The Crimean War

    Prior to the twentieth century, the term “world war” was not a common phrase in the daily socio-political vocabulary. However, the Crimean War of the nineteenth century was most certainly a transcontinental conflict. The Crimean War began a timeline of numerous conflicts in the region of Crimea within the modern post-Napoleonic period. There are many reasons for the Crimean War. However, the most concise reason for the Crimean War is simply Russian expansionism and imperialism. 

    In 1853, the two major empires of Eurasia were the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire and the numerous empires in Christendom had structured a decree in the eighteenth century that decreed that a Christian nation would act as the protectorate of Christian peoples within the Ottoman Empire in areas such as “the Holy Land” or modern-day Israel/Palestine. The political protection of Christians within the Ottoman Empire was a medium through which the protectorate nation was able to exercise influence beyond the religion. The Russian Empire and the Eastern Orthodox Church competed with the French Empire and the Roman Catholic Church for the authority for protection of Ottoman Christians. The British Empire had mediated a negotiation process between the Russian, French, and Ottoman Empires. The three leaders of the respective empires negotiate an agreement. Napoleon III of France utilized both a show of force and its imperial wealth to induce Sultan Abdulmecid I of Ottoman Turkey to regotionate the compromise in favor of the French Empire and Napoleon III of France. Tsar Nicholas I of Russia responded to this renegotiation by militarily advancing into the Danubian Principalities in modern-day Romania. The Russian military aggression induced the declaration of war upon the Russian Empire by the Ottoman Empire, with the military support of the French and British Empires as well and thus began the Crimean War.

    Though the British Empire began the Russo-Ottoman conflict as mediators, the British Empire and its military mobilized into a major aggressor in the Crimean War. The November 21, 1854 issue of London, England’s The Times newspaper contains a letter to the editor of The Times from an Englishman known as “W.S.”. The letter is titled “Why Spare Odessa?”. The writer states that “we have, in short, in the interest of humanity, to civilize the Russian Empire; and it is a mistaken and narrow idea of mercy which would prompt to spare now, since we may be assured that our forbearance will only lead to future barbararities” (W.S.). The statement by “W.S.” advocates for the British Empire and its involvement in the Caucasus in “the interest of humanity (W.S.). The British perception of the war was somewhat divided. Wealthy Englishmen were largely supportive of the war whilst impoverished Englishmen were likely divided. “There were some influential Britons who sought long range results from the war with Russia” (Luxenburg, Norman).

    The empires of the Crimean War acted upon their own respective interests. No empire was altruistic in their military and political ambitions in the Crimea, the Caucasus and the larger region of Eastern Europe. However, the war was certainly the result of Russian imperialism in the region near the Black Sea. The aggression of Russia (the Russian Empire, USSR, and the Russian Federation) is a recurring concept within history, media, and life for the people in Eastern Europe. 

 Works Cited

    W. S. "Why Spare Odessa?" Times, 21 Nov. 1854, p. 6. The Times Digital Archive, link-gale-com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/apps/doc/CS102271861/TTDA?u=iulib_iupui&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=b7b6cf86. Accessed 30 Apr. 2022.

    Luxenburg, Norman. “England and the Caucasus during the Crimean War.” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 16, no. 4, 1968, pp. 499–504, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41043588. Accessed 30 April 2022.

    Lalumia, Matthew. “Realism and Anti-Aristocratic Sentiment in Victorian Depictions of the Crimean War.” Victorian Studies, vol. 27, no. 1, 1983, pp. 25–51, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3827272. Accessed 1 May 2022.

The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands

While The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands contains a wide variety of information and stories from the author’s life, she spends most of the book focusing on her time as a frontline nurse during the Crimean War. Lasting from 1853 to 1856, the Crimean War was an attempt by Great Britain and its allies to prevent the Russian Empire from expanding even further into lands previously belonging to the Ottoman Empire. The Russian Empire still considered itself to be at the height of its power, despite conflicts waging inside its own borders, and was desperate for even more land, even more control over the surrounding area; a common trend in the country’s long and bloody history. As a Jamaican-British citizen, Mrs. Seacole sided against the Russian forces, and sought to bring a sense of the English spirit to the battlefield, wanting to heal not only the soldier’s physical bodies, but also their souls by reminding them of home. She became a sort of mother figure to these men, simlutaneously "seeking self-conciously to identify herself with the 'mother' country" (Poon 501); in a sense, she was England for them. 

Published in England in 1857, The Adventures of Mrs. Seacole provided a glimpse into the realities of the war for the British that they had not seen up until this point, as it was a time with limited media coverage. Seacole’s work was a good balance of humor and comfort, as well as displaying the true tragedy that befell so many young Englishmen during the horrors of battle. “I returned from [my Crimean campaign] shaken in health. I came home wounded, as many others did” (Seacole); she was open and honest about her experiences, and that was an endearing quality for her readers, who were very eager to purchase her work. She did not hold back in her descriptions of the ferocity with which the Russians were pressing against the British forces, determined to stop at nothing to retain the land they were so anxious to control. 

One aspect of Mrs. Seacole’s work that particularly stands out is her attitude towards the fighting: “This was my first experience of actual battle, and I felt that strange excitement which I do not remember on future occasions, coupled with an earnest longing to see more of warfare, and to share in its hazards” (Seacole). Some scholars agree that parts of Seacole's work does somewhat fuel the fire of colonialism and conflict (Paquet 661). War brings with it a certain fascination for some people, and while Mary Seacole’s interest was in no way malicious but instead out of care and concern, the way she describes that “strange excitement” here seems to be a feeling that has resurfaced time and again, even to this day. To the outside world, the current Ukrainian invasion does not seem to be prompted by anything more than a strong desire for conflict; even some of the Russian people themselves would agree that Putin’s efforts have little substance other than his desire to return to Russia’s glory days. With Ukraine in his grasp, he will be one step closer to reuniting an empire. Over and over again, just like many Russian leaders who have come before him, Putin has proved himself to be one who possesses an “earnest longing to see more of warfare.”

Works Cited 

Seacole, Mary. The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands. 1857. COVE Studio, studio.covecollective.org/anthologies/sp22-eng-l302-anthology/documents/wonderful-adventures-of-mrs-seacole-in-many-lands.

Related Links: 

https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/literary-event-wonderfu...

Holodomor: Man-made Famine

Mother with Her Starving Children

Conflict between Ukraine and Russia has, as we see in this timeline, extended over hundreds of years, and while many events within this conflict are known throughout the world, some events, such as the Holodomor, are not commonly known by those who did not experience it. “The Psychological Consequences of the Holodomor in Ukraine” by Viktoriia Gorbunova and Vitalii Klymchuk” (2020)  mentions,“The Holodomor has been recognized in more than 20 countries around the world as an attempt to eliminate the Ukrainian people” (4), so why is it not known throughout the world? In the 1930s, Russia was known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and Ukraine was under its control. The leader of the USSR at this time was Joseph Stalin, and he feared that Ukraine was strengthening itself in a manner that would eventually lead to its independence from the USSR. To prevent Ukraine becoming an independent country or nation, Stalin was determined to put down any revolution before it could start, and his plan was put into place through enacting collectivization.

            The collectivization of Ukraine meant that Ukrainian farmers had to surrender control of their land, produce, animals, and labor to the Soviet government. With the control over Ukrainian farming and produce, the USSR with Stalin as its leader created a man-made famine in Ukraine by taking harvests the harvests of the Ukrainian people, leaving them with little food. In the early 1930s in Ukraine, many farmers and rural villagers relied on crops to help feed their families. Subsistence farming was a common way of life within the country. So, when complete access to these crops was taken away by Stalin and the USSR, the farmers and villagers were not able to obtain enough food to keep themselves from starvation. According to “Holodomor” from the University of Minnesota, “The primary victims of the Holodomor were rural farmers and villagers, who made up roughly 80 percent of Ukraine’s population in the 1930s” (1). With such a large percent of the population being those directly affected by the man-made famine, one can only begin to understand how many individuals were likely killed and the suffering many endured. While there are not many well-known accounts of the lived experiences of the Holodomor, one man, Wasyl Kushnir, emphasizes the reality of this event in by sharing his experience in Epic Journey: The Life and Times of Wasyl Kushnir through the following description: “People sat and lay at the foot of buildings and in the streets, under bridges, swollen from hunger, mostly small children and older men of all ages, dying from hunger, so swollen that they could not walk” (19). This eye-opening description helps one understand the suffering of many in Ukraine at the hands of Stalin and the USSR; however, while this suffering was created by a man-made famine on behalf of the USSR, the USSR attempted to blame the famine on individuals within Ukraine.

            In an article from London’s The Times in 1933, the following statement is made after hearing a speech from a USSR representative known as M. Postyscheff: “He accuses the Separatists of having organized starvation in the Ukrainian order to breed discontent and make the Soviet System unpopular” (2). This article emphasizes something still prevalent today: the false counternarrative created by Russia—the USSR in this case—against the narrative of those they try to control. In 1933, Ukraine was suffering and starving because of USSR decisions and practices; however, the USSR blamed the famine and starvation on separatists—those wishing for Ukrainian independence. This counternarrative attempted to portray those seeking independence as the enemy to keep individuals loyal to the USSR; however, suffering Ukrainians knew the truth. Today, Russia is still attempting to use propaganda and false narratives to keep its people loyal and submissive. Especially regarding its current attack on Ukraine, Russia has pushed out false stories and realities to justify its acts to the Russian people and eliminate potential resistance for their plans and agenda. In comparing the Holodomor and Russia’s current attack on Ukraine, it becomes easier to see recognize that Russia’s desire to control Ukraine has never subsided, and history repeats itself in various ways.

Works Cited:

“Holodomor.” University of Minnesota: College of Liberal Arts, https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/ho...

Kushnir, Andrei. “The Holodomor.” Epic Journey: The Life and Times of Wasyl Kushnir, Academic Studies Press, 2020, pp. 16–19, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1z3hm1c.10. Accessed 27 Apr. 2022.

Gorbunova, Viktoriia, and Vitalii Klymchuk. “The Psychological Consequences of the Holodomor in Ukraine.” East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 26 Oct. 2020, https://ewjus.com/index.php/ewjus/article/view/609. 

OWN, OUR. "Ukrainian Separatism." Times, 12 Dec. 1933, p. 13. The Times Digital Archive, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS220014988/TTDA?u=iulib_iupui&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=113f5664. Accessed 27 Apr. 2022.

Wienerberger, Alexander. “Mother with Her Starving Children.” RFERL.org, Kharkiv, 8 May 2021, https://gdb.rferl.org/0AFC7EF1-E4FE-427D-A257-671243E50AAC_w1023_r0_s.jpg. Accessed 30 Apr. 2022.

Related Links

https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/black-panthers

Alaina's timeline entry on the Black Panthers emphasizes the use of false narrative on behalf of the government to portray the Black Panthers in a negative light. This creation of a false narrative relates to the false narratives Russia has created about Ukraine for years, including in 1933 during the Holodomor and 2022 within the current conflict.

https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/russian-invasion-ukraine

Truitt's entry on the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine is a climactic event resulting from events and ideaologies such as the ones mentioned in this entry.

Fall of the USSR and Ukrainian Independence

The Ukraine we know today has only been in existence for about thirty years; the fall of the USSR and the end of the Soviet Union led to the independence of many of its previously-held territories – Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine, to name a few. Throughout Russia’s long and troubled history, there have been multiple factors that built up over time, eventually leading to the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Some could argue that the problematic issues stem from all the way back to the rule of Empress Catherine the Great, as mentioned in a previous timeline entry, but no matter what, it can be agreed upon that the USSR was troubled right from the start, back in 1922 after the Russian Revolution. In an attempt to abolish all traces of the previous monarchy and capitalism, the new government that took charge established itself on socialist principles, hoping that would be the solution. “Instead, because of the circumstances of backwardness, the revolution resulted in a dictatorial political regime and an extremely over centralized planned economy” (Sherman 6). This left territories such as Ukraine completely dependent on the motherland, and they never received the support they so desperately needed, leaving everyone even more miserable than before. It is incredible that this flawed system managed to survive for so long – nearly seventy years – but the cracks were only getting wider and wider. Russia was finally caving in on itself, and people were finally coming to the revelation that their elitist and dictatorial form of government simply could not be sustained any longer. The economy was being to fail, and it seemed like the country was facing one disaster after another, including the Cold War with the United States, which was probably the largest factor in the USSR’s eventual fall. 

All of this political upheaval was taking place under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev. "It was perhaps a paradox that the ruler who presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union was the only one of its ill-starred leaders to leave office with a measure of dignity intact” (“End of the Soviet Union”). When the end was made official, after his removal from office, Gorbachev was replaced by Boris Yeltsin, pictured in the image above, which actually did not go over well with the rest of world: “Ironically, given the course of the Cold War, the Americans wanted to keep the Soviet Union intact…because of the sentiment that Gorbachev was a friend and deserved their support” (Marples 463). It was in this enormous political vacuum he left behind that Ukraine and other territories were able to seize the opportunity to establish their own nationhood, gaining independence for the first time. 

It is unfortunate for Russia and Ukraine today that Gorbachev’s level headedness and respectability was not carried on in future Russian leaders, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin. Stuck in the past, Putin continues to hold on to that imperialist mindset that gripped his nation for so long, refusing to let things stay the way they are and instead returning to the dictatorial days of the USSR. His recent attacks on Ukraine only prove that he is unwilling to let go of the failures of the past. 

Works Cited 

“Boris Yeltzin; collapse of the Soviet Union.” 1991. Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/event/the-collapse-of-the-Soviet-Union/images-videos#...

“End of the Soviet Union: The Soviet State, Born of a Dream, Dies.” 26 Dec 1991. The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/1991/12/26/world/end-of-the-soviet-union-the-Soviet-state-born-of-a-dream-dies.html

Marples, David R. “Revisiting the Collapse of the USSR.” Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, vol. 53, no. 2/4, 2011, pp. 461–73, www.jstor.org/stable/41708351. 

Sherman, Howard J. “Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union.” International Journal of Political Economy, vol. 24, no. 1, 1994, pp. 5–18, www.jstor.org/stable/40470613. 

Related Links: 

https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/karl-marx-and-working-c...

2014 Russian Invasion of Crimea and Ukraine

    History often repeats itself. The 2022 Russian Invasion has dominated the various outlets of media and multimedia in the digital world as well as in conversations in homes, cities, and nations. The topic of the Ruso-Ukrainian conflict is certainly known as is perhaps the most discussed topic of conversation since the onset of the COVID-19 health crisis. The 2014 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, however, is less known. The current invasion itself is actually a major event in the Russian-Ukrainian War that was initiated by the 2014 invasion. There are many commonalities between the two invasions. However, one commonality is difficult to ignore: Russian Nationalism. All forms of the Russian government are unified by the social concept of Russian nationalism amongst the Russian people, and Russian nationalism as a tool for empire and aggression. 

    As with the 2022 invasion, the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine began in the spring. An April 27, 2014 issue of The New York Times reported on the invasion of Ukraine. Neil MacFarquhar of the New York newspaper reported that the reasons that Vladimir Putin “has” to militarily and politically invade Ukraine are to “put a new, legitimate government in place; reclaiming an area that was historically part of Russia; gaining direct access to natural resources and factories that have been crucial to Moscow’s military-industrial complex since Soviet times. And his land grab of Crimea in March made him wildly popular at home” (MacFarquhar, Neil). The journalist then states the reasons that Vladimir Putin does not “have” for the invasion of Ukraine. He lists reasons such as the welfare of millions of people, the likelihood of significant Russian casualties, and pariah status internationally (MacFarquhar). He also states that “the negatives would seem to outweigh the positives” (MacFarquhar). However, the invasion still occurred in the spring of 2014 when militants and separatists advanced across the Ukrainian border into the Donetsk region of then-Ukrainian Crimea. 

    Nationalism is a major social concept within the Russian identity. “It is primarily instrumental” (Laruelle, Marlene). Nationalism is a tool that Russian governments have used to impose a sentiment of ethics and morality for Russian expansionism in Eastern Europe and often specifically in Ukraine and in Crimea. “Putin stirred historical memory and aspirations to great power status by claiming Crimea” (Laruelle, Marlene). Although the history of Russian nationalism and its inheritance to and from the Russian identity can be traced back to the ethnic Rus people of early medieval Eastern Europe, it can more readily be traced back to the Crimean War, the formation of the Soviet “Eastern Bloc”, and the various invasions in Soviet Russian history. 

    The military conflict ended after the conclusion of the Minsk II agreements in Belarus in 2015. However, the diplomatic tension between Russia and Ukraine as well as the political unease in Crimea remained in Eastern European politics until the Russian military invaded Ukrainian Crimea in the spring of 2022, eight years after the first Putin-era Russian invasion of Ukraine and specifically Crimea.

 Works Cited

    MacFraquhar, Neil. (page 17 N). (2014, Apr 27). New York Times (2008-) Retrieved from http://ulib.iupui.edu/cgi-bin/proxy.pl?url=http://search.proquest.com/ne...

    Laruelle, Marlene. “Russian Nationalism and Ukraine.” Current History, vol. 113, no. 765, 2014, pp. 272–77, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45388560. Accessed 1 May 2022.

    Kramer, David J. “THE UKRAINE INVASION: One Year Later.” World Affairs, vol. 177, no. 6, 2015, pp. 9–16, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43555264. Accessed 1 May 2022.