East European Studies

The book is neither a grand narrative of European history nor a narrative of specific rulers. It is an attempt to view the Habsburg family as the product of a grounded iconology which the family itself had created for centuries. One can therefore argue that this book is a variation of postmodernist history, a school of thought which synthesizes innovation and hypotheses, common sense and logic. The book is not oriented towards the recreation of important events in the history of the Habsburgs it is oriented towards academic self-efficacy.
 
Summary
In the early 1200s, Count Rudolf I was elected king of Germany. He was entitled to become the Holy Roman emperor. In 1278, Rudolf defeated and killed Ottokar II, the nominal king of Bohemia. Austria and Styria fell under his control. His two sons were granted control over these regions. Over the past centuries, the Habsburgs sought political control over regions in Spain, Italy, and France. In 1453, Friedrich III assumed the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. He firmly believed that Austria was the superior nation among the European family of states. In pursuit of this belief, he declared war against Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary. He captured the city of Vienna. Maximilian, his immediate successor, married Maria of Burgundy, acquiring additional land for the Habsburg family. His other son, Philip was married to Joan, daughter of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. They had two sons Charles I and Ferdinand I. Charles became the king of Spain in 1516 and Ferdinand ruler of the Austrian kingdom. In 1519, Charles was crowned Charles V, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He acquired territories in Italy, France, the Low Countries, and Eastern Europe, and fought the Turks in several campaigns in the Balkans.
   
Charles then abdicated the thrones of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. His son, Philip II, ruled Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands. Ferdinand I ruled over the German territories. From 1500 to 1700, the Habsburgs were involved in several political intrigues, wars with the Turks, and prevalent religious rebellions. During the War of the Austrian Succession, Maria Theresa, Austrias empress, successfully retained control of Austria and Hungary. At the close of the 18th century, Austrias preeminence was eclipse by Napoleonic France. Napoleon abolished the Holy Roman Empire  the bastion of Habsburg control. Even with the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the Habsburg power was weakening. In 1918, the Allied Powers defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which led to the dissolution of the monarchy.

Ideas and Themes
From the moment of its inception, the Habsburg family sought control over strategic territories in Europe. According to the author, this was not an unconscious choice. The Habsburg family had the capacity for building an enterprise of nations because of their familial lineage and military prowess. From the start, intermarriage with the ruling families of Europe was necessary for strengthening the familys position in Europe. Maximilian, for example, arranged the marriage of his two daughters to the kings of Naples and Scotland. Maintaining a large military force was also necessary to combat the advancing Turks in the Balkans.
   
According to the author, it is impossible to understand the nature of the Habsburg family without reference to the political and economic conditions of the 15th and 16th century. The immense wealth of Eastern European kingdoms attracted the Habsburg. Indeed, if the family was to acquire these sources of wealth, it must be positioned in a state of power  the Holy Roman Empire. Control of the Holy Roman Empire ensured the familys political future in Europe.
Focus in the Study of Eastern Europe
   
The history of the Habsburg is undoubtedly related to the history of Austria. In 1500, Austria was a nominal province of the Holy Roman Empire. During the rule of Ferdinand, Austria became a country under nominal control of the Holy Roman Empire. Successive Holy Roman emperors were also rulers of the Austrian nation. During the reign of Maria Theresa, Austria was a large empire covering territories in Southern Germany, Poland, and Hungary.
   
Austrian nationalism was the product of Napoleonic imperialism. Napoleons attempt to subdue Austria was met with strong opposition from both traditionalists and liberals. Herein, the contradiction of aims began to manifest itself. Although Austria was an authoritarian state, it aimed to create a pan-Eastern European family of nations governed by diplomacy and political cooperation. Slowly, Austria was becoming a modern nation.

Evaluation
The book is indeed a departure from the traditional historical narrative. It presents the Habsburg family as a product of historical events (not of incidents). As such, it is important for the reader to always analyze historical conditions prior to historical entities. Indeed, this macroscopic, individualistic approach to the study of history is both complete and multidimensional. The book though failed to substantiate the claim which states that the Habsburg family was the founder of the Austrian nation. A positive response would mean a departure of the accepted approach. A negative response would be tantamount to historical exaggeration.

The present ruler has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people, and whatever the future may have in store for the dynasty, the present tsar will never again be safe in the midst of his people.
- The American consul in Odessa

The Revolution in 1905 was an insurrection of the mankind of Russia uttering for a change in their administration. That begun by concerned troupes aperturing the fire on tranquil striders in St. Petersburg on January 9, on the same year, since that date has been called Bloody Sunday. After striving to recover the control of the state for almost a year, establshed peace by making the October Manifesto, an official paper which granted fundamental civil freedom and rights to the Russian individual and gave people a voice in the administration through the referendum of the Duma. Significant improvements in Russia are because of the 1905 Revolution.

On the other hand, the February and October 1917 Revolution was the climax of alenthy period of  suppression and disruption. Since the time of Peter the Great, the czardom progressively bacame an despotic bureaucracy that inflicted that this will be on human force, with wanton ignored for liberty, freedom and humans life. As Western technology was fostered by the czars, Western compassionate conceptions were obtained by a class of litrate Russians. Amidst this progressing intelligentsia, almost all of whom were theoretically humanitarian and egolitarian , there were also those who were govenmentally radicala and rebellious.  The institution bacame a seat of rebellious activity, anarchism, nihilism and after, Marxism were adopted and cultivated.

Both the 1905 Revolution and February and October  1917 Revolutions were strikes for the oppressing social and political system during that time. Fortunately due to this strikes and collisions, people of Russia were given voices and fair humanitarian treatment.

After the fall of the Second Triumvirate with the defeat of Antony in the Battle of Actium, Augustus became the unofficial princeps of the Roman Empire exercising de facto dictatorial powers within the ambit of the constitution of the Republic. Being supreme in the whole of the empire, Augustus instituted various reforms in the military and political fronts. Through these reforms, Augustus implicitly hoped to secure his continued rule over Rome, to glorify Rome as a capital city and to establish a long-lasting peace and stability in the empire, an intention he oftentimes invoke in private and in public. History would show that Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, was able to achieve both.
   
Augustus power emanates from the fact that he controlled a vast army and therefore his rule was determined by his relationship with the military. To this end, he pursued to professionalize the army by limiting the number of soldiers, opened up career promotions within the organization, and granted veterans pensions in terms of money or property. Through these measures, Augustus was able to create a vastly professional and greatly loyal military force. Aside from that, he implemented a policy of recruiting non-citizens from the provinces into the auxilliary units and enjoined local authorities to establish their own armies. Clearly these policies were aimed to show concern for the provinces as well as to convey political confidence. In addition, he also wished to protect the frontiers. After all these were implemented, the Roman Empire entered into a period of peace and security called the Pax Romana - a very tangible proof of Augustus success with respect to his intent to establish peace and stability within the empire. 
   
In the political field, reforms instituted by Augustus can be primarily interpreted as his way of perpetuating his continued administration of the empire. He reduced the number of Senators from 1000 to 800 and eventually to a mere 600 but, on the other hand, he acknowledged the Senates sovereignty in law and tradition. In this way, Augustus was able to maintain the facade that the Republic is still in effect and at the same time remain in control of the Senate. He likewise implemented various reforms in the civil and fiscal administration of the Roman empire. All these combined provided Rome with a stable political environment, a working bureaucratic system, and replenished public coffers.
   
In conclusion, one can easily see the personal drive of Augustus to secure himself politically and militarily. The many and far-reaching reforms he instituted were primarily directed for the continuance of his rule as the sole princeps of the Roman empire. However, in Augustus favor, he was guided in his reforms by the constitution of the Republic. In addition, the military and political reforms he implemented was able to give Rome and the rest of the empire a period or relative peace, stability and plenty. Having these in mind, it can be confidently stated that the great Caesar Augustus was able to achieve all that he wished to achieve with his political and military reforms.

The Revolution of 1905 is a significant part of the history of Russia. The situation of the country in the years before this revolution was filled with hardships and sufferings because of the mismanagement of the governing body. Even before 1905, several parts of Russia have already begun defying their governments because the harsh conditions and cruel practices brought about by the autocratic rulers caused grave damages to the lives of the people. Peasant leaders from many towns led their people away from their government until it reached a point where the ruling Tsar, along with his local force, could no longer do anything to fully control the situation. The feeling of desperation and injustice that the people who opposed the autocracy practiced in their land was one of the main causes of the very important revolution of 1905.

It was really the difficult conditions that many people were experiencing sparked the idea of revolution. People from the lower classes such as the workers, peasants, middle class professionals, and soldiers experienced maltreatment and injustice. For instance, before the revolution, workers and peasants were deprived of their civil rights and were not given the chance to vote. The hours of work required in factories lasted for almost half a day and for six times a week. The workers are not even well compensated and treated fairly. The wage they earned continued to decline continuously. Moreover, the workers were left out of the  culture, society, and political process,  and this led to a feeling of desperation in most of the population. This agitated ideas of liberalism, equality, and freedom in the hearts of people from different regions and social standings. Hence, the movements of the revolution included  ending the autocracy and establishing a democratically elected legislative assembly responsible for appointing the government. Soldiers, on the other hand, also had their own mutinies, although they were not linked to the movements of the workers and peasants because their rebellion was more directed to their superiors only. The workers, peasants, and even the soldiers were motivated by the idea that through rebellion and protests, they could successfully turn around their positions in life.

As mentioned, the workers and peasants were greatly dissatisfied by their place in the society and wanted to elevate their situation. Thus, the rebellion against the Russian system of governance became more pronounced as the months passed. Different leaders from all regions and sectors of life continued to strengthen the claim of the revolution. However, the labor force and the peasantry lacked the uniting factor to tumble down the government. The movements of the labor force never coincided along the revolts of the peasants. It would have been an easier victory for them and a graver problem for the autocracy  had the two protest movements developed simultaneously in 1905. The revolution was far from being resolved as both the two groups were not able to complete achieve their own goals despite their admirable efforts. The disparity in ideas and reasons of the working class and the peasants were also greatly reflected in their way of fighting or revolting  Workers wanted political change because there was no other way to improve their condition and achieve some degree of human dignity, while intellectuals wanted a transformation of society.

Given the events that were taking place in Russia during this era, the Revolution of 1905 became almost inevitable. The incident of Bloody Sunday, a historical event in Russia wherein hundreds of people from the labor force were killed and wounded, was what really pulled the trigger of the revolution.  Bloody Sunday ignited a series of strikes and protests all over the empire,  and the people who joined the revolution came from all sectors of the society, even professionals and students. The impact of this incident was very massive and the protests paved way for the demands of the people to be heard. Some the demands of these sectors included a limit of eight hours of work, normal wage rates, the transfer of landownership to those who worked on it, freedom of speech, press, association, and worship, the opportunity of free universal primary education for everyone, and the separation of church and state.

Also, the causes of this revolution eventually led to other bigger revolutions. Not all issues were completely resolved at once, and Russia had to face other wars in the following years. In fact, the same sentiments of the people in 1905 caused larger revolutions in 1917. Nevertheless, the Revolution of 1905 was indeed pivotal in changing the course of Russia s history, specifically the social system and governance of the country. According to Ascher, the best conclusion that could be derived from the 1905 Revolution is that  wherever nationalism was already a significant force, it tended to stimulate and intensify hostility toward the autocratic regime. Because of the seeds of nationalism, equality, and freedom that were planted in the hearts of the workers, peasants, and soldiers of Russia, they learned to defend themselves against the assault and injustice of their current authorities.
   
The Revolution of 1905 can most appropriately be described as the beginning of Russian Tsar s succumbing to the demands of his people. It was a turning point in Russian history because the labor force and the peasantry began recognizing their capabilities and rights. Although it was not able to achieve all its goals at once and the struggle continued to rise after a few years, the Revolution of 1905 will always be significant to history because it was a revolt that was caused by sufferings, hardships, and pleas of the people for freedom and fairness in the society.

Narratives passed on by early civilizations reflect much of their own lives and culture. Narratives were documented through word of mouth, drawings, and text. Stories were shared and were devised for entertainment purposes (Dalley, 1989).
    The account of great flood of the early times was given light through different languages, with different characters, and, somehow, the same perspective. The story of the great flood permeates several cultures. It is said that the Bibles version of the story is the most well-known. Other version of it are that of the Sumerian (Eridu Genesis), Babylonian (Epic of Atrahasis, Epic of Gilgame, and Epic of Berissus), Greek (Stories by Ovid, Hyginus, and Apollodorus), and Mayan (Popol Vuh version). Several other cultures around the world have their own version of the great flood. Similar stories have been passed down from generations to generations and across cultures. Flood stories emerge from the Southeast Asia to the Pacific, from Southwest Europe extending to North, Central, and South America (Dundes, 1988). Is there a significant connection between these regions And what are these if there are any Is the biblical, the well-known version, just a modification of the earlier versions
    Scholars have long been studying stories of the great flood and tales of the same sort looking for parallelism and disparities in them. Of the significant similarities in them is the existence of a powerful being who found distastefulness in his land. As an act of retaliation, he set forth flood (or a phenomenon similar to it) that destroyed majority of the race and leaving only a selected few alive. This similarity may present similar beliefs in the mentioned regions. The early people may have believed in a powerful being that brings forth retribution to mankind because of disagreeable behavior they may have done. There also might have been a major flood that occurred thousands of years ago that its story has been passed on and versions of it have been generated. Another similarity between the stories is the creation of a boatark (Deem, 2009). It can be drawn from this that the regions mentioned were near bodies of water and that people in it were familiar with navigation in water. The Hebrews were believed to have inhabited the land near the Euphrates River. This can possibly be a basis for the Hebrew account demonstrating a more accurate design of the vessel. Moreover, it appears that the Hebrew culture revolved around their belief and worship to their God.
    If, indeed, the Hebrew version was just a copy of the earlier account, some deviations made were needless. Unlike other versions of the great flood, the Bibles version was far from being a myth. The powerful beings described by other versions exhibited behaviors same as that of man. The Bibles version, on the other hand, presented a just God who have seen how mankind have become despite of the His grace and kindness to them.
    Investigations on biblical phenomena are still in progress. Bibles reliability as a historical document cannot simply be taken for granted. It contains accounts from different people who came from different eras and their writings are like puzzle pieces from the past that fits together. And these puzzle pieces gives the present generation a picture of what was thousands of years before.

This paper highlights in detail the events and the changes occurring in Soviet Foreign Policy from 1921 -1941. Soviet foreign policy is a function representing not only the pursuit of its international objectives but also its responses to external stimuli. It has changed several times during the era from 1921 to 1941, partly due to ideological basis and partly because of realistic and practical reasons. There had been a gradual shift from revolutionary path to socialism in 1920s in Soviet state and hence a less ideological approach was adopted with the rest of the world. A brief account of the events occurring in Soviet Foreign Policy between19211941 is as follows.
    Instantaneously after the rebellion, the Bolsheviks largely ignored the foreign policy considering that the revolution would flounce Europe. When it becomes obvious that it wont happen, the new leaders of Russia got occupied with civil war. After winning the war they started thinking of improving their relations with their neighbors, looking forward to maintain peace and enhancing investments and trade with them. It was not a trouble-free job as Western Governments were unwilling to be familiar with USSR.
    To conciliate the international attitude, the Bolsheviks down cast their revolutionary style, proceeding towards signing series of international agreements commonly known as United Front. The accord included the Treaty of Rapallo (1922), which re-established an ambassadorial relation with Germany. It further included the Treaty of Berlin (1926), in which Germany and Russia pledged to remain unbiased in the occurrence of any attack from the third power.
    During the closing of 1920, the relations with Germany initiated to turn sour and after some time both the nation started to search elsewhere for new associates. The policy had failed to remove Russias diplomatic seclusion. Stalin, in this regards set the state on another route, renovating Marxist revolutionary movements throughout the world.  This ideological swing reflected the coagulation of the domestic strategy, since Stalin came up with the strategies of central planning and collectivization.
    Socialist groups were instructed to cease all collaboration and help with the leftist group, whom they gave the name Social fascist. The outcome was devastating. The German communalist parties directed its opponents to the Societal Democrats instead of Nazis, permitting the Nazis to develop into the leading party in Germany. In four years Hitler became the leader and socialist party was prohibited.
    Stalin understood his blunder and changed his foreign policy again. He began seeking healthier associations with the Western Nations, in the desire of finishing Russias Diplomatic seclusion. As an outcome, United States, for the first time recognized Russia after Revolution (1933). Furthermore, USSR became the part of League of Nation (1934). Stalin, for the nations benefit signed agreements of alliance with Czechoslovakia and France in 1935. He offered international socialist parties to collaborate and form a Popular Front with the anti-fascist communities in Europe.
Regrettably, Stalins effort to persuade France and Britain into a coalition against Germany failed. Both France and Britain stood with Germany while it took possession of Rhineland, then attack Austria in 1938. When Hitler tried to get hold of Czechoslovakia, Stalin put efforts to get France to defend Czechoslovakia with the help of 1935s Treaty of Russia. However, France was unwilling to break a fight with Germany at that time. On the Munich Conference 1938, Britain and France gave Hitler the hold of the border region of Czechoslovakia.
In 1939, Stalin replaced the Pro-Western Litvinov with Molotov as the Foreign Minister. The Germans react by presenting Russia, large territory of land in Eastern Europe in exchange for Russian impartiality in their upcoming war with Poland.  This was a striking proposal for Stalin as it gave him a chance to assemble his forces and pull himself through the purge of the Britain and the French Army. It also gave him a protection against any upcoming German violence. (Riasanovsky and others. pg 10)
    When France and Britain were incapable of making equally acceptable proposals, Stalin thought that they were not interested in making any agreement with Russia. In 1939, he accepted German proposal and signed a ten year Non-Aggression Pact, the Nazi-Soviet Pact.  The pact contained a secret practice according to which, after getting hold of Poland, it would be divided in Russian and German and includes Finland, Estonia and Bessarabia in Russia.
    On September 1.1939, Germany succeeded in occupying Poland. And right after two weeks of this attack, the Red Army invaded Poland. Russian and German beforehand approved to divide Poland equally among themselves and abolish it as a state. (Riasanovsky and others. pg 4) 1
    Before the ink of the pact and the blood of the lane of Warsaw had dried, Stalin began preparing himself and his country against the attack he figured out, would come. Though, this time, he was without allies. All he could do was to calm Hitler by making him believe that he has no harm from Russia, thus holding the attack on USSR for as long as he could.
    By 1941, Russian foreign policy had split and altered many time. From the kind practicality of United Front to the ideological war against the Social Fascists to the anxious pragmatism of Popular Front to the pessimism of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.  It was this discrepancy which isolated the USSR during the era and which left it defenseless to an attack by its worst enemy, Nazi Germany.
 Riasanovsky and others, A History of Russia.

Cultural and social policies are important aspects that shape and define the life of the people in a community. Since these policies directly affect how people interact, its development is pivotal to any political and economical structure. In the case of the Soviet Union, the cultural and social policies have undergone several changes from the October Revolution to 1991. The collapse of the Communist order in 1991 was attributed to the seventy-five years of widespread enthusiasm for the new and of much disorientation, disappointment, and discontent in the realm of social and cultural life. The privatization of the Russian economy seemed to be the best answer for the economy, nonetheless, a more widespread discontent emerged with the new social classes and the absence of a middle class, which is necessary for a stable market economy.
During the Soviet years, the most affected cultural and social structure was the class system. In most capitalist countries, the economic or the wealth of the person determines the class where they belong. More particularly in Russia, class is divided into the bourgeoisie, the landowners and the peasant class prior to the October Revolution. The October Revolution was highlighted as a political revolution wherein the Bolshevik Party revolt against the government and won the support of the majority of the population, which are under the worker or peasant class. This happened at the face of an intense social, political, cultural and economic crisis that struck every corner of the Russian Empire. As the hatred of the previous dominant class alleviated, the traditional Russian society was leveled out and the landowning gentry class disappeared. The peasants had seized their (landowners) lands and destroyed their homes. The bourgeoisie is also eliminated since the peasant class overthrows their economic control. The Bolsheviks, upon acquiring control and authority, had nationalized finance, industry and trade. The members of the Church were also affected by the leveling of classes. According to Riasanovsky and Steinberg, they were persecuted and almost annihilated. The members of the intelligentsia had also perished since they were in opposition to the new regime.
Peasants or the peasant class, which was the Soviet builders of socialism, were the ones who had mostly suffered and died during the First Five-Year Plan and the Second World War. To create a peasant commune, the government constructed cooperatives and collective farms, which aimed to, changed the beliefs and manners of the peasantry. As a result, the government strived harder to create corrective efforts and remedy the impoverished Russian countryside. Thus, during the Bolsheviks rule the peasants were divided into the kulaks and the rural peasants.  A new class was formed after the five-year plan constituted by the increase in the administrative and technical personneltogether with the already existing party and government bureaucracies. This was known as the privileged group, along with the new intellectuals and military officers.
In December 25, 1991, the Soviet Union collapse into fifteen independent states. Boris Yeltsin was elected as the president of the Russian Federation. Russia embraced a social capitalism form of government and abandoned its desires towards communism due to its relative failure. The privatization of the economy results to intense restratification of Russian society as private business owners and individuals acquired properties and wealth.
In this event, a new class was formed or was named, comprised by the newly emerging capitalists class. They are called nouveau riche or New Russians. They are not merely defined by the wealth they have recently acquired but also by their presumed dishonesty, selfish greed, link with corrupt political privilege and underground crime, showy consumerism, and low cultural level. This view, according to Riasanovsky and Steinberg, were fueled by the cultural past of Russian society. Specifically, the view regarding private entrepreneurship as a criminal act that was coupled with inadequate legal and ethical standards to support businesses. This view could not be avoided since most of the New Russians were typically people with connections or even positions in the government. After the 1998 financial collapse, small businesses proliferated in Russia. Russians who warned enough wages are now identifying themselves as part of the middle-class. On the other hand, there was also a high number of a growing class of dispossessed. This class includes those who are jobless, disabled, refugees from post-Soviet successor states, economic migrants and people living in cities without proper residence permits. Unemployment in Russia after 1991 had started to increase steadily, distressing living conditions such as diet, health, birthrate and life expectancy.
Today, a typical Russian handles multiple jobs to sustain his everyday needs. The number of jobless or unemployed outnumbers those with stable jobs. The gap before the rich and the poor are wider and more evident than before. The difference in power was reflected by the political and economical position in the government. Those who are in the upper stratum of the social ladder are usually members of the government and uses criminal or illegal ways to acquire wealth. Those who are considered to be in the lower class lack proper education and are subjected to the discrimination imposed by the new capitalists economy.