 million acres of virgin land in Siberia and send thousands of laborers, but this plan was unsuccessful, and the Soviet Union soon had to import wheat from Canada and the US once again. Khrushchev was convinced and believed that he could solve the Soviet Union’s agricultural crises through the planting of corn on the same scale as the United States, though failing to realize that the differences in climate and soil made this strongly inadvisable. <br />
<br />
==Khrushchev foreign and defense policies: on the brink of nuclear war==<br />
<br />
When Khrushchev took control, the outside world still knew little of him, and he was initially not highly recognized. Short, heavyset, and wearing ill-fit suits, he was commonly seen as very energetic but not intellectual, and was dismissed by many as a buffoon who would not last long. Although his attacks on world capitalism were virulent and primitive, his outgoing personality and peasant humor were in sharp contrast to the image introduced by all earlier Soviet public figures. He also had very poor diplomatic skills, giving him the reputation of being a rude, uncivilized peasant in the West and an irresponsible clown in his own country. His methods of administration, although efficient, were also acknowledged as erratic since they threatened to abolish a large number of Stalinist-era agencies. <br />
<br />
In foreign affairs, Khrushchev widely asserted his doctrine of peaceful co-existence with the non-communist world, which he had first proclaimed in his public speech at the 20th Party Congress. In 1959, Khrushchev conferred with President Eisenhower, which brought Soviet-American relations to new highs. Notwithstanding these hopeful developments, Khrushchev as a diplomat remained irascible and blunt. Back to Moscow reception, he directed his famous “We will bury you!” comment at the capitalist West. A long-planned summit conference with Eisenhower in Paris in May 1960 broke up with Khrushchev’s announcement that a U.S. plane (a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft) had been shot down over the Soviet Union with its pilot captured. Khrushchev repeatedly disrupted the proceedings in the United Nations General Assembly in September-October 1960 by pounding his fists on the desk and shouting in Russian. At one of the United Nations conferences, he even reacted to a comparison between Soviet control of Eastern Europe and Western imperialism in one of the most surreal moments in Cold War history, by waving his shoe and banging it on his desk. <br />
<br />
In 1961, his blustering Vienna conference with the new U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, failed to achieve a solid agreement on the pressing German question; the Soviet Union built the infamous Berlin Wall shortly thereafter. Soviet success in lofting the world’s first space satellite in 1957 had been followed by increased missile buildups. Khrushchev made a dangerous gamble in 1962, over Cuba, which almost made a Third World War inevitable. He secretly attempted to deploy Soviet medium-range missiles in Cuba. Once detected by the US, and during the following tense confrontation in October 1962, when the United States and Soviet Union apparently stood on the brink of nuclear war, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles on the promise that the United States would make no further attempt to overthrow Cuba’s communist government. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Chinese communists unfavorably and harshly criticized the Soviet Union for mishandling this settlement. The Sino-Soviet split, which began in 1959, reached the stage of public denunciations in 1960. China’s ideological insist on all-out “war against the imperialists” and Mao Zedong’s annoyance with Khrushchev’s co-existence policies were exacerbated by Soviet refusal to assist the Chinese nuclear weapon buildup and to rectify the Russo-Chinese border. The Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty reached between the Soviet Union and the United States in 1963, although generally welcomed throughout the world, intensified even further Chinese denunciations of Soviet “revisionism”.<ref>Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev: Premier of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics & Leadership of the Soviet Union: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nikita-Sergeyevich-Khrushchev</ref><br />
<br />
==Khrushchev’s forced removal from office==<br />
<br />
Khrushchev’s rivals in the Communist party deposed him largely due to his erratic and cantankerous behavior, regarded by the party as a tremendous embarrassment on the international stage. The failures in agriculture, the quarrel with China, and the humiliating resolution of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, added to growing resentment of Khrushchev’s own arbitrary administrative methods, were the major factors in his downfall. On October 14, 1964, after a palace coup orchestrated by his “loyal” protégé and deputy, Leonid Brezhnev, the Central Committee forced Khrushchev to retire from his position as the party’s first secretary and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union because of his “advanced age and poor health”. The Communist Party subsequently accused Khrushchev of making political mistakes, such as mishandling the Cuban Missile Crisis and disorganizing the Soviet economy, especially in the agricultural sector. However, Khrushchev considered his own forced retirement a major breakthrough and successful achievement. He was not to oppose, there were no executions and his retirement was “negotiated” as between equals.<ref>Khrushchev’s last days in power - http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/world/son-tells-of-khrushchev-s-last-days-in-power.html?pagewanted=all</ref> Following his ousting, Khrushchev spent seven years under house arrest. He died at his home in Moscow on September 11, 1971.<br />
<br />
Despite all, for the Soviet Union and indeed for the entire world communist movement, Nikita Khrushchev was the great catalyst of political and social change. In his seven years of power as first secretary and premier, he broke both the fact and the tradition of the Stalin dictatorship and established a basis for liberalizing tendencies within Soviet communism. His experience with international realities confirmed him in his doctrine of peaceful co-existence with the noncommunist world – in itself a drastic break with established Soviet communist teaching. He publicly recognized the limitations as well as the power of nuclear weapons, and his decision to negotiate with the United States for some form of nuclear-testing control was of vast importance. Despite his repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, his acceptance of “different roads to socialism” led to growing independence among European communist parties, but his Russian nationalism and his suspicion of Mao Zedong’s communism helped create an unexpectedly deep gap between China and the Soviet Union. By the time he was removed from office, he had set up guidelines for and limitations to Soviet policy that his successors were hard put to alter.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Why_was_Nikita_Khrushchev_deposed_as_the_leader_of_the_USSR&diff=2526Why was Nikita Khrushchev deposed as the leader of the USSR2016-06-14T17:20:33Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Nikita Khrushchev assumed leadership of the Soviet Union during the period following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. Khrushchev served as a General Secretary of the Commun..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Nikita Khrushchev assumed leadership of the Soviet Union during the period following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953. Khrushchev served as a General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, and as a Chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1958 to 1964. When in 1964, Nikita Khrushchev was forced to leave his post and the Party leadership, a special “troika” representatives consisting of Alexey Kosygin, Leonid Brezhnev and Anastas Mikoyan initially replaced him. Brezhnev eventually assumed the central role among the three and, under Brezhnev’s rule, the Soviet expanded its sphere of influence to include much of Southeast Asia, Africa, parts of Central America and the Caribbean. Until his death, in 1971, the government closely monitored Khrushchev.<br />
<br />
Khrushchev became famous and mostly recognized for his rejection of the “personality cult” that Stalin had fostered during his own thirty-year rule. Khrushchev also attempted revival of the Communist campaign to suppress all remnant religious institutions in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Khrushchev supported the invasion and crackdown on Hungary in 1956, the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 and the deployment of Soviet weapons in Cuba in 1962. <br />
<br />
In this regard, Khrushchev is something of an enigma and complex personality. In terms of his foreign policy and his position on religion and on Marxist-Leninist doctrine, he was clearly a hardliner. However, he was a reformer in the sense that, although not allowing any criticism of Marxist-Leninism, Khrushchev did allow criticism against Stalin and even permitted some anti-Stalinist literature to be published and disseminated in USSR’s society. Khrushchev did hope to raise Soviet citizens’ standard of living so they could benefit from the transference of the ownership of “the means of production” to the State. <br />
<br />
His De-Stalinization policies reduced the powers of the secret police and opened up new academic and cultural freedoms. Historians believe that Khrushchev’s efforts in these areas provided a context for the reformist policies of Mikhail Gorbachev later. Khrushchev’s downfall largely resulted from his lack of clear ruling strategy, true diplomatic skills and the complex multifaceted aspects of domestic and international destabilization that occurred during his tenure in office. Without Khrushchev being removed from office, it is unlikely that the Soviet Union could have experienced the revival and the growth of its sphere of influence that occurred during the Brezhnev era.<ref>"Nikita Khrushchev: Rise to power, personality & legacy" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nikita_Khrushchev</ref><br />
==Struggle for power and assuming leadership of the Soviet Union==<br />
<br />
On March 6, 1953, the Soviet Union announced Stalin’s death and the need of new leadership. A struggle for power between different factions within the Communist Party began. Fearing that the powerful state security chief, Lavrenty Beria would eventually eliminate other elite party officials as he had so many others, Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin, and others united under Khrushchev to denounce Beria and remove him from power. They imprisoned Beria and sentenced him to death. After the quick execution engineered by Khrushchev, he engaged in a power struggle with Malenkov, who was Stalin’s apparent heir. Khrushchev soon gained the decisive margin and in September 1953, he replaced Malenkov as First Secretary and nominated Marshal Nikolay Bulganin as the new Soviet Premier.<ref>Nikita Khrushchev Complex Personality - http://www.biography.com/people/nikita-khrushchev-9364384</ref> <br />
<br />
==De-Stalinization and domestic policies==<br />
<br />
<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-B0628-0015-035,_Nikita_S._Chruschtschow.jpg</ref><br />
By the end of 1955, due to the policy, pursued by Khrushchev, thousands of political criminals had returned home, and shared their experience in the Soviet labor camps. With several million political prisoners newly released, Khrushchev eased and freed the domestic political atmosphere. <br />
<br />
Continuing investigation into the abuses further revealed Stalin’s crimes to his successors. Khrushchev believed that once he successfully removed the stain of Stalinism, the Party would inspire even greater loyalty among the people. Beginning in October 1955, Khrushchev insisted on revealing Stalin’s crimes before the delegates to the upcoming 20th Party Congress. Some of his colleagues opposed the disclosure and managed to persuade him to make his remarks in a closed session. <ref>Nikita Khrushchev: Consolidation of power & his Secret Speech - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Consolidation_of_power.3B_Secret_Speech</ref>The 20th Party Congress opened in 1956 and Khrushchev delivered his so-called “Secret Speech” to a closed session of the Congress and strictly limited to a number of Soviet delegates. The speech was the nucleus of a far-reaching de-Stalinization campaign intended to destroy the image of the late dictator as an infallible leader and to revert official policy to an idealized Leninist model. Observers outside the Soviet Union have suggested that Khrushchev’s primary purpose in making the speech was to consolidate his own position of political leadership by associating himself with reform measures while discrediting his rivals in the Presidium (Politburo) by implicating them in Stalin’s crimes.<br />
<br />
The secret speech, although subsequently read to groups of party activists and “closed” local party meetings, was never officially published. Nonetheless, it caused shock and disillusionment throughout the entire Soviet Union, harming Stalin’s reputation and the perception of the political system and party that had enabled him to gain and misuse such great power. It also helped give rise to a period of liberalization known as the “Khrushchev thaw”, during which censorship policy was relaxed, marking a literary Soviet renaissance. Thousands of political prisoners were released, and thousands more who had perished during Stalin’s reign were officially “rehabilitated”. <br />
<br />
The speech also contributed to the revolts that occurred later that year in Hungary and Poland, further weakening the Soviet Union’s control over the Soviet bloc and temporarily strengthening the position of Khrushchev’s opponents in the Presidium. Furthermore, through his Secret Speech Khrushchev effectively denounced the "cult of personality" that surrounded Stalin and accused Stalin of the crimes committed during the Great Purges. This denunciation effectively alienated Khrushchev from the more conservative elements of the party. Moreover, it also resulted in a deepening wedge between the Soviet Union and China that led to the so-called Asian Cold War and the Sino-Soviet split later in 1960. <ref>Khrushchev’s Secret Speech and its effects - http://www.britannica.com/event/Khrushchevs-secret-speech</ref> <br />
<br />
==First unsuccessful attempt to remove Khrushchev and his further policies==<br />
<br />
In June 1957, Khrushchev was almost overthrown from his position, and, although a vote in the Presidium actually went against him, he managed to reverse this by replacing Bulganin as prime minister and establishing himself as the clear leader of both the Soviet state and Communist party. With the help of Marshal Georgy Zhukov, Khrushchev managed to prevent what he referred to as an Anti-Party Group that attempted to oust him from the party leadership and he became Premier of the Soviet Union in March 1958. <br />
<br />
Confirmed in power and in his new role, Khrushchev promoted and set a new policy of “Reform Communism” throughout the Soviet Union. In an attempt to humanize Soviet system – but without sacrificing its ideology – he placed greater emphasis on producing consumer goods, in contrast to Stalinist emphasis on heavy industry. Khrushchev begun seeing the US and the West much more as a rival instead of an evil entity. He aimed at showing off the superiority of Soviet over American and Western products. This position further alienated Mao Zedong. As the Chinese Cultural Revolution proceeded, there was no worse insult than to be scorned for being a "Chinese Khrushchev," the equivalent of an ideological turncoat. Unsurprisingly, during the following years all this also led to further alienation with the People’s Republic of China and what would soon become their own "Cold War" triggered by the Sino-Soviet Split in 1960.<br />
<br />
==Liberalization, political, military and agricultural reforms==<br />
<br />
During Khrushchev’s time in office, for the first time, the Party leadership permitted Soviet tourists to go overseas, and Khrushchev often seemed amenable to widening exchanges with both socialist and capitalist countries. Furthermore, by 1954 Khrushchev effectively managed to reform the Stalinist security apparatus by subordinating it to the top party leadership. He divided Stalin’s Ministry of Internal Affairs into criminal police and security services – KGB (now Federal Security Service – FSB), which in turn reported directly to the U.S.S.R’s Council of Ministers. The head of KGB was also Khrushchev’s nominee. However, the Soviet military bitterly resisted Khrushchev’s desire to reduce conventional armaments in favor of nuclear missiles. His attempted decentralization of the party structure begun antagonizing many of those who had previously supported his own rise to power. According to various authors, political terror as an everyday method of government was replaced under Khrushchev by his administrative means of repression. <br />
<br />
In 1958, Khrushchev for the first time opened a public Central Committee meeting to hundreds of Soviet officials. This, however, actually allowed Khrushchev even greater control, since any dissenters would have to make their case in front of a large, disapproving crowd. By this time, after all, the Communist Party had solidified into the so-called nomenclature – 10 million-strong elite of bureaucrats, managers and technicians intending on guarding their power and prerogatives at all cost. <ref>Nikita Khrushchev: Domestic policies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Domestic_policies</ref> <br />
<br />
The central crisis of Khrushchev’s administration, however, was agriculture. He optimistically based many plans on the crops in 1956 and 1958, which fueled his repeated promises to overtake the United States in both agricultural and industrial production. He opened up more than 70 million acres of virgin land in Siberia and send thousands of laborers, but this plan was unsuccessful, and the Soviet Union soon had to import wheat from Canada and the US once again. Khrushchev was convinced and believed that he could solve the Soviet Union’s agricultural crises through the planting of corn on the same scale as the United States, though failing to realize that the differences in climate and soil made this strongly inadvisable. <br />
<br />
==Khrushchev foreign and defense policies: on the brink of Nuclear World War III==<br />
<br />
When Khrushchev took control, the outside world still knew little of him, and he was initially not highly recognized. Short, heavyset, and wearing ill-fit suits, he was commonly seen as very energetic but not intellectual, and was dismissed by many as a buffoon who would not last long. Although his attacks on world capitalism were virulent and primitive, his outgoing personality and peasant humor were in sharp contrast to the image introduced by all earlier Soviet public figures. He also had very poor diplomatic skills, giving him the reputation of being a rude, uncivilized peasant in the West and an irresponsible clown in his own country. His methods of administration, although efficient, were also acknowledged as erratic since they threatened to abolish a large number of Stalinist-era agencies. <br />
<br />
In foreign affairs, Khrushchev widely asserted his doctrine of peaceful co-existence with the non-communist world, which he had first proclaimed in his public speech at the 20th Party Congress. In 1959, Khrushchev conferred with President Eisenhower, which brought Soviet-American relations to new highs. Notwithstanding these hopeful developments, Khrushchev as a diplomat remained irascible and blunt. Back to Moscow reception, he directed his famous “We will bury you!” comment at the capitalist West. A long-planned summit conference with Eisenhower in Paris in May 1960 broke up with Khrushchev’s announcement that a U.S. plane (a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft) had been shot down over the Soviet Union with its pilot captured. Khrushchev repeatedly disrupted the proceedings in the United Nations General Assembly in September-October 1960 by pounding his fists on the desk and shouting in Russian. At one of the United Nations conferences, he even reacted to a comparison between Soviet control of Eastern Europe and Western imperialism in one of the most surreal moments in Cold War history, by waving his shoe and banging it on his desk. <br />
<br />
In 1961, his blustering Vienna conference with the new U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, failed to achieve a solid agreement on the pressing German question; the Soviet Union built the infamous Berlin Wall shortly thereafter. Soviet success in lofting the world’s first space satellite in 1957 had been followed by increased missile buildups. Khrushchev made a dangerous gamble in 1962, over Cuba, which almost made a Third World War inevitable. He secretly attempted to deploy Soviet medium-range missiles in Cuba. Once detected by the US, and during the following tense confrontation in October 1962, when the United States and Soviet Union apparently stood on the brink of nuclear war, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles on the promise that the United States would make no further attempt to overthrow Cuba’s communist government. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Chinese communists unfavorably and harshly criticized the Soviet Union for mishandling this settlement. The Sino-Soviet split, which began in 1959, reached the stage of public denunciations in 1960. China’s ideological insist on all-out “war against the imperialists” and Mao Zedong’s annoyance with Khrushchev’s co-existence policies were exacerbated by Soviet refusal to assist the Chinese nuclear weapon buildup and to rectify the Russo-Chinese border. The Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty reached between the Soviet Union and the United States in 1963, although generally welcomed throughout the world, intensified even further Chinese denunciations of Soviet “revisionism”.<ref>Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev: Premier of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics & Leadership of the Soviet Union: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nikita-Sergeyevich-Khrushchev</ref><br />
<br />
==Khrushchev’s forced removal from office==<br />
<br />
Khrushchev’s rivals in the Communist party deposed him largely due to his erratic and cantankerous behavior, regarded by the party as a tremendous embarrassment on the international stage. The failures in agriculture, the quarrel with China, and the humiliating resolution of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, added to growing resentment of Khrushchev’s own arbitrary administrative methods, were the major factors in his downfall. On October 14, 1964, after a palace coup orchestrated by his “loyal” protégé and deputy, Leonid Brezhnev, the Central Committee forced Khrushchev to retire from his position as the party’s first secretary and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union because of his “advanced age and poor health”. The Communist Party subsequently accused Khrushchev of making political mistakes, such as mishandling the Cuban Missile Crisis and disorganizing the Soviet economy, especially in the agricultural sector. However, Khrushchev considered his own forced retirement a major breakthrough and successful achievement. He was not to oppose, there were no executions and his retirement was “negotiated” as between equals.<ref>Khrushchev’s last days in power - http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/23/world/son-tells-of-khrushchev-s-last-days-in-power.html?pagewanted=all</ref> Following his ousting, Khrushchev spent seven years under house arrest. He died at his home in Moscow on September 11, 1971.<br />
<br />
Despite all, for the Soviet Union and indeed for the entire world communist movement, Nikita Khrushchev was the great catalyst of political and social change. In his seven years of power as first secretary and premier, he broke both the fact and the tradition of the Stalin dictatorship and established a basis for liberalizing tendencies within Soviet communism. His experience with international realities confirmed him in his doctrine of peaceful co-existence with the noncommunist world – in itself a drastic break with established Soviet communist teaching. He publicly recognized the limitations as well as the power of nuclear weapons, and his decision to negotiate with the United States for some form of nuclear-testing control was of vast importance. Despite his repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, his acceptance of “different roads to socialism” led to growing independence among European communist parties, but his Russian nationalism and his suspicion of Mao Zedong’s communism helped create an unexpectedly deep gap between China and the Soviet Union. By the time he was removed from office, he had set up guidelines for and limitations to Soviet policy that his successors were hard put to alter.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Winston_Churchill_become_Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom_in_World_War_Two&diff=2300How did Winston Churchill become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in World War Two2016-06-04T14:27:30Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Mediawiki:kindleoasis}}<br />
[[File: Wc0107-04780r.jpg|thumbnail|200px|Winston Churchill- 1940]]<br />
Winston Churchill led an extraordinary life, but perhaps the most remarkable element in his life was how he became prime minister in 1940. Just a few years earlier he was widely seen as politically isolated and was widely ridiculed for his views. Yet in 1940, he was appointed his nation’s Prime Minister at its darkest hours and became the leader of the fight against Nazi Germany. <ref> Hastings, Max. ''Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord, 1940–45''. (London: Harper Press, 2009), p. 112.</ref> The reasons for this astounding change of political fortune was due to Churchill’s unstinting opposition to Nazi Germany and the realization by Parliament that he was the leader Britain needed its most desperate hour. <br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
[[File:Winston_Churchill_1874_-_1965_ZZZ5426F_(1).jpg|thumbnail|200px|Winston Churchill in military uniform in 1895]]<br />
<br />
Winston Churchill was born into one of Britain’s leading political and aristocratic families. His father Randolph Churchill was one of the leading political figures of his time. <ref>Hastings, p. 13</ref> Churchill, from his youth, was a charismatic figure. He earned fame while still in his twenties, as a war journalist and for his exploits during the Boer War. Churchill joined the Conservative Party and eventually elected an M.P. During the First World War, he served as First Lord of the Admiralty (1911-15), in effect, he was in command of the British navy. Churchill was later forced to resign after the failure of the Gallipoli landings, in 1915. Churchill later served as an officer in the British army on the western front. After the war, he joined the British Liberal Party and was to serve as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was widely seen as making critical mistakes, that led to an economic downturn in Britain.<ref> Charmley, John (1993). ''Churchill, The End of Glory: A Political Biography''. London: Hodder & Stoughton p. 117 </ref> By the 1930’s he was in the political wilderness. However, he was a well-known figure in Britain and was genuinely popular. Churchill became famous for his journalism and his historical works. In 1935, he re-joined the ConservativeS, and sat as an M.P. in the House of Commons. <ref>Charmley, p. 117</ref> His fame rested on his magnificent use of the spoken and the written language.<br />
<br />
==Appeasement==<br />
<br />
Europe in the1930's, saw the rise of dictators in Europe, as democracies collapsed, in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Hitler seized power in Germany and he immediately began to establish a dictatorship in Germany. He dismantled the provisions of the Versailles Treaty and contrary to its terms, he expanded the army and rapidly began to rebuilt the Germany arms industries.<ref> James, Robert Rhodes. Churchill: ''A Study in Failure, 1900–1939''(Harper Press, London, 1970), p. 134 </ref> Soon the German’s were acting in an aggressive manner, for example, they re-occupied the Rhineland. Churchill warned against this and he stated in fiery speeches that Hitler was a danger to peace in Europe. However, he was widely dismissed at this time. <ref> James, p. 211</ref> The political elite in Britain at this time favoured a policy of appeasement, many believed that Germany had been too harshly treated under the Treaty of Versailles. <br />
[[File: Sir_Winston_S_Churchill.jpg|thumbnail|Winston Churchill- 1940]]<br />
The British governments of Baldwin and later Chamberlin, favoured, with the French the policy of appeasement. That was to allow German to reassert itself on the continent and to pursue its own interests. This policy of appeasement would mean that the Germans would not go to war. By the mid-1930s, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy were becoming increasingly belligerent. The Italians invaded Ethiopia and the Nazis occupied Austria.<ref> Hastings, p. 117 </ref> Still the British and French governments did nothing. Churchill condemned the aggression of Italy and Germany and he deplored, what he saw as the weakness and cowardice of the British and French governments, in many speeches in the House of Commons and in newspaper articles.<ref>''The Times of London'', 13 June 1936</ref> He argued that their policy of appeasement was wrong and would only lead to a war and he called on them to stand up to Hitler before it was too late.<br />
<br />
In 1938, Germany demanded the return of the Sudetenland, a German-speaking area in Czechoslovakia to Germany. This almost led to a war. However, Chamberlin, the current British Prime Minister, allowed the Germans to occupy the Sudetenland in exchange for German reassurances that they would seek no more territory in Europe in the so-called Munich Agreement of 1938. <ref>Hastings, p. 134</ref> Within months, Hitler had broken the agreement and by 1939, it was widely expected that Europe would once again be plunged into war. Churchill, had predicted much of this and the British public recognized that their government’s had been wrong. <ref> Hastings, p. 119</ref> Many believed that if Churchill had been heeded, Hitler may have been stopped. Churchill became the most popular politician in Britain. Many began to call for him to lead the country. These people even included those who had previously derided him as a crank. Churchill was viewed as remarkably prescient and who potentially understood Germany's ultimate goals better than anyone else in Parliament.<br />
<br />
==Outbreak of War==<br />
In September 1939, the German war machine invaded Poland. The Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin declared war on Nazi Germany. The British adopted a cautious policy. The send the British Expeditionary Force to France. The Allied British and French adopted a defensive posture and waited for a German attack. This was the period of the Phoney War, where the allies waited for Hitler’s next move.<ref>Hastings, p. 117 </ref> Chamberlin knew that Churchill, was wildly popular, and he invited him to join the war cabinet and the First Lord of the Admiralty, on the day that Britain declared war on Germany. Churchill began to prepare the British navy for war against Germany. Many believed that Chamberlin invited Churchill to join the war cabinet to ensure that he did not cause problems for the government in the House of Commons. It proved to be a popular move and the public welcomed Churchill’s return to the cabinet. Poland was defeated within weeks by Germany and after the Molotov-Rippentrop pact, Hitler turned his attention west towards France. Churchill argued strongly in favor of an aggressive strategy. He wanted the British and French to attack Germany and he proposed that the Allies occupy Norway, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Germans.<ref>Hastings, 211</ref> In the Spring of 1940, the German navy and army attacked Norway, even though it was a neutral nation. Like Churchill, Germany realized that Norway had great strategic importance. When Germany invaded Norway it was the main source of their iron ore and they need to keep Norway's iron ore following to Germany. <ref>Hastings, p. 117 </ref><br />
<br />
==Battle of Norway== <br />
The Allies dispatched forces to Norway to help the Norwegian army to beat back the German invaders, but it was too late. The Germans landed paratroopers in the country and rapidly reinforced these forces with several divisions of German infantry. Germany quickly and easily defeated the Norwegian army. The French and the British arrived too late and in too few numbers.The Norwegian army regrouped in the north of the country, here they were joined by British and French forces. There were several fierce battles and the Allies out up a fierce resistance. The Allies and the Norwegian were forced to evacuate their units from the Norwegian port of Narvik, taking with them the king of Norway and his government. The ‘loss’ of Norway caused consternation in Britain and many feared that it could be used as a base to attack the British mainland. Once again Churchill had been proven right and if he had been heeded the allies could have held Norway. The public outcry over Norway meant that people had lost faith in the Conservative government and resulted in calls for the resignation of Neville Chamberlin.<ref> Hastings, 213</ref> Many Conservatives believed that it was time for a change, for the good of the country.<br />
<br />
==Churchill’s appointment as Prime Minister May 1940==<br />
On May 10th, the Germans invaded western Europe.<ref> ''The Times of London'', 11 May 1940 </ref> They launched coordinated attacks on the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. London was in a panic and many believed that a German victory was inevitable. The British people demanded that a National Government, be put in place, comprising the Conservative, Labour and the Liberal Party. It was believed that such were the dangers that only a National Government, as in World War I could save the country. It was widely believed that Lord Halifax would become prime minister, but he was unwilling. He had been too much associated with the appeasement policy of Europe. It was rumored that Halifax had been to seeking peace with Germany. The public was overwhelmingly favored Churchill and they saw him as someone who could lead their country to victory. However, many of the British political elite believed that Churchill was a maverick and too unpredictable. Perhaps crucially, Churchill was favored by the British armed forces. He was genuinely popular with the rank and file. Additionally, British officers and saw Churchill as someone who could successfully fight Germany.<br />
<br />
==National Hero==<br />
The Conservative government, under popular pressure, asked the other parties to form a National Government. However, when the Labour Party and Liberal Party voted to join the National Government, they stated that the preferred Churchill as leader.<ref>''The Times of London'', 12 May 1940</ref> This was mainly based on his long-term opposition to the Nazis. Churchill, because of his many years warning about the Nazis, was the only senior political figure with the moral authority and popularity to lead the nation. After all, parties agreed to for a National Government, the King then called for Churchill and ‘invited’ him to become Prime Minister. It was a popular choice in the country, the public wanted a war leader someone who would unite and inspire the country to victory. Churchill was to prove to be the leader that Britain and the free world needed. He knew that Britain prevented Europe and much of the world succumbing to Nazi Germany. <br />
<br />
"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands."<ref> Winston Churchill. ''Historic Speeches'', June 18, 1940.</ref> He promised the British victory and he would prove true to his promise. Immediately, he faced various crises as within weeks of his appointment, France and much of Western Europe was conquered by Germany. Churchill was to ignore all pleas to enter into peace negotiations with the Germans, believing that one could not reach an agreement with the Germans who were bent on world domination. He was to prove a brilliant war-leader and he inspired his country to victory in the Battle of Britain, that saved Britain from a Nazi invasion and occupation. The appointment of Winston Churchill in May 1940 probably saved Britain and ultimately laid the foundation for the Allied victory over the Nazis.<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
The appointment of Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister was a remarkable turn of events. He had been in the political wilderness for some time. However, his tireless opposition to the appeasement of Hitler, his great oratory skills and writings preserved his presence during this time. Eventually, his firmly held increased increased his popularity in Britain overcome the British Establishment's distrust of him.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:British History]] [[Category:Military History]][[Category:World War Two History]][[Category:European History]] [[Category:20th Century History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}<br />
<div class="portal" style="width:85%;"><br />
==Related DailyHistory.org Articles==<br />
*[[What were the goals of the Axis powers and the Soviet Union during World War Two?]]<br />
*[[How Did the German Military Develop Blitzkrieg?]]<br />
*[[What was the impact of the Irish Famine on Ireland and the world?]]<br />
*[[How did Mussolini become Prime Minister of Italy?]]<br />
*[[The Nazi triumph: how did Adolf Hitler become the Fuehrer of Germany?]]<br />
</div></div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=What_was_the_impact_of_the_Irish_Famine_on_Ireland_and_the_world&diff=2299What was the impact of the Irish Famine on Ireland and the world2016-06-04T14:27:01Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Mediawiki:kindleoasis}}<br />
[[File:Irish_potato_famine_Bridget_O'Donnel.jpg|thumbnail|Bridget O'Donnell and her two starving children during the Irish Potato Famine in 1849|150px]]<br />
<br />
The Great Irish Famine (1845-1850), one of the last great famines in western Europe. The Famine was a disaster for Ireland and in many ways the country has not recovered from its impact to this day. The Famine or the ‘Great Hunger’ as it was known led to the deaths of 1 million people and the emigration of another two million. The article will examine the impact of the famine on Irish society and how it ‘decisively shaped the country’s history and the nature of its society and economy.<ref>Donnelly, James S (2005), ''The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing'', p. 89.</ref> The Irish Famine was not just of local importance but was to have international repercussions. This was because it led to the emigration of millions of Irish people, which changed societies from North America to Australasia.<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
Ireland in 1840 was largely a peasant society, where Catholic tenants worked the land of a Protestant landowning elite. Much of the agricultural land in the country was part of the estates of Protestant landlords.<ref>Patrick Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork: The Mizen Peninsula, Land and People 1800-1852'' (Mercier Press, Cork, 2002).</ref> The country was part of the United Kingdom and was ruled by a British appointed administration in Dublin Castle, who were under the direct control of the London government. The country was overwhelmingly agricultural with little or no industry. Much of the population depended on the potato for their livelihood. The vast majority of the Irish population lived in conditions of abject poverty.<ref>Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork'', p.8.</ref> In 1845, the potato blight was inadvertently brought to Europe from South America. The potato blight arrived in Ireland in the summer of 1846. It caused the potato crop to fail in many areas.<ref>Dr Dan Donovan, ‘Diary of a dispensary doctor’ ''Southern Reporter''. February 13th 1847.</ref> <br />
<br />
By the winter of 1846 there was widespread hunger in rural Ireland. The British government began a relief program and purchased maize in large quantities to help the starving Irish. However, the potato blight caused the potato to fail again in 1847. The Irish poor starved in great numbers, many travelled to urban centres, in their desperation for food.<ref>Hickey, p. 350.</ref> A change in administration in London, resulted in a change in the British government’s relief program in Ireland and reduced the amount of food relief available in the country.<ref>Foster, R.F (1988), ''Modern Ireland 1600–1972'', Penguin Group, p. 156.</ref> This led to ever more starvation in the country. The malnourished population began to suffer from various epidemic diseases such as typhus. As the rural poor sought food in urban centres they began to spread these infectious diseases and this led to high death rates in cities such as Dublin, Limerick and Belfast. The potato blight continued to ruin the potato crop until 1850. By 1850, some one million people had died of starvation and disease and Ireland had been changed forever.<br />
<br />
==Socio-Economic Impact==<br />
Perhaps the greatest economic impact of the famine was a change in the nature of landholding and agriculture. Prior to the great Famine, the vast majority of Irish families suffered on farms that were less than two acres. They survived on what they could grow, mostly potatoes. However, after the famine, this was no longer possible, and one of the main impacts of the Famine, was that farms became larger, in order to ensure that they provided families with a sustainable level of income. Many landowners, who mostly lived in London, sought to exploit the situation in the aftermath of the Famine. Many of their poor tenants had left the land and their farms. They landowners sought to encourage livestock rearing on their estates, which was more profitable. Increasingly, Ireland moved from arable farming to livestock rearing. However, this led to a great deal of unemployment in the country and did not benefit the poor. As a result, Ireland remained a poverty stricken country. <br />
<br />
The Famine led to great social changes. Prior to the famine Irish people married young and had large families. After the horrors of the famine, Irish people married later, and if they did not have a reasonable sized farm or chance of steady employment, they never married. As a result of these changes Ireland had a high rate of unmarried and single people and this led to social problems, in particular high levels of alcoholism.<ref>Gallagher, Thomas (1987), ''Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846–1847: Prelude to Hatred'', Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 7.</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
The majority of the population in Ireland were Catholics (75%) with a large Protestant minority (25%). Ireland was traditionally a very religious society. After the Famine, Irish society became even more religious. Some scholars have suggested that the trauma of the Famine resulted in the people turning to religion for support and hope. In the decades after the Famine, Irish Catholics became renowned for their strict observance of their religion. Every year thousands of Irish people became priests or nuns. The Catholic clergy became very powerful in Irish life and society.<ref>Foster, p. 234.</ref> In the years after the Famine the Catholic population strict interpretation of their religion and the growing influence of the Catholic hierarchy worried many in Irish Protestants. This was ultimately to lead to increasing tensions between Catholics and Protestants and this was to lead to conflict between the two communities throughout the twentieth century in Ireland. The Famine also made Irish people very anti-British and this was one of the factors that lead to the emergence of violent Irish nationalist organisations such as the Fenians and ultimately the Irish Republican Army.<ref>Foster, p. 11.</ref><br />
<br />
==Emigration==<br />
For many decades after the Famine there was large scale emigration from Ireland. It led to a decline in the Irish population, in 1840 there were 8 and a half million people in Ireland in 1960 there were only 4.5 million, despite the country having a high birth rate. Many Irish people had left the country for America and elsewhere prior to the Famine.<ref>Foster, p. 134.</ref> However, because of the Famine, millions were to leave the country. This was to have dramatic consequences for the populations of many countries. Soon there were substantial Irish communities all over the world. These Irish emigrants helped to develop the economics of their new homes. Irish emigrants settled on the frontier in countries such as America, Canada and Australia. Emigrants from Ireland helped these nations to expand and to grow. However, as many of the Irish were Catholics this led to sectarian tensions with existing Protestant communities in countries such as America and Canada.<ref>Foster, p. 245.</ref><br />
[[File:Ireland_population_change_1841_1851.png|thumbnail|Population due to the Irish Potato Famine|160px]]<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
The Famine was tragedy for Ireland. It led to mass starvation and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. It decisively shaped Irish society for many decades and even to the present day. The Famine resulted increased tensions between Catholic and Protestant and between Britain and Ireland. These tensions led to violence and instability for many years. Its most ‘durable legacy was the continuing high levels of emigration from the country, which lasted until at least the 1990s.<ref>Foster, p. 345.</ref> This was a tragedy for Ireland and as a result of emigration, the Irish population has still not recovered to its pre-Famine level. However, the Famine led to mass emigration from the country and this was to have significant consequences for many nations, especially in North America. Irish emigrants helped countries such as Canada and America to fulfill their potential and become great countries.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:Irish History]] [[Category:European History]] [[Category:19th Century History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}<br />
<div class="portal" style="width:85%;"><br />
==Related DailyHistory.org Articles==<br />
*[[What were the goals of the Axis powers and the Soviet Union during World War Two?]]<br />
*[[How Did the German Military Develop Blitzkrieg?]]<br />
*[[How did Vladimir Lenin Rise To Power?]]<br />
*[[How did Mussolini become Prime Minister of Italy?]]<br />
*[[The Nazi triumph: how did Adolf Hitler become the Fuehrer of Germany?]]<br />
</div></div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=What_was_the_impact_of_the_Irish_Famine_on_Ireland_and_the_world&diff=2298What was the impact of the Irish Famine on Ireland and the world2016-06-04T14:23:39Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Mediawiki:kindleoasis}}<br />
[[File:Irish_potato_famine_Bridget_O'Donnel.jpg|thumbnail|Bridget O'Donnell and her two starving children during the Irish Potato Famine in 1849|150px]]<br />
<br />
The Great Irish Famine (1845-1850), one of the last great famines in western Europe. The Famine was a disaster for Ireland and in many ways the country has not recovered from its impact to this day. The Famine or the ‘Great Hunger’ as it was known led to the deaths of 1 million people and the emigration of another two million. The article will examine the impact of the famine on Irish society and how it ‘decisively shaped the country’s history and the nature of its society and economy.<ref>Donnelly, James S (2005), ''The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing'', p. 89.</ref> The Irish Famine was not just of local importance but was to have international repercussions. This was because it led to the emigration of millions of Irish people, which changed societies from North America to Australasia.<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
Ireland in 1840 was largely a peasant society, where Catholic tenants worked the land of a Protestant landowning elite. Much of the agricultural land in the country was part of the estates of Protestant landlords.<ref>Patrick Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork: The Mizen Peninsula, Land and People 1800-1852'' (Mercier Press, Cork, 2002).</ref> The country was part of the United Kingdom and was ruled by a British appointed administration in Dublin Castle, who were under the direct control of the London government. The country was overwhelmingly agricultural with little or no industry. Much of the population depended on the potato for their livelihood. The vast majority of the Irish population lived in conditions of abject poverty.<ref>Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork'', p.8.</ref> In 1845, the potato blight was inadvertently brought to Europe from South America. The potato blight arrived in Ireland in the summer of 1846. It caused the potato crop to fail in many areas.<ref>Dr Dan Donovan, ‘Diary of a dispensary doctor’ ''Southern Reporter''. February 13th 1847.</ref> <br />
<br />
By the winter of 1846 there was widespread hunger in rural Ireland. The British government began a relief program and purchased maize in large quantities to help the starving Irish. However, the potato blight caused the potato to fail again in 1847. The Irish poor starved in great numbers, many travelled to urban centres, in their desperation for food.<ref>Hickey, p. 350.</ref> A change in administration in London, resulted in a change in the British government’s relief program in Ireland and reduced the amount of food relief available in the country.<ref>Foster, R.F (1988), ''Modern Ireland 1600–1972'', Penguin Group, p. 156.</ref> This led to ever more starvation in the country. The malnourished population began to suffer from various epidemic diseases such as typhus. As the rural poor sought food in urban centres they began to spread these infectious diseases and this led to high death rates in cities such as Dublin, Limerick and Belfast. The potato blight continued to ruin the potato crop until 1850. By 1850, some one million people had died of starvation and disease and Ireland had been changed forever.<br />
<br />
==Socio-Economic Impact==<br />
Perhaps the greatest economic impact of the famine was a change in the nature of landholding and agriculture. Prior to the great Famine, the vast majority of Irish families suffered on farms that were less than two acres. They survived on what they could grow, mostly potatoes. However, after the famine, this was no longer possible, and one of the main impacts of the Famine, was that farms became larger, in order to ensure that they provided families with a sustainable level of income. Many landowners, who mostly lived in London, sought to exploit the situation in the aftermath of the Famine. Many of their poor tenants had left the land and their farms. They landowners sought to encourage livestock rearing on their estates, which was more profitable. Increasingly, Ireland moved from arable farming to livestock rearing. However, this led to a great deal of unemployment in the country and did not benefit the poor. As a result, Ireland remained a poverty stricken country. <br />
<br />
The Famine led to great social changes. Prior to the famine Irish people married young and had large families. After the horrors of the famine, Irish people married later, and if they did not have a reasonable sized farm or chance of steady employment, they never married. As a result of these changes Ireland had a high rate of unmarried and single people and this led to social problems, in particular high levels of alcoholism.<ref>Gallagher, Thomas (1987), ''Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846–1847: Prelude to Hatred'', Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 7.</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
The majority of the population in Ireland were Catholics (75%) with a large Protestant minority (25%). Ireland was traditionally a very religious society. After the Famine, Irish society became even more religious. Some scholars have suggested that the trauma of the Famine resulted in the people turning to religion for support and hope. In the decades after the Famine, Irish Catholics became renowned for their strict observance of their religion. Every year thousands of Irish people became priests or nuns. The Catholic clergy became very powerful in Irish life and society.<ref>Foster, p. 234.</ref> In the years after the Famine the Catholic population strict interpretation of their religion and the growing influence of the Catholic hierarchy worried many in Irish Protestants. This was ultimately to lead to increasing tensions between Catholics and Protestants and this was to lead to conflict between the two communities throughout the twentieth century in Ireland. The Famine also made Irish people very anti-British and this was one of the factors that lead to the emergence of violent Irish nationalist organisations such as the Fenians and ultimately the Irish Republican Army.<ref>Foster, p. 11.</ref><br />
<br />
==Emigration==<br />
For many decades after the Famine there was large scale emigration from Ireland. It led to a decline in the Irish population, in 1840 there were 8 and a half million people in Ireland in 1960 there were only 4.5 million, despite the country having a high birth rate. Many Irish people had left the country for America and elsewhere prior to the Famine.<ref>Foster, p. 134.</ref> However, because of the Famine, millions were to leave the country. This was to have dramatic consequences for the populations of many countries. Soon there were substantial Irish communities all over the world. These Irish emigrants helped to develop the economics of their new homes. Irish emigrants settled on the frontier in countries such as America, Canada and Australia. Emigrants from Ireland helped these nations to expand and to grow. However, as many of the Irish were Catholics this led to sectarian tensions with existing Protestant communities in countries such as America and Canada.<ref>Foster, p. 245.</ref><br />
[[File:Ireland_population_change_1841_1851.png|thumbnail|Population due to the Irish Potato Famine|160px]]<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
The Famine was tragedy for Ireland. It led to mass starvation and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. It decisively shaped Irish society for many decades and even to the present day. The Famine resulted increased tensions between Catholic and Protestant and between Britain and Ireland and this led to violence and instability for many years. Its most ‘durable legacy was the continuing high levels of emigration from the country, which lasted until at least the 1990s.<ref>Foster, p. 345.</ref> This was a tragedy for Ireland and as a result of emigration, the Irish population has still not recovered to its pre-Famine level. However, the Famine led to mass emigration from the country and this was to have significant consequences for many nations, especially in North America. Irish emigrants helped countries such as Canada and America to fulfil their potential and become great countries.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=What_was_the_impact_of_the_Irish_Famine_on_Ireland_and_the_world&diff=2297What was the impact of the Irish Famine on Ireland and the world2016-06-04T14:23:15Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Mediawiki:kindleoasis}}<br />
[[File:Irish_potato_famine_Bridget_O'Donnel.jpg|thumbnail|Bridget O'Donnell and her two starving children during the Irish Potato Famine in 1849|150px]]<br />
<br />
The Great Irish Famine (1845-1850), one of the last great famines in western Europe. The Famine was a disaster for Ireland and in many ways the country has not recovered from its impact to this day. The Famine or the ‘Great Hunger’ as it was known led to the deaths of 1 million people and the emigration of another two million. The article will examine the impact of the famine on Irish society and how it ‘decisively shaped the country’s history and the nature of its society and economy.<ref>Donnelly, James S (2005), ''The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing'', p. 89.</ref> The article will argue that the Irish Famine was not just of local importance but was to have international repercussions. This was because it led to the emigration of millions of Irish people, which changed societies from North America to Australasia.<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
Ireland in 1840 was largely a peasant society, where Catholic tenants worked the land of a Protestant landowning elite. Much of the agricultural land in the country was part of the estates of Protestant landlords.<ref>Patrick Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork: The Mizen Peninsula, Land and People 1800-1852'' (Mercier Press, Cork, 2002).</ref> The country was part of the United Kingdom and was ruled by a British appointed administration in Dublin Castle, who were under the direct control of the London government. The country was overwhelmingly agricultural with little or no industry. Much of the population depended on the potato for their livelihood. The vast majority of the Irish population lived in conditions of abject poverty.<ref>Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork'', p.8.</ref> In 1845, the potato blight was inadvertently brought to Europe from South America. The potato blight arrived in Ireland in the summer of 1846. It caused the potato crop to fail in many areas.<ref>Dr Dan Donovan, ‘Diary of a dispensary doctor’ ''Southern Reporter''. February 13th 1847.</ref> <br />
<br />
By the winter of 1846 there was widespread hunger in rural Ireland. The British government began a relief program and purchased maize in large quantities to help the starving Irish. However, the potato blight caused the potato to fail again in 1847. The Irish poor starved in great numbers, many travelled to urban centres, in their desperation for food.<ref>Hickey, p. 350.</ref> A change in administration in London, resulted in a change in the British government’s relief program in Ireland and reduced the amount of food relief available in the country.<ref>Foster, R.F (1988), ''Modern Ireland 1600–1972'', Penguin Group, p. 156.</ref> This led to ever more starvation in the country. The malnourished population began to suffer from various epidemic diseases such as typhus. As the rural poor sought food in urban centres they began to spread these infectious diseases and this led to high death rates in cities such as Dublin, Limerick and Belfast. The potato blight continued to ruin the potato crop until 1850. By 1850, some one million people had died of starvation and disease and Ireland had been changed forever.<br />
<br />
==Socio-Economic Impact==<br />
Perhaps the greatest economic impact of the famine was a change in the nature of landholding and agriculture. Prior to the great Famine, the vast majority of Irish families suffered on farms that were less than two acres. They survived on what they could grow, mostly potatoes. However, after the famine, this was no longer possible, and one of the main impacts of the Famine, was that farms became larger, in order to ensure that they provided families with a sustainable level of income. Many landowners, who mostly lived in London, sought to exploit the situation in the aftermath of the Famine. Many of their poor tenants had left the land and their farms. They landowners sought to encourage livestock rearing on their estates, which was more profitable. Increasingly, Ireland moved from arable farming to livestock rearing. However, this led to a great deal of unemployment in the country and did not benefit the poor. As a result, Ireland remained a poverty stricken country. <br />
<br />
The Famine led to great social changes. Prior to the famine Irish people married young and had large families. After the horrors of the famine, Irish people married later, and if they did not have a reasonable sized farm or chance of steady employment, they never married. As a result of these changes Ireland had a high rate of unmarried and single people and this led to social problems, in particular high levels of alcoholism.<ref>Gallagher, Thomas (1987), ''Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846–1847: Prelude to Hatred'', Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 7.</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
The majority of the population in Ireland were Catholics (75%) with a large Protestant minority (25%). Ireland was traditionally a very religious society. After the Famine, Irish society became even more religious. Some scholars have suggested that the trauma of the Famine resulted in the people turning to religion for support and hope. In the decades after the Famine, Irish Catholics became renowned for their strict observance of their religion. Every year thousands of Irish people became priests or nuns. The Catholic clergy became very powerful in Irish life and society.<ref>Foster, p. 234.</ref> In the years after the Famine the Catholic population strict interpretation of their religion and the growing influence of the Catholic hierarchy worried many in Irish Protestants. This was ultimately to lead to increasing tensions between Catholics and Protestants and this was to lead to conflict between the two communities throughout the twentieth century in Ireland. The Famine also made Irish people very anti-British and this was one of the factors that lead to the emergence of violent Irish nationalist organisations such as the Fenians and ultimately the Irish Republican Army.<ref>Foster, p. 11.</ref><br />
<br />
==Emigration==<br />
For many decades after the Famine there was large scale emigration from Ireland. It led to a decline in the Irish population, in 1840 there were 8 and a half million people in Ireland in 1960 there were only 4.5 million, despite the country having a high birth rate. Many Irish people had left the country for America and elsewhere prior to the Famine.<ref>Foster, p. 134.</ref> However, because of the Famine, millions were to leave the country. This was to have dramatic consequences for the populations of many countries. Soon there were substantial Irish communities all over the world. These Irish emigrants helped to develop the economics of their new homes. Irish emigrants settled on the frontier in countries such as America, Canada and Australia. Emigrants from Ireland helped these nations to expand and to grow. However, as many of the Irish were Catholics this led to sectarian tensions with existing Protestant communities in countries such as America and Canada.<ref>Foster, p. 245.</ref><br />
[[File:Ireland_population_change_1841_1851.png|thumbnail|Population due to the Irish Potato Famine|160px]]<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
The Famine was tragedy for Ireland. It led to mass starvation and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. It decisively shaped Irish society for many decades and even to the present day. The Famine resulted increased tensions between Catholic and Protestant and between Britain and Ireland and this led to violence and instability for many years. Its most ‘durable legacy was the continuing high levels of emigration from the country, which lasted until at least the 1990s.<ref>Foster, p. 345.</ref> This was a tragedy for Ireland and as a result of emigration, the Irish population has still not recovered to its pre-Famine level. However, the Famine led to mass emigration from the country and this was to have significant consequences for many nations, especially in North America. Irish emigrants helped countries such as Canada and America to fulfil their potential and become great countries.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=What_was_the_impact_of_the_Irish_Famine_on_Ireland_and_the_world&diff=2296What was the impact of the Irish Famine on Ireland and the world2016-06-04T06:07:21Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Mediawiki:kindleoasis}}<br />
[[File:Irish_potato_famine_Bridget_O'Donnel.jpg|thumbnail|Bridget O'Donnell and her two starving children during the Irish Potato Famine in 1849|150px]]<br />
<br />
This article with discuss the Great Irish Famine (1845-1850), one of the last great famines in western Europe. The Famine was a great disaster for Ireland and in many ways the country has not recovered from its impact to this day. The Famine or the ‘Great Hunger’ as it was known led to the deaths of 1 million people and the emigration of another two million. The article will examine the impact of the famine on Irish society and how it ‘decisively shaped the country’s history and the nature of its society and economy.<ref>Donnelly, James S (2005), ''The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing'', p. 89.</ref> The article will argue that the Irish Famine was not just of local importance but was to have international repercussions. This was because it led to the emigration of millions of Irish people, which changed societies from North America to Australasia.<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
Ireland in 1840 was largely a peasant society, where Catholic tenants worked the land of a Protestant landowning elite. Much of the agricultural land in the country was part of the estates of Protestant landlords.<ref>Patrick Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork: The Mizen Peninsula, Land and People 1800-1852'' (Mercier Press, Cork, 2002).</ref> The country was part of the United Kingdom and was ruled by a British appointed administration in Dublin Castle, who were under the direct control of the London government. The country was overwhelmingly agricultural with little or no industry. Much of the population depended on the potato for their livelihood. The vast majority of the Irish population lived in conditions of abject poverty.<ref>Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork'', p.8.</ref> In 1845, the potato blight was inadvertently brought to Europe from South America. The potato blight arrived in Ireland in the summer of 1846. It caused the potato crop to fail in many areas.<ref>Dr Dan Donovan, ‘Diary of a dispensary doctor’ ''Southern Reporter''. February 13th 1847.</ref> <br />
<br />
By the winter of 1846 there was widespread hunger in rural Ireland. The British government began a relief program and purchased maize in large quantities to help the starving Irish. However, the potato blight caused the potato to fail again in 1847. The Irish poor starved in great numbers, many travelled to urban centres, in their desperation for food.<ref>Hickey, p. 350.</ref> A change in administration in London, resulted in a change in the British government’s relief program in Ireland and reduced the amount of food relief available in the country.<ref>Foster, R.F (1988), ''Modern Ireland 1600–1972'', Penguin Group, p. 156.</ref> This led to ever more starvation in the country. The malnourished population began to suffer from various epidemic diseases such as typhus. As the rural poor sought food in urban centres they began to spread these infectious diseases and this led to high death rates in cities such as Dublin, Limerick and Belfast. The potato blight continued to ruin the potato crop until 1850. By 1850, some one million people had died of starvation and disease and Ireland had been changed forever.<br />
<br />
==Socio-Economic Impact==<br />
Perhaps the greatest economic impact of the famine was a change in the nature of landholding and agriculture. Prior to the great Famine, the vast majority of Irish families suffered on farms that were less than two acres. They survived on what they could grow, mostly potatoes. However, after the famine, this was no longer possible, and one of the main impacts of the Famine, was that farms became larger, in order to ensure that they provided families with a sustainable level of income. Many landowners, who mostly lived in London, sought to exploit the situation in the aftermath of the Famine. Many of their poor tenants had left the land and their farms. They landowners sought to encourage livestock rearing on their estates, which was more profitable. Increasingly, Ireland moved from arable farming to livestock rearing. However, this led to a great deal of unemployment in the country and did not benefit the poor. As a result, Ireland remained a poverty stricken country. <br />
<br />
The Famine led to great social changes. Prior to the famine Irish people married young and had large families. After the horrors of the famine, Irish people married later, and if they did not have a reasonable sized farm or chance of steady employment, they never married. As a result of these changes Ireland had a high rate of unmarried and single people and this led to social problems, in particular high levels of alcoholism.<ref>Gallagher, Thomas (1987), ''Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846–1847: Prelude to Hatred'', Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 7.</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
The majority of the population in Ireland were Catholics (75%) with a large Protestant minority (25%). Ireland was traditionally a very religious society. After the Famine, Irish society became even more religious. Some scholars have suggested that the trauma of the Famine resulted in the people turning to religion for support and hope. In the decades after the Famine, Irish Catholics became renowned for their strict observance of their religion. Every year thousands of Irish people became priests or nuns. The Catholic clergy became very powerful in Irish life and society.<ref>Foster, p. 234.</ref> In the years after the Famine the Catholic population strict interpretation of their religion and the growing influence of the Catholic hierarchy worried many in Irish Protestants. This was ultimately to lead to increasing tensions between Catholics and Protestants and this was to lead to conflict between the two communities throughout the twentieth century in Ireland. The Famine also made Irish people very anti-British and this was one of the factors that lead to the emergence of violent Irish nationalist organisations such as the Fenians and ultimately the Irish Republican Army.<ref>Foster, p. 11.</ref><br />
<br />
==Emigration==<br />
For many decades after the Famine there was large scale emigration from Ireland. It led to a decline in the Irish population, in 1840 there were 8 and a half million people in Ireland in 1960 there were only 4.5 million, despite the country having a high birth rate. Many Irish people had left the country for America and elsewhere prior to the Famine.<ref>Foster, p. 134.</ref> However, because of the Famine, millions were to leave the country. This was to have dramatic consequences for the populations of many countries. Soon there were substantial Irish communities all over the world. These Irish emigrants helped to develop the economics of their new homes. Irish emigrants settled on the frontier in countries such as America, Canada and Australia. Emigrants from Ireland helped these nations to expand and to grow. However, as many of the Irish were Catholics this led to sectarian tensions with existing Protestant communities in countries such as America and Canada.<ref>Foster, p. 245.</ref><br />
[[File:Ireland_population_change_1841_1851.png|thumbnail|Population due to the Irish Potato Famine|160px]]<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
The Famine was tragedy for Ireland. It led to mass starvation and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. It decisively shaped Irish society for many decades and even to the present day. The Famine resulted increased tensions between Catholic and Protestant and between Britain and Ireland and this led to violence and instability for many years. Its most ‘durable legacy was the continuing high levels of emigration from the country, which lasted until at least the 1990s.<ref>Foster, p. 345.</ref> This was a tragedy for Ireland and as a result of emigration, the Irish population has still not recovered to its pre-Famine level. However, the Famine led to mass emigration from the country and this was to have significant consequences for many nations, especially in North America. Irish emigrants helped countries such as Canada and America to fulfil their potential and become great countries.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=What_was_the_impact_of_the_Irish_Famine_on_Ireland_and_the_world&diff=2295What was the impact of the Irish Famine on Ireland and the world2016-06-04T06:06:50Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[File:Irish_potato_famine_Bridget_O'Donnel.jpg|thumbnail|Bridget O'Donnell and her two starving children during the Irish Potato Famine in 1849|150px]]<br />
This article with discuss the Great Irish Famine (1845-1850), one of the last great famines in western Europe. The Famine was a great disaster for Ireland and in many ways the country has not recovered from its impact to this day. The Famine or the ‘Great Hunger’ as it was known led to the deaths of 1 million people and the emigration of another two million. The article will examine the impact of the famine on Irish society and how it ‘decisively shaped the country’s history and the nature of its society and economy.<ref>Donnelly, James S (2005), ''The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing'', p. 89.</ref> The article will argue that the Irish Famine was not just of local importance but was to have international repercussions. This was because it led to the emigration of millions of Irish people, which changed societies from North America to Australasia.<br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
Ireland in 1840 was largely a peasant society, where Catholic tenants worked the land of a Protestant landowning elite. Much of the agricultural land in the country was part of the estates of Protestant landlords.<ref>Patrick Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork: The Mizen Peninsula, Land and People 1800-1852'' (Mercier Press, Cork, 2002).</ref> The country was part of the United Kingdom and was ruled by a British appointed administration in Dublin Castle, who were under the direct control of the London government. The country was overwhelmingly agricultural with little or no industry. Much of the population depended on the potato for their livelihood. The vast majority of the Irish population lived in conditions of abject poverty.<ref>Hickey, ''Famine in West Cork'', p.8.</ref> In 1845, the potato blight was inadvertently brought to Europe from South America. The potato blight arrived in Ireland in the summer of 1846. It caused the potato crop to fail in many areas.<ref>Dr Dan Donovan, ‘Diary of a dispensary doctor’ ''Southern Reporter''. February 13th 1847.</ref> <br />
<br />
By the winter of 1846 there was widespread hunger in rural Ireland. The British government began a relief program and purchased maize in large quantities to help the starving Irish. However, the potato blight caused the potato to fail again in 1847. The Irish poor starved in great numbers, many travelled to urban centres, in their desperation for food.<ref>Hickey, p. 350.</ref> A change in administration in London, resulted in a change in the British government’s relief program in Ireland and reduced the amount of food relief available in the country.<ref>Foster, R.F (1988), ''Modern Ireland 1600–1972'', Penguin Group, p. 156.</ref> This led to ever more starvation in the country. The malnourished population began to suffer from various epidemic diseases such as typhus. As the rural poor sought food in urban centres they began to spread these infectious diseases and this led to high death rates in cities such as Dublin, Limerick and Belfast. The potato blight continued to ruin the potato crop until 1850. By 1850, some one million people had died of starvation and disease and Ireland had been changed forever.<br />
<br />
==Socio-Economic Impact==<br />
Perhaps the greatest economic impact of the famine was a change in the nature of landholding and agriculture. Prior to the great Famine, the vast majority of Irish families suffered on farms that were less than two acres. They survived on what they could grow, mostly potatoes. However, after the famine, this was no longer possible, and one of the main impacts of the Famine, was that farms became larger, in order to ensure that they provided families with a sustainable level of income. Many landowners, who mostly lived in London, sought to exploit the situation in the aftermath of the Famine. Many of their poor tenants had left the land and their farms. They landowners sought to encourage livestock rearing on their estates, which was more profitable. Increasingly, Ireland moved from arable farming to livestock rearing. However, this led to a great deal of unemployment in the country and did not benefit the poor. As a result, Ireland remained a poverty stricken country. <br />
<br />
The Famine led to great social changes. Prior to the famine Irish people married young and had large families. After the horrors of the famine, Irish people married later, and if they did not have a reasonable sized farm or chance of steady employment, they never married. As a result of these changes Ireland had a high rate of unmarried and single people and this led to social problems, in particular high levels of alcoholism.<ref>Gallagher, Thomas (1987), ''Paddy's Lament, Ireland 1846–1847: Prelude to Hatred'', Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 7.</ref><br />
<br />
==Religion==<br />
The majority of the population in Ireland were Catholics (75%) with a large Protestant minority (25%). Ireland was traditionally a very religious society. After the Famine, Irish society became even more religious. Some scholars have suggested that the trauma of the Famine resulted in the people turning to religion for support and hope. In the decades after the Famine, Irish Catholics became renowned for their strict observance of their religion. Every year thousands of Irish people became priests or nuns. The Catholic clergy became very powerful in Irish life and society.<ref>Foster, p. 234.</ref> In the years after the Famine the Catholic population strict interpretation of their religion and the growing influence of the Catholic hierarchy worried many in Irish Protestants. This was ultimately to lead to increasing tensions between Catholics and Protestants and this was to lead to conflict between the two communities throughout the twentieth century in Ireland. The Famine also made Irish people very anti-British and this was one of the factors that lead to the emergence of violent Irish nationalist organisations such as the Fenians and ultimately the Irish Republican Army.<ref>Foster, p. 11.</ref><br />
<br />
==Emigration==<br />
For many decades after the Famine there was large scale emigration from Ireland. It led to a decline in the Irish population, in 1840 there were 8 and a half million people in Ireland in 1960 there were only 4.5 million, despite the country having a high birth rate. Many Irish people had left the country for America and elsewhere prior to the Famine.<ref>Foster, p. 134.</ref> However, because of the Famine, millions were to leave the country. This was to have dramatic consequences for the populations of many countries. Soon there were substantial Irish communities all over the world. These Irish emigrants helped to develop the economics of their new homes. Irish emigrants settled on the frontier in countries such as America, Canada and Australia. Emigrants from Ireland helped these nations to expand and to grow. However, as many of the Irish were Catholics this led to sectarian tensions with existing Protestant communities in countries such as America and Canada.<ref>Foster, p. 245.</ref><br />
[[File:Ireland_population_change_1841_1851.png|thumbnail|Population due to the Irish Potato Famine|160px]]<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
The Famine was tragedy for Ireland. It led to mass starvation and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. It decisively shaped Irish society for many decades and even to the present day. The Famine resulted increased tensions between Catholic and Protestant and between Britain and Ireland and this led to violence and instability for many years. Its most ‘durable legacy was the continuing high levels of emigration from the country, which lasted until at least the 1990s.<ref>Foster, p. 345.</ref> This was a tragedy for Ireland and as a result of emigration, the Irish population has still not recovered to its pre-Famine level. However, the Famine led to mass emigration from the country and this was to have significant consequences for many nations, especially in North America. Irish emigrants helped countries such as Canada and America to fulfil their potential and become great countries.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Joseph_Stalin_react_to_the_German_invasion_during_WWII&diff=2294How did Joseph Stalin react to the German invasion during WWII2016-06-04T04:47:05Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin ruled over the Soviet Union between 1920 and 1953 acting as a supreme leader of the USSR. Holding the post of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he was effectively the dictator of the state. Stalin introduced his own highly centralized command economy, launching a period of industrialization and collectivization that resulted in the rapid transformation of the USSR from an agrarian society into an industrial global power. Between 1934 and 1939 Stalin mercilessly carried out a series of massive political extra-judicial executions, known as the Great Purge, of major Communist Party and government rival figures as well as many Red Army high commanders without any proper trials - all convicted of treason or considered a threat. These “enemies of the working class” were imprisioned, exiled, sent to forced labor camps or executed, without due process.<br />
<br />
In the meantime Germany revitalized under Adolf Hitler’s leadership, worked to revise the post-World War I organizational structure of Europe, imposed by the United States, England and France. <br />
<br />
==Reaching the Molotov–Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and NAZI Germany and their initial warming economic relations==<br />
After the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933, relations between Germany and the Soviet Union, as the two sworn enemy regimes, began to deteriorate rapidly, and trade between the two countries decreased and almost froze. Following several years of high tension and rivalry, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union eventually began to improve relations in 1939. German economy thrived at a fast pace by exporting manufactured goods and industrial equipment in exchange for importing raw materials. In turn, the USSR being an agrarian state, rich in natural resources, was struggling with transition towards industrialization. The Soviets had to purchase and import more than half of the necessary factory machinery from the United States. It occurred that both Stalin and Hitler, therefore, were at odds with the West. Driven by their mutual resentment for the West, each for his own reasons and interests under the circumstances, Communist USSR and NAZI Germany seemed to have much in common and be close to reaching a German-Soviet cooperation via a natural alliance. <br />
<br />
In 1939, London and Paris invited Moscow to co-sign an Anglo-French guarantee to protect Poland and Romania from possible German aggression. The Soviets agreed only upon permission from Lithuania, Poland and Romania to allow the free passage of Soviet troops in the event of war. However, Poland refused to grant its permission, fearing Soviet’s secret agenda to take over its territory. The West prolonged Soviet-Allied negotiations since the Great Powers feared the spread of the communist regime and considered the Soviet Union as an outlaw state for its established social and political structures through internal subversion, armed violence and terrorism. USSR in turn advocated the overthrow of all capitalist regimes.<ref>Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union - http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html</ref><br />
<br />
After failure of the negotiations with Britain and France, Stalin eventually turned to Germany. As a result, on 23 August 1939 the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. The pact, known as Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, was named after the USSR and NAZIS foreign affairs political figures at the time. Hitler no more had to fear the possibility of a war on two fronts. Moreover, Stalin and Hitler signed numerous secret protocols dividing the entire territory of Eastern Europe into Soviet and Nazi spheres of influence. The Soviets would recover eastern Poland, formerly part of Imperial Russia. The Germans also supported the USSR's claims on Bessarabia (eastern part of Romania) and agreed to define Eastern Europe's Baltic (Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania) and Balkan states as belonging to the Soviet “sphere of interest.” Furthermore, after signing the pact, the countries rapidly expanded their economic relationship by entering into a commercial agreement whereby the Soviet Union sent critical raw materials and ingredients to Germany in exchange for weapons, military technology, civilian and manufacturing machinery. Thereafter, Germany received significant amounts of petroleum, grain, rubber and manganese, all necessary for its future war efforts. <br />
<br />
==Violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and World War II: former allies eventually turn against each other==<br />
The signed secret protocols dividing central Europe between Stalin and Hitler, efectively let both the USSR and the NAZIS to invade freely countries listed within their “spheres of influence”. However, the agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union could not be sustainable for long and did in fact settle stage for the start of the World War II.<br />
<br />
On 1 September 1939, within days of signing the pact and the secret protocols, Hitler invaded Poland, now confident that the Soviets would not oppose him. In response, Britain and France declared war on Germany. A couple of weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east to grab its share. In 1940, the USSR followed up by occupying Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Romanian province of Bessarabia. Britain and France protested but with their forces already at war against Germany, they could not afford fighting Stalin as well. Indeed, initially, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact worked quite well and showed how similar the two states really were. Unfortunately, it did not last for long. <br />
<br />
Once the Soviets seized a generous portion of Eastern Europe, they also tried to invade Finland. Despite being tremendously outnumbered and outgunned, the Finns improvised a defense and made the best of the terrain and the ferocious winter weather. At the same time, the German army conquered France without suffering appreciable losses and the British withdrew from the continent. The Germans were astonished at how badly the Soviets performed in the fighting with the Finns. This encouraged them that the USSR and Stalin were already weakened by the war affairs and thus Hitler could in turn defeat Stalin in a rapid campaign (Blitzkrieg) even before finishing off the withdrawn Brits in the west. <ref>The pact between Hitler and Stalin that paved the way for World War II was signed 75 years ago - http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-21/pact-between-hitler-and-stalin-paved-way-world-war-ii-was-signed-75-years-ago</ref><br />
<br />
In the early morning of 22 June 1941, Hitler officially violated the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and invaded the Soviet Union. Historians claim that Stalin was stunned by the invasion and for quite some time refused to accept the news was true. The Soviet leader had ignored all warnings received from the US, British and his own intelligence officers regarding a potential invasion. He even retreated in despair for several days and did not participate in the leadership decisions.<br />
<br />
Economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries rapidly deteriorated and abruptly terminated. The Soviets were not prepared for a war against Germany with the Red Army troops scattered and dispersed among several fronts. Furthermore, Stalin’s purges of army officers in the 1930s had crippled the Soviet military machine and in the early days of the war, the Red Army, lacking trustworthy and skillful generals, suffered disastrous losses letting NAZI troops almost reach Kremlin gates. <ref>Joseph Stalin and World War II - http://www.history.com/topics/joseph-stalin</ref> <br />
<br />
However, within weeks Stalin manage to recover from the shock and called for reinforcements. Although German troops had made huge advances into the heartlands of the Soviet Union and the rest of the government had been evacuated from Moscow, Stalin remained in the Kremlin and begun to take control of the country’s ailing military infrastructure. As German troops approached the Soviet capital of Moscow, Stalin directed a devastating defensive policy, destroying any supplies or infrastructure that might benefit the enemy. Fresh competent USSR military commanders loyal to Stalin were allowed to take control of important strategic positions and military divisions.<br />
<br />
==Decisive battle for Stalingrad and Soviets offensive doctrine==<br />
In 1942, failing to achieve his Blitzkrieg and with the advance of winter and severe weather conditions, Hitler shifted his primary goal from an immediate victory in the East, to the more long-term goal of securing the southern Soviet Union and its oil fields, vital to a long-term German war effort. The invading Germans aimed at Stalingrad as essential to their campaign strategic point in southern Russia while the Soviets were determined to defend the city as a vital industrial and transportation center at all cost. Both Stalin and Hitler understood the symbolic importance of the only city to bear the Soviet dictator’s name.<br />
<br />
However, the tide turned for the Soviets with the monumental Battle of Stalingrad, from August 1942 to February 1943, during which the Red Army defeated the Germans and eventually drove them from Russia in a fierce combat and resistance. <ref>Battle of Stalingrad - http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-stalingrad</ref>On February 2, 1943, left with no provisions and surrounded by the reinforced Red Army, the Germans were forced to surrender. About 150 000 Germans had died in the fighting for Stalingrad. Furthermore, although there were over 2.5 million Soviet casualties, the Soviet victory at Stalingrad permitted the USSR to turn back offensive for the rest of the war on the Eastern front.<br />
<br />
Stalingrad was a great humiliation for Hitler. He then became more distrustful than ever of his generals. Stalin, on the other hand, gained confidence back in his military. <ref>Stalin's Role in WWII - http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/warzone/article/stalins-role-wwii/</ref> <br />
As the WWII progressed, confident of an oncoming Allied victory over Germany, Stalin contacted Western diplomats requesting two agreements. He aimed at reaching a mutual assistance/aid pact and a recognition that after the war the Soviet Union would gain the territories in countries that it would take war actions against Hitler on the Eastern front.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=What_were_Joseph_Stalin%27s_goals_as_World_War_Two_ended%3F&diff=2293What were Joseph Stalin's goals as World War Two ended?2016-06-04T04:47:00Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "==Teheran and Yalta Conferences: Iron will of Stalin and Soviet dictator’s agenda for post-war USSR zone of influence and interest== Stalin skillfully started to jostle for..."</p>
<hr />
<div>==Teheran and Yalta Conferences: Iron will of Stalin and Soviet dictator’s agenda for post-war USSR zone of influence and interest==<br />
Stalin skillfully started to jostle for post-war position with the other allied countries against NAZI Germany. Between November 28 and December 1, 1943, Stalin took part in the so-called Tehran Conference. The chief discussion of the meeting, held by the US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Stalin, centered on the opening of a “second front” in Western Europe. <br />
<br />
Stalin agreed to conduct an eastern offensive operations to coincide with the forthcoming Western Front, and in return he asked the western leaders to proceed with formal preparations for their long-promised invasion and regaining of German-occupied France. Stalin also insisted on retaining the territories provided by the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 1939 and additionally requested the Baltic coast of East Prussia as a compensation for the USSR’s enormous role and great number of casualties. <ref>Teheran Conference - http://www.britannica.com/event/Tehran-Conference</ref> <br />
In implementation of the Tehran Conference decision, in May 1944 joint Britain and US troops launched an invasion of France, opening the so-called “second front” in the West. Their actions allowed the Soviet Union to make significant advances across Eastern Europe toward Germany. The end of the war was near and it was time for another meeting of the Allies.<br />
|<br />
Yalta Conference took place in February, 1945. This was the second wartime meeting of the “Big Three” the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and US President Franklin Roosevelt). Each brought his own agenda to the Yalta Conference. The British wanted to maintain their empire, the Soviets wished to secure and obtain more land and secure positions in their new zones of influence and interests, and the US wanted to insure the Soviet’s entry into the Pacific war and discuss postwar settlement. From the very opening, Stalin made it clear that his demands regarding Poland were not negotiable: the Soviets were to gain “their territory” from the eastern portion of Poland and Poland was to compensate for that by extending its Western boarders, thereby forcing out millions of Germans. Negotiators even signed a declaration forcing the Polish to provide inclusion of Soviet Communists in their postwar national government. <br />
<br />
Moreover, Roosevelt main goal was to obtain a commitment from Stalin to participate in the United Nations in order to secure future peace and alliance. As for the other Eastern European countries, the Americans and the British generally agreed that the future governments of the nations bordering the Soviet Union should be “friendly” to the Soviet regime as long as the Soviets pledged to allow free elections in all territories liberated from Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, neither Poland, nor any other Eastern European country had the opportunity of holding free elections for the next almost 50 years. <br />
<br />
<ref>Yalta Conference - http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/yalta-conference</ref> <br />
Furthermore, the Big Three agreed to require Germany’s unconditional surrender and ratified their agreements regarding NAZI Germany postwar division: there were to be four zones of occupation, one zone for each of the three dominant nations plus one zone for France. Berlin itself, although within the Soviet zone, would also be divided into four sectors, and would eventually become a major symbol of the Cold War socialists-capitalists separation due to the infamous Berlin Wall, which was constructed and maintained by the Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Soviets led by Stalin were keen on regaining lost territories and Yalta Conference was their best chance to do that. As a result Stalin even agreed to enter the Pacific war against Japan in exchange for more territories granted, including portions of Sakhalin, Port Arthur, Manchurian railroads and the Kurile Islands. However, already in poor health, President Roosevelt failed to acknowledge Stalin’s true objectives. Roosevelt readily met Stalin’s conditions, since the Soviets eventually agreed to join the United Nations and Pacific war. The two leaders even secretly negotiated a voting formula with a veto power granted solely to the permanent members in the UN Security Council, providing themselves with more control in the world affairs and greatly weakening the UN power in the oncoming disputes. <br />
Overall, Roosevelt and the other Allies felt confident that Yalta had been successful. Nevertheless, the true Conference winner was once again Joseph Stalin. <br />
<br />
==Post war doctrines, conference reactions and consequences== <br />
<br />
Although, the initial reaction to the Yalta agreements was celebratory, it was also very short lived. In 1945, the administration of the new US president Harry Truman clashed with the Soviets over their influence in Eastern Europe, and over the United Nations. Many Americans began to criticize Roosevelt’s handling of the Yalta negotiations due to the following lack of Soviet cooperation and even giving Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia away to the Soviet Union. Numerous Central European nations also often regard the Conference in Yalta as the “Great Western betrayal” since it allowed the USSR to intervene freely in their domestic affairs, abandoning democratic policies and turning them into Soviet satellites, effectively introducing Communist regimes with impunity. At the Yalta conference, the Big Three “attempted to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability”, and many believe the decisions and concessions of Roosevelt and Churchill during the summit led to the following power struggle during the Cold War. Nevertheless, Stalin essentially got everything he wanted: a significant territorial sphere of influence and interest as a buffer zone.<br />
<br />
The German invasion in the USSR and pressing back to victory in the East required a tremendous sacrifice by the Soviet Union. And Stalin skillfully used that during the wartime conferences in pursue of his postwar Soviet empire expansion. Soviet military casualties totaled approximately 35 million with over 15 million killed, missing or captured. One in four Soviets was killed or wounded. More than 1 700 towns and 70 000 villages were destroyed and the Soviet civilian death toll reached over 25 million. Thereafter, Stalin was often referred to as one of the most influential men in human history. Although, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 20 million people during his brutal rule, he was even nominated for Nobel Peace Prize twice – in 1945 and 1948. He continued to prosecute a reign of terror, purges, executions, exiles to labor camps and persecution in the postwar USSR, suppressing all dissent and anything that represented foreign–especially Western–influence. Stalin established communist-satellite governments throughout Eastern and Central Europe.<br />
However, despite all, Soviet dictator’s iron will and deft political skills let Stalin play the loyal ally while never abandoning his true vision of an expanded postwar Soviet empire.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Joseph_Stalin_react_to_the_German_invasion_during_WWII&diff=2292How did Joseph Stalin react to the German invasion during WWII2016-06-04T04:43:46Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin ruled over the Soviet Union between 1920 and 1953 acting as a supreme leader of the USSR. Holding the post of the General Secretary of the Central..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin ruled over the Soviet Union between 1920 and 1953 acting as a supreme leader of the USSR. Holding the post of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he was effectively the dictator of the state. Stalin introduced his own highly centralized command economy, launching a period of industrialization and collectivization that resulted in the rapid transformation of the USSR from an agrarian society into an industrial global power. Between 1934 and 1939 Stalin mercilessly carried out a series of massive political extra-judicial executions, known as the Great Purge, of major Communist Party and government rival figures as well as many Red Army high commanders without any proper trials - all convicted of treason or considered a threat. These “enemies of the working class” were imprisioned, exiled, sent to forced labor camps or executed, without due process.<br />
<br />
In the meantime Germany revitalized under Adolf Hitler’s leadership, worked to revise the post-World War I organizational structure of Europe, imposed by the United States, England and France. <br />
<br />
==Reaching the Molotov–Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact between the USSR and NAZI Germany and their initial warming economic relations==<br />
After the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933, relations between Germany and the Soviet Union, as the two sworn enemy regimes, began to deteriorate rapidly, and trade between the two countries decreased and almost froze. Following several years of high tension and rivalry, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union eventually began to improve relations in 1939. German economy thrived at a fast pace by exporting manufactured goods and industrial equipment in exchange for importing raw materials. In turn, the USSR being an agrarian state, rich in natural resources, was struggling with transition towards industrialization. The Soviets had to purchase and import more than half of the necessary factory machinery from the United States. It occurred that both Stalin and Hitler, therefore, were at odds with the West. Driven by their mutual resentment for the West, each for his own reasons and interests under the circumstances, Communist USSR and NAZI Germany seemed to have much in common and be close to reaching a German-Soviet cooperation via a natural alliance. <br />
<br />
In 1939, London and Paris invited Moscow to co-sign an Anglo-French guarantee to protect Poland and Romania from possible German aggression. The Soviets agreed only upon permission from Lithuania, Poland and Romania to allow the free passage of Soviet troops in the event of war. However, Poland refused to grant its permission, fearing Soviet’s secret agenda to take over its territory. The West prolonged Soviet-Allied negotiations since the Great Powers feared the spread of the communist regime and considered the Soviet Union as an outlaw state for its established social and political structures through internal subversion, armed violence and terrorism. USSR in turn advocated the overthrow of all capitalist regimes.<ref>Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union - http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html</ref><br />
<br />
After failure of the negotiations with Britain and France, Stalin eventually turned to Germany. As a result, on 23 August 1939 the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. The pact, known as Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, was named after the USSR and NAZIS foreign affairs political figures at the time. Hitler no more had to fear the possibility of a war on two fronts. Moreover, Stalin and Hitler signed numerous secret protocols dividing the entire territory of Eastern Europe into Soviet and Nazi spheres of influence. The Soviets would recover eastern Poland, formerly part of Imperial Russia. The Germans also supported the USSR's claims on Bessarabia (eastern part of Romania) and agreed to define Eastern Europe's Baltic (Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania) and Balkan states as belonging to the Soviet “sphere of interest.” Furthermore, after signing the pact, the countries rapidly expanded their economic relationship by entering into a commercial agreement whereby the Soviet Union sent critical raw materials and ingredients to Germany in exchange for weapons, military technology, civilian and manufacturing machinery. Thereafter, Germany received significant amounts of petroleum, grain, rubber and manganese, all necessary for its future war efforts. <br />
<br />
==Violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and World War II: former allies eventually turn against each other==<br />
The signed secret protocols dividing central Europe between Stalin and Hitler, efectively let both the USSR and the NAZIS to invade freely countries listed within their “spheres of influence”. However, the agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union could not be sustainable for long and did in fact settle stage for the start of the World War II.<br />
<br />
On 1 September 1939, within days of signing the pact and the secret protocols, Hitler invaded Poland, now confident that the Soviets would not oppose him. In response, Britain and France declared war on Germany. A couple of weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east to grab its share. In 1940, the USSR followed up by occupying Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Romanian province of Bessarabia. Britain and France protested but with their forces already at war against Germany, they could not afford fighting Stalin as well. Indeed, initially, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact worked quite well and showed how similar the two states really were. Unfortunately, it did not last for long. <br />
<br />
Once the Soviets seized a generous portion of Eastern Europe, they also tried to invade Finland. Despite being tremendously outnumbered and outgunned, the Finns improvised a defense and made the best of the terrain and the ferocious winter weather. At the same time, the German army conquered France without suffering appreciable losses and the British withdrew from the continent. The Germans were astonished at how badly the Soviets performed in the fighting with the Finns. This encouraged them that the USSR and Stalin were already weakened by the war affairs and thus Hitler could in turn defeat Stalin in a rapid campaign (Blitzkrieg) even before finishing off the withdrawn Brits in the west. <ref>The pact between Hitler and Stalin that paved the way for World War II was signed 75 years ago - http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-21/pact-between-hitler-and-stalin-paved-way-world-war-ii-was-signed-75-years-ago</ref><br />
<br />
In the early morning of 22 June 1941, Hitler officially violated the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and invaded the Soviet Union. Historians claim that Stalin was stunned by the invasion and for quite some time refused to accept the news was true. The Soviet leader had ignored all warnings received from the US, British and his own intelligence officers regarding a potential invasion. He even retreated in despair for several days and did not participate in the leadership decisions.<br />
<br />
Economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries rapidly deteriorated and abruptly terminated. The Soviets were not prepared for a war against Germany with the Red Army troops scattered and dispersed among several fronts. Furthermore, Stalin’s purges of army officers in the 1930s had crippled the Soviet military machine and in the early days of the war, the Red Army, lacking trustworthy and skillful generals, suffered disastrous losses letting NAZI troops almost reach Kremlin gates. <ref>Joseph Stalin and World War II - http://www.history.com/topics/joseph-stalin</ref> <br />
<br />
However, within weeks Stalin manage to recover from the shock and called for reinforcements. Although German troops had made huge advances into the heartlands of the Soviet Union and the rest of the government had been evacuated from Moscow, Stalin remained in the Kremlin and begun to take control of the country’s ailing military infrastructure. As German troops approached the Soviet capital of Moscow, Stalin directed a devastating defensive policy, destroying any supplies or infrastructure that might benefit the enemy. Fresh competent USSR military commanders loyal to Stalin were allowed to take control of important strategic positions and military divisions.<br />
<br />
==Decisive battle for Stalingrad and Soviets offensive doctrine==<br />
In 1942, failing to achieve his Blitzkrieg and with the advance of winter and severe weather conditions, Hitler shifted his primary goal from an immediate victory in the East, to the more long-term goal of securing the southern Soviet Union and its oil fields, vital to a long-term German war effort. The invading Germans aimed at Stalingrad as essential to their campaign strategic point in southern Russia while the Soviets were determined to defend the city as a vital industrial and transportation center at all cost. Both Stalin and Hitler understood the symbolic importance of the only city to bear the Soviet dictator’s name.<br />
<br />
However, the tide turned for the Soviets with the monumental Battle of Stalingrad, from August 1942 to February 1943, during which the Red Army defeated the Germans and eventually drove them from Russia in a fierce combat and resistance. <ref>Battle of Stalingrad - http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-stalingrad</ref>On February 2, 1943, left with no provisions and surrounded by the reinforced Red Army, the Germans were forced to surrender. About 150 000 Germans had died in the fighting for Stalingrad. Furthermore, although there were over 2.5 million Soviet casualties, the Soviet victory at Stalingrad permitted the USSR to turn back offensive for the rest of the war on the Eastern front.<br />
<br />
Stalingrad was a great humiliation for Hitler. He then became more distrustful than ever of his generals. Stalin, on the other hand, gained confidence back in his military. <ref>Stalin's Role in WWII - http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/warzone/article/stalins-role-wwii/</ref> <br />
As the WWII progressed, confident of an oncoming Allied victory over Germany, Stalin contacted Western diplomats requesting two agreements. He aimed at reaching a mutual assistance/aid pact and a recognition that after the war the Soviet Union would gain the territories in countries that it would take war actions against Hitler on the Eastern front. <br />
<br />
==Teheran and Yalta Conferences: Iron will of Stalin and Soviet dictator’s agenda for post-war USSR zone of influence and interest==<br />
Stalin skillfully started to jostle for post-war position with the other allied countries against NAZI Germany. Between November 28 and December 1, 1943, Stalin took part in the so-called Tehran Conference. The chief discussion of the meeting, held by the US President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Stalin, centered on the opening of a “second front” in Western Europe. <br />
<br />
Stalin agreed to conduct an eastern offensive operations to coincide with the forthcoming Western Front, and in return he asked the western leaders to proceed with formal preparations for their long-promised invasion and regaining of German-occupied France. Stalin also insisted on retaining the territories provided by the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 1939 and additionally requested the Baltic coast of East Prussia as a compensation for the USSR’s enormous role and great number of casualties. <ref>Teheran Conference - http://www.britannica.com/event/Tehran-Conference</ref> <br />
In implementation of the Tehran Conference decision, in May 1944 joint Britain and US troops launched an invasion of France, opening the so-called “second front” in the West. Their actions allowed the Soviet Union to make significant advances across Eastern Europe toward Germany. The end of the war was near and it was time for another meeting of the Allies.<br />
|<br />
Yalta Conference took place in February, 1945. This was the second wartime meeting of the “Big Three” the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and US President Franklin Roosevelt). Each brought his own agenda to the Yalta Conference. The British wanted to maintain their empire, the Soviets wished to secure and obtain more land and secure positions in their new zones of influence and interests, and the US wanted to insure the Soviet’s entry into the Pacific war and discuss postwar settlement. From the very opening, Stalin made it clear that his demands regarding Poland were not negotiable: the Soviets were to gain “their territory” from the eastern portion of Poland and Poland was to compensate for that by extending its Western boarders, thereby forcing out millions of Germans. Negotiators even signed a declaration forcing the Polish to provide inclusion of Soviet Communists in their postwar national government. <br />
<br />
Moreover, Roosevelt main goal was to obtain a commitment from Stalin to participate in the United Nations in order to secure future peace and alliance. As for the other Eastern European countries, the Americans and the British generally agreed that the future governments of the nations bordering the Soviet Union should be “friendly” to the Soviet regime as long as the Soviets pledged to allow free elections in all territories liberated from Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, neither Poland, nor any other Eastern European country had the opportunity of holding free elections for the next almost 50 years. <br />
<br />
<ref>Yalta Conference - http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/yalta-conference</ref> <br />
Furthermore, the Big Three agreed to require Germany’s unconditional surrender and ratified their agreements regarding NAZI Germany postwar division: there were to be four zones of occupation, one zone for each of the three dominant nations plus one zone for France. Berlin itself, although within the Soviet zone, would also be divided into four sectors, and would eventually become a major symbol of the Cold War socialists-capitalists separation due to the infamous Berlin Wall, which was constructed and maintained by the Soviets.<br />
<br />
The Soviets led by Stalin were keen on regaining lost territories and Yalta Conference was their best chance to do that. As a result Stalin even agreed to enter the Pacific war against Japan in exchange for more territories granted, including portions of Sakhalin, Port Arthur, Manchurian railroads and the Kurile Islands. However, already in poor health, President Roosevelt failed to acknowledge Stalin’s true objectives. Roosevelt readily met Stalin’s conditions, since the Soviets eventually agreed to join the United Nations and Pacific war. The two leaders even secretly negotiated a voting formula with a veto power granted solely to the permanent members in the UN Security Council, providing themselves with more control in the world affairs and greatly weakening the UN power in the oncoming disputes. <br />
Overall, Roosevelt and the other Allies felt confident that Yalta had been successful. Nevertheless, the true Conference winner was once again Joseph Stalin. <br />
<br />
==Post war doctrines, conference reactions and consequences== <br />
<br />
Although, the initial reaction to the Yalta agreements was celebratory, it was also very short lived. In 1945, the administration of the new US president Harry Truman clashed with the Soviets over their influence in Eastern Europe, and over the United Nations. Many Americans began to criticize Roosevelt’s handling of the Yalta negotiations due to the following lack of Soviet cooperation and even giving Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia away to the Soviet Union. Numerous Central European nations also often regard the Conference in Yalta as the “Great Western betrayal” since it allowed the USSR to intervene freely in their domestic affairs, abandoning democratic policies and turning them into Soviet satellites, effectively introducing Communist regimes with impunity. At the Yalta conference, the Big Three “attempted to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability”, and many believe the decisions and concessions of Roosevelt and Churchill during the summit led to the following power struggle during the Cold War. Nevertheless, Stalin essentially got everything he wanted: a significant territorial sphere of influence and interest as a buffer zone.<br />
<br />
The German invasion in the USSR and pressing back to victory in the East required a tremendous sacrifice by the Soviet Union. And Stalin skillfully used that during the wartime conferences in pursue of his postwar Soviet empire expansion. Soviet military casualties totaled approximately 35 million with over 15 million killed, missing or captured. One in four Soviets was killed or wounded. More than 1 700 towns and 70 000 villages were destroyed and the Soviet civilian death toll reached over 25 million. Thereafter, Stalin was often referred to as one of the most influential men in human history. Although, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 20 million people during his brutal rule, he was even nominated for Nobel Peace Prize twice – in 1945 and 1948. He continued to prosecute a reign of terror, purges, executions, exiles to labor camps and persecution in the postwar USSR, suppressing all dissent and anything that represented foreign–especially Western–influence. Stalin established communist-satellite governments throughout Eastern and Central Europe.<br />
However, despite all, Soviet dictator’s iron will and deft political skills let Stalin play the loyal ally while never abandoning his true vision of an expanded postwar Soviet empire.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Why_has_the_French_Civil_Code_had_a_lasting_influence_on_contemporary_European_law&diff=1087Why has the French Civil Code had a lasting influence on contemporary European law2016-03-15T17:52:18Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>The French Civil Code<ref>Commonly also referred to as Napoleonic code</ref> was enacted on March 21, 1804. The Code represents a comprehensive reformation and codification of the French civil law and was considered by Napoleon himself to be one of his most significant achievements. Nowadays it remains a strong legal, sociological and cultural landmark for the French nation. And in spite of some revisions that were introduced later, the Napoleonic code is still very applicable in the French Republic and Law today. The Code played a significant role mainly in the formation of the 19th century civil codes in most countries of continental Europe and Latin America. Today many European legal systems are established upon its basis and strong influence. The Civil Code has turned into a truly modern instrument successfully applied for over 200 years despite the vast social transformations in the French society. Its long-lasting effect is closely connected to the very history of its creation.<br />
[[File:640px-Speyer_%28DerHexer%29_2010-12-19_051.jpg|thumbnail|Napoleonic Civil Code]]<br />
==Origins of the Civil Code and forces behind codification==<br />
<br />
The main instigator for the promulgation of the Civil Code was Napoleon Bonaparte, the first Consul of France. However, the demand for codification and clarification itself precede the Napoleonic era. Diversity of laws was the dominant characteristic of the pre-revolutionary legal order. Roman law governed in the south of France, whereas in the northern provinces<ref>including Paris</ref> a customary law had developed and dominated, based largely on feudal Frankish and Germanic institutions. Marriage and family were entirely under the control of the Roman Catholic Church and its cannon law. In addition, a wide range of matters were governed by royal decrees and ordinances as well as by case law. The society itself was used to legislative diversity and the king's authority appeared as the only factor of unity. In contrast to the French people the Revolution was not so tolerant of this co-existing diversity. Instead, it promoted the great principle of Equality between all citizens, according to which all laws should apply similarly to everyone across the French territory.<ref>Origins and impact of the French Civil Code - http://moj.gov.vn/en/ct/Lists/TalkingLaws/View_Detail.aspx?ItemID=95</ref> The idea of legal unification naturally transformed into legal codification: it became not only possible but almost necessary. The Napoleonic code, therefore, was founded on the premise that, for the first time in history, a purely rational law should be created, which justification was to be found in its conformity to the dictates of reason.<br />
<br />
The first actual steps in the drafting of the Code were taken by a special commission, headed by Jean-Jacques-Regis and established by the National Convention in 1793. Within six weeks the commission prepared a draft code, lately rejected by the convention on the grounds that it was too technical and detailed to be easily understood by all citizens. In the following years more commissions were established but none of their draft codes were actually accepted. Finally, in 1801, the consulate, with Napoleon Bonaparte as first consul, resumed the legislative work and nominated a new commission.<ref>Code Napoléon - http://www.britannica.com/topic/Napoleonic-Code</ref> A final draft in the form of 36 statutes was submitted between 1801 and 1803. On March 21 1804 those statutes were consolidated in a single body of law – the Code Civil des Francais. Due to political reasons its title was changed several times and in 1807 it became Code Napoléon. However, since 1870, statutes have referred to it simply as the “civil code”.<br />
<br />
==Contents of the Napoleonic Code==<br />
<br />
The creation process of the Civil Code was inspired by Justinian's sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Iuris Civilis. The Napoleonic Code, however, differed from Justinian's in important ways: it incorporated all kinds of earlier rules, not only legislation. It was a comprehensive rewrite with a more rational structure and no religious content. The development of the Napoleonic Code was a fundamental change in the nature of the civil law system, making laws clearer and more accessible. It also superseded the former conflict between the royal legislative power and the views of the judges, thus having no case law in France. However, the decisions made by some important courts have become more or less close equivalent to case law itself. <br />
<br />
The principles incorporated in the Napoleonic Code were written in 3 main books containing more than 25 Titles and over 100 Chapters. Under the code all male citizens are equal; all class privileges are extinguished. Freedom of person, freedom of contract and inviolability of private property are fundamental principles.<ref>Napoleon Series - Government & Politics: The Civil Code - http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/c_code.html</ref> The preliminary article of the Code established certain important provisions regarding the rule of law, that is - Laws could be applied only if they had been duly promulgated, and then only if they had been published officially. Thus, no secret laws were and could be authorized any longer. The Code also prohibited ex post facto laws (laws that apply to events that occurred before their own introduction). Furthermore, on one hand, judges were prohibited from refusing justice on the grounds of insufficiency of the law, thereby encouraging them to interpret the law. On the other hand, the Napoleonic Code also prohibited judges from passing general judgements of a legislative value. <br />
<br />
The first book of the Code deals with the law of persons: the enjoyment of civil rights, the protection of personality, guardianship, relations of parents and children, marriage, personal relations of spouses, and the dissolution of marriage be annulment or divorce. The code subordinated women to their fathers and husbands, who controlled all family property, determined the fate of children and were favoured in divorce proceedings. The second book deals with the law of things: the regulation of property rights – ownership, usufruct and servitudes. The third book deals with the methods of acquiring rights: by succession, donation, marriage settlement and obligations. In the last chapters, the code regulates a number of nominate contracts, legal and conventional mortgages, limitations of actions and prescriptions of rights. <br />
<br />
==The Code’s spread across the world==<br />
<br />
During the 19th century the Code was voluntary adopted in a number of European and Latin American countries, either in the form of simple translation or with considerable modifications. It was adopted in many countries occupied by the French during the Napoleonic Wars, and thus formed the basis of the private law systems of Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal (and their former colonies), and Poland. The Italian Civil Code of 1865, enacted after the unification of Italy, had a close but indirect relation to the Napoleonic Code. Germany incorporated the Code with only a few revisions. In the early 19th century the code was introduced to Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and it is still in force there. Bolivia and Chile followed closely the arrangement of the code and borrowed much of its substance. The Chilean code was in turn copied by Ecuador and Columbia, followed by Uruguay and Argentina. <br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that in the United States, whose legal system is largely based on English common law, the state of Louisiana is unique in having a strong influence by the Napoleonic Code. For example there are significant differences in the bar exam and the legal standards of practice for attorneys between Louisiana and the other states. <ref>Louisiana's Napoleon Complex: The French influence on Pelican state jurisprudence -<br />
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/09/louisianas_napoleon_complex.html</ref><br />
<br />
The influence of the Napoleonic Code has diminished at the turn of the century by the introduction of the German Civil Code and the Swiss Civil Code. However, more than two centuries after its promulgation, the Napoleonic Code is still living law in a great number of countries across the world. Considered to be the first successful universal codification since Justinian, it has influenced the civil law systems of modern continental European countries. Even today the French Civil Code of 1804 has not been significantly changed and in many ways it is the most enduring legacy of the French Revolution.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:French History]] [[Category:Legal History]][[Category:European History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=File:640px-Speyer_(DerHexer)_2010-12-19_051.jpg&diff=1086File:640px-Speyer (DerHexer) 2010-12-19 051.jpg2016-03-15T17:50:56Z<p>IncantoX: The Napoleonic
Code By DerHexer, Wikimedia Commons, CC-by-sa 4.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16119941</p>
<hr />
<div>The Napoleonic <br />
Code By DerHexer, Wikimedia Commons, CC-by-sa 4.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16119941</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Why_has_the_French_Civil_Code_had_a_lasting_influence_on_contemporary_European_law&diff=1085Why has the French Civil Code had a lasting influence on contemporary European law2016-03-15T17:45:11Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "The French Civil Code<ref>Commonly also referred to as Napoleonic code</ref> was enacted on March 21, 1804. The Code represents a comprehensive reformation and codification of..."</p>
<hr />
<div>The French Civil Code<ref>Commonly also referred to as Napoleonic code</ref> was enacted on March 21, 1804. The Code represents a comprehensive reformation and codification of the French civil law and was considered by Napoleon himself to be one of his most significant achievements. Nowadays it remains a strong legal, sociological and cultural landmark for the French nation. And in spite of some revisions that were introduced later, the Napoleonic code is still very applicable in the French Republic and Law today. The Code played a significant role mainly in the formation of the 19th century civil codes in most countries of continental Europe and Latin America. Today many European legal systems are established upon its basis and strong influence. The Civil Code has turned into a truly modern instrument successfully applied for over 200 years despite the vast social transformations in the French society. Its long-lasting effect is closely connected to the very history of its creation.<br />
<br />
==Origins of the Civil Code and forces behind codification==<br />
<br />
The main instigator for the promulgation of the Civil Code was Napoleon Bonaparte, the first Consul of France. However, the demand for codification and clarification itself precede the Napoleonic era. Diversity of laws was the dominant characteristic of the pre-revolutionary legal order. Roman law governed in the south of France, whereas in the northern provinces<ref>including Paris</ref> a customary law had developed and dominated, based largely on feudal Frankish and Germanic institutions. Marriage and family were entirely under the control of the Roman Catholic Church and its cannon law. In addition, a wide range of matters were governed by royal decrees and ordinances as well as by case law. The society itself was used to legislative diversity and the king's authority appeared as the only factor of unity. In contrast to the French people the Revolution was not so tolerant of this co-existing diversity. Instead, it promoted the great principle of Equality between all citizens, according to which all laws should apply similarly to everyone across the French territory.<ref>Origins and impact of the French Civil Code - http://moj.gov.vn/en/ct/Lists/TalkingLaws/View_Detail.aspx?ItemID=95</ref> The idea of legal unification naturally transformed into legal codification: it became not only possible but almost necessary. The Napoleonic code, therefore, was founded on the premise that, for the first time in history, a purely rational law should be created, which justification was to be found in its conformity to the dictates of reason.<br />
<br />
The first actual steps in the drafting of the Code were taken by a special commission, headed by Jean-Jacques-Regis and established by the National Convention in 1793. Within six weeks the commission prepared a draft code, lately rejected by the convention on the grounds that it was too technical and detailed to be easily understood by all citizens. In the following years more commissions were established but none of their draft codes were actually accepted. Finally, in 1801, the consulate, with Napoleon Bonaparte as first consul, resumed the legislative work and nominated a new commission.<ref>Code Napoléon - http://www.britannica.com/topic/Napoleonic-Code</ref> A final draft in the form of 36 statutes was submitted between 1801 and 1803. On March 21 1804 those statutes were consolidated in a single body of law – the Code Civil des Francais. Due to political reasons its title was changed several times and in 1807 it became Code Napoléon. However, since 1870, statutes have referred to it simply as the “civil code”.<br />
<br />
==Contents of the Napoleonic Code==<br />
<br />
The creation process of the Civil Code was inspired by Justinian's sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Iuris Civilis. The Napoleonic Code, however, differed from Justinian's in important ways: it incorporated all kinds of earlier rules, not only legislation. It was a comprehensive rewrite with a more rational structure and no religious content. The development of the Napoleonic Code was a fundamental change in the nature of the civil law system, making laws clearer and more accessible. It also superseded the former conflict between the royal legislative power and the views of the judges, thus having no case law in France. However, the decisions made by some important courts have become more or less close equivalent to case law itself. <br />
<br />
The principles incorporated in the Napoleonic Code were written in 3 main books containing more than 25 Titles and over 100 Chapters. Under the code all male citizens are equal; all class privileges are extinguished. Freedom of person, freedom of contract and inviolability of private property are fundamental principles.<ref>Napoleon Series - Government & Politics: The Civil Code - http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/c_code.html</ref> The preliminary article of the Code established certain important provisions regarding the rule of law, that is - Laws could be applied only if they had been duly promulgated, and then only if they had been published officially. Thus, no secret laws were and could be authorized any longer. The Code also prohibited ex post facto laws (laws that apply to events that occurred before their own introduction). Furthermore, on one hand, judges were prohibited from refusing justice on the grounds of insufficiency of the law, thereby encouraging them to interpret the law. On the other hand, the Napoleonic Code also prohibited judges from passing general judgements of a legislative value. <br />
<br />
The first book of the Code deals with the law of persons: the enjoyment of civil rights, the protection of personality, guardianship, relations of parents and children, marriage, personal relations of spouses, and the dissolution of marriage be annulment or divorce. The code subordinated women to their fathers and husbands, who controlled all family property, determined the fate of children and were favoured in divorce proceedings. The second book deals with the law of things: the regulation of property rights – ownership, usufruct and servitudes. The third book deals with the methods of acquiring rights: by succession, donation, marriage settlement and obligations. In the last chapters, the code regulates a number of nominate contracts, legal and conventional mortgages, limitations of actions and prescriptions of rights. <br />
<br />
==The Code’s spread across the world==<br />
<br />
During the 19th century the Code was voluntary adopted in a number of European and Latin American countries, either in the form of simple translation or with considerable modifications. It was adopted in many countries occupied by the French during the Napoleonic Wars, and thus formed the basis of the private law systems of Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal (and their former colonies), and Poland. The Italian Civil Code of 1865, enacted after the unification of Italy, had a close but indirect relation to the Napoleonic Code. Germany incorporated the Code with only a few revisions. In the early 19th century the code was introduced to Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and it is still in force there. Bolivia and Chile followed closely the arrangement of the code and borrowed much of its substance. The Chilean code was in turn copied by Ecuador and Columbia, followed by Uruguay and Argentina. <br />
<br />
An interesting fact is that in the United States, whose legal system is largely based on English common law, the state of Louisiana is unique in having a strong influence by the Napoleonic Code. For example there are significant differences in the bar exam and the legal standards of practice for attorneys between Louisiana and the other states. <ref>Louisiana's Napoleon Complex: The French influence on Pelican state jurisprudence -<br />
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/09/louisianas_napoleon_complex.html</ref><br />
<br />
The influence of the Napoleonic Code has diminished at the turn of the century by the introduction of the German Civil Code and the Swiss Civil Code. However, more than two centuries after its promulgation, the Napoleonic Code is still living law in a great number of countries across the world. Considered to be the first successful universal codification since Justinian, it has influenced the civil law systems of modern continental European countries. Even today the French Civil Code of 1804 has not been significantly changed and in many ways it is the most enduring legacy of the French Revolution.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:French History]] [[Category:Legal History]][[Category:European History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_does_The_Magna_Carta_influence_the_Modern_Perceptions_of_Civil_Rights&diff=990How does The Magna Carta influence the Modern Perceptions of Civil Rights2016-03-11T03:30:35Z<p>IncantoX: /* Influences of Magna Carta throughout oncoming centuries */</p>
<hr />
<div>Magna Carta<ref>Literally translated as “The Great Paper”</ref>, also called Magna Carta Libertatum<ref>Or also referred to as “Great Charter of Freedoms”)</ref> is an English charter, originally issued in 1215. The year of its signing represents a key landmark in Britain’s constitutional history. This is also the starting point of a long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. The document established and codified many of the principles that still govern modern western constitutional thought. Magna Carta has directly influenced many common law fundamental documents, such as the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights to name just a few, and thus it is considered and recognized to be one of the most important documents in the history of democracy itself, as well as civil rights and obligations and common law in general.<br />
<br />
==The Initial Reasons Behind Magna Carta==<br />
Originally, Magna Carta was created because of the broad disagreements between Pope Innocent III, the English king John and his barons specifically addressing the very rights of the monarch. <ref>Causes and effects of the Magna Carta: http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-105_t-279_c-929/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/nsw/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/introduction-to-democracy/democratic-development</ref> King John was not the most popular and likable ruler due to a number of reasons. First of all, he was a failure on the battlefield and he was forced to give up English territories to France as result of his loses. Furthermore, several of the areas he lost previously had contributed a large chunk of the crown’s income. This, along with ongoing expensive battles with France, forced King John to demand much higher and higher taxes from his people. The English barons broadly disagreed with King John’s politics. They refused to pay the requested higher taxes as compensation and claimed that the king himself violated the custom of consulting them first by not only raising taxes on his own, but also - establishing and introducing new ones. King John further alienated his barons when violated traditional customs and ignored the Pope’s wish when he appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury. This created a significant dispute with the Church and King John eventually was forced to pay the Pope an annual rent after he handed the country over to Pope. His barons were outraged because their land was now officially owned by the Church which limited their . <br />
<br />
==Decline of King John and 1215 civil war==<br />
Due to his harsh and unpredictable rule, John gradually lost support of his two most powerful backing groups of people in England – the barons and the Catholic bishops. Their calls for a political reforms were rejected many times by the king and as tensions grew thus led to a civil war in the spring of 1215. King John did not take seriously barons’ actions until the rebels reached and entered the city of London. Then it was time for negotiations which ended with signing of a document<ref>Initially this document was called “Articles of the Barons”</ref>, containing a list of demands by the rebels.<ref>Magna Carta: A turning point in English history or When the king became a sitting duck: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/magna-carta-turning-point-english-history</ref> An official version of this very document was released soon afterwords with the name “Magna Carta”. In return for King John’s signature and the reached agreement, the barons themselves acknowledged the authority of the king, renewed their pledge of allegiance to him and ended their hostilities, opposition and resistance to his rule.<br />
<br />
==The essence of original Magna Carta==<br />
The Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. Once signed by the king, it automatically became a list of promises that he recognized and agreed upon to keep. The principles enshrined in the Charter are numerous. In essence, the king was required to proclaim certain liberties and accept that he could not rule in arbitrary and/or unpredictable way:<ref>The Magna Carta, nearly 800 years old, still influences modern perceptions of civil rights: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-26/magna-carta-nearly-800-years-old-still-influences-modern-perceptions-civil-rights</ref><br />
#The king was subject to the law and he could then be punished by seizure of his lands and castles;<br />
#Everyone was subject to the law;<br />
#No free man could be punished except through the law of the land or the lawful judgement of his peers; <br />
#All judges, constables, sheriffs and bailiffs had to actually have knowledge of the law;<br />
#Justice could not be sold, denied or delayed;<br />
#Taxes could only be levied and assessed with the consent of the governed.<br />
<br />
Further clauses in Magna Carta confirmed the “ancient liberties” of the City of London and the freedom and independence of the Church of England, others - clarified inheritance and use of the forests and fishing rights. An interesting fact is that three of these clauses remain in force in current UK law and can be found in the current UK Statute Law Database. These clauses guarantee the freedom the Church, the right to a due process and the “ancient liberties” of London.<ref>Magna Carta - Rights still in force today: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magna_Carta</ref><br />
<br />
==Influences of Magna Carta throughout oncoming centuries==<br />
Magna Carta has made a long journey through time, spreading over the globe by virtue of its implications and legacy. More than 800 years later its simply laid out ideas of freedom and justice have become integral and inseparable part of the very genetic structure of the mankind. <ref>Magna Carta Today - To no one deny or delay right or justice: http://magnacarta800th.com/magna-carta-today/</ref> For about a century after it was initially signed, the king and the nobles tussled over the provisions of the Magna Carta, and it was periodically revised, altered, enriched and updated. For instance, it was the 1225 version – much shorter than the original one – that was confirmed officially by the new King Edward I and found its way and expression through the first directly elected Parliament in 1264 and the first Statute Roll in 1297. The spirit of Magna Carta evoked during the famous Putney debates of 1647. <br />
<br />
Later, with Charles II restoration, Magna Carta acted as a solid base and helped to codify the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus<ref>Latin for “you [shall] have the body”, it is a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. In modern US Law it is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official. A writ of habeas corpus, is known as the “the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement”, being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm</ref> passed by Parliament in 1679. Along with that most of the 1297 statute was repealed by Parliament at various times between 1828 and 1969.<ref>Magna Carta in the modern age: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-modern-age</ref><br />
<br />
==Magna Carta vital importance in modern law cases==<br />
However, Magna Carta is not just one of the oldest statutes of law. When England's barons clipped the wings of their tyrannical King John at the time, they eventually established principles that still influence British justice even some 800 years on. And it was no other but those very same ideas, enshrined in the Charter, which formed its essential legacy, a legacy first for England, and ultimately for the United Kingdom and the former British colonies or territories heavily under Brit’s influence as a whole.<br />
<br />
Magna Carta is, as the United Kingdom Supreme Court noted in January 2014, a constitutional instrument – standing alongside the Petition of Rights in 1628, the Bill of Rights in 1689, the Act of settlement in 1701 and the Act of Union in 1707. It was arguable, said the court, that fundamental principles contained in such constitutional instruments were not abrogated by the European Communities Act, which requires courts in the United Kingdom to follow European law. That is one of the main reasons Magna Carta is still to be cited in UK courts even today.<br />
<br />
Ideas of freedom and democracy, the rule of law to which all are subject are such milestone features of Magna Carta, spread via France to the rebellious colonies of the New World. Thomas Jefferson not only paid tribute to the Levellers of the famous Putney Dabates as an inspiration for the revolution, but used the breaches of the Magna Carta by yet another king, as retrospective justification for creating a brand new country in 1776 – the United States of America. <br />
<br />
Amendments of the Constitution of the US, concerning the primacy of the law above the head of state, trace their lineage to the death of the Divine Right of Kings by the first document in English history to limit the power of the monarch – again the Magna Carta itself. In 1947 the principles of Magna Carta enshrined within the constitution of the world's largest democracy – India, former British colony and part of the Empire. With its population of over 1.2 billion people India is a powerful guarantor of the Charter's principles.<br />
Only a year later, after the end of the World War II – the horrific evidence of what happens when freedom, democracy and the rule of law are swept aside by force, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. And although it still represents a work in progress for many, Article 6 of the very European Convention of Human Rights also echoes Magna Carta. <br />
<br />
To the present day Magna Carta is evoked and cited whenever basic freedoms come under threat. As an idea of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, it is lapping against the shores of despotism. The principles set out in Magna Carta have driven even such powerful historical events as the Arab Spring and the ever-ongoing protests against despotism and absolute power around the world. <br />
<br />
These basic and key principles, together with the power of social networking and the Internet to spread and back them up will undoubtedly continue to have huge influence wherever freedom is under attack. The freedom of speech, the Internet and instant worldwide personal communication and real-time social interactions are emblematic of the fluttering pennants of the twenty-five barons who waited impatiently for their despotic king to round the last bend in the river on a summer's day in 1215.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:British History]] [[Category:English History]][[Category:Legal History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_does_The_Magna_Carta_influence_the_Modern_Perceptions_of_Civil_Rights&diff=989How does The Magna Carta influence the Modern Perceptions of Civil Rights2016-03-11T03:29:59Z<p>IncantoX: /* The essence of original Magna Carta */</p>
<hr />
<div>Magna Carta<ref>Literally translated as “The Great Paper”</ref>, also called Magna Carta Libertatum<ref>Or also referred to as “Great Charter of Freedoms”)</ref> is an English charter, originally issued in 1215. The year of its signing represents a key landmark in Britain’s constitutional history. This is also the starting point of a long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. The document established and codified many of the principles that still govern modern western constitutional thought. Magna Carta has directly influenced many common law fundamental documents, such as the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights to name just a few, and thus it is considered and recognized to be one of the most important documents in the history of democracy itself, as well as civil rights and obligations and common law in general.<br />
<br />
==The Initial Reasons Behind Magna Carta==<br />
Originally, Magna Carta was created because of the broad disagreements between Pope Innocent III, the English king John and his barons specifically addressing the very rights of the monarch. <ref>Causes and effects of the Magna Carta: http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-105_t-279_c-929/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/nsw/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/introduction-to-democracy/democratic-development</ref> King John was not the most popular and likable ruler due to a number of reasons. First of all, he was a failure on the battlefield and he was forced to give up English territories to France as result of his loses. Furthermore, several of the areas he lost previously had contributed a large chunk of the crown’s income. This, along with ongoing expensive battles with France, forced King John to demand much higher and higher taxes from his people. The English barons broadly disagreed with King John’s politics. They refused to pay the requested higher taxes as compensation and claimed that the king himself violated the custom of consulting them first by not only raising taxes on his own, but also - establishing and introducing new ones. King John further alienated his barons when violated traditional customs and ignored the Pope’s wish when he appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury. This created a significant dispute with the Church and King John eventually was forced to pay the Pope an annual rent after he handed the country over to Pope. His barons were outraged because their land was now officially owned by the Church which limited their . <br />
<br />
==Decline of King John and 1215 civil war==<br />
Due to his harsh and unpredictable rule, John gradually lost support of his two most powerful backing groups of people in England – the barons and the Catholic bishops. Their calls for a political reforms were rejected many times by the king and as tensions grew thus led to a civil war in the spring of 1215. King John did not take seriously barons’ actions until the rebels reached and entered the city of London. Then it was time for negotiations which ended with signing of a document<ref>Initially this document was called “Articles of the Barons”</ref>, containing a list of demands by the rebels.<ref>Magna Carta: A turning point in English history or When the king became a sitting duck: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/magna-carta-turning-point-english-history</ref> An official version of this very document was released soon afterwords with the name “Magna Carta”. In return for King John’s signature and the reached agreement, the barons themselves acknowledged the authority of the king, renewed their pledge of allegiance to him and ended their hostilities, opposition and resistance to his rule.<br />
<br />
==The essence of original Magna Carta==<br />
The Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. Once signed by the king, it automatically became a list of promises that he recognized and agreed upon to keep. The principles enshrined in the Charter are numerous. In essence, the king was required to proclaim certain liberties and accept that he could not rule in arbitrary and/or unpredictable way:<ref>The Magna Carta, nearly 800 years old, still influences modern perceptions of civil rights: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-26/magna-carta-nearly-800-years-old-still-influences-modern-perceptions-civil-rights</ref><br />
#The king was subject to the law and he could then be punished by seizure of his lands and castles;<br />
#Everyone was subject to the law;<br />
#No free man could be punished except through the law of the land or the lawful judgement of his peers; <br />
#All judges, constables, sheriffs and bailiffs had to actually have knowledge of the law;<br />
#Justice could not be sold, denied or delayed;<br />
#Taxes could only be levied and assessed with the consent of the governed.<br />
<br />
Further clauses in Magna Carta confirmed the “ancient liberties” of the City of London and the freedom and independence of the Church of England, others - clarified inheritance and use of the forests and fishing rights. An interesting fact is that three of these clauses remain in force in current UK law and can be found in the current UK Statute Law Database. These clauses guarantee the freedom the Church, the right to a due process and the “ancient liberties” of London.<ref>Magna Carta - Rights still in force today: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magna_Carta</ref><br />
<br />
==Influences of Magna Carta throughout oncoming centuries==<br />
Magna Carta has made a long journey through time, spreading over the globe by virtue of its implications and legacy. More than 800 years later its simply laid out ideas of freedom and justice have become integral and inseparable part of the very genetic structure of the mankind. <ref>Magna Carta Today - To no one deny or delay right or justice: http://magnacarta800th.com/magna-carta-today/</ref>For about a century after it was initially signed, the king and the nobles tussled over the provisions of the Magna Carta, and it was periodically revised, altered, enriched and updated. For instance, it was the 1225 version – much shorter than the original one – that was confirmed officially by the new King Edward I and found its way and expression through the first directly elected Parliament in 1264 and the first Statute Roll in 1297. The spirit of Magna Carta evoked during the famous Putney debates of 1647. <br />
<br />
Later, with Charles II restoration, Magna Carta acted as a solid base and helped to codify the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus<ref>Latin for “you [shall] have the body”, it is a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. In modern US Law it is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official. A writ of habeas corpus, is known as the “the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement”, being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm</ref> passed by Parliament in 1679. Along with that most of the 1297 statute was repealed by Parliament at various times between 1828 and 1969.<ref>Magna Carta in the modern age: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-modern-age</ref> <br />
<br />
==Magna Carta vital importance in modern law cases==<br />
However, Magna Carta is not just one of the oldest statutes of law. When England's barons clipped the wings of their tyrannical King John at the time, they eventually established principles that still influence British justice even some 800 years on. And it was no other but those very same ideas, enshrined in the Charter, which formed its essential legacy, a legacy first for England, and ultimately for the United Kingdom and the former British colonies or territories heavily under Brit’s influence as a whole.<br />
<br />
Magna Carta is, as the United Kingdom Supreme Court noted in January 2014, a constitutional instrument – standing alongside the Petition of Rights in 1628, the Bill of Rights in 1689, the Act of settlement in 1701 and the Act of Union in 1707. It was arguable, said the court, that fundamental principles contained in such constitutional instruments were not abrogated by the European Communities Act, which requires courts in the United Kingdom to follow European law. That is one of the main reasons Magna Carta is still to be cited in UK courts even today.<br />
<br />
Ideas of freedom and democracy, the rule of law to which all are subject are such milestone features of Magna Carta, spread via France to the rebellious colonies of the New World. Thomas Jefferson not only paid tribute to the Levellers of the famous Putney Dabates as an inspiration for the revolution, but used the breaches of the Magna Carta by yet another king, as retrospective justification for creating a brand new country in 1776 – the United States of America. <br />
<br />
Amendments of the Constitution of the US, concerning the primacy of the law above the head of state, trace their lineage to the death of the Divine Right of Kings by the first document in English history to limit the power of the monarch – again the Magna Carta itself. In 1947 the principles of Magna Carta enshrined within the constitution of the world's largest democracy – India, former British colony and part of the Empire. With its population of over 1.2 billion people India is a powerful guarantor of the Charter's principles.<br />
Only a year later, after the end of the World War II – the horrific evidence of what happens when freedom, democracy and the rule of law are swept aside by force, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. And although it still represents a work in progress for many, Article 6 of the very European Convention of Human Rights also echoes Magna Carta. <br />
<br />
To the present day Magna Carta is evoked and cited whenever basic freedoms come under threat. As an idea of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, it is lapping against the shores of despotism. The principles set out in Magna Carta have driven even such powerful historical events as the Arab Spring and the ever-ongoing protests against despotism and absolute power around the world. <br />
<br />
These basic and key principles, together with the power of social networking and the Internet to spread and back them up will undoubtedly continue to have huge influence wherever freedom is under attack. The freedom of speech, the Internet and instant worldwide personal communication and real-time social interactions are emblematic of the fluttering pennants of the twenty-five barons who waited impatiently for their despotic king to round the last bend in the river on a summer's day in 1215.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:British History]] [[Category:English History]][[Category:Legal History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_does_The_Magna_Carta_influence_the_Modern_Perceptions_of_Civil_Rights&diff=988How does The Magna Carta influence the Modern Perceptions of Civil Rights2016-03-11T03:29:44Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Magna Carta<ref>Literally translated as “The Great Paper”</ref>, also called Magna Carta Libertatum<ref>Or also referred to as “Great Charter of Freedoms”)</ref> is an English charter, originally issued in 1215. The year of its signing represents a key landmark in Britain’s constitutional history. This is also the starting point of a long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. The document established and codified many of the principles that still govern modern western constitutional thought. Magna Carta has directly influenced many common law fundamental documents, such as the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights to name just a few, and thus it is considered and recognized to be one of the most important documents in the history of democracy itself, as well as civil rights and obligations and common law in general.<br />
<br />
==The Initial Reasons Behind Magna Carta==<br />
Originally, Magna Carta was created because of the broad disagreements between Pope Innocent III, the English king John and his barons specifically addressing the very rights of the monarch. <ref>Causes and effects of the Magna Carta: http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-105_t-279_c-929/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/nsw/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/introduction-to-democracy/democratic-development</ref> King John was not the most popular and likable ruler due to a number of reasons. First of all, he was a failure on the battlefield and he was forced to give up English territories to France as result of his loses. Furthermore, several of the areas he lost previously had contributed a large chunk of the crown’s income. This, along with ongoing expensive battles with France, forced King John to demand much higher and higher taxes from his people. The English barons broadly disagreed with King John’s politics. They refused to pay the requested higher taxes as compensation and claimed that the king himself violated the custom of consulting them first by not only raising taxes on his own, but also - establishing and introducing new ones. King John further alienated his barons when violated traditional customs and ignored the Pope’s wish when he appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury. This created a significant dispute with the Church and King John eventually was forced to pay the Pope an annual rent after he handed the country over to Pope. His barons were outraged because their land was now officially owned by the Church which limited their . <br />
<br />
==Decline of King John and 1215 civil war==<br />
Due to his harsh and unpredictable rule, John gradually lost support of his two most powerful backing groups of people in England – the barons and the Catholic bishops. Their calls for a political reforms were rejected many times by the king and as tensions grew thus led to a civil war in the spring of 1215. King John did not take seriously barons’ actions until the rebels reached and entered the city of London. Then it was time for negotiations which ended with signing of a document<ref>Initially this document was called “Articles of the Barons”</ref>, containing a list of demands by the rebels.<ref>Magna Carta: A turning point in English history or When the king became a sitting duck: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/magna-carta-turning-point-english-history</ref> An official version of this very document was released soon afterwords with the name “Magna Carta”. In return for King John’s signature and the reached agreement, the barons themselves acknowledged the authority of the king, renewed their pledge of allegiance to him and ended their hostilities, opposition and resistance to his rule.<br />
<br />
==The essence of original Magna Carta==<br />
The Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. Once signed by the king, it automatically became a list of promises that he recognized and agreed upon to keep. The principles enshrined in the Charter are numerous. In essence, the king was required to proclaim certain liberties and accept that he could not rule in arbitrary and/or unpredictable way:<ref>The Magna Carta, nearly 800 years old, still influences modern perceptions of civil rights: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-26/magna-carta-nearly-800-years-old-still-influences-modern-perceptions-civil-rights</ref><br />
#The king was subject to the law and he could then be punished by seizure of his lands and castles;<br />
#Everyone was subject to the law;<br />
#No free man could be punished except through the law of the land or the lawful judgement of his peers; <br />
#All judges, constables, sheriffs and bailiffs had to actually have knowledge of the law;<br />
#Justice could not be sold, denied or delayed;<br />
-#Taxes could only be levied and assessed with the consent of the governed.<br />
<br />
Further clauses in Magna Carta confirmed the “ancient liberties” of the City of London and the freedom and independence of the Church of England, others - clarified inheritance and use of the forests and fishing rights. An interesting fact is that three of these clauses remain in force in current UK law and can be found in the current UK Statute Law Database. These clauses guarantee the freedom the Church, the right to a due process and the “ancient liberties” of London.<ref>Magna Carta - Rights still in force today: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magna_Carta</ref><br />
<br />
==Influences of Magna Carta throughout oncoming centuries==<br />
Magna Carta has made a long journey through time, spreading over the globe by virtue of its implications and legacy. More than 800 years later its simply laid out ideas of freedom and justice have become integral and inseparable part of the very genetic structure of the mankind. <ref>Magna Carta Today - To no one deny or delay right or justice: http://magnacarta800th.com/magna-carta-today/</ref>For about a century after it was initially signed, the king and the nobles tussled over the provisions of the Magna Carta, and it was periodically revised, altered, enriched and updated. For instance, it was the 1225 version – much shorter than the original one – that was confirmed officially by the new King Edward I and found its way and expression through the first directly elected Parliament in 1264 and the first Statute Roll in 1297. The spirit of Magna Carta evoked during the famous Putney debates of 1647. <br />
<br />
Later, with Charles II restoration, Magna Carta acted as a solid base and helped to codify the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus<ref>Latin for “you [shall] have the body”, it is a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. In modern US Law it is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official. A writ of habeas corpus, is known as the “the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement”, being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm</ref> passed by Parliament in 1679. Along with that most of the 1297 statute was repealed by Parliament at various times between 1828 and 1969.<ref>Magna Carta in the modern age: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-modern-age</ref> <br />
<br />
==Magna Carta vital importance in modern law cases==<br />
However, Magna Carta is not just one of the oldest statutes of law. When England's barons clipped the wings of their tyrannical King John at the time, they eventually established principles that still influence British justice even some 800 years on. And it was no other but those very same ideas, enshrined in the Charter, which formed its essential legacy, a legacy first for England, and ultimately for the United Kingdom and the former British colonies or territories heavily under Brit’s influence as a whole.<br />
<br />
Magna Carta is, as the United Kingdom Supreme Court noted in January 2014, a constitutional instrument – standing alongside the Petition of Rights in 1628, the Bill of Rights in 1689, the Act of settlement in 1701 and the Act of Union in 1707. It was arguable, said the court, that fundamental principles contained in such constitutional instruments were not abrogated by the European Communities Act, which requires courts in the United Kingdom to follow European law. That is one of the main reasons Magna Carta is still to be cited in UK courts even today.<br />
<br />
Ideas of freedom and democracy, the rule of law to which all are subject are such milestone features of Magna Carta, spread via France to the rebellious colonies of the New World. Thomas Jefferson not only paid tribute to the Levellers of the famous Putney Dabates as an inspiration for the revolution, but used the breaches of the Magna Carta by yet another king, as retrospective justification for creating a brand new country in 1776 – the United States of America. <br />
<br />
Amendments of the Constitution of the US, concerning the primacy of the law above the head of state, trace their lineage to the death of the Divine Right of Kings by the first document in English history to limit the power of the monarch – again the Magna Carta itself. In 1947 the principles of Magna Carta enshrined within the constitution of the world's largest democracy – India, former British colony and part of the Empire. With its population of over 1.2 billion people India is a powerful guarantor of the Charter's principles.<br />
Only a year later, after the end of the World War II – the horrific evidence of what happens when freedom, democracy and the rule of law are swept aside by force, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. And although it still represents a work in progress for many, Article 6 of the very European Convention of Human Rights also echoes Magna Carta. <br />
<br />
To the present day Magna Carta is evoked and cited whenever basic freedoms come under threat. As an idea of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, it is lapping against the shores of despotism. The principles set out in Magna Carta have driven even such powerful historical events as the Arab Spring and the ever-ongoing protests against despotism and absolute power around the world. <br />
<br />
These basic and key principles, together with the power of social networking and the Internet to spread and back them up will undoubtedly continue to have huge influence wherever freedom is under attack. The freedom of speech, the Internet and instant worldwide personal communication and real-time social interactions are emblematic of the fluttering pennants of the twenty-five barons who waited impatiently for their despotic king to round the last bend in the river on a summer's day in 1215.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:British History]] [[Category:English History]][[Category:Legal History]]<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_does_The_Magna_Carta_influence_the_Modern_Perceptions_of_Civil_Rights&diff=987How does The Magna Carta influence the Modern Perceptions of Civil Rights2016-03-11T03:28:29Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Magna Carta<ref>Literally translated as “The Great Paper”</ref>, also called Magna Carta Libertatum<ref>Or also referred to as “Great Charter of Freedoms”)</ref> is an..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Magna Carta<ref>Literally translated as “The Great Paper”</ref>, also called Magna Carta Libertatum<ref>Or also referred to as “Great Charter of Freedoms”)</ref> is an English charter, originally issued in 1215. The year of its signing represents a key landmark in Britain’s constitutional history. This is also the starting point of a long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. The document established and codified many of the principles that still govern modern western constitutional thought. Magna Carta has directly influenced many common law fundamental documents, such as the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights to name just a few, and thus it is considered and recognized to be one of the most important documents in the history of democracy itself, as well as civil rights and obligations and common law in general.<br />
<br />
==The Initial Reasons Behind Magna Carta==<br />
Originally, Magna Carta was created because of the broad disagreements between Pope Innocent III, the English king John and his barons specifically addressing the very rights of the monarch. <ref>Causes and effects of the Magna Carta: http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-105_t-279_c-929/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/nsw/causes-and-effects-of-the-magna-carta/introduction-to-democracy/democratic-development</ref> King John was not the most popular and likable ruler due to a number of reasons. First of all, he was a failure on the battlefield and he was forced to give up English territories to France as result of his loses. Furthermore, several of the areas he lost previously had contributed a large chunk of the crown’s income. This, along with ongoing expensive battles with France, forced King John to demand much higher and higher taxes from his people. The English barons broadly disagreed with King John’s politics. They refused to pay the requested higher taxes as compensation and claimed that the king himself violated the custom of consulting them first by not only raising taxes on his own, but also - establishing and introducing new ones. King John further alienated his barons when violated traditional customs and ignored the Pope’s wish when he appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury. This created a significant dispute with the Church and King John eventually was forced to pay the Pope an annual rent after he handed the country over to Pope. His barons were outraged because their land was now officially owned by the Church which limited their . <br />
<br />
==Decline of King John and 1215 civil war==<br />
Due to his harsh and unpredictable rule, John gradually lost support of his two most powerful backing groups of people in England – the barons and the Catholic bishops. Their calls for a political reforms were rejected many times by the king and as tensions grew thus led to a civil war in the spring of 1215. King John did not take seriously barons’ actions until the rebels reached and entered the city of London. Then it was time for negotiations which ended with signing of a document<ref>Initially this document was called “Articles of the Barons”</ref>, containing a list of demands by the rebels.<ref>Magna Carta: A turning point in English history or When the king became a sitting duck: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/magna-carta-turning-point-english-history</ref> An official version of this very document was released soon afterwords with the name “Magna Carta”. In return for King John’s signature and the reached agreement, the barons themselves acknowledged the authority of the king, renewed their pledge of allegiance to him and ended their hostilities, opposition and resistance to his rule.<br />
<br />
==The essence of original Magna Carta==<br />
The Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. Once signed by the king, it automatically became a list of promises that he recognized and agreed upon to keep. The principles enshrined in the Charter are numerous. In essence, the king was required to proclaim certain liberties and accept that he could not rule in arbitrary and/or unpredictable way:<ref>The Magna Carta, nearly 800 years old, still influences modern perceptions of civil rights: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-26/magna-carta-nearly-800-years-old-still-influences-modern-perceptions-civil-rights</ref><br />
#The king was subject to the law and he could then be punished by seizure of his lands and castles;<br />
#Everyone was subject to the law;<br />
#No free man could be punished except through the law of the land or the lawful judgement of his peers; <br />
#All judges, constables, sheriffs and bailiffs had to actually have knowledge of the law;<br />
#Justice could not be sold, denied or delayed;<br />
-#Taxes could only be levied and assessed with the consent of the governed.<br />
<br />
Further clauses in Magna Carta confirmed the “ancient liberties” of the City of London and the freedom and independence of the Church of England, others - clarified inheritance and use of the forests and fishing rights. An interesting fact is that three of these clauses remain in force in current UK law and can be found in the current UK Statute Law Database. These clauses guarantee the freedom the Church, the right to a due process and the “ancient liberties” of London.<ref>Magna Carta - Rights still in force today: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Magna_Carta</ref><br />
<br />
==Influences of Magna Carta throughout oncoming centuries==<br />
Magna Carta has made a long journey through time, spreading over the globe by virtue of its implications and legacy. More than 800 years later its simply laid out ideas of freedom and justice have become integral and inseparable part of the very genetic structure of the mankind. <ref>Magna Carta Today - To no one deny or delay right or justice: http://magnacarta800th.com/magna-carta-today/</ref>For about a century after it was initially signed, the king and the nobles tussled over the provisions of the Magna Carta, and it was periodically revised, altered, enriched and updated. For instance, it was the 1225 version – much shorter than the original one – that was confirmed officially by the new King Edward I and found its way and expression through the first directly elected Parliament in 1264 and the first Statute Roll in 1297. The spirit of Magna Carta evoked during the famous Putney debates of 1647. <br />
<br />
Later, with Charles II restoration, Magna Carta acted as a solid base and helped to codify the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus<ref>Latin for “you [shall] have the body”, it is a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. In modern US Law it is a recourse in law whereby a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court, usually through a prison official. A writ of habeas corpus, is known as the “the great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement”, being a remedy available to the meanest against the mightiest: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm</ref> passed by Parliament in 1679. Along with that most of the 1297 statute was repealed by Parliament at various times between 1828 and 1969.<ref>Magna Carta in the modern age: http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-modern-age</ref> <br />
<br />
==Magna Carta vital importance in modern law cases==<br />
However, Magna Carta is not just one of the oldest statutes of law. When England's barons clipped the wings of their tyrannical King John at the time, they eventually established principles that still influence British justice even some 800 years on. And it was no other but those very same ideas, enshrined in the Charter, which formed its essential legacy, a legacy first for England, and ultimately for the United Kingdom and the former British colonies or territories heavily under Brit’s influence as a whole.<br />
<br />
Magna Carta is, as the United Kingdom Supreme Court noted in January 2014, a constitutional instrument – standing alongside the Petition of Rights in 1628, the Bill of Rights in 1689, the Act of settlement in 1701 and the Act of Union in 1707. It was arguable, said the court, that fundamental principles contained in such constitutional instruments were not abrogated by the European Communities Act, which requires courts in the United Kingdom to follow European law. That is one of the main reasons Magna Carta is still to be cited in UK courts even today.<br />
<br />
Ideas of freedom and democracy, the rule of law to which all are subject are such milestone features of Magna Carta, spread via France to the rebellious colonies of the New World. Thomas Jefferson not only paid tribute to the Levellers of the famous Putney Dabates as an inspiration for the revolution, but used the breaches of the Magna Carta by yet another king, as retrospective justification for creating a brand new country in 1776 – the United States of America. <br />
<br />
Amendments of the Constitution of the US, concerning the primacy of the law above the head of state, trace their lineage to the death of the Divine Right of Kings by the first document in English history to limit the power of the monarch – again the Magna Carta itself. In 1947 the principles of Magna Carta enshrined within the constitution of the world's largest democracy – India, former British colony and part of the Empire. With its population of over 1.2 billion people India is a powerful guarantor of the Charter's principles.<br />
Only a year later, after the end of the World War II – the horrific evidence of what happens when freedom, democracy and the rule of law are swept aside by force, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. And although it still represents a work in progress for many, Article 6 of the very European Convention of Human Rights also echoes Magna Carta. <br />
<br />
To the present day Magna Carta is evoked and cited whenever basic freedoms come under threat. As an idea of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, it is lapping against the shores of despotism. The principles set out in Magna Carta have driven even such powerful historical events as the Arab Spring and the ever-ongoing protests against despotism and absolute power around the world. <br />
<br />
These basic and key principles, together with the power of social networking and the Internet to spread and back them up will undoubtedly continue to have huge influence wherever freedom is under attack. The freedom of speech, the Internet and instant worldwide personal communication and real-time social interactions are emblematic of the fluttering pennants of the twenty-five barons who waited impatiently for their despotic king to round the last bend in the river on a summer's day in 1215.</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Category:Middle_East_History&diff=985Category:Middle East History2016-03-11T02:15:58Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Category:History"</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:History]]</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_the_Sharia_Law_develop&diff=984How did the Sharia Law develop2016-03-11T02:15:33Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Sharia is an Arabic word, literally meaning “the right path”. It commonly refers to the traditional Islamic law, derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran<ref>That is - the central religious text of Islam which is believed to be a revelation from God by Muslims</ref> and the Hadith<ref>Hadith represents a collection of reports claiming to quote what the very prophet Muhammad said on any matter verbatim</ref>. Islamic law or the Sharia is therefore the expression of Allah’s own command for Muslim society. In practical application it does constitute a system of duties that are compulsory and in a way even irrevocably set upon each and every Muslim strictly backed by the very virtue of his religious belief. The law itself constitutes a divinely ordained path of conduct that guides Muslims towards a practical expression of their religious conviction in the world as a whole as well as - towards the goal of divine favour of the world set to come. Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Quran. In its essence the Sharia comes from the Quran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God.<br />
<br />
==On the verge of change, update and evolve the Classic Traditional Sharia== <br />
Islamic law represents one of the world's great legal systems. Like Judaic law, which influenced western legal systems, Islamic law originated as an important part of the religion. And since the Sharia originated together with Allah, it is considered to be sacred itself. Between the seventh century marking Muhammad death and the tenth century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia in order to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire. In the modern era, the influences of the Western colonialism and their law systems development even generated efforts to codify Sharia. Thus, under the vast western influences, the need for a more comprehensive reform in the Islamic law became clear. The traditional Sharia law now needs to be adapted in order to meet the changing circumstances in the modern Muslim society. However, there is a specific reason behind this change and it should be sought in two principal respects in which the Sharia differs from Western law systems.<ref>Historical development of “Sharīʿah law”, Nature and significance of Islamic law - http://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah</ref> <br />
<br />
==Key originating differences between Sharia and Western law systems== <br />
In the first place it is known that in the Western world - religion has been largely separated by law almost ever since their early developments. Nevertheless, in the Muslim world the Sharia is not confined to purely religious matters. On the one hand, it aims at equally regulating individuals’ relationship with their neighbours and the state, and on the other - with God and their own conscience. The Islamic law is also concerned as much with ethical standards and ritual practices, as with a wide variety of “secular” legal issues, ranging from inheritance, through marriage, divorce, contracts and criminal punishments. Therefore the Sharia should not be mistaken for merely a general system of law. Instead, it ought to be considered a far more comprehensive code of behavior that embraces both private and public activities.<br />
<br />
The second major distinction between the Sharia and Western legal systems is the result of the Islamic concept of the very law as an expression of the divine will. To furthermore emphasize this, it is important to note, that unlike often occurrences in the Western history, no conflict between church and state can be found in the Muslim world. As a result the line between the religious and secular obligations is not as well-established in the Muslim world, as it is in the Western countries. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, communication between the divine will and the human beings ceased to exist. That in turn henceforth fixed the very terms of the divine revelation and made them entirely immutable.<ref>Reclaiming Tradition: Islamic Law in a Modern World - http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/23</ref> Thus Sharia law became quite a rigid and static system. Furthermore, unlike the secular legal systems that grow out of society and change over time with the altering circumstances that occur in society, Sharia law started being forced and imposed upon society “from above”. Because in Islamic jurisprudence it is not the society that molds and fashions the law but it is the law that precedes and controls society instead.<br />
<br />
==Origins and early historical development of Sharia==<br />
In order to better understand the Islamic law, it is important to take a look at its historical development. For the first Muslim community established under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad at Medina in 622, the Quranic revelations laid dawn basic standards of conduct. But the Quran is in no sense a comprehensive legal code. No more than 80 verses deal with strictly legal matters. Their general effect is simply to modify the existing Arabian customary law in certain important particulars.<ref>The Origins of Islamic Law & Development of the Sharia: Family, Criminal Law and procedures - http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html</ref><br />
<br />
During his lifetime Muhammad as the supreme judge of the community, resolved legal problems as they arose by interpreting and expanding the general provisions of the Quran, and the same ad hoc activity was carried on after his death by the caliphs of Medina. The first caliphs from the Umayyad dynasty, who took control of the empire in 661, conquered territories outside Arabia and as a result elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law influenced the further development of the Sharia at the time. The Umayyad caliphs were the first to appoint Islamic judges, qadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. Knowledgeable about the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad, qadis decided cases in all areas of the law.<br />
<br />
==The rise of Abbasid dynasty, the Sharia risky separate interpretations and unification==<br />
In 750 the Umayyads were overthrown and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development. Under their absolute rule the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from qadis to the government. And although the qadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law, the Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to further debate the Sharia vigorously. As a result a group of scholars started claiming that only the divinely inspired Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. Yet, another separate group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Thus different legal systems began to develop in the different provinces threatening to separate Sharia and Muslim community by risky free interprets.<ref>Sharīʿah: Development of different schools of law - http://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah#toc68927</ref><br />
<br />
Soon after, in a vigorous attempt to reconcile the rival groups, one brilliant legal scholar named Shafii systematized and developed what were called the “roots of the law” at the time. He criticized both what he called “people of reason” and “people of tradition” trying to prove that neither group is absolutely true to Sharia. Shafii argued that in solving a legal question, the qadi or government judges should first consult the Quran. If the answers were not clear there, the judges then should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answers continued to elude the judges, they subsequently should follow and refer to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, and as a last resort allowance, the judges could form their own answer(s) by analogy from “the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate” to the case in hand. And although taken very contradictory at the beginning, with lots of opposing traditional Sharia interpreters, Shafii’s approach was later widely adopted throughout the Islamic world in the following years.<br />
Thus by around the year 900, the classic Sharia was formed and established. And although a number of different concepts and institutions were developed by Islamic jurists during the following centuries and they shaped different versions of Sharia in different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, all of them recognized the Sharia as the main and only law of behavior for all Muslims. The process was backed up by unified handbooks with examples, assembled by Islamic specialists in the law and prepared for Islamic judges to use in their decision makings. Moreover, the classic Sharia was not a code of laws, but a collective body of religious and legal scholarship that generally ceased to develop for the next 1,000 years.<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]] <br />
[[Category:Middle East History]] [[Category:Legal History]] [[Category:Religious History]] <br />
<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_the_Sharia_Law_develop&diff=983How did the Sharia Law develop2016-03-11T02:14:58Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Sharia is an Arabic word, literally meaning “the right path”. It commonly refers to the traditional Islamic law, derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Sharia is an Arabic word, literally meaning “the right path”. It commonly refers to the traditional Islamic law, derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran<ref>That is - the central religious text of Islam which is believed to be a revelation from God by Muslims</ref> and the Hadith<ref>Hadith represents a collection of reports claiming to quote what the very prophet Muhammad said on any matter verbatim</ref>. Islamic law or the Sharia is therefore the expression of Allah’s own command for Muslim society. In practical application it does constitute a system of duties that are compulsory and in a way even irrevocably set upon each and every Muslim strictly backed by the very virtue of his religious belief. The law itself constitutes a divinely ordained path of conduct that guides Muslims towards a practical expression of their religious conviction in the world as a whole as well as - towards the goal of divine favour of the world set to come. Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Quran. In its essence the Sharia comes from the Quran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God.<br />
<br />
==On the verge of change, update and evolve the Classic Traditional Sharia== <br />
Islamic law represents one of the world's great legal systems. Like Judaic law, which influenced western legal systems, Islamic law originated as an important part of the religion. And since the Sharia originated together with Allah, it is considered to be sacred itself. Between the seventh century marking Muhammad death and the tenth century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia in order to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire. In the modern era, the influences of the Western colonialism and their law systems development even generated efforts to codify Sharia. Thus, under the vast western influences, the need for a more comprehensive reform in the Islamic law became clear. The traditional Sharia law now needs to be adapted in order to meet the changing circumstances in the modern Muslim society. However, there is a specific reason behind this change and it should be sought in two principal respects in which the Sharia differs from Western law systems.<ref>Historical development of “Sharīʿah law”, Nature and significance of Islamic law - http://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah</ref> <br />
<br />
==Key originating differences between Sharia and Western law systems== <br />
In the first place it is known that in the Western world - religion has been largely separated by law almost ever since their early developments. Nevertheless, in the Muslim world the Sharia is not confined to purely religious matters. On the one hand, it aims at equally regulating individuals’ relationship with their neighbours and the state, and on the other - with God and their own conscience. The Islamic law is also concerned as much with ethical standards and ritual practices, as with a wide variety of “secular” legal issues, ranging from inheritance, through marriage, divorce, contracts and criminal punishments. Therefore the Sharia should not be mistaken for merely a general system of law. Instead, it ought to be considered a far more comprehensive code of behavior that embraces both private and public activities.<br />
The second major distinction between the Sharia and Western legal systems is the result of the Islamic concept of the very law as an expression of the divine will. To furthermore emphasize this, it is important to note, that unlike often occurrences in the Western history, no conflict between church and state can be found in the Muslim world. As a result the line between the religious and secular obligations is not as well-established in the Muslim world, as it is in the Western countries. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, communication between the divine will and the human beings ceased to exist. That in turn henceforth fixed the very terms of the divine revelation and made them entirely immutable.<ref>Reclaiming Tradition: Islamic Law in a Modern World - http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/23</ref> Thus Sharia law became quite a rigid and static system. Furthermore, unlike the secular legal systems that grow out of society and change over time with the altering circumstances that occur in society, Sharia law started being forced and imposed upon society “from above”. Because in Islamic jurisprudence it is not the society that molds and fashions the law but it is the law that precedes and controls society instead.<br />
<br />
==Origins and early historical development of Sharia==<br />
In order to better understand the Islamic law, it is important to take a look at its historical development. For the first Muslim community established under the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad at Medina in 622, the Quranic revelations laid dawn basic standards of conduct. But the Quran is in no sense a comprehensive legal code. No more than 80 verses deal with strictly legal matters. Their general effect is simply to modify the existing Arabian customary law in certain important particulars.<ref>The Origins of Islamic Law & Development of the Sharia: Family, Criminal Law and procedures - http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html</ref><br />
During his lifetime Muhammad as the supreme judge of the community, resolved legal problems as they arose by interpreting and expanding the general provisions of the Quran, and the same ad hoc activity was carried on after his death by the caliphs of Medina. The first caliphs from the Umayyad dynasty, who took control of the empire in 661, conquered territories outside Arabia and as a result elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law influenced the further development of the Sharia at the time. The Umayyad caliphs were the first to appoint Islamic judges, qadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. Knowledgeable about the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad, qadis decided cases in all areas of the law.<br />
<br />
==The rise of Abbasid dynasty, the Sharia risky separate interpretations and unification==<br />
In 750 the Umayyads were overthrown and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development. Under their absolute rule the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from qadis to the government. And although the qadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law, the Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to further debate the Sharia vigorously. As a result a group of scholars started claiming that only the divinely inspired Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. Yet, another separate group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Thus different legal systems began to develop in the different provinces threatening to separate Sharia and Muslim community by risky free interprets.<ref>Sharīʿah: Development of different schools of law - http://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah#toc68927</ref><br />
Soon after, in a vigorous attempt to reconcile the rival groups, one brilliant legal scholar named Shafii systematized and developed what were called the “roots of the law” at the time. He criticized both what he called “people of reason” and “people of tradition” trying to prove that neither group is absolutely true to Sharia. Shafii argued that in solving a legal question, the qadi or government judges should first consult the Quran. If the answers were not clear there, the judges then should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answers continued to elude the judges, they subsequently should follow and refer to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, and as a last resort allowance, the judges could form their own answer(s) by analogy from “the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate” to the case in hand. And although taken very contradictory at the beginning, with lots of opposing traditional Sharia interpreters, Shafii’s approach was later widely adopted throughout the Islamic world in the following years.<br />
Thus by around the year 900, the classic Sharia was formed and established. And although a number of different concepts and institutions were developed by Islamic jurists during the following centuries and they shaped different versions of Sharia in different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, all of them recognized the Sharia as the main and only law of behavior for all Muslims. The process was backed up by unified handbooks with examples, assembled by Islamic specialists in the law and prepared for Islamic judges to use in their decision makings. Moreover, the classic Sharia was not a code of laws, but a collective body of religious and legal scholarship that generally ceased to develop for the next 1,000 years.<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]] <br />
[[Category:Middle East History]] [[Category:Legal History]] [[Category:Religious History]] <br />
<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_has_the_Roman_Lex_Mercatoria_evolved_to_play_a_role_in_modern_International_Trade_and_Commerce_Codification&diff=982How has the Roman Lex Mercatoria evolved to play a role in modern International Trade and Commerce Codification2016-03-11T02:10:59Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Since 1960s there have been systematically countless discussions regarding the very nature and the function of the body of transnational commercial rules called ''Lex Mercator..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Since 1960s there have been systematically countless discussions regarding the very nature and the function of the body of transnational commercial rules called ''Lex Mercatoria''<ref>''Lex Mercatoria'' (from the Latin for "merchant law"), and also often referred to as "the Law Merchant" in English, according to most authors is the body of commercial law which dates back to and was predominantly used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period - Sealy and Hooley, ''Commercial Law: Text, Cases, and Materials'', 2008, p. 14</ref>. The discussions and its subjects have become even more controversial over the years. Whereas some authors completely denied ''Lex Mercatoria'' existence, others noted its advantages and key role and importance in many fundamental points and areas. <br />
<br />
In spite of the numerous academic contributions, the advantages of ''Lex Mercatoria'' still remain unknown to the majority of the business and legal communities today. Together with some recent developments such as the process of economical globalization, the fast pace irruption of Internet trade, the adoption of two bodies of codified principles of contract law (the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the Principles of European Contract Law) and the increasing harmonization of contract law in the EU, ‘’’’Lex Mercatoria’’’’ already calls for a fresh examination of its regulations in the light of the new cross-border commercial relations between different people, nations, continents.<br />
<br />
There is no special definition for ''Lex Mercatoria'' which still can accommodates all opinions and ideas together. Some authors accept that Lex Mercatoria is a set of different principles and customary rules spontaneously referred to or elaborated in the framework of the international trade, without reference to a particular national system of laws. Others define it a single autonomous body of law created by the international business community. There are as many possible concepts of the ''Lex Mercatoria'' as there are authors having dealt with the subject. Hence, it is only agreed that no special definition exists.<br />
<br />
==Origins of the ''Lex Mercatoria''==<br />
<br />
The historical background of the very nature of ''Lex Mercatoria'' is controversial. Some authors suggest that ‘’’’Lex Mercatoria’’’’ is based on ''Ius gentian'', the body of Roman law that regulated economic relations between Roman citizens and foreigners. Other authors criticized this hypothesis and state that since ''Ius gentian'' was part of Roman law rather than autonomous body of law, it cannot be conceived as the precursor of today's ''Lex Mercatoria''. Yet another group of scholars claim that the origins of Lex Mercatoria can be traced back even further, in Ancient Egypt and even back to Greek and Phoenician trade. <ref>Historical background of ''Lex mercatoria'': concept, sources, theory - http://law.au.dk/fileadmin/site_files/filer_jura/dokumenter/forskning/rettid/artikler/20020046.pdf</ref>This theory has found more broad acceptance since Lex Mercatoria is used by merchants in international trade and the commercial exchanges in the Antiquity are now considered to have been governed by customary commercial rules. However, the debate regarding the origins continue even today as the majority of authors suggest that the Lex Mercatoria has its origins in the merchant law of the Middle Ages.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, no matter which theory is to be considered as closest to the truth, it is important to know that the need to unify the law governing international private relations can be well traced back to even the first commercial transactions. Thanks to the international economic relations flourishing in the Western Europe during the eleventh century, ''Lex Mercatoria'' developed into a cosmopolitan mercantile law<ref>Also commonly referred to as “law merchant”</ref> based upon customs and applied to cross-border disputes by the market tribunals of the various European trade centers. For the next eight hundred years those uniform rules of merchant law were applied among traders throughout Western Europe. Thus, ''Lex Mercatoria'' has evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes and has begun functioning as the international law of commerce.<br />
<br />
==Key developments in the 19th and 20th centuries==<br />
<br />
With the raise of nationalism and the codification period of the 19th century the law merchant was incorporated into the municipal laws of each country. As states took control over international trade, the new national mercantile laws regulated economic relations and cross-border disputes were solved by referring to “private international law(s)”. The French legal system provides an example of direct recognition and incorporation of ''Lex Mercatoria'' principles as part of the codified framework of its own domestic trade law. And it was a principle of French law that agreements entered into in good faith should be respected by the parties and enforced in law. German commercial code also incorporated the general principles of the ''Lex Mercatoria'', albeit with a distinct indigenous character.<ref>Historical background of ''Lex Mercatoria'' - http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/historical-background-of-lex-mercatoria-commercial-law-essay.php#ftn2</ref>By the end of the century ''Lex Mercatoria'' started to have true global application, across and beyond the differences artificially imposed in national legal systems and both in civil law and common law jurisdictions. <br />
<br />
Moreover, the development of international trade after the Second World War showed some of the flaws of the traditional regulation of international contracts and commerce. The complexity of the private international law rules did not satisfy the simplicity, fast pace and certainty required by the business community. As a reaction to those restrictions and regulations, numerous conventions and model laws have been adopted in the fields of arbitration, factoring, leasing, letters of credit or sales, etc. These documents were drafted by various international organizations acting on a true global commerce scale.<br />
<br />
==Codification of Law Mercatoria and Modern International Unifying Bodies==<br />
<br />
Firstly, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) was founded in 1919 with the task of promoting trade and investment, open markets for goods and services and the free flow of capital. Over the years the organization has expanded dramatically and become a true world business organization with thousands of member companies. The work of the ICC is carried out by different commissions that compile voluntary “codes” on various topics relevant to international business. Probably the best known of these “codes” are the so called International Commerce Terms or Incoterms. The Incoterms are standard definitions most commonly used in international sales contracts. These Incoterms govern the method of delivery, transfer of the ownership, provide for various modes of transportation and indicate the method employed in determining the price of the goods sold. Another well-known voluntary “code” compiled by the ICC is the “Uniform Custom and Practice for Documentary Credits”, known as the UCP.<ref>Principles of Contract Law: A Compilation of Law Mercatoria? - http://blogs.law.nyu.edu/transnational/2012/11/principles-of-contract-law-a-compilation-of-lex-mercatoria/</ref> The impetus for drafting the UCP was provided by the importance the documentary letter of credit achieved after the First World War as an international payment instrument. Today, most banks worldwide issue letters of credit subject to the UCP and it can be said it has gained true universal application.<br />
<br />
Secondly, reference needs to be made to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, known as UNIDROIT. Today, UNIDROIT is an inter-governmental organization based in Rome. Its purpose is “to study the needs and the methods for modernizing, harmonizing and coordinating private and in particular commercial law as between states and groups of states”. The most important instrument drafted by UNIDROIT is the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts of 1994. These Principles may be applied when the parties have agreed that their contract will be governed by “general principles of law”, the “lex mercatoria” or the like. Therefore, it is no surprise, that these very principles are commonly regarded as being part of the Lex Mercatoria itself. Moreover, the Principles “are sufficiently flexible to take account of the constantly changing circumstances brought about by the technological developments affecting cross-border trade practice”. The international character of the Principles is enhanced by the fact that they do not contain terminology particular to a national legal system. <br />
Thirdly, the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was established in 1966. It was given the general mandate to “further the progressive harmonization and unification of the law of international trade”. UNCITRAL’s Arbitration Rules provide “a comprehensive set of procedural rules upon which the parties may agree for the conduct of arbitral proceedings arising out of their commercial relationship”. These rules are used in ad hoc and administered arbitrations. Furthermore, for instance, from the one hand the UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna Convention, 1980) “establishes a comprehensive code of legal rules governing the formation of contracts for the international sale of goods, the obligations of both parties and the remedies for the breach of contract”.<ref>THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERNLEX MERCATORIA: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE - http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/3637/Wethmar-Lemmer%208%20December%202005.pdf?sequence=1</ref> From the other hand - the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 has the purpose of “assisting states in reforming and modernizing their laws on arbitral procedure so as to take into account the particular features and needs of International Commercial Arbitration”. <br />
<br />
It should be noted that the process of negotiation and adoption of these conventions has always been very difficult and time-consuming. It often leads to partial harmonization, different interpretations of the same convention and the risk of having a petrified regulation, fragmentation, which cannot be revised and adapted to the further developments of international trade. <br />
<br />
European Institutions – by way of Directives issued by the European Commission and European Parliament Resolutions have also attempted to codify and harmonize European Private Law. This is an essential task as the major objective of the European Union is the achievement of a single market. A special mention should be made both of the Common Frame of Reference (CFR) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) and to the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), since these provide the clearest expression of codification of commercial principles and practices at European level.<br />
<br />
The Lex Mercatoria has existed since the advent of international trade. And although nation states somewhat have managed to fragment the medieval Lex Mercatoria, it is far from being ever destroyed. Just as national interests do today, local interests triumphed in the medieval ages. But its nature, principles and content have been evolving continuously to keep up with the changing commercial environment and the ever-changing needs of international merchants. For instance, a very modern variant of the Lex Mercatoria is the evolving law and dispute resolution in Cyberspace: since Internet traders are the fastest growing body of merchants in history as a whole. In a virtual court documents are filed and examined online, arguments are made online and decisions are published all online – seldom presented and disputed before traditional courts of law. Historical reality can attest to the fact that although the Lex Mercatoria is constantly changing, it remains in existence preferably “as is” since the medieval, the modern and cyberspace merchant laws face comparable issues of enforceability. Because whereas they solve the problems somewhat differently, the reaction of the market is always the main driving incentive to comply with its ruling. Lex Mercatoria is often used and referred to in international disputes between commercial entities. Most often those disputes are decided by arbitrators which sometimes are allowed (explicitly of implied) to apply Lex Mercatoria principles. Therefore, some legal practitioners assume that there is a whole set of legal principles named "Lex Mercatoria" in international or transnational commercial law. Thus, it is impossible to predict the future form and content of the Lex Mercatoria. However, it may be said with certainty that, as long as the international commerce exist, the Lex Mercatoria will also co-exist. <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]] <br />
[[Category:Legal History]] [[Category:Economic History]] [[Category:European History]] <br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_has_ancient_Rome_influenced_European_law&diff=981How has ancient Rome influenced European law2016-03-11T02:04:08Z<p>IncantoX: /* Bibliography */</p>
<hr />
<div>“''Jus eat ars boni et aqua''” – the law is the art of goodness and equity. That is how Roman’s jurist Celsus defined law. This definition represents and encompasses the desires of Roman people and their will to create and implement laws, a desire that indeed managed to comprehensively cross the barriers of time and reach out to the modern world as we know it today. Roman law is the stable foundation on which modern legal culture has developed and evolved upon as a whole. The Civil law system <ref>also known as Continental European law system</ref> is based on the late Roman law and its most distinctive feature - that its core principles are codified into a system which servers as the primary source of law. <br />
<br />
==Importance of the Roman Law: from ancient times to modern law systems==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the European identity is built on three pillars: Christianity, Aristotelian philosophy and Roman law. The very term “Roman law” refers to the legal system of ancient Rome from the time of the city founding in 753 BC until the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE. Later it was used in the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) until 1453. “Roman law” is also used to denote the legal systems implemented in the significant part of Western Europe until as late as the 18th century. This is the law implied in the Holy Roman Empire and at the same time the law of countries that were never subject to the Roman rule. Roman law has influenced the national legal systems not only in Europe but also in America, Africa and Asia. It forms the basis for the bourgeois civil codifications in most countries in continental Europe and derivative systems elsewhere. Nonetheless it has a significant influence on the formation of nations and modern statehood.<br />
<br />
==Early legislation development==<br />
<br />
The system of Roman law has developed during the continuous existence of Roman Republic and Empire. Between 753-31 BC the jus civile (civil law) has been developed. This legislation was exclusively applied to Roman citizens. However, there were many cases in which foreigners were also involved. These cases were subject to justice by different magistrates and governors and hence the need of another type of law occurred. This other type of jurisdiction was then called jus gentium (law of nations) and was applied to both the Romans themselves and the foreigners. It became a flexible alternative to jus civile applied by the magistrates. In its essence jus gentium consisted of the following elements: 1. The existing mercantile law used by the Mediterranean traders; 2. Institutions of Roman law that could be applied universally; 3. The magistrate’s own sense of what was fair or just. By the 3rd century AC when citizenship was extended throughout the empire, the practical differences between jus civile and jus gentium ceased to exist. The term jus gentium obtained a more universal meaning referring to the same legal results whether the participated parties were citizens or not.<br />
<br />
==The First Code of Law==<br />
<br />
An important divisions of Roman law became what is now known as jus scriptum (written law) and jus non scriptum (unwritten law). The term unwritten law was strictly referred to customs, while written law represented literally all law based on any written source and evidence. There were various types of written law, the first of which consisted of leges or enactments of one of the general assemblies of the Roman people. They were source of law only during the Republic. With the establishment of the Empire in 31 BC the function of the assemblies was reduced to formal ratification of the emperor’s wishes. The most important leges or legislation were the Twelve Tables, enacted in 451 BC. This is the first attempt by the Romans to create a code of law in order to prevent political struggle between classes. Little is known of the actual content of the Twelve Tables. Unfortunately the authentic text of the code has not completely survived to date and only a few fragments are presently preserved. However, these fragments clearly show that numerous key legal matters were treated by the code such as family law, delict and legal procedure. Many of today's laws throughout the world can be tied back to the earliest of beginnings with the Twelve Tables.<br />
<br />
Other types of written law were: the edicta (edicts) or proclamations, issued by a superior magistrate on judicial matters; the senatus consulta or resolutions of the Roman senate; constitutiones principum which were expressions of the legislative power of the emperor as by the middle of the 2nd century AC the emperor was the sole creator of the law; and the responsa prudentium or answers to legal questions given by learned lawyers to those who consulted them. <br />
<br />
==Roman law: key historically determined postulates and principles==<br />
<br />
The sources of our knowledge of Roman law in the ancient world include statutes, deeds and the written content left by legal scholars. Among these the Institutes of Gaius, an unfinished manuscript of lections, dated from the 2nd century AC, must be mentioned. Gaius invented a system of private law based on the division of all material into personae (persons), res (things) and actiones (legal actions). This system was used for many centuries that followed after. However, the most important source of information is the Corpus Juris Civilis, ordered by the emperor Justinian I. The emperor formed a commission of jurists to compile all existing Roman laws till date into one unified body. Subsequently, by blending the old outdated laws with the new laws of the Roman empire, emperor Justinian I effectively cleansed and updated the Roman law thus selecting only those rules that had real practical value of the time leaving behind all obsolete principles and postulates. The first book of the so-called Corpus Juris Civilis is the Codex Constitutionum. It represents a selection of the imperial constitutions that had some practical value or their provisions were adapted to the circumstances of Justinian’s own time. The second book or a set of book volumes consists of 50 more book volumes that became known as Digest (Digesta) or Pandects (Pandectae). They contained a selection of the writings of the jurists and were pronounced to be a law book and no other jurist’s writings could be cited any more. At about the same time the Institutes of Justinian was published. It contained an outline of the elements of the Roman law. The last book is known as the New constitutions or the Novels and consists of ordinances issued by the emperor himself. <br />
<br />
==Further development and contributions of the West==<br />
<br />
This Corpus Juris of Justinian continued to be the main law book of what was left of the Roman imperial world long after Justinian’s ruling. His system of law continued to develop even further in the Eastern Empire until the very fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 15th century. However, the real resurrection of Roman law occurred in the West. Corpus Juris Civilis was rediscovered in Bologna, Italy, at the end of 11th century and became the reason for the establishment of Europe’s first university and the first law faculty. From there Roman law spread across all Catholic Europe with England being an important exception. By the 16th century Roman law was in force throughout most of Europe. However, in the process of adoption, many Roman rules were mixed up or changed in way to better suit the legal norms and specifics of the various European nations. In general the rules that were applied by the European countries at that period were identical to the Roman law from Justinian’s time. Nonetheless, the law that has evolved was common to the most European countries and so it was called Ius Commune (common law) <ref>N.B.! to be distinguished from the Common law system, based on precedent</ref>. In this form Roman law was in force in many countries until national codes were later created in 18th and 19th centuries. For example - in Germany Roman law remained the primary legal source until 1900 when the German Civil Code was first introduced. <br />
<br />
==Anglo-Saxon v.s. Continental Roman Law==<br />
<br />
As for England - it did not adopt the Roman law as the rest of the European countries. The Roman rules never had the force of law in the country, though they were taught in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. However, some substantive rules, concepts and ways of reasoning based on the Roman legal tradition did heavily influence the English legal system on its own regard. That is because Roman law also offers specificity and a power: it has the ability to reduce a problem to one or two sentences and from that come up with a rule. This makes it very similar to the Anglo-Saxon law, on which English legal system is based. Despite that, unlike the Continental European law system, the Anglo-Saxon law system, also known as Common law system, is based on judge-made decisional law which gives authority of a precedent to prior court decisions. The main principle here lays in the statement that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. <br />
<br />
==Roman law and Modern codes==<br />
<br />
Today Roman law has been replaced by modern codes. These codes were created by transmitting <ref>i.e. transposing</ref> the rules of Roman law and placing them in a framework which provided a modern, systematic order. This is particularly true in regards to the German Civil Code and is equally true in regard to the most modern European legal systems and Constitutions. However, some Roman rules were implemented directly and even today they apply to all of us. For example the fact that we can return faulty purchases to the shop during a certain “grace” period of time has a Roman origin. At the time of Justinian this principle was extended to all contracts and as such was taken by some European legal systems. <br />
Moreover, Roman law is the common foundation upon which the European legal order is built. Therefore, it serves as a source of rules and legal norms which easily blend within the European countries own national laws. Roman law is not only effectively mixed in the widely used common law and continental law norms and practices, but its set of fundamental principles and/or established rules pre-defines, shapes and provides law sources in accordance to which states are governed in general. Nowadays, these rules altogether make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is all about and what is also commonly referred to as Nations’ Constitutions <ref>i.e. Nation Main Law(s)</ref>.<br />
Truly, the Roman Empire may have left countless marks on the modern Western world, though, its greatest contribution to it is its law. It still has a very direct influence today and we can derive the conclusion that Rome’s main legacy is in the field of law, because Roman law has had an enormous influence on the development of law in Europe and in what is referred to as Continental Law in general. It’s no coincidence then that Roman law remains a compulsory subject in our law faculties and modern studies. We still refer to that very same old Roman law all the time even today. And last, but in no way least, it’s then vital to note that – while in all other fields the influences are mixed <ref>i.e philosophy and architecture also have Greek influences</ref>, and apart from Latin language obviously – law is the only contribution to the modern world that is derived solely from ancient Rome.<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
*http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1570&context=clr<br />
*http://archiv.jura.uni-saarland.de/Rechtsgeschichte/Ius.Romanum/RoemRFAQ-e.html<br />
*http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/legal-roman-eagles_how-ancient-rome-influenced-european-law/36688830<br />
*http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-law<br />
*http://iusromanum.eu/en/about<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]] <br />
[[Category:Legal History]] [[Category:Roman History]] [[Category:European History]]<br />
<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=Category:Roman_History&diff=980Category:Roman History2016-03-11T02:02:59Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Category:History"</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:History]]</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_has_ancient_Rome_influenced_European_law&diff=979How has ancient Rome influenced European law2016-03-11T02:02:35Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "“''Jus eat ars boni et aqua''” – the law is the art of goodness and equity. That is how Roman’s jurist Celsus defined law. This definition represents and encompasses t..."</p>
<hr />
<div>“''Jus eat ars boni et aqua''” – the law is the art of goodness and equity. That is how Roman’s jurist Celsus defined law. This definition represents and encompasses the desires of Roman people and their will to create and implement laws, a desire that indeed managed to comprehensively cross the barriers of time and reach out to the modern world as we know it today. Roman law is the stable foundation on which modern legal culture has developed and evolved upon as a whole. The Civil law system <ref>also known as Continental European law system</ref> is based on the late Roman law and its most distinctive feature - that its core principles are codified into a system which servers as the primary source of law. <br />
<br />
==Importance of the Roman Law: from ancient times to modern law systems==<br />
<br />
It is claimed that the European identity is built on three pillars: Christianity, Aristotelian philosophy and Roman law. The very term “Roman law” refers to the legal system of ancient Rome from the time of the city founding in 753 BC until the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE. Later it was used in the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire) until 1453. “Roman law” is also used to denote the legal systems implemented in the significant part of Western Europe until as late as the 18th century. This is the law implied in the Holy Roman Empire and at the same time the law of countries that were never subject to the Roman rule. Roman law has influenced the national legal systems not only in Europe but also in America, Africa and Asia. It forms the basis for the bourgeois civil codifications in most countries in continental Europe and derivative systems elsewhere. Nonetheless it has a significant influence on the formation of nations and modern statehood.<br />
<br />
==Early legislation development==<br />
<br />
The system of Roman law has developed during the continuous existence of Roman Republic and Empire. Between 753-31 BC the jus civile (civil law) has been developed. This legislation was exclusively applied to Roman citizens. However, there were many cases in which foreigners were also involved. These cases were subject to justice by different magistrates and governors and hence the need of another type of law occurred. This other type of jurisdiction was then called jus gentium (law of nations) and was applied to both the Romans themselves and the foreigners. It became a flexible alternative to jus civile applied by the magistrates. In its essence jus gentium consisted of the following elements: 1. The existing mercantile law used by the Mediterranean traders; 2. Institutions of Roman law that could be applied universally; 3. The magistrate’s own sense of what was fair or just. By the 3rd century AC when citizenship was extended throughout the empire, the practical differences between jus civile and jus gentium ceased to exist. The term jus gentium obtained a more universal meaning referring to the same legal results whether the participated parties were citizens or not.<br />
<br />
==The First Code of Law==<br />
<br />
An important divisions of Roman law became what is now known as jus scriptum (written law) and jus non scriptum (unwritten law). The term unwritten law was strictly referred to customs, while written law represented literally all law based on any written source and evidence. There were various types of written law, the first of which consisted of leges or enactments of one of the general assemblies of the Roman people. They were source of law only during the Republic. With the establishment of the Empire in 31 BC the function of the assemblies was reduced to formal ratification of the emperor’s wishes. The most important leges or legislation were the Twelve Tables, enacted in 451 BC. This is the first attempt by the Romans to create a code of law in order to prevent political struggle between classes. Little is known of the actual content of the Twelve Tables. Unfortunately the authentic text of the code has not completely survived to date and only a few fragments are presently preserved. However, these fragments clearly show that numerous key legal matters were treated by the code such as family law, delict and legal procedure. Many of today's laws throughout the world can be tied back to the earliest of beginnings with the Twelve Tables.<br />
<br />
Other types of written law were: the edicta (edicts) or proclamations, issued by a superior magistrate on judicial matters; the senatus consulta or resolutions of the Roman senate; constitutiones principum which were expressions of the legislative power of the emperor as by the middle of the 2nd century AC the emperor was the sole creator of the law; and the responsa prudentium or answers to legal questions given by learned lawyers to those who consulted them. <br />
<br />
==Roman law: key historically determined postulates and principles==<br />
<br />
The sources of our knowledge of Roman law in the ancient world include statutes, deeds and the written content left by legal scholars. Among these the Institutes of Gaius, an unfinished manuscript of lections, dated from the 2nd century AC, must be mentioned. Gaius invented a system of private law based on the division of all material into personae (persons), res (things) and actiones (legal actions). This system was used for many centuries that followed after. However, the most important source of information is the Corpus Juris Civilis, ordered by the emperor Justinian I. The emperor formed a commission of jurists to compile all existing Roman laws till date into one unified body. Subsequently, by blending the old outdated laws with the new laws of the Roman empire, emperor Justinian I effectively cleansed and updated the Roman law thus selecting only those rules that had real practical value of the time leaving behind all obsolete principles and postulates. The first book of the so-called Corpus Juris Civilis is the Codex Constitutionum. It represents a selection of the imperial constitutions that had some practical value or their provisions were adapted to the circumstances of Justinian’s own time. The second book or a set of book volumes consists of 50 more book volumes that became known as Digest (Digesta) or Pandects (Pandectae). They contained a selection of the writings of the jurists and were pronounced to be a law book and no other jurist’s writings could be cited any more. At about the same time the Institutes of Justinian was published. It contained an outline of the elements of the Roman law. The last book is known as the New constitutions or the Novels and consists of ordinances issued by the emperor himself. <br />
<br />
==Further development and contributions of the West==<br />
<br />
This Corpus Juris of Justinian continued to be the main law book of what was left of the Roman imperial world long after Justinian’s ruling. His system of law continued to develop even further in the Eastern Empire until the very fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 15th century. However, the real resurrection of Roman law occurred in the West. Corpus Juris Civilis was rediscovered in Bologna, Italy, at the end of 11th century and became the reason for the establishment of Europe’s first university and the first law faculty. From there Roman law spread across all Catholic Europe with England being an important exception. By the 16th century Roman law was in force throughout most of Europe. However, in the process of adoption, many Roman rules were mixed up or changed in way to better suit the legal norms and specifics of the various European nations. In general the rules that were applied by the European countries at that period were identical to the Roman law from Justinian’s time. Nonetheless, the law that has evolved was common to the most European countries and so it was called Ius Commune (common law) <ref>N.B.! to be distinguished from the Common law system, based on precedent</ref>. In this form Roman law was in force in many countries until national codes were later created in 18th and 19th centuries. For example - in Germany Roman law remained the primary legal source until 1900 when the German Civil Code was first introduced. <br />
<br />
==Anglo-Saxon v.s. Continental Roman Law==<br />
<br />
As for England - it did not adopt the Roman law as the rest of the European countries. The Roman rules never had the force of law in the country, though they were taught in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. However, some substantive rules, concepts and ways of reasoning based on the Roman legal tradition did heavily influence the English legal system on its own regard. That is because Roman law also offers specificity and a power: it has the ability to reduce a problem to one or two sentences and from that come up with a rule. This makes it very similar to the Anglo-Saxon law, on which English legal system is based. Despite that, unlike the Continental European law system, the Anglo-Saxon law system, also known as Common law system, is based on judge-made decisional law which gives authority of a precedent to prior court decisions. The main principle here lays in the statement that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. <br />
<br />
==Roman law and Modern codes==<br />
<br />
Today Roman law has been replaced by modern codes. These codes were created by transmitting <ref>i.e. transposing</ref> the rules of Roman law and placing them in a framework which provided a modern, systematic order. This is particularly true in regards to the German Civil Code and is equally true in regard to the most modern European legal systems and Constitutions. However, some Roman rules were implemented directly and even today they apply to all of us. For example the fact that we can return faulty purchases to the shop during a certain “grace” period of time has a Roman origin. At the time of Justinian this principle was extended to all contracts and as such was taken by some European legal systems. <br />
Moreover, Roman law is the common foundation upon which the European legal order is built. Therefore, it serves as a source of rules and legal norms which easily blend within the European countries own national laws. Roman law is not only effectively mixed in the widely used common law and continental law norms and practices, but its set of fundamental principles and/or established rules pre-defines, shapes and provides law sources in accordance to which states are governed in general. Nowadays, these rules altogether make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is all about and what is also commonly referred to as Nations’ Constitutions <ref>i.e. Nation Main Law(s)</ref>.<br />
Truly, the Roman Empire may have left countless marks on the modern Western world, though, its greatest contribution to it is its law. It still has a very direct influence today and we can derive the conclusion that Rome’s main legacy is in the field of law, because Roman law has had an enormous influence on the development of law in Europe and in what is referred to as Continental Law in general. It’s no coincidence then that Roman law remains a compulsory subject in our law faculties and modern studies. We still refer to that very same old Roman law all the time even today. And last, but in no way least, it’s then vital to note that – while in all other fields the influences are mixed <ref>i.e philosophy and architecture also have Greek influences</ref>, and apart from Latin language obviously – law is the only contribution to the modern world that is derived solely from ancient Rome.<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1570&context=clr<br />
http://archiv.jura.uni-saarland.de/Rechtsgeschichte/Ius.Romanum/RoemRFAQ-e.html<br />
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/legal-roman-eagles_how-ancient-rome-influenced-european-law/36688830<br />
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-law<br />
http://iusromanum.eu/en/about<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]] <br />
[[Category:Legal History]] [[Category:Roman History]] [[Category:European History]]<br />
<br />
{{Contributors}}</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Vladimir_Lenin_Rise_To_Power&diff=978How did Vladimir Lenin Rise To Power2016-03-11T01:58:58Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Undoubtedly in the ranks of the turbulent 20th century’s decades a few names emerge as some of the most significant key revolutionaries known in the history of mankind: Lenin, Mandela, Stalin, Hitler, Mao to name a few. Yet some of them share and spread out that specific spirit able to spark a fire on a global scale, conquer minds and inspire millions of people effectively having them bent to their absolute will. But what does it take to be a true revolutionary and change the fate of those millions, to define the very course of the history itself and/or even shape entire countries? How does one bring down emblematic well-established ‘status quos’ and regimes to build one’s own upon former remains and ashes? What is it like to be a true visionary, to lead, inspire and motivate millions of people to follow you? <br />
[[File: 683px-Lenin.jpg|thumbnail|Vladimir Lenin]]<br />
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (later known as Lenin as he solely nicknamed himself) was one of the leading political figures in the course of the 20th century. He was the revolutionary thinker behind the USSR idea (a.k.a. The Great Soviet Union), fought to materialize it and masterminded the Bolshevik bloody takeover of power in Russia after World War One. And although Lenin died in his mid-50s, his ideas influenced and marked the following generations’ fate, development and lives for quite many decades that came after. <br />
<br />
==Lenin’s Early Life==<br />
<br />
Lenin was born on 22 April 1870 in Simbirsk on the Volga River into a well-educated family. Once he excelled at school, he chose to pursue a law studies and career. However, later in university, angered and influenced by the cruel public execution of his brother (being a member of a revolutionary group himself) at the hands of the ruling Tsarist regime, Lenin became far more radical in his thinking.<ref>Lenin’s older brother - Aleksandr Ulyanov, was involved with “Narodovoltsy” – a revolutionary terrorist society and in 1891 he was arrested and executed for taking part in an assassination plot against Tsar Alexander III.</ref> That event, together with his father’s death, marked a turning point in young Lenin’s life and broadly determined his path of the future revolutionary we know today.<br />
<br />
Shortly after these critical events, Lenin was expelled from the university for his active participation in student protests against Tsarist regime and was forced to continue his law studies as an external student at St. Petersburg University. Around that time he also became passionately interested in Karl Marx’s works. Unsurprisingly, even before concluding his education, young Lenin joined the Marxists groups at the age of 21 as to become a professional revolutionary. Lenin quickly got involved with Marxist societies and radical groups and even published several writings of his own. Almost all of them were immediately banned and restricted by the ruling regime, declared illegal and only passed from hand to hand. And because he caught the eye of the Russian radicals, Lenin was declared “enemy of the state” by the Russian police. He was mercilessly chased by the Tsarists for his radical views and ideas and soon he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. During his Siberian exile Vladimir adopted the famous “Lenin” pseudonym himself – the nick-name he’s become best known for<ref>Throughout his life Lenin often used many different pseudonyms for work or for security reasons</ref> <br />
<br />
==Lenin - the Young Revolutionary== <br />
<br />
Once Lenin was released, he continued to passionately work on his views regarding social imbalance and formed the famous Bolsheviks group of supporters – a major faction of Russian Marxists, later shaping the whole Communist Party.<ref>Initially establishing the so-called Russian Social Democratic Worker's Party and later – Communist Party.</ref> The synthesis of Lenin’s views combined together with those of Karl Marx created what we now know as “Marxism-Leninism” or the basis of whole Communist doctrine throughout the 20th century. His teachings attracted more and more passionate followers and were not popular with the Russian authorities at all – he was, after all, against the ruling Tsarist regime and class divisions in society. Vladimir aimed at total state ownership of goods, abolishing Tsarists privileges, equal rights for all and lack of workless personnel - even if that meant going to extremes like poets serving in army or getting involved with peasant work. As the tension grew, Lenin decided to leave the country for security reasons and move to Western Europe. He spent there most of the subsequent decade and a half and continued to play a key role also in the international revolutionary movement. <br />
<br />
Away from Russia he created his own propaganda means and won even more followers on his side. <ref>E.g. published his legendary newspaper “Iskra” (“Spark”) in Munich with the motto “From Spark to Flame!”</ref> Aided by foreign funds, Lenin actively challenged the established doctrine, policy and institution of the ruling Tsarist regimes. Vladimir quickly learnt, that the real force was within the proletariat – workers, soldiers and peasants – masses who would become his revolution’s weapons and dictatorship’s instruments later.<br />
<br />
==World War I Fatigue==<br />
<br />
In 1917, exhausted by World War One, Russia was up for a change. It was the perfect chaos moment for Lenin to return home. He was additionally funded by the Germans who hoped that he would undermine the Russian war efforts. Instead of arrested and exiled again, Lenin was warmly welcomed home and supported by other radical thinkers (e.g. Leon Trotsky) he led the Bolsheviks in the bloody violent Red October Revolution. Lenin, much to his own surprise, effectively ended the Russian Empire rather easily and established the Soviet state that would soon become a global superpower. Masses loved him, he had won their full support and devotion with his speeches and “illegal” writings calling for a change. In the following almost three years of civil war, the Bolsheviks assumed total control of the country. Vladimir acted as the first head of this new socialistic regime and was the architect of the USSR itself. Lenin also commanded and led the famous Red Army - established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution. <ref>A.k.a. Red October or Bolshevik Revolution </ref> <br />
<br />
Lenin proved decisive and ruthless from the very beginning: he neglected his fellow countrymen sufferings and mercilessly crushed any opposition or riots. The Red Army or as it was also commonly referred to - The Great Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army - was raised by Lenin’s Bolsheviks to oppose the various military collectively known as the White army during the Russian Civil War. After 1922 the Red Army became the army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics established by the new regime. In February 1946 it effectively transformed, embodied and led the Soviet Armed Forces or Soviet Army. Historically, the Red Army is also credited as being the decisive land force in the Allied victory in World War II during the operations on the Eastern Front. <br />
<br />
==Lenin’s Cult of Personality== <br />
<br />
Lenin had an amazing power over the crowds – he was a great orator with truly inspirational power. From early age Vladimir was capable of effectively transmitting and simplifying any complicated matter to the masses until people lost their will and eventually got their minds enslaved. But make no mistake: some may celebrate Lenin as a defendant of workers’ rights, but he was much more decisive and prepared to cause horrific mass suffering and sacrifice countless human lives in the pursuit of Communist goals. Millions of free-will poets, philosophers or priests lost their life or were forced to emigrate.<ref>Church was almost completely banned.</ref><br />
<br />
Lenin’s absolute authoritarian regime soon gained lots of opponents and he narrowly survived a few assassination attempts. In one of these attempts, Vladimir was severely wounded and his long term health was affected. However, Lenin was a true workaholic, which in effect further ruined his health. In May 1922 he suffered a stroke from which he never fully recovered. He lost his power of speech and his right arm and leg were paralyzed. In December came another stroke. The third followed in March 1923 and turned him into a living corpse. Lenin died on 24 January 1924. His corpse was embalmed and emblematically placed in a mausoleum in his memoriam on Moscow's Red Square. St Petersburg was named Leningrad (The City of Lenin). <br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
If we measure greatness by the power of will and the scale of damage, then Lenin was truly by all means one of the most remarkable politicians. He destroyed one powerful empires to create another based on extreme violence. In many ways he defined the development of world history throughout the 20th century. Certainly, Lenin was the founder of the idea and the guiding spirit of the Soviet Republics for many decades that followed - a communist philosopher, disciple of Karl Marx, a leader of the Bolshevik (Communist) Party and the mastermind of the 1917 Red October Revolution. Some may consider him a defender, others - a tyrant; some call him a saint, many more – a devil. But all in all Lenin played an enormous role in the history of the 20th century. He applied communist ideas to real life and his “experiment” forever changed the face of the world. Not only did he reshape all Russia but also had millions of people bent to his will, changing the very course of history in his own regard. Lenin was the first revolutionary dictator of the century with influence on a global scale. He was not the last and paved the way for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many others that followed as his Marxism-Leninism ideas and works were refreshed and broadly adopted afterwards during the Cold War. Nonetheless, it took over 70 years and millions of lives to put an end to Lenin’s era and forced utopia.<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
#http://www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007#young-revolutionary<br />
#http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin<br />
#http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin.aspx<br />
#http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Lenin-Vladimir.html<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:Russian History]] [[Category:Military History]] [[Category:World War One History]][[Category:Political History]][[Category:European History]]</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Vladimir_Lenin_Rise_To_Power&diff=977How did Vladimir Lenin Rise To Power2016-03-11T01:57:59Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Undoubtedly in the ranks of the turbulent 20th century’s decades a few names emerge as some of the most significant key revolutionaries known in the history of mankind: Lenin, Mandela, Stalin, Hitler, Mao to name a few. Yet some of them share and spread out that specific spirit able to spark a fire on a global scale, conquer minds and inspire millions of people effectively having them bent to their absolute will. But what does it take to be a true revolutionary and change the fate of those millions, to define the very course of the history itself and/or even shape entire countries? How does one bring down emblematic well-established ‘status quos’ and regimes to build one’s own upon former remains and ashes? What is it like to be a true visionary, to lead, inspire and motivate millions of people to follow you? <br />
[[File: 683px-Lenin.jpg|thumbnail|Vladimir Lenin]]<br />
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (later known as Lenin as he solely nicknamed himself) was one of the leading political figures in the course of the 20th century. He was the revolutionary thinker behind the USSR idea (a.k.a. The Great Soviet Union), fought to materialize it and masterminded the Bolshevik bloody takeover of power in Russia after World War One. And although Lenin died in his mid-50s, his ideas influenced and marked the following generations’ fate, development and lives for quite many decades that came after. <br />
<br />
=Lenin’s Early Life=<br />
<br />
Lenin was born on 22 April 1870 in Simbirsk on the Volga River into a well-educated family. Once he excelled at school, he chose to pursue a law studies and career. However, later in university, angered and influenced by the cruel public execution of his brother (being a member of a revolutionary group himself) at the hands of the ruling Tsarist regime, Lenin became far more radical in his thinking.<ref>Lenin’s older brother - Aleksandr Ulyanov, was involved with “Narodovoltsy” – a revolutionary terrorist society and in 1891 he was arrested and executed for taking part in an assassination plot against Tsar Alexander III.</ref> That event, together with his father’s death, marked a turning point in young Lenin’s life and broadly determined his path of the future revolutionary we know today.<br />
<br />
Shortly after these critical events, Lenin was expelled from the university for his active participation in student protests against Tsarist regime and was forced to continue his law studies as an external student at St. Petersburg University. Around that time he also became passionately interested in Karl Marx’s works. Unsurprisingly, even before concluding his education, young Lenin joined the Marxists groups at the age of 21 as to become a professional revolutionary. Lenin quickly got involved with Marxist societies and radical groups and even published several writings of his own. Almost all of them were immediately banned and restricted by the ruling regime, declared illegal and only passed from hand to hand. And because he caught the eye of the Russian radicals, Lenin was declared “enemy of the state” by the Russian police. He was mercilessly chased by the Tsarists for his radical views and ideas and soon he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. During his Siberian exile Vladimir adopted the famous “Lenin” pseudonym himself – the nick-name he’s become best known for<ref>Throughout his life Lenin often used many different pseudonyms for work or for security reasons</ref> <br />
<br />
=Lenin - the Young Revolutionary= <br />
<br />
Once Lenin was released, he continued to passionately work on his views regarding social imbalance and formed the famous Bolsheviks group of supporters – a major faction of Russian Marxists, later shaping the whole Communist Party.<ref>Initially establishing the so-called Russian Social Democratic Worker's Party and later – Communist Party.</ref> The synthesis of Lenin’s views combined together with those of Karl Marx created what we now know as “Marxism-Leninism” or the basis of whole Communist doctrine throughout the 20th century. His teachings attracted more and more passionate followers and were not popular with the Russian authorities at all – he was, after all, against the ruling Tsarist regime and class divisions in society. Vladimir aimed at total state ownership of goods, abolishing Tsarists privileges, equal rights for all and lack of workless personnel - even if that meant going to extremes like poets serving in army or getting involved with peasant work. As the tension grew, Lenin decided to leave the country for security reasons and move to Western Europe. He spent there most of the subsequent decade and a half and continued to play a key role also in the international revolutionary movement. <br />
<br />
<br />
Away from Russia he created his own propaganda means and won even more followers on his side. <ref>E.g. published his legendary newspaper “Iskra” (“Spark”) in Munich with the motto “From Spark to Flame!”</ref> Aided by foreign funds, Lenin actively challenged the established doctrine, policy and institution of the ruling Tsarist regimes. Vladimir quickly learnt, that the real force was within the proletariat – workers, soldiers and peasants – masses who would become his revolution’s weapons and dictatorship’s instruments later.<br />
<br />
==World War I Fatigue==<br />
<br />
In 1917, exhausted by World War One, Russia was up for a change. It was the perfect chaos moment for Lenin to return home. He was additionally funded by the Germans who hoped that he would undermine the Russian war efforts. Instead of arrested and exiled again, Lenin was warmly welcomed home and supported by other radical thinkers (e.g. Leon Trotsky) he led the Bolsheviks in the bloody violent Red October Revolution. Lenin, much to his own surprise, effectively ended the Russian Empire rather easily and established the Soviet state that would soon become a global superpower. Masses loved him, he had won their full support and devotion with his speeches and “illegal” writings calling for a change. In the following almost three years of civil war, the Bolsheviks assumed total control of the country. Vladimir acted as the first head of this new socialistic regime and was the architect of the USSR itself. Lenin also commanded and led the famous Red Army - established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution. <ref>A.k.a. Red October or Bolshevik Revolution </ref> <br />
<br />
Lenin proved decisive and ruthless from the very beginning: he neglected his fellow countrymen sufferings and mercilessly crushed any opposition or riots. The Red Army or as it was also commonly referred to - The Great Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army - was raised by Lenin’s Bolsheviks to oppose the various military collectively known as the White army during the Russian Civil War. After 1922 the Red Army became the army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics established by the new regime. In February 1946 it effectively transformed, embodied and led the Soviet Armed Forces or Soviet Army. Historically, the Red Army is also credited as being the decisive land force in the Allied victory in World War II during the operations on the Eastern Front. <br />
<br />
=Lenin’s Cult of Personality= <br />
<br />
Lenin had an amazing power over the crowds – he was a great orator with truly inspirational power. From early age Vladimir was capable of effectively transmitting and simplifying any complicated matter to the masses until people lost their will and eventually got their minds enslaved. But make no mistake: some may celebrate Lenin as a defendant of workers’ rights, but he was much more decisive and prepared to cause horrific mass suffering and sacrifice countless human lives in the pursuit of Communist goals. Millions of free-will poets, philosophers or priests lost their life or were forced to emigrate.<ref>Church was almost completely banned.</ref><br />
<br />
Lenin’s absolute authoritarian regime soon gained lots of opponents and he narrowly survived a few assassination attempts. In one of these attempts, Vladimir was severely wounded and his long term health was affected. However, Lenin was a true workaholic, which in effect further ruined his health. In May 1922 he suffered a stroke from which he never fully recovered. He lost his power of speech and his right arm and leg were paralyzed. In December came another stroke. The third followed in March 1923 and turned him into a living corpse. Lenin died on 24 January 1924. His corpse was embalmed and emblematically placed in a mausoleum in his memoriam on Moscow's Red Square. St Petersburg was named Leningrad (The City of Lenin). <br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
If we measure greatness by the power of will and the scale of damage, then Lenin was truly by all means one of the most remarkable politicians. He destroyed one powerful empires to create another based on extreme violence. In many ways he defined the development of world history throughout the 20th century. Certainly, Lenin was the founder of the idea and the guiding spirit of the Soviet Republics for many decades that followed - a communist philosopher, disciple of Karl Marx, a leader of the Bolshevik (Communist) Party and the mastermind of the 1917 Red October Revolution. Some may consider him a defender, others - a tyrant; some call him a saint, many more – a devil. But all in all Lenin played an enormous role in the history of the 20th century. He applied communist ideas to real life and his “experiment” forever changed the face of the world. Not only did he reshape all Russia but also had millions of people bent to his will, changing the very course of history in his own regard. Lenin was the first revolutionary dictator of the century with influence on a global scale. He was not the last and paved the way for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many others that followed as his Marxism-Leninism ideas and works were refreshed and broadly adopted afterwards during the Cold War. Nonetheless, it took over 70 years and millions of lives to put an end to Lenin’s era and forced utopia.<br />
<br />
=Bibliography=<br />
<br />
#http://www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007#young-revolutionary<br />
#http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin<br />
#http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin.aspx<br />
#http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Lenin-Vladimir.html<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:Russian History]] [[Category:Military History]] [[Category:World War One History]][[Category:Political History]][[Category:European History]]</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Vladimir_Lenin_Rise_To_Power&diff=975How did Vladimir Lenin Rise To Power2016-03-11T01:52:44Z<p>IncantoX: </p>
<hr />
<div>Undoubtedly in the ranks of the turbulent 20th century’s decades a few names emerge as some of the most significant key revolutionaries known in the history of mankind: Lenin, Mandela, Stalin, Hitler, Mao to name a few. Yet some of them share and spread out that specific spirit able to spark a fire on a global scale, conquer minds and inspire millions of people effectively having them bent to their absolute will. But what does it take to be a true revolutionary and change the fate of those millions, to define the very course of the history itself and/or even shape entire countries? How does one bring down emblematic well-established ‘status quos’ and regimes to build one’s own upon former remains and ashes? What is it like to be a true visionary, to lead, inspire and motivate millions of people to follow you? <br />
<br />
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (later known as Lenin as he solely nicknamed himself) was one of the leading political figures in the course of the 20th century. He was the revolutionary thinker behind the USSR idea (a.k.a. The Great Soviet Union), fought to materialize it and masterminded the Bolshevik bloody takeover of power in Russia after World War One. And although Lenin died in his mid-50s, his ideas influenced and marked the following generations’ fate, development and lives for quite many decades that came after. <br />
<br />
=Lenin’s Early Life=<br />
<br />
Lenin was born on 22 April 1870 in Simbirsk on the Volga River into a well-educated family. Once he excelled at school, he chose to pursue a law studies and career. However, later in university, angered and influenced by the cruel public execution of his brother (being a member of a revolutionary group himself) at the hands of the ruling Tsarist regime, Lenin became far more radical in his thinking.<ref>Lenin’s older brother - Aleksandr Ulyanov, was involved with “Narodovoltsy” – a revolutionary terrorist society and in 1891 he was arrested and executed for taking part in an assassination plot against Tsar Alexander III.</ref> That event, together with his father’s death, marked a turning point in young Lenin’s life and broadly determined his path of the future revolutionary we know today.<br />
<br />
Shortly after these critical events, Lenin was expelled from the university for his active participation in student protests against Tsarist regime and was forced to continue his law studies as an external student at St. Petersburg University. Around that time he also became passionately interested in Karl Marx’s works. Unsurprisingly, even before concluding his education, young Lenin joined the Marxists groups at the age of 21 as to become a professional revolutionary. Lenin quickly got involved with Marxist societies and radical groups and even published several writings of his own. Almost all of them were immediately banned and restricted by the ruling regime, declared illegal and only passed from hand to hand. And because he caught the eye of the Russian radicals, Lenin was declared “enemy of the state” by the Russian police. He was mercilessly chased by the Tsarists for his radical views and ideas and soon he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. During his Siberian exile Vladimir adopted the famous “Lenin” pseudonym himself – the nick-name he’s become best known for<ref>Throughout his life Lenin often used many different pseudonyms for work or for security reasons</ref> <br />
<br />
=Lenin - the Young Revolutionary= <br />
<br />
Once Lenin was released, he continued to passionately work on his views regarding social imbalance and formed the famous Bolsheviks group of supporters – a major faction of Russian Marxists, later shaping the whole Communist Party.<ref>Initially establishing the so-called Russian Social Democratic Worker's Party and later – Communist Party.</ref> The synthesis of Lenin’s views combined together with those of Karl Marx created what we now know as “Marxism-Leninism” or the basis of whole Communist doctrine throughout the 20th century. His teachings attracted more and more passionate followers and were not popular with the Russian authorities at all – he was, after all, against the ruling Tsarist regime and class divisions in society. Vladimir aimed at total state ownership of goods, abolishing Tsarists privileges, equal rights for all and lack of workless personnel - even if that meant going to extremes like poets serving in army or getting involved with peasant work. As the tension grew, Lenin decided to leave the country for security reasons and move to Western Europe. He spent there most of the subsequent decade and a half and continued to play a key role also in the international revolutionary movement. <br />
<br />
<br />
Away from Russia he created his own propaganda means and won even more followers on his side. <ref>E.g. published his legendary newspaper “Iskra” (“Spark”) in Munich with the motto “From Spark to Flame!”</ref> Aided by foreign funds, Lenin actively challenged the established doctrine, policy and institution of the ruling Tsarist regimes. Vladimir quickly learnt, that the real force was within the proletariat – workers, soldiers and peasants – masses who would become his revolution’s weapons and dictatorship’s instruments later.<br />
<br />
==World War I Fatigue==<br />
<br />
In 1917, exhausted by World War One, Russia was up for a change. It was the perfect chaos moment for Lenin to return home. He was additionally funded by the Germans who hoped that he would undermine the Russian war efforts. Instead of arrested and exiled again, Lenin was warmly welcomed home and supported by other radical thinkers (e.g. Leon Trotsky) he led the Bolsheviks in the bloody violent Red October Revolution. Lenin, much to his own surprise, effectively ended the Russian Empire rather easily and established the Soviet state that would soon become a global superpower. Masses loved him, he had won their full support and devotion with his speeches and “illegal” writings calling for a change. In the following almost three years of civil war, the Bolsheviks assumed total control of the country. Vladimir acted as the first head of this new socialistic regime and was the architect of the USSR itself. Lenin also commanded and led the famous Red Army - established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution. <ref>A.k.a. Red October or Bolshevik Revolution </ref> <br />
<br />
Lenin proved decisive and ruthless from the very beginning: he neglected his fellow countrymen sufferings and mercilessly crushed any opposition or riots. The Red Army or as it was also commonly referred to - The Great Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army - was raised by Lenin’s Bolsheviks to oppose the various military collectively known as the White army during the Russian Civil War. After 1922 the Red Army became the army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics established by the new regime. In February 1946 it effectively transformed, embodied and led the Soviet Armed Forces or Soviet Army. Historically, the Red Army is also credited as being the decisive land force in the Allied victory in World War II during the operations on the Eastern Front. <br />
<br />
=Lenin’s Cult of Personality= <br />
<br />
Lenin had an amazing power over the crowds – he was a great orator with truly inspirational power. From early age Vladimir was capable of effectively transmitting and simplifying any complicated matter to the masses until people lost their will and eventually got their minds enslaved. But make no mistake: some may celebrate Lenin as a defendant of workers’ rights, but he was much more decisive and prepared to cause horrific mass suffering and sacrifice countless human lives in the pursuit of Communist goals. Millions of free-will poets, philosophers or priests lost their life or were forced to emigrate.<ref>Church was almost completely banned.</ref><br />
<br />
Lenin’s absolute authoritarian regime soon gained lots of opponents and he narrowly survived a few assassination attempts. In one of these attempts, Vladimir was severely wounded and his long term health was affected. However, Lenin was a true workaholic, which in effect further ruined his health. In May 1922 he suffered a stroke from which he never fully recovered. He lost his power of speech and his right arm and leg were paralyzed. In December came another stroke. The third followed in March 1923 and turned him into a living corpse. Lenin died on 24 January 1924. His corpse was embalmed and emblematically placed in a mausoleum in his memoriam on Moscow's Red Square. St Petersburg was named Leningrad (The City of Lenin). <br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
If we measure greatness by the power of will and the scale of damage, then Lenin was truly by all means one of the most remarkable politicians. He destroyed one powerful empires to create another based on extreme violence. In many ways he defined the development of world history throughout the 20th century. Certainly, Lenin was the founder of the idea and the guiding spirit of the Soviet Republics for many decades that followed - a communist philosopher, disciple of Karl Marx, a leader of the Bolshevik (Communist) Party and the mastermind of the 1917 Red October Revolution. Some may consider him a defender, others - a tyrant; some call him a saint, many more – a devil. But all in all Lenin played an enormous role in the history of the 20th century. He applied communist ideas to real life and his “experiment” forever changed the face of the world. Not only did he reshape all Russia but also had millions of people bent to his will, changing the very course of history in his own regard. Lenin was the first revolutionary dictator of the century with influence on a global scale. He was not the last and paved the way for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many others that followed as his Marxism-Leninism ideas and works were refreshed and broadly adopted afterwards during the Cold War. Nonetheless, it took over 70 years and millions of lives to put an end to Lenin’s era and forced utopia.<br />
<br />
=Bibliography=<br />
<br />
#http://www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007#young-revolutionary<br />
#http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin<br />
#http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin.aspx<br />
#http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Lenin-Vladimir.html<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:Russian History]] [[Category:Military History]] [[Category:World War One History]][[Category:Political History]][[Category:European History]]</div>IncantoXhttps://www.dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_Vladimir_Lenin_Rise_To_Power&diff=974How did Vladimir Lenin Rise To Power2016-03-11T01:52:10Z<p>IncantoX: Created page with "Undoubtedly in the ranks of the turbulent 20th century’s decades a few names emerge as some of the most significant key revolutionaries known in the history of mankind: Leni..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Undoubtedly in the ranks of the turbulent 20th century’s decades a few names emerge as some of the most significant key revolutionaries known in the history of mankind: Lenin, Mandela, Stalin, Hitler, Mao to name a few. Yet some of them share and spread out that specific spirit able to spark a fire on a global scale, conquer minds and inspire millions of people effectively having them bent to their absolute will. But what does it take to be a true revolutionary and change the fate of those millions, to define the very course of the history itself and/or even shape entire countries? How does one bring down emblematic well-established ‘status quos’ and regimes to build one’s own upon former remains and ashes? What is it like to be a true visionary, to lead, inspire and motivate millions of people to follow you? <br />
<br />
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (later known as Lenin as he solely nicknamed himself) was one of the leading political figures in the course of the 20th century. He was the revolutionary thinker behind the USSR idea (a.k.a. The Great Soviet Union), fought to materialize it and masterminded the Bolshevik bloody takeover of power in Russia after World War One. And although Lenin died in his mid-50s, his ideas influenced and marked the following generations’ fate, development and lives for quite many decades that came after. <br />
<br />
=Lenin’s Early Life=<br />
<br />
Lenin was born on 22 April 1870 in Simbirsk on the Volga River into a well-educated family. Once he excelled at school, he chose to pursue a law studies and career. However, later in university, angered and influenced by the cruel public execution of his brother (being a member of a revolutionary group himself) at the hands of the ruling Tsarist regime, Lenin became far more radical in his thinking.<ref>Lenin’s older brother - Aleksandr Ulyanov, was involved with “Narodovoltsy” – a revolutionary terrorist society and in 1891 he was arrested and executed for taking part in an assassination plot against Tsar Alexander III.</ref> That event, together with his father’s death, marked a turning point in young Lenin’s life and broadly determined his path of the future revolutionary we know today.<br />
<br />
Shortly after these critical events, Lenin was expelled from the university for his active participation in student protests against Tsarist regime and was forced to continue his law studies as an external student at St. Petersburg University. Around that time he also became passionately interested in Karl Marx’s works. Unsurprisingly, even before concluding his education, young Lenin joined the Marxists groups at the age of 21 as to become a professional revolutionary. Lenin quickly got involved with Marxist societies and radical groups and even published several writings of his own. Almost all of them were immediately banned and restricted by the ruling regime, declared illegal and only passed from hand to hand. And because he caught the eye of the Russian radicals, Lenin was declared “enemy of the state” by the Russian police. He was mercilessly chased by the Tsarists for his radical views and ideas and soon he was arrested and exiled to Siberia. During his Siberian exile Vladimir adopted the famous “Lenin” pseudonym himself – the nick-name he’s become best known for<ref>Throughout his life Lenin often used many different pseudonyms for work or for security reasons</ref> <br />
<br />
=Lenin - the Young Revolutionary= <br />
<br />
Once Lenin was released, he continued to passionately work on his views regarding social imbalance and formed the famous Bolsheviks group of supporters – a major faction of Russian Marxists, later shaping the whole Communist Party.<ref>Initially establishing the so-called Russian Social Democratic Worker's Party and later – Communist Party.</ref> The synthesis of Lenin’s views combined together with those of Karl Marx created what we now know as “Marxism-Leninism” or the basis of whole Communist doctrine throughout the 20th century. His teachings attracted more and more passionate followers and were not popular with the Russian authorities at all – he was, after all, against the ruling Tsarist regime and class divisions in society. Vladimir aimed at total state ownership of goods, abolishing Tsarists privileges, equal rights for all and lack of workless personnel - even if that meant going to extremes like poets serving in army or getting involved with peasant work. As the tension grew, Lenin decided to leave the country for security reasons and move to Western Europe. He spent there most of the subsequent decade and a half and continued to play a key role also in the international revolutionary movement. <br />
<br />
<br />
Away from Russia he created his own propaganda means and won even more followers on his side. <ref>E.g. published his legendary newspaper “Iskra” (“Spark”) in Munich with the motto “From Spark to Flame!”</ref> Aided by foreign funds, Lenin actively challenged the established doctrine, policy and institution of the ruling Tsarist regimes. Vladimir quickly learnt, that the real force was within the proletariat – workers, soldiers and peasants – masses who would become his revolution’s weapons and dictatorship’s instruments later.<br />
<br />
==World War I Fatigue==<br />
<br />
In 1917, exhausted by World War One, Russia was up for a change. It was the perfect chaos moment for Lenin to return home. He was additionally funded by the Germans who hoped that he would undermine the Russian war efforts. Instead of arrested and exiled again, Lenin was warmly welcomed home and supported by other radical thinkers (e.g. Leon Trotsky) he led the Bolsheviks in the bloody violent Red October Revolution. Lenin, much to his own surprise, effectively ended the Russian Empire rather easily and established the Soviet state that would soon become a global superpower. Masses loved him, he had won their full support and devotion with his speeches and “illegal” writings calling for a change. In the following almost three years of civil war, the Bolsheviks assumed total control of the country. Vladimir acted as the first head of this new socialistic regime and was the architect of the USSR itself. Lenin also commanded and led the famous Red Army - established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution. <ref>A.k.a. Red October or Bolshevik Revolution </ref> <br />
<br />
Lenin proved decisive and ruthless from the very beginning: he neglected his fellow countrymen sufferings and mercilessly crushed any opposition or riots. The Red Army or as it was also commonly referred to - The Great Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army - was raised by Lenin’s Bolsheviks to oppose the various military collectively known as the White army during the Russian Civil War. After 1922 the Red Army became the army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics established by the new regime. In February 1946 it effectively transformed, embodied and led the Soviet Armed Forces or Soviet Army. Historically, the Red Army is also credited as being the decisive land force in the Allied victory in World War II during the operations on the Eastern Front. <br />
<br />
=Lenin’s Cult of Personality= <br />
<br />
Lenin had an amazing power over the crowds – he was a great orator with truly inspirational power. From early age Vladimir was capable of effectively transmitting and simplifying any complicated matter to the masses until people lost their will and eventually got their minds enslaved. But make no mistake: some may celebrate Lenin as a defendant of workers’ rights, but he was much more decisive and prepared to cause horrific mass suffering and sacrifice countless human lives in the pursuit of Communist goals. Millions of free-will poets, philosophers or priests lost their life or were forced to emigrate.<ref>Church was almost completely banned.</ref><br />
<br />
Lenin’s absolute authoritarian regime soon gained lots of opponents and he narrowly survived a few assassination attempts. In one of these attempts, Vladimir was severely wounded and his long term health was affected. However, Lenin was a true workaholic, which in effect further ruined his health. In May 1922 he suffered a stroke from which he never fully recovered. He lost his power of speech and his right arm and leg were paralyzed. In December came another stroke. The third followed in March 1923 and turned him into a living corpse. Lenin died on 24 January 1924. His corpse was embalmed and emblematically placed in a mausoleum in his memoriam on Moscow's Red Square. St Petersburg was named Leningrad (The City of Lenin). <br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
If we measure greatness by the power of will and the scale of damage, then Lenin was truly by all means one of the most remarkable politicians. He destroyed one powerful empires to create another based on extreme violence. In many ways he defined the development of world history throughout the 20th century. Certainly, Lenin was the founder of the idea and the guiding spirit of the Soviet Republics for many decades that followed - a communist philosopher, disciple of Karl Marx, a leader of the Bolshevik (Communist) Party and the mastermind of the 1917 Red October Revolution. Some may consider him a defender, others - a tyrant; some call him a saint, many more – a devil. But all in all Lenin played an enormous role in the history of the 20th century. He applied communist ideas to real life and his “experiment” forever changed the face of the world. Not only did he reshape all Russia but also had millions of people bent to his will, changing the very course of history in his own regard. Lenin was the first revolutionary dictator of the century with influence on a global scale. He was not the last and paved the way for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many others that followed as his Marxism-Leninism ideas and works were refreshed and broadly adopted afterwards during the Cold War. Nonetheless, it took over 70 years and millions of lives to put an end to Lenin’s era and forced utopia.<br />
<br />
=Bibliography=<br />
<br />
http://www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007#young-revolutionary<br />
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin<br />
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin.aspx<br />
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ki-Lo/Lenin-Vladimir.html<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Wikis]]<br />
[[Category:Russian History]] [[Category:Military History]] [[Category:World War One History]][[Category:Political History]][[Category:European History]]</div>IncantoX