Discuss the ways that Alexandra’s foreign ancestry affected her public imagery from 1905 to ww1

Alexandra was born on the 6^th of June 1872 at the New Palace in Darmstadt, distinctly located in the German empire.  The passionate marriage of German Alexandra and Russian Tsar Nicholas II brought apon conspiracies throughout war times with Germany. Due to the fact that Nicholas II represented his country on the front lines this left Alexandra to govern Russia. This decision by Nicholas to was debated by the public because although he was essential to the front lines Alexandra was unpopular with the Russian civilians. (A&E Television Networks, n.d.) The public disliked Alexandrea as a leader and much preferred Nicholas. Alexandra had no governing experience this lead to terrible decisions. Alexandra constantly appointed and reappointed new ministers, which meant the government was never stable or efficient

The poor performance of the Russian military on the battle fields led to the unfound rumours that Alexandra was collaborating with the Germans German, further deepening her unpopularity with the Russian people. Alexandra begin to build up the public image of a ‘German spy’ providing the Germans with essential private information. To support the claims of the public the German empire Wilhelm II was Alexandra’s first cousin. (Wikipedia, n.d.) Multiple sources of evidence where supported to back up the claims of the public to believe Alexandra was in fact colluding with Germany

Alexandra’s religion prior marrying Nicholas was Lutheran, one of Nicholas’ requests of Alexandra was she will have to take up Russian orthodox. At first Alexandra dwelled on this thought and came back to Nicholas denying her change in religion. With this Nicholas stated that he will move on from Alexandra, receiving this Alexandra immediately said she will become Russian orthodox. With Alexandra’s already growing negative public image, this idea of changing religions leads to the assumption that she can move on quickly. Having a public image of this is not a positive thing and can be taken the wrong way by civilians.

Therefore due to Alexandrea’s foreign ancestry and religious choices her public image was not at an adequate level for a successful autocrat.

 

 

 

Bibliography

A&E Television Networks. (n.d.). Alexandra Feodorovna Biography. Retrieved from The Biography.com : https://www.biography.com/people/alexandra-feodorovna-37295

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Alexandra EMPRESS CONSORT OF RUSSIA. Retrieved from ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexandra-empress-consort-of-Russia

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Feodorovna_(Alix_of_Hesse)

 

To what extend was the 1905 revolutions out of Nicholas II control?

The 1905 civilian revolutions against autocracy were initially within Tsar Nicholas II’s control because he the ability to forestall it, although there were factors that escalated beyond his control. Certain events such as bloody Sunday were entirely out of Nicholas control and fell into the control of the Cossacks making the decision to lay down fire on the civilians. With 28 unarmed civilians dying in this bloodbath the public was outraged  and this began the vicious Russian revolutions of 1905. (Wikipedia, 2018).  The civilians, mainly peasants were revolting against authority because they wanted a well governed country and were after a transformation from an autocracy to a constitutional monarchy. Nicholas being the autocrat in power  he was influence by this an had the choice to either submit to the civilians demands or deny their attempt of a monarchy. Therefore Nicholas obtained the potential to control the situation at hand to either dissolve it or fight it. His decision came down to creating a healthy governed nation.

Due to his father’s early death Nicholas II was denied the necessary preparation in becoming a successful autocrat. This was closely related his irrational decision making in his rule, an example of this is the miscommunication in the bloody Sunday catastrophe. Another ‘life lesson’ Nicholas was lacking was a fatherly figure to look up to in his reign and assist him with his decision making. Nicholas was very close with his mother and wrote letters to her writing nostalgically apon alexanders death. The relationship between Nicholas II and his father was distorted and shortened by the assassination of alexander II. This left Nicholas in sadness and mourn for his father highly affecting his emotional state and ability to rule a nation.

In conclusion the 1905 revolutions were entirely in Nicholas’ control but he lacked the autocratic ability and experience to change the outcome of these revolutions. Due to the miscommunication calculated throughout Nicholas II’s rule and the fact the Nicholas lacked a fatherly figure to teach him how to rule an autocratic nation this left him lacking the ability to successful rule a nation healthily.

 

 

Bibliography

Atkinson, L. (n.d.). Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to abdicate in 1917? Retrieved from marked by teachers.com: http://www.markedbyteachers.com/gcse/history/why-was-nicholas-ii-able-to-survive-the-1905-revolution-but-was-forced-to-abdicate-in-1917.html

wikipedia. (n.d.). 1905 russian revolution. Retrieved from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution

Wikipedia. (2018, april 18). Bloody Sunday (1905). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

 

 

Spanish life before the civil war and what happened when Spain declared war on itself??

19th century Spain where it all began, Spanish life has been conflict driven ever since they adopted new political methods of running the government. Pre-civil conflict the Spanish government was run under a monarchy, this brought about multiple uprisings and rebel takeovers 1868, queen Isabella was overrun and replaced by king Amandeo who brought the first republican view into the Spanish government. Conflict in Spanish history is all heavily related to political power and new parties attempting to obtain it. In the time leading up to the Spanish civil war the government was run in a democratic way where there were multiple parties and the general public had their vote in who was to be elected. Hence the Spanish civil war was a revolt entirely against this political structure.

Franco Francisco ran the nationalist party that obtained military support to revolt against the currently running democratically elected republican government, represented by Manuel Azaña. This revolt started in 1936 and kick started the Spanish civil war. This war was entirely revolved around the political future of Spain and a disagreement between powerful parties. Franco Francisco want the government of Spain to be run under a dictatorial fascist system underlying him as their leader. Many people believed and followed him for this reason, they also believed he would be a fair, honest leader.

(LIBCOM.ORG, 2018)

(The above picture shows Francisco Franco walking with Hitler.)

When Germany, Portugal, Italy, the Soviet Union, Mexico and France heard the news of this political rebel going rogue they began to choose sides based on their own political system and beliefs.  Franco, Mexico and the Soviet Union supported the republican party and Germany, Italy and Portugal supported the nationalist based on their communistic fascist beliefs. Foreign powers had a strong influence on the result of the Spanish civil war. Taking it from a closed border political disagreement to a bloody 500,000 death war. Commonly stated to be the kickstarted to world war II…

 

References

Background of the Spanish Civil War. (2018). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War

Burnath, M. (2018). Nationalism – The Journal of the Civil War Era. Retrieved from https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/forum-the-future-of-civil-war-era-studies/the-future-of-civil-war-era-studies-nationalism/

pedia, w. (2018). Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War

 

How could the treaty of waitangi be used by a historian to understand the unique colonial experience in new Zealand?

The purpose of the treaty was the create equality between the British and the native new Zealand Maori people to live in harmony under the same set of laws. This treaty was introduced in 1840, This treaty was highly important because pre-war there was conflict between Maori people and the British nation.

When the British settled in new Zealand they had plans for extensive settlement. the already existing natives were not happy and not willing to agree to the terms of their settlement. They went into a mildly short war creating conflict between them, many gallons of bloodshed. The result of this war was to see who will claiming land and the boarders of New Zealand

The final result was that the British troops were on top, gaining more land but still losing masses of troops. Although the British won the war they decided to make an agreement with the natives because they respected that is was their homeland. The treaty was declared in 1840 and this gave the Maori people some land but not as much as they had before. although the Maori people signed the treaty and lived under the same laws as the British they didn’t necessarily agree with their terms and this influenced change in their community.

Although the two communities made the treaty it wasn’t exactly fair to the natives because they got given a small sum of the land. The Maori people were backed into the corner and it was either take the treaty of Waitangi or face demolition. this treaty can be used by a historian to determine the tactics used by Britain in the colonisation of New Zealand. Historians can also take into account that the natives in this situation put up a fight testing Britain’s army forces. This enforces the idea that the colonisation of New Zealand was in-fact unique. The fact the once the British had won the war they still came back to the Maori people in good faith.

References

5. – Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – ngā mātāpono o te tiriti – Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand. (2018). Retrieved from https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti/page-5

The Treaty in brief – The Treaty in brief | NZHistory, New Zealand history online. (2018). Retrieved from https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief

 

 

 

What do you think is the greatest legacy of the boar war?

The South African War of 1899-1902 was essentially a White mans war, fought to determine which nation had authority in  South Africa but other populations groups like the Zulu, Xhosa, Swazis and Basotho and Sothos were also involved in the war in defending their land. As the British brought in many new concepts for the South Africans this took them by surprise because they lacked technological advancement.

Native South African people were mistreated and used for their labor throughout the war. British men would use the Africans for construction and development of their camps and facilities. Concentration camps were introduced by the British people for the African peoples accomodation. They held them in these camps to use them for their labour. All the British people wanted from the black people was their work. By the end of the war there was 115,000 Africans in 66 concentration camps around Africa. In concentration camps were treated terribly given inadequate food, limited medical supplies, water was often contaminated and the conditions of their accomodation was appalling. all of these inhuman factors led to many deaths in concentration camps.

The concepts for concentration camps were used all throughout history. The most well know use of concentration camps was in Germany when hitler used them to mistreat the jewish people to extreme extents. The biggest legacy that hitler was the first to use large concentration camps which is not true. concentration camps were used all throughout history although hitler used them to an extreme extend. Hitlers concentration camps had many similarities to the the camps used in Africa in the sense that they forced labor upon them, conditions were devastating. due to the shocking conditions disease spread through these camps on a rapid level. The death risk in these camps was very high and diseases such as malnutrition.

 

 

References

http://www.historywiz.com/didyouknow/concentrationcamp.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps#World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_concentration_camps

What is Imperialism??

Imperialism is the act of a nation extending is rein of power in the nearby nations. This may evolve physically extending a countries borders. Although colonialism is related to imperialism they are two different things. Imperialism is where the country comes in and takes over everything. Imperialism has a great influence on the country being taken overs government, religion, language, economy and many more everyday things. Although they are different they share some common traits some would say imperialism is an act of colonialism or colonialism is a form of imperialism

Physical Characteristics of imperialism would be when the country invades neighbouring nations in the goal to take over them and extend their land. In this process, they would gain all the neighbouring lands recourses, people, money and property. They would extend their reign, this make them more powerful and threatening. The larger the boarders of ones country the more physically intimidating that country will seem to neighbouring countries.

A great example of imperialism is when France took over Vietnam. Frances motive for taking over was that they thought they wouldn’t be a strong nation if they didn’t expand their territories in east Asia. This lead to Frances belief that the more the extend their physical boarders the stronger they will get and the more power they will hold.

steps of Imperialism

• France took over Vietnam in 1848
• 1882 France lost control of Vietnam because they lost a war called the Franco Prussian war.
• 1883 France takes control of Vietnam again
• 1939 world war 2 starts
• 1950 japan take control of Vietnam from the French
• 1954 cease fire is agreed between the Vietnamese and the French
• 1975 France surrenders and gives south Vietnam back the north. This makes Vietnam a completely independent country