DOCSLIB.ORG

Lenin, (Just) Wars of National Liberation, and the Soviet Doctrine on the Use of Force

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Journal of the history of International Law 19 (2017) 219–245 JHIL brill.com/jhil Lenin, (Just) Wars of National Liberation, and the Soviet Doctrine on the Use of Force Johannes Socher* Research Associate, German Research Institute for Public Administration Berlin, Germany [email protected] Abstract Today, the prohibition of the use of force is universally accepted as a norm of custom- ary international law. Nevertheless, several exceptions are discussed in international law scholarship. One of them, wars of national liberation, originates in Lenin’s socialist war theory and was subsequently maintained by the former Soviet doctrine of inter- national law. Little known in western academia, this Soviet argument of national lib- eration struggles to be ‘just wars’ is still alive in Russian international law scholarship today, and, therefore, a lasting legacy of Lenin’s theory of wars of national liberation in international legal discourse as developed around the time of the Russian Revolution (even if sometimes ignored) may be conceded. Keywords Lenin – wars of national liberation – Soviet doctrine of international law – use of force, prohibition of – just war theory * Where English translations of Russian works were not available, German translations are cited instead and used as intermediates. These, as well as all ‘direct’ translations from German and Russian into English are the author’s. I would like to thank Bill Bowring, Lauri Mälksoo, and Marija Peran for providing equally helpful comments. My gratitude also goes to Bruno Simma for discussing the topic with me and reading an earlier draft of this article. Any mistakes or inaccuracies are, of course, solely my own. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi �0.��63/�57�8050-�9�3�Downloaded0�8 from Brill.com10/02/2021 01:17:56PM via free access 220 Socher 1 Introduction: The Standard Account on the Use of Force in International Law Scholarship Today Today, the prohibition of the use of force is universally accepted as a norm of customary international law and agreed by many as ius cogens.1 Formulated for the first time as a general prohibition in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928,2 it marks a cornerstone of the United Nations Charter, which in its article 2(4) states that [a]ll members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. But the prohibition of the use of force is not absolute: the UN Charter itself contains two exceptions (plus one against former enemy states that has become obsolete),3 and two others are commonly discussed as norms of customary international law: enforcement actions of resolutions by the UN Security Council (article 42), self-defence (article 51), humanitarian interven- tion, and protection of nationals abroad.4 However, a quick look into one of the standard accounts dealing with the interpretation of the UN Charter, the Commentary edited by Bruno Simma and others, will provide the reader with a further exception, namely that of so called wars of national liberation: The former Soviet doctrine of public international law, supported in this respect by the majority of developing countries, had maintained that there is a further exception to the prohibition of the use of force. Wars of 1 Albrecht Randelzhofer/Oliver Dörr, ‘Art. 2(4)’, in Bruno Simma/Daniel-Erasmus Khan/Georg Nolte/Andreas Paulus (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn 2012), MN 1, 64–68. 2 Treaty between the United States and other Powers Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, 27 August 1928, 94 LNTS 57. 3 It is commonly held that article 107 of the UN Charter, according to which ‘nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action in relation to any State which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter’, has become obsolete, since all former enemy states are now UN member states, see e.g. Alfred Verdross/ Bruno Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 3rd edn 1984), para. 106; Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1986), 137. 4 Randelzhofer/Dörr, ‘Art. 2(4)’ 2012 (n. 1), MN 44–61. Journal of the History of InternationalDownloaded Law from 19 Brill.com10/02/2021(2017) 219–245 01:17:56PM via free access Lenin, (Just) Wars of National Liberation, & the Soviet Doctrine 221 national liberation by peoples under colonial or racist regimes or other forms of alien domination were claimed to be as lawful as the support, including the use of force, given to those peoples by third States.5 This position always faced strong opposition in western academia for a num- ber of reasons, above all because the legal regime of article 2(4) is commonly thought to bind only states and therefore to be inapplicable to struggles deriv- ing from a people’s right to self-determination.6 Albrecht Randelzhofer and Oliver Dörr, the authors of the just quoted entry of the Commentary for exam- ple, regard this Soviet view to be ‘incompatible with the relevant interpretation of Arts. 2(4) and 51 of the Charter’.7 Yoram Dinstein in War, Aggression and Self-Defence is of the opinion that there is ‘no way to reconcile Article 2(4) with recourse to force [. .], even if the target is a colonial Power’.8 And Louis Henkin in How Nations Behave simply called it ‘surely a distortion’.9 Nevertheless, one may also find reaffirmations for an exception to the prohi- bition of the use of force in wars of national liberation in western international law scholarship up to today. One proponent of this view is Noelle Higgins, author of the Oxford Bibliography on the topic,10 as well as of Regulating the Use of Force in Wars of National Liberation,11 the only substantial contribu- tion to the issue since Heather Wilson’s 1988 monograph International Law 5 Ibid., MN 62 (footnotes omitted). 6 For a discussion of the inapplicability of the prohibition of the use of force to national liberation struggles see Olivier Corten, The Law against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing 2010), 135–149. Contra Julio Faundez, ‘International Law and Wars of National Liberation: Use of Force and Intervention’, African Journal of International and Comparative Law 1 (1989), 85–98, and Bill Bowring, The Degradation of the International Legal Order? (Abingdon: Routledge 2008), 34, restated in his ‘Positivism versus Self-Determination: The Contradictions of Soviet International Law’, in Susan Marks (ed.), International Law on the Left: Re-examining Marxist Legacies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011), 133–168, at 163. See also Antonio Cassese, International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn 2005), 374. 7 Randelzhofer/Dörr, ‘Art. 2(4)’ 2012 (n. 1), MN 62. 8 Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012), paras. 188–194, 249. 9 Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press 1979), 144. 10 Noelle Higgins, ‘International Law and Wars of National Liberation’, Oxford Bibliographies (online edn). 11 Noelle Higgins, Regulating the Use of Force in Wars of National Liberation: The Need for a New Regime (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010). Journal of the History of International Law 19 (2017)Downloaded 219–245 from Brill.com10/02/2021 01:17:56PM via free access 222 Socher and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements.12 In her book, Higgins skips (apparently on purpose)13 the entire Soviet literature on the topic and bases her argument instead on the originally religious concept of ‘just war’ (bellum iustum).14 Quoting from another passage in the ‘Commentary’ of the UN Charter, she states: Article 1(1) refers to the maintenance of international peace and secu- rity as the overarching purpose of the United Nations, whereas the sup- pression of aggression is only referred to as one objective to be achieved through measures of collective security. This means that international peace and security may be endangered not only by acts of aggression, but also by any other threat to the peace.15 12 Heather Wilson, International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1988). 13 In the Oxford Bibliography on ‘International Law and Wars of National Liberation’ (n. 10), Higgins lists the below-mentioned article by George Ginsburgs (n. 34) and des- cribes it as ‘an interesting discussion of the Soviet perspective on wars of national liberation’. Nevertheless, Lenin’s or any other Soviet contribution to the topic is non- existent in her Regulating the Use of Force in Wars of National Liberation 2010 (n. 11). 14 Higgins, Regulating the Use of Force in Wars of National Liberation 2010 (n. 11), 8–17. The origins of the just war theory go back to antiquity. Cicero, for example, stated already in his De Officiis, I, 36, 15: ‘No war is just, unless it is entered upon after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted, or warning has been given and a formal declaration made’. However, it remained to early Christianity to give material content to it. In order to separate those wars that must be suffered because they are ordained by providence and those that are to be avoided, the idea of the just war was born, for which Augustine of Hippo is credited for having first shaped it into the form of a scientific system (see his De Civitate Dei, Liber XIX, Caput VII).
Recommended publications
  • Lenin and the Russian Civil War

    Lenin and the Russian Civil War

    Lenin and the Russian Civil War In the months and years after the fall of Tsar Nicholas II’s government, Russia went through incredible, often violent changes. The society was transformed from a peasant society run by an absolute monarchy into a worker’s state run by an all- powerful group that came to be known as the Communist Party. A key to this transformation is Vladimir Lenin. Who Was Lenin? • Born into a wealthy middle-class family background. • Witnessed (when he was 17) the hanging of his brother Aleksandr for revolutionary activity. • Kicked out his university for participating in anti- Tsarist protests. • Took and passed his law exams and served in various law firms in St. Petersburg and elsewhere. • Arrested and sent to Siberia for 3 years for transporting and distributing revolutionary literature. • When WWI started, argued that it should become a revolution of the workers throughout Europe. • Released and lived mostly in exile (Switzerland) until 1917. • Adopted the name “Lenin” (he was born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) in exile to hide his activities from the Tsar’s secret police. Lenin and the French Revolution Lenin admired the revolutionaries in France 100 years before his time, though he believed they didn’t go far enough – too much wealth was left in middle class hands. His Bolsheviks used the chaotic and incomplete nature of the French Revolution as a guide - they believed that in order for a communist revolution to succeed, it would need firm leadership from a small group of party leaders – a very different vision from Karl Marx. So, in some ways, Lenin was like Robin Hood – taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
  • Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: an Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data

    Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: an Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data

    IZA DP No. 1958 Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: An Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data Elizabeth Brainerd DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES DISCUSSION PAPER January 2006 Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: An Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data Elizabeth Brainerd Williams College, CEPR, WDI and IZA Bonn Discussion Paper No. 1958 January 2006 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 Email: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of the institute. Research disseminated by IZA may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit company supported by Deutsche Post World Net. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its research networks, research support, and visitors and doctoral programs. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. IZA Discussion Paper No.
  • The Russian Revolutions: the Impact and Limitations of Western Influence

    The Russian Revolutions: the Impact and Limitations of Western Influence

    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Faculty and Staff Publications By Year Faculty and Staff Publications 2003 The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence Karl D. Qualls Dickinson College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Qualls, Karl D., "The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence" (2003). Dickinson College Faculty Publications. Paper 8. https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/8 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Karl D. Qualls The Russian Revolutions: The Impact and Limitations of Western Influence After the collapse of the Soviet Union, historians have again turned their attention to the birth of the first Communist state in hopes of understanding the place of the Soviet period in the longer sweep of Russian history. Was the USSR an aberration from or a consequence of Russian culture? Did the Soviet Union represent a retreat from westernizing trends in Russian history, or was the Bolshevik revolution a product of westernization? These are vexing questions that generate a great deal of debate. Some have argued that in the late nineteenth century Russia was developing a middle class, representative institutions, and an industrial economy that, while although not as advanced as those in Western Europe, were indications of potential movement in the direction of more open government, rule of law, free market capitalism. Only the Bolsheviks, influenced by an ideology imported, paradoxically, from the West, interrupted this path of Russian political and economic westernization.
  • Revolution in Real Time: the Russian Provisional Government, 1917

    Revolution in Real Time: the Russian Provisional Government, 1917

    ODUMUNC 2020 Crisis Brief Revolution in Real Time: The Russian Provisional Government, 1917 ODU Model United Nations Society Introduction seventy-four years later. The legacy of the Russian Revolution continues to be keenly felt The Russian Revolution began on 8 March 1917 to this day. with a series of public protests in Petrograd, then the Winter Capital of Russia. These protests But could it have gone differently? Historians lasted for eight days and eventually resulted in emphasize the contingency of events. Although the collapse of the Russian monarchy, the rule of history often seems inventible afterwards, it Tsar Nicholas II. The number of killed and always was anything but certain. Changes in injured in clashes with the police and policy choices, in the outcome of events, government troops in the initial uprising in different players and different accidents, lead to Petrograd is estimated around 1,300 people. surprising outcomes. Something like the Russian Revolution was extremely likely in 1917—the The collapse of the Romanov dynasty ushered a Romanov Dynasty was unable to cope with the tumultuous and violent series of events, enormous stresses facing the country—but the culminating in the Bolshevik Party’s seizure of revolution itself could have ended very control in November 1917 and creation of the differently. Soviet Union. The revolution saw some of the most dramatic and dangerous political events the Major questions surround the Provisional world has ever known. It would affect much Government that struggled to manage the chaos more than Russia and the ethnic republics Russia after the Tsar’s abdication.
  • Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation

    Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation

    POST-SOVIET POLITICAL PARTY DEVELOPMENT IN RUSSIA: OBSTACLES TO DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION Evguenia Lenkevitch Bachelor of Arts (Honours), SFU 2005 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of Political Science O Evguenia Lenkevitch 2007 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY 2007 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Evguenia Lenkevitch Degree: Master of Arts, Department of Political Science Title of Thesis: Post-Soviet Political Party Development in Russia: Obstacles to Democratic Consolidation Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Lynda Erickson, Professor Department of Political Science Dr. Lenard Cohen, Professor Senior Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. Alexander Moens, Professor Supervisor Department of Political Science Dr. llya Vinkovetsky, Assistant Professor External Examiner Department of History Date DefendedlApproved: August loth,2007 The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the 'Institutional Repository" link of the SFU Library website <www.lib.sfu.ca> at: <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/112>) and, without changing the content, to translate the thesis/project or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.
  • THE MENSHEVIKS in 1917 by Olegpmwkov Bachelor of Arts

    THE MENSHEVIKS in 1917 by Olegpmwkov Bachelor of Arts

    THE MENSHEVIKS IN 1917 r:. = BY OLEGpmwKOV Bachelor of Arts Moscow State Pedagogical Institute Moscow, USSR 1983 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS July 1992 THE MENSHEVIKS IN 1917 Thesis Approved: Thesis Advisor 0 Dean of the Graduate College 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to Dr. George F. Jewsbury and Dr. Joel M. Jenswold for their encouragement and advice throughout my graduate program. Many thanks also go to Dr. W. Roger Biles for serving on my graduate committee. Their suggestions and support were very helpful throughout the study. To Wann Smith for his expert typing and proofing skills; to Oscar Kursner for his help in translation. My wife, Y elaina Khripkov, encouraged and supported me all the way and helped me keep the end goal constantly in sight. Thanks go to her for her undivided time in the final stages of the project. She prov 1ded moral support and was a real believer in my abilities. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. The Main Approaches to the Study of the Russian Revolution in American Historiography 2 The Study of Menshevism in the U.S. 6 Soviet Scholars on Menshevism 8 Sources 1 2 Themes and Problems 14 II. Tiffi "HONEYMOON' OF Tiffi REVOLUTION_~-~-~! 8 The Necessity for the Dual Power 1 8 The Essence and Structure of Dual Power 2 7 Establishing of the Revolutionary Defensists Policy3 5 III. THE APRIL CRISIS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES _____4 7 The First Clash.
  • Lenin and the Debate on Chinese Socialism Among PRC Soviet-Watchers in Early 1980S China

    Lenin and the Debate on Chinese Socialism Among PRC Soviet-Watchers in Early 1980S China

    InternationalLenin Journal and the Debateof China on Chinese Studies Socialism among PRC Soviet-watchers 145 Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2020, pp. 145-171 Lenin and the Debate on Chinese Socialism among PRC Soviet-watchers in Early 1980s China Jie Li* The University of Edinburgh Abstract After the death of Chairman Mao Zedong, when China gradually initiated reform and open door policies, Soviet leaders’ political agendas were no less appealing to post-Mao China than were Western agendas. This paper will show that Chinese scholars made tactical use of the writings and programs of Vladimir Lenin; this was done to grasp the nettle of Chinese socialism in the early 1980s, after the disastrous Cultural Revolution. According to the secondary scholarship, Chinese Sovietology after 1991 has consistently emphasized the role of the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his policies, which (in the eyes of the Chinese communist regime) brought about the downfall of the Soviet empire. In reality, however, Chinese Soviet-watchers were researching various Soviet leaders throughout the 1980s and 1990s – and particularly Lenin, who featured prominently in Chinese writings and claimed equal importance to Gorbachev. In the early 1980s, Chinese scholars used the first Soviet leader, Lenin, and his writings to rebuild faith in socialism and to disperse scepticism of the Chinese communist regime after the disastrous Mao era. While some pieces of work resorted to using Lenin’s socialist humanism to attack Maoism and Chinese communist rule, most of the time Chinese scholars used Lenin to strengthen the weakening legitimacy of Chinese socialism without tarnishing the image of Mao, and to command support for new leader Deng Xiaoping’s open door policy and future reforms.
  • Socialism in Europe and the Russian Revolution India and the Contemporary World Society Ofthefuture

    Socialism in Europe and the Russian Revolution India and the Contemporary World Society Ofthefuture

    Socialism in Europe and II the Russian Revolution Chapter 1 The Age of Social Change In the previous chapter you read about the powerful ideas of freedom and equality that circulated in Europe after the French Revolution. The French Revolution opened up the possibility of creating a dramatic change in the way in which society was structured. As you have read, before the eighteenth century society was broadly divided into estates and orders and it was the aristocracy and church which controlled economic and social power. Suddenly, after the revolution, it seemed possible to change this. In many parts of the world including Europe and Asia, new ideas about individual rights and who olution controlled social power began to be discussed. In India, Raja v Rammohan Roy and Derozio talked of the significance of the French Revolution, and many others debated the ideas of post-revolutionary Europe. The developments in the colonies, in turn, reshaped these ideas of societal change. ian Re ss Not everyone in Europe, however, wanted a complete transformation of society. Responses varied from those who accepted that some change was necessary but wished for a gradual shift, to those who wanted to restructure society radically. Some were ‘conservatives’, others were ‘liberals’ or ‘radicals’. What did these terms really mean in the context of the time? What separated these strands of politics and what linked them together? We must remember that these terms do not mean the same thing in all contexts or at all times. We will look briefly at some of the important political traditions of the nineteenth century, and see how they influenced change.
  • FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS in the SOVIET UNION: a COMPARATIVE APPROACH * T~Omas E

    FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS in the SOVIET UNION: a COMPARATIVE APPROACH * T~Omas E

    1967] FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH * T~omAs E. TowE t INTRODUCTION The Soviet Constitution guarantees many of the same funda- mental rights as are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, plus several others as well. Indeed, these rights are described in greater detail and appear on their face to be safeguarded more emphatically in the Soviet Constitution. However, the mere existence of constitutional provisions for fundamental rights does not necessarily guarantee that those rights will be protected. Western scholars often point to discrepancies between rhetorical phrases in the Soviet Con- stitution and actual practices in the area of fundamental rights.' Soviet legal scholars insist, however, that such criticism should be aimed instead at Western constitutions. Andrei Vyshinsky has stated that it is precisely in the area of fundamental rights that "the contra- dictions between reality and the rights proclaimed by the bourgeois constitutions [are] particularly sharp." 2 Soviet legal scholars claim that bourgeois laws are replete with reservations and loopholes which largely negate their effectiveness in protecting fundamental rights generally, and those of the working man in particular.3 There is undoubtedly some truth in both claims, for, as Professor Berman has stated, "The striking fact is that in the protection of human rights, the Soviet system is strong where ours is weak, just as it is weak where ours is strong." 4 The full impact of this statement can only be understood by comparing the different approaches which * The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of Dr. Branko M.
  • ALL-ROUND DEVELOPMENT of VLADIMIR LENIN's PERSONALITY Javed Akhter, Khair Muhammad and Naila Naz M.Phil Scholar, Department Of

    ALL-ROUND DEVELOPMENT of VLADIMIR LENIN's PERSONALITY Javed Akhter, Khair Muhammad and Naila Naz M.Phil Scholar, Department Of

    International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Method Vol.3, No.1, pp.23-34, March 2016 ___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org) ALL-ROUND DEVELOPMENT OF VLADIMIR LENIN’S PERSONALITY Javed Akhter, Khair Muhammad and Naila Naz M.Phil Scholar, Department of English Literature and Linguistics, University of Balochistan Quetta Balochistan Pakistan ABSTRACT: The study investigates the personality of Vladimir Lenin, in the light of Stephen R. Covey’s suggested habits, expounded in his books, “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” and “The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to greatness”, following the most eminent Russian physiologist and psychologist I. P. Pavlov’s theory of classical behaviourism. Stephen R. Covey’s thought provoking and trend breaking book: “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” suggests seven habits and paradigms to become highly effective personality. He introduced the eighth habit in his innovative and challenging book “The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness.” Therefore, his suggested eight habits, and paradigms, which are based on I. P. Pavlov’s theory of classical behaviourism. This paper would use the popped up chunks of I. P. Pavlov’s behaviourist theory to analyse how the process of habit formation influenced the effective and great personalities of the world. Therefore, the present study will enable the readers to confront Pavlov’s classical behaviourist theory of habit formation through stimuli and responses. The readers are also expected to abandon the bad habits and adopt the good ones. These infrequent but subtle hints serve as a model of effective as well as great personality of the world.
  • Revolution in Russia and the Formation of the Soviet Union

    Revolution in Russia and the Formation of the Soviet Union

    CLASSROOM COUNTRY PROFILES Revolution in Russia and the Formation of the Soviet Union The Russian Revolution often refers to two events that took place in 1917. The first, known as the February Revolution, forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate and led to the formation of a provisional government. During the second event, commonly known as the October Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution, Vla- dimir Lenin’s Bolshevik Party seized power and began seven decades of one-party rule. Some scholars and Soviet critics have argued that the second event was actually a coup by Lenin and his supporters and not a true revolution. The Russian Empire in 1914. Date confusion—The February Revolution actually In the early 1900s, cracks were beginning to appear in the tsar’s control took place in early March. Because the Russian Em- over the Russian Empire. An attempted revolution in 1905, which saw pire followed the Julian Calendar, which is 13 days mass worker strikes and peasant revolts, shook the monarchy and forced behind the Gregorian Calendar, the events are referred Tsar Nicholas II to implement political reform, including the establishment to as the February Revolution. Likewise, the October of a parliament and a new constitution. Revolution actually took place in early November. Reform temporarily quieted the unrest, but the new policies proved inef- Soviet—The word means “council” in Russian. Soviets fective and the parliament, known as the State Duma, was largely unable were workers’ councils made up of various socialist to override the Tsar’s decrees. parties at the end of the Russian Empire.
  • Stalin Revolutionary in an Era of War 1St Edition Pdf, Epub, Ebook

    Stalin Revolutionary in an Era of War 1St Edition Pdf, Epub, Ebook

    STALIN REVOLUTIONARY IN AN ERA OF WAR 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Kevin McDermott | 9780333711224 | | | | | Stalin Revolutionary in an Era of War 1st edition PDF Book It was under this name that he went to Switzerland in the winter of , where he met with Lenin and collaborated on a theoretical work, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question. They argue that in the article On the Slogan for a United States of Europe the expression "triumph of socialism [ Seller Rating:. Vladimir Lenin died in January and by the end of that year in the second edition of the book Stalin's position started to turn around as he claimed that "the proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". Modern History Review. Refresh and try again. Tucker's subject, however, which isn't Mont I have admired Robert Tucker's work for decades now, and I am glad at long last to take up the first of his two volume study of Stalin. Brazil United Kingdom United States. Retrieved August 27, Egan The major difficulty is a lack of agreement about what should constitute Stalinism. Stalin and Lenin were close friends, judging from this photograph. He wrote that the concept of Stalinism was developed after by Western intellectuals so as to be able to keep alive the communist ideal. Retrieved September 20, Palgrave Macmillan UK. Antonio rated it it was amazing Jun 04, Retrieved 7 October During the quarter of a century preceding his death, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin probably exercised greater political power than any other figure in history.