Friday, December 4, 2009

Can someone list the series of events leading to unrest in Russia at the turn of the century?

AND why did the event "Bloody Sunday" make the Russian's thought of czar as their "Little Father? why did this event change their attitude?????



Can someone list the series of events leading to unrest in Russia at the turn of the century?oper



Should I blather and contribute my word vomit to the vortex or rely on the well written text of another? A few words of my own then I will turn you on one of the better sites for insightful info.



Much as GEO W Bush 'was' or 'is' thought of as 'the little Father,' the one person who would stand up against the Big Wigs %26amp; Power People, the Industrialist and the Military and was truly concerned with the plight of the common ordinary masses of citizens, so it was with Czar Nicholas. In an era before the internet in a nation where even the telephone %26amp; telegraph were out of the reach of the masses, the peasents felt they had a time honored right o gather outside the gates of The Winter Palace and petition the Czar to listen to their grievances.



They were met with bullets. Police %26amp; Cossacks fired upon the workers and killed more than a hundred injuring countless more of them. This incident soured the peasents who felt that the police had acted on the orders of the Czar. Even if the Czar did not order the massacre, rumors %26amp; words were enough to condemn him and Nicholas lacked the ability to heal the breech between himslef, his family an the nation.



(A smart dictator would have hung the chief of police and a few others to regain the people's trust )



Here is Spartaus a great site..



http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUS...



"'At the beginning of the 20th century the Russian industrial employee worked on average an 11 hour day (10 hours on Saturday). Conditions in the factories were extremely harsh and little concern was shown for the workers' health and safety. Attempts by workers to form trade unions were resisted by the factory owners and in 1903, a priest, Father Georgi Gapon, formed the Assembly of Russian Workers. Within a year it had over 9,000 members.



1904 was a particularly bad year for Russian workers. Prices of essential goods rose so quickly that real wages declined by 20 per cent. When four members of the Assembly of Russian Workers were dismissed at the Putilov Iron Works, Gapon called for industrial action. Over the next few days over 110,000 workers in St. Petersburg went out on strike.



In an attempt to settle the dispute, Georgi Gapon decided to make a personal appeal to Nicholas II. He drew up a petition outlining the workers' sufferings and demands. This included calling for a reduction in the working day to eight hours, an increase in wages, an improvement in working conditions and an end to the Russo-Japanese War.



When the procession of workers reached the Winter Palace it was attacked by the police and the Cossacks. Over 100 workers were killed and some 300 wounded. The incident, known as Bloody Sunday, started a series of events that became known as the 1905 Revolution. Strikes took place all over the country and the universities closed down when the whole student body complained about the lack of civil liberties by staging a walkout. Lawyers, doctor, engineers, and other middle-class workers established the Union of Unions and demanded a constituent assembly.



In June, 1905, sailors on the Potemkin battleship, protested against the serving of rotten meat. The captain ordered that the ringleaders to be shot. The firing-squad refused to carry out the order and joined with the rest of the crew in throwing the officers overboard. The Potemkin Mutiny spread to other units in the army and navy.



Industrial workers all over Russia went on strike and in October, 1905, the railwaymen went on strike which paralyzed the whole Russian railway network. Later that month, Leon Trotsky and other Mensheviks established the St. Petersburg Soviet. Over the next few weeks over 50 of these soviets were formed all over Russia.



Sergi Witte, the new Chief Minister, advised Nicholas II to make concessions. He eventually agreed and published the October Manifesto. This granted freedom of conscience, speech, meeting and association. He also promised that in future people would not be imprisoned without trial. Finally he announced that no law would become operative without the approval of a new organization called the Duma.



As this was only a consultative body, many Russians felt that this reform did not go far enough. Leon Trotsky and other revolutionaries denounced the plan. In December, 1905, Trotsky and the rest of the executive committee of the St. Petersburg Soviet were arrested.



The first meeting of the Duma took place in May 1906. Several changes in the composition of the Duma had been changed since the publication of the October Manifesto. Tsar Nicholas II had also created a State Council, an upper chamber, of which he would nominate half its members. He also retained for himself the right to declare war, to control the Orthodox Church and to dissolve the Duma. The Tsar also had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers.



At their first meeting, members of the Duma put forward a series of demands including the release of political prisoners, trade union rights and land reform. Nicholas II rejected all these proposals and dissolved the Duma.



In April, 1906, Nicholas II forced Sergi Witte to resign and replaced him with the more conservative Peter Stolypin. Stolypin attempt to provide a balance between the introduction of much needed land reforms and the suppression of the radicals. The next Duma convened in February, 1907. This time it lasted three months before the Tsar closed it down""



Peace............pppffftttzzz (ah)



Can someone list the series of events leading to unrest in Russia at the turn of the century?hollywood theater opera theater



stalin! does that anwser your question.

Select 5 interesting events from Napoléon Bonaparte’s lifer?

when the event happened, what happened, and why it was important.



Select 5 interesting events from Napoléon Bonaparte’s lifer?theater



1. May 1779. Napoleon is admitted to a French military school. This of course, made his subsequent career possible. Also, it forced him to learn French! though throughout the rest of his life according to some reports he retained his Italian/Corsican accent.



2. October 1795. Street fighting in Paris, in a crisis of legitimacy for the post-revolutionary government known as the Directory. Napoleon may have saved the government with a well-directed "whiff of grapeshot." At any rate, the members of the govt certainly believed his role had been crucial, and this put him on the political as well as the military map.



3. March 1798. Napoleon proposes a military expedition to Egypt, then part of the Ottoman Empire. The idea was not only to protect French trade interests in the area but to block British access to India. Some visionaries were thinking of a canal in the region even this early. The Directory approved the plan.



4. August 1799. Napoleon abandons his army in Egypt and returns to France. The Egyptian campaign had been a mixed bag -- some successes, but the occupation was stagnating, and he had ambitions that could best be realized in the mother country.



5. November 1799. Napoleon stages a military coup, overthrows the Directorate, and installs himself as First Consul of a new government, the Consulate.



Select 5 interesting events from Napoléon Bonaparte’s lifer?london theatre opera theater



I think one of the most telling--and symbolic--events in Napoleon's life was the way in which he was crowned Emperor of France. In 1805, when he was to be crowned emperor, Napoleon enlisted the Pope to place the crown on his head (believing that having the Pope do it would add credibility to the action). Just as the Pope was about to do so, Napoleon stood up, grabbed the crown from the Pope's hands, and crowned himself! By doing so he was either saying, "I am a megalomaniac who will share power with, and recognize power in, no one else!" or, "I do not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church." Either way, it was pure Napoleon!

Do microsoft had events last July 14?

did the microsoft company had a event last july 14th 07 at Harlesden London NW10 United Kingdom??? it is said that its a Anniversary Draw.. is that true??



Do microsoft had events last July 14?theatre



Don't tell me, you won this draw !



It is a scam. Microsoft don't give money away.

What event or events occured in the year 1308?

Seriously this question has been bugging me all day today. Somebody please help me. Explain in great detail if anything did.



Thanks.



What event or events occured in the year 1308?pacific theater



When in doubt, check Wikipedia:



Events



* January 25 - King Edward II of England marries Isabella of France.



* February 25 - King Edward II of England is crowned.



* March 8 - Póvoa de Varzim (then Varazim), Portugal gains a foral from Denis of Portugal.



* December 28 - Emperor Hanazono ascends to the throne of Japan.



* Henry VII is elected as king of the Holy Roman Empire.



* The Capet-Anjou family begins to rule Hungary.



What event or events occured in the year 1308?phantom of the opera opera theater



I think that was the year of the first super bowl victory by the Dallas Cowboys. Great game. Check out the game details on this link.



http://www.google.com/search?q=year+1308...

What were major events in the Iraq and Iran war?

What major event that changed the the Iraq and Iran war?



What were major events in the Iraq and Iran war?the grand theater



ummm that they kill each other???

What event, or chain of events will constitute a "win" in Iraq?

I keep hearing liberals say we can't win, and conservatives saying that we are winning and will win. Both sides use the word "win". My question is what defines winning? We obviously can't kill or capture every terrorist. And if winning means seeing a successful democracy working in Iraq, well that could take years. What say you?



What event, or chain of events will constitute a "win" in Iraq?chinese theater



there is no win...this has never been a war..there hasn't been a conventional army to defeat...it is like saying bringing law and order to the wild west was some kind of war...



there is a war against terror that extends to whatever battlefield Islamic terror takes it..and the real war...the battle the liberals have waged for renewed validation...and all they have done is use what media and internet outlets to coalesces..they haven't won a thing



What event, or chain of events will constitute a "win" in Iraq?opera mini opera theater



A full bank account for Cheney %26amp; Exxon = A win in Iraq
Winning is no longer an option, but Bush %26amp; Co. could, practically speaking, never admit that. Therefore, they constantly change the definition of 'winning'. "Escaping the morass" is a better goal and that means bringing the troops back in a quick but orderly manner with minimum loss of life to Iraqis.
I believe that the republicans have already declared victory. So this is what victory looks like. Peace looks different to me. But what do I know i only have a brain and will not be brain washed or drink the kool-aid. Yes I know neo-cons I am UN-American. Can the neo-cons out there please get new talking points, you are boring me
More than seven months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), claimed that Iraq was ��lost.��



But that was hardly the case. In fact, Sunni insurgents were just beginning to turn on al-Qaeda and join us.



So now, despite their noisy antiwar base, most leading Democrats quietly are backing away from their talk about bringing American troops in Iraq home on rigid timetables.



Maybe they are learning that quitting Iraq now might be stupid politics since bad news �� in fact, all news �� from the front is making fewer and fewer headlines.



Democrats know that Republicans will use clips of more ��General Betray Us�� ads and defeatist assertions next summer when the election campaign heats up and there may be even more progress in Iraq.



Sober Democrats also suspect that their anti-war rhetoric is proving useful in other ways to the Bush administration. Their attacks on the elected al-Maliki government in Iraq often make them look like illiberal ��bad cops�� eager to pull the plug on the error-plagued but nevertheless constitutional government in Iraq just when it seems to be improving.



True, electric production still cannot provide Iraqis 24-hour service �� but now the problem is partly because Iraqi consumption has soared above prewar levels. And oil production, while not quite yet at pre-invasion levels, is climbing �� now nearly 2.5 million barrels a day, according to Iraq��s oil minister. Plus, Iraq is benefiting from today��s near-$100 per barrel oil prices.



More importantly, civilian casualties are down in Baghdad by 75 percent from June, according to the U.S. military. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently announced that terrorist attacks in Iraq have decreased by nearly 80 percent from last year.



In other words, for a variety of unforeseen reasons, the furor and partisan bad blood over Iraq are lessening here in the States. The debate over Iraq seems to be changing from ��we can��t win�� to whether victory is worth the aggregate costs.



Expect this new battle to be more retrospective, as each side tries to inflate or deflate how much blood and treasure have been spent on the Iraq war �� and whether the cost has led to greater American security both in and beyond Iraq.



As fear of defeat in Iraq recedes from the political landscape, look to a growing consensus elsewhere. ��Neocon�� �� the term often used to describe ��new�� conservatives who today support fostering democracy in the Middle East �� may still be a dirty word.



But if you take the anger about George Bush out of the equation, along with the Iraq war and the fear of any more invasions by the U.S., why not support democratic reform in the Middle East? We know the alternatives only play into the hands of terrorists.



That��s why presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.), recently said that America needed to support democracy and pressure Gen. Pervez Musharraf to restore elections in Pakistan.



Few Democrats or Republicans would disagree with his idealistic rhetoric. Although Obama wouldn��t express the same support for the struggling Iraqi democracy, he sort of sounded like a softer neocon �� more worried about the lack of freedom in Pakistan than the fact we might undermine a strongman with nukes and a restive population.



Take also Iran. Both parties worry about an Iran with a nuclear bomb; neither one has sure ideas how to stop it. The Republicans seem to want to talk tough without bombing the mullahs; the Democrats prefer just to talk with them.



Either way, they agree we don��t have much leverage to stop the theocracy other than stabilizing nearby democratic Iraq, encouraging dissidents, imposing sanctions, and surrounding Iran with a bloc of worried Arab states.



A year from now, neither George Bush nor a quieter Iraq will inflame Democrats. And without these familiar bogeymen, they will to have to state what they are for, rather than what they are against.



If Democrats keep Congress and win the presidency, they probably won��t do things much differently in Afghanistan. America��s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also won��t change much. And if the next president is a Republican, it��s a safe bet he won��t invade any new countries.



As the Democrats move closer to the controversial neoconservative position of actively supporting democratic reform in the Middle East, they will claim that their strong idealistic diplomacy is the proper corrective to the Bush administration��s unilateral misadventures.



The Republicans will counter that with Saddam gone and the Taliban out of power, constitutional governments in their places, and both countries slowly stabilizing, the necessary unpleasant work is mostly done. So using military force to topple terrorist-sponsoring autocrats, at least for now, no longer has to be a ready option.



But either way, both will sound awfully similar �� sort of like soft neocons.
Yes it will take years......... and years........ and more years ........... meanwhile the terrorists are breeding and training the little tykes to take their place........ more years
It may take years to build a stable government in Iraq. If we don't fight the war there, we will fight it here in our own streets. In addition, Iraq is an important strategic asset for dealing effectively with Iran. But a little "stratergy" is something liberals find impossible to grasp. Maybe with enough show of force we will not have to fight Iran, but time will tell.



Hey, if the liberals want to end the war in Iraq they could easily defund it. I suspect they want to whine but don't want to deal with the bloodbath that will result if we leave too early.
Nope.



In order to win, we now have to defeat Terrorists, Insurgents, and Democrats.



They are all working together to Defeat Us.
Define win, it depends greatly on who's definition, and what their goals are. in the classic sense I feel it too late to win. But in the convoluted world of oil politics , losing may be winning and god knows what, if the goal is to spend lots of money on weapons then we are winning and the longer we fight the more we win. Too much rhetoric and spin not enough dialog for us to know what the real goal is.
I remember vaguely a banner on a US Navel ship that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" in the backdrop while GW Bush was giving a speech. But does anyone really "win"? Whoever wins the Presidency and brings home our troops first "wins" in my opinion. We went into war under false pretenses, it's costing every taxpayer in the Union, not to mention thousands of lives. Old men make war, young men fight wars. Sound about right?
Who cares how long it takes to win? When is right and wrong determined by a measure of time? American history is based on accomplishing what couldn't be accomplished.



You don't need to kill or capture every terrorist. We didn't kill or capture every white supremacist and confederate sympathizer. You take away their power and political influence, and it won't matter if they're alive or not.

In the WSOP circuit events do they award a ring to the winner of just the main event or to prelim ev

Rings are awarded to the winners of each, and every event, except for the satellites.



In the WSOP circuit events do they award a ring to the winner of just the main event or to prelim events too?star theater



i'm pretty sure its just the main event

 
skin allergy