From the Civil War to World War I:

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-136
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
World War

Through the prism of Spain. Socio-economic causes of different outcomes of Russian and Spanish civil wars

2017 ◽  
pp. 142-155
Author(s):  
I. Rozinskiy ◽  
N. Rozinskaya
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Spanish Civil War ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Russian Civil War ◽  
World War ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Economic Well Being

The article examines the socio-economic causes of the outcome of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1936), which, as opposed to the Russian Civil War, resulted in the victory of the “Whites”. Choice of Spain as the object of comparison with Russia is justified not only by similarity of civil wars occurred in the two countries in the XX century, but also by a large number of common features in their history. Based on statistical data on the changes in economic well-being of different strata of Spanish population during several decades before the civil war, the authors formulate the hypothesis according to which the increase of real incomes of Spaniards engaged in agriculture is “responsible” for their conservative political sympathies. As a result, contrary to the situation in Russia, where the peasantry did not support the Whites, in Spain the peasants’ position predetermined the outcome of the confrontation resulting in the victory of the Spanish analogue of the Whites. According to the authors, the possibility of stable increase of Spanish peasants’ incomes was caused by the nation’s non-involvement in World War I and also by more limited, compared to Russia and some other countries, spending on creation of heavy (primarily military-related) industry in Spain.

The former chief of P. N. Wrangel’ staff P. S. Makhrov on the Red Army campaign to Western Ukraine and Western Belarus in 1939

2020 ◽  
pp. 461-471
Author(s):  
Andrey V. Ganin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
Russian Civil War ◽  
World War ◽  
General Staff ◽  
Red Army ◽  
Western Ukraine ◽  
Southern Russia

The memoirs of general P. S. Makhrov are devoted to the events of 1939 and the campaign of the Red army in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. Pyotr Semyonovich Makhrov was a General staff officer, participant of the Russian-Japanese war, World War I, and the Russian Civil war. In 1918, Makhrov lived in Ukraine, and in 1919-1920 he took part in the White movement in Southern Russia, after which he emigrated. In exile he lived in France, where he wrote his extensive memoirs. The events of September 1939 could not pass past his attention. At that time, the Red army committed approach in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. Contrary to the widespread Anti-Sovietism among the white emigrants, Makhrov perceived the incident with enthusiasm as a return of Russia to its ancestral lands occupied by the Poles.

Mind Cure in New England: From the Civil War to World War I

1974 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1152
Author(s):  
Lewis Perry ◽  
Gail Thin Parker
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
New England ◽  
World War

Salvaging Status: Doubling Down in Russia, Egypt, and Great Britain

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Renshon
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
World War I ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Countries ◽  
World War ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Suez Crisis

This chapter examines whether status concerns lead decision makers to value status more highly by looking at three separate sets of decisions: Russia's decision to aggressively back Serbia in the 1914 July Crisis, Britain's decision to collude with Israel and France in launching the 1956 Suez Crisis, and Gamal Abdel Nasser's 1962 decision to intervene in the Yemen Civil War (and continue to escalate through the rest of the decade). These cases broadly substantiate the patterns found in the Weltpolitik case—decision makers tend to value status more highly due to status concerns—while highlighting the plausibility of several new mechanisms. They also show that status concerns are not confined to European countries, great powers or states in the pre-World War I era. Finally, they reveal the other side of status concerns: state behavior designed to salvage or defend status rather than increase it.

Home Rulers in a New Ireland, 1935–49

2020 ◽  
pp. 169-196
Author(s):  
Martin O'Donoghue
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
World War I ◽  
Spanish Civil War ◽  
Social Organisation ◽  
Free State ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
World War ◽  
Border Areas

This chapter examines how such individuals from Irish Party backgrounds coped with the shift from Free State to republic as independent Ireland faced challenges at home and abroad. It charts the struggle of the AOH to reinvent itself as a Catholic social organisation which retained lingering vitality in the border areas while statistical analysis illuminates the home rule legacy in Fine Gael, disclosing that between 30% and 40% of its deputies up to 1949 had traceable Irish Party roots. This chapter analyses responses of such figures to the Spanish Civil War; the introduction of the new constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann: Irish neutrality during World War II; and the controversial declaration of a republic by Fine Gael Taoiseach John A. Costello — a home ruler in his youth and leader of a government including individuals such as James Dillon, Bridget Redmond, Alfie Byrne, and ex-MP and World War I veteran John Lymbrick Esmonde.

Did Mikhail Sholokhov Write The Quiet Don?

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-230
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
Russian Revolution ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Russian Civil War ◽  
World War ◽  
Unpublished Manuscript ◽  
Nobel Committee ◽  
Magnum Opus

This chapter discusses the novel “The Quiet Don” and the controversy over its authorship. It briefly recounts some of the relevant events of World War I, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Russian Civil War. The chapter focuses on Soviet writer Mikhail Sholokhov who was awarded by the Nobel Committee in 1945 for the literature prize on his magnum opus, the four-volume The Quiet Don. It also looks into the initial claim that Sholokhov stole the book manuscript for The Quiet Don in a map case that belonged to a White Guard who had been killed in battle. It talks about an anonymous author known as Irina Medvedeva-Tomashevskaia, who wrote several historical studies and claimed that Sholokhov had plagiarized an unpublished manuscript of Fedor Dmitrievich Kriukov.

From the Civil War to the Great War

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-53
Author(s):  
Aaron Shaheen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phantom Limb ◽  
Artificial Limbs ◽  
World War ◽  
Oliver Wendell Holmes ◽  
Spiritual Potential ◽  
The Great War

The chapter first shows how the spiritualized version of prosthetics originated in the Civil War, which rendered approximately 60,000 veterans limbless. Prominent physicians such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. and S. Weir Mitchell postulated that artificial limbs gave both physical and emotional solace to shattered soldiers, especially among those who suffered phantom limb syndrome. The devices’ “spiritual” potential proved limited, if not illusory; in fact, they were often so fragile, cumbersome, and painful that amputees simply preferred to go without them. Upon entering World War I, the United States created a rehabilitation and vocational program that aided injured veterans to reenter the workforce. Reflecting the way in which “personality” had come to replace a more traditional notion of spirit, orthopedists such as Joel Goldthwait and David Silver, both employed at Walter Reed Hospital, designed artificial limbs for both physical and psychological compatibility.

The Great War and Civil War Memory

2019 ◽  
pp. 232-282
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
World War ◽  
War Memory ◽  
Public Monuments ◽  
Civil War Memory ◽  
Lincoln Memorial ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Great War ◽  
War Commemoration

This chapter examines the influence of Civil War commemoration on World War I commemoration and the impact of World War I on Civil War commemoration. The war limited recognition that the Lincoln Memorial climaxed development of the National Mall with less militarism than recent Lincoln statues suggested. Some sponsors of World War I monuments rejected Civil War precedents, such as those who projected useful memorials, but an army of doughboy statues built on Civil War precedents. The proliferation of male nudes was one example. The crisis of World War I caused some memorial promoters to treat the Civil War as a foreshadowing and some memorial promoters to treat the Civil War as a refuge from modernity. The Confederate memorial at Stone Mountain illustrated both tendencies and the displacement of public monuments by cinema in the 1930s.

Confederate Statues and Their Dirty Laundry

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. 349-359
Author(s):  
Ben Wright
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
World War ◽  
War Veterans ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
Historical Trajectory ◽  
University Leaders ◽  
The University ◽  
New Generation

AbstractSince 2015, America has witnessed a profound shift in aggregate public sentiments toward Confederate statues and symbols. That shift was keenly felt on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin (UT), culminating in the removal of four such statues in 2015 and 2017. However, an inquiry into their creation points to an equally significant shift in sentiments during the 1920s. UT's statues were commissioned in 1919 by George Littlefield, a Confederate veteran and university regent, as part of a larger war memorial. The ostensible purpose of that memorial was to commemorate veterans of both the Civil War and World War I. However, during the 1920s, a new generation of university leaders rejected Littlefield's design—and with it the assertion that the services of Civil and World War veterans were morally congruent and united in a common historical trajectory. This article tracks the ways in which they quietly and yet profoundly undermined the project, causing it to be significantly delayed and then extensively altered. Meanwhile, students and veterans improvised their own commemorative practices that were in stark contrast to the Confederate generation—the latter wanted to remember, while the former wanted to forget.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document