This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

History of Modern Terrorism Midterm


undefined, object
copy deck
Lucian of Samosata on tyrannicide
~play of guy who kills the son of the tyrant and the tyrant himself and claims to be a hero for ending the tyranny ~died in the year 120 ~he expects to be rewarded (“recompense”) instead of seeking atonement in the court -brings with him “democracy”
terrorism defn
the repeated use of violence of the threat of violence by organized groups for purposes of fearful intimidation to achieve largely political ends
individual v. group terrorism examples
Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) vs. Bolsheviks
possibility of repeated acts (fear factor)
\"innocents\" and \"civilians\"
-military v. civilian -policymakers in gov\'t -terrorists=core of combatants
army defn
commissioned by a national government to defend the homeland and commit acts of violence against the enemy
guerrilla organizations (aka counter-armies)
belong to the army b/c they are like an army and are simultaneously like civilians -based in provinces not in major cities -quasi-military organizations -control territory -recruit from the general population
3 sectors of guerilla warfare
-armies -civilians -guerrilla warfare (these sectors are starting to collapse with modern terrorism)
Theories understanding methods of violence/terrorism
*find out who all the “crazy people” are and move them away *terrorism has been shown to be completely rational (extreme versions of political parties)
rationalization approach to understanding terrorism
~calculated/reasoned explanation of how to achieve goals ~rational steps planned to take action
Relationship between state and society when talking about terrorism
*state terrorism/state-sanctioned terrorism/state-sponsored terrorism ~examples: apartheid, holocaust? (In the form of the Nazi party) ~explore possibilities of whether or not this is really an issue -prof thinks there is an active element at work that the society functions with the gov’t to foster an environment for terrorism -prof’s theory: proposed the idea that fear prompts actions between society and government and fear of one side versus the other prompts actions
etymology of the word terrorism
Latin \"to tremor or shake\"
western world sought to answer questions through theology
~application of violence to achieve goals answers were in spiritual goals ~examples of terrorist groups from below that deal with religious ideologies
ancient Palistine Jewish group which is arguably the first insurgent terrorist group
Islamic group that functioned in the 10th and 11th centuries ~operated in a controversy involved with the battles b/w Sunni and Shi’a groups of Islam
Thuggs—translation of a word that means stranglers (operated in the 17th and 18th centuries)
group in British-controlled India ~religious explanatory theory for uses of political science ~family-oriented group ~had a quota of people they had to strangle every year ~father would appoint a son to be the next generation of Thugs ~did their work in the name of Kali—who is responsible for the equilibrium of the earth -she demanded a specific amount of blood from specific types to people in India -had hit lists and people that they excluded (wouldn’t strangle women, poorer peoples, lepers and certain kinds of ill people, etc.) ~weapon of choice was rope ~targets, technology, recruits
terrorism of the state vs. bottom-up terrorism
~why avoid the subject of state terrorism when it has claimed so many more lives than insurgent groups? -terrorism is in the mind of the beholder, but at the same time is it possible for one within a state who is under nationalism to an extent to understand that their gov’t may be doing it too -authors are eliminating totalitarian terror and also the perspective of states/gov’ts that carry out these policies on their citizens
*Page 7—Western tradition considers terrorism legitimate only when it is practiced by the state
~citizens should give the state a monopoly on force and should seek to solve their own problems by peaceful means dictated by the gov’t but should simultaneously allow the gov’t to control wars/violence/aggression -state established a legal system for us to solve our problems peacefully -the state sponsored elections ~Second amendment: right to bear arms, militia -is this a contradiction? -symmetric v asymmetric warfare -example: Timothy McVeigh was a member of the Michigan Militia (patriotic, nationalist, possibly racist group) *as bad as it is McVeigh was trying to bring to attention to people in the country to understand and be aware of his cause (end vs means) -is it antiquated? Is what the founding fathers imagined what they are discussing here? -court case—safe houses for the various terrorist groups were quarters
What kind of violence is permitted by law and what kind is not? Are morality and legality connected with terrorism?
~today, some terrorists appeal to a higher law and distinguish themselves from criminals (which is where morality comes in) ~justify actions by some higher moral law than ordinary citizens ~weak v strong rationality and an appeal to emotion ~some terrorists still freeze and don’t commit acts against people they perceive the be innocent
four kinds of combats
~state v state—war ~state v civilians/citizens—state operates against its own citizens (ie neighbors disappearing, liberties disappearing) ~citizens v citizens—KKK, Rwanda genocide, tribal, racial, and ethnic ~citizens v state—insurgent terrorism (ex. Timothy McVeigh)
~mafia example ~material gain in crime but terrorism works to instill sense of fear psychologically ~violence necessary? -it’s all violence with the taking of human lives…insurgent terrorists always distinguish themselves from ordinary murder -no organization of criminals will devote themselves to violent acts to eradicate poverty…criminals do not have a dogma they are representing ~main difference: political transformation under terrorism -but criminals do not tend to care who is in power or how -terrorism=political violence *is all political violence terrorism?
guerilla warfare v terrorism
see page 24/25
one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”
~perceptual differences ~violence is being engaged in by both -what about non-violent freedom fighters like Gandhi ~Merari says that one is a movement (terrorism) and one is a cause (freedom fighter)
Zealots (sacarii)
~The Jewish War—Flavius Josephus -this is 85-95% of evidence about this period ~census causes violence -like going into court and not recognizing it’s legitimacy -Palestine—philistine was what people in the area were called for years ~originally called Judea before it was renamed Palestine (easternmost expanse of the Roman Empire) ~this was the first national liberation movement ~who did they target? 1—Collaborators (people complicit with the Roman regime—whether active or passive) and 2—Roman officials themselves (local representatives of the empire) -citizens v citizens and citizens v state ~what weapons did they use? Used daggers and public attacks ~do they win?—the temple is burned down in the year 70 and committed mass suicide at the top of Masada ~total speculation: Christ may have been associated with the people ~disciple a Zealot????
~we don’t have a single group that uniquely fits into religious/holy terrorism ~however, plenty of violence ~first expansion of Christian violence takes place during the crusades -attempt to remove Islam from the Middle East ~Pogro—accepted violence when vigilantes form (citizens v citizens) ~Around year 1000 the expectation was the Christ was going to return to Earth -idea is that the only way that the second coming of Christ was to happen was to wipe out the Jews as punishment for crucifying Christ *kinda like the KKK ~Christian monarchs begin to expel Jews -1492 final expulsion of Jews from Spain *before this they had been kicked out from England, France, and Germany -where did the Jews go? Poland, North Africa (Ottoman Empire)
Herodotus/Thucydides on tyrannicide
~approached the subject of the relationship between the rulers and the ruled ~relationship between the legal system and that power (whether the laws are being turned upside down—aka citizens being abused by governments) -what rights to citizens have if abuse is happening? ~discussion in direct democracy and parliamentary discussion about war
Aristotle on tyrannicide
~three kinds of government that were imaginable: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy ~corruption -monarchydespotism or tyrant -aristocracyoligarchy -democracyochlocracy (aka rule of the mob) ~the justifications for modern terrorism can be traced back to this question: how do we know when there is a perversion of modern form of government? And what do we do about it? ~there are different ways in which rulers come to power: legal and illegal way -governments can start out as corrupt too and maybe work toward ideal -governments legally come to power either through succession or election -governments come to power illegally through usurpation ~discussion of death of Julius Caesar (by Plutarch) -describes the assassination as justified -blood bath post-death of Caesar
John Salisbury on tyrannicide
~first-known medieval, Christian authority on tyrannicide ~justifies tyrannicide using the Bible -separates these acts from ordinary crime by appealing to a higher authority (Biblical terms) ~Salisbury wrote this under a pseudonym and went into exile ~gives examples of Christian killers who killed dangerous tyrants ~the slaying of the tyrant could be justified by God as long as you don’t lose religion or honor -compares the tyrant to the devil
Thomas Aquinas on tyrannicide
~master of Christian philosophy—he died in 1024 ~comparable to Aristotle ~lists ways to kill a tyrant in circumstances which God will approve -was worried about the effects of violence -was worried that the successful assassin could become a tyrant himself
Junius Brutus on tyrannicide
~anonymous document which was written by a Roman statesman under a pseudonym ~he is advising a French king ~people live without kings but kings cannot live without people ~first people to discuss the social contract theory: there is a relationship between the king and the people -uses the Bible to justify that authority is derived from the people -king cannot exist without the people
Juan de Mariana on tyrannicide
~Spanish scholar ~instruction to the King ~if the prince illegally seizes power he can be killed b/c he is a public enemy ~his ultimatums/steps come from Aristotle ~he is also worried about the ruler destroying the state, but he is also worried that taking him out will destroy the state ~distinguishes what are acceptable means to kill a tyrant -shouldn’t use poison—taking a life in an agonizing manner *this is the catholic idea of “inhuman punishment” ~this was written when the religious wars were coming to an end -30 years war about to happen
George Buchanan on tyrannicide
~by an Englishman who died in 1582 ~raises the issue/contributes that the king becomes a danger to society and that justifies the assassination ~association of a tyrant as a cruel beast⬦as something less than human
Edward Saxby on tyrannicide
~executed by Cromwell in 1688 ~also an Englishman ~involved in the English civil war with Cromwell who ended up ordering his execution ~before he died he wrote this document which should be titled “Killing Isn’t Murder” ~he separates himself from normal crime -says that he is taking lives for a higher purpose
Vittorio Alfieri on tyrannicide
~he makes references to Saxby and others ~sacred duty of citizens to remove tyrants from power ~loss of blood, rights, and spirit (maybe spirit=honor??) ~more extreme the abuses against the people the sooner they will rise up against the government ~people against the government now, not just the tyrant
Treaty of Westphalia in 1948
*era of religious warfare—1518+ (close to two centuries of religious warfare) ~Catholic monopoly turns into pluralistic society *Treaty 1648—ended the 30 Years War (pg. 91 of history of terrorism) ~three consequences -no state should have power over any other (balance of power treatise) -principle of non-interference—you can do whatever you want in your country and no one else can touch it -the religion of the ruler is the religion of the people
paradigm defn
Dominant way of thinking about the world—cluster of ideas that become predominant during a certain age
paradigm shift occurred in period leading up to and beyond the eighteenth century
religious terror to modern terror (not to say that religious paradigms ceased to exist)
French Revolution in Terror
*1789-1815 ~the revolution usually considered to last from 1789-1799 ~Napoleon—1799-1815 *go from a monarchy (pre 1789), to a republic (1789-1799), to an empire under Napoleon (1799-1815)
French Revolution in Terror--Part II Enlightenment (1750s-outbreak of revolution)
~dominated by first criticism of national government ~social contract theory *Locke, Hobbes, and key figure Rousseau *have a connection between the state and the society *Hobbes—“Leviathan” and main theorist of the notion that if we were left to our own devices we would kill each other off ~solution: we need to enter into a social contract with a particular sovereign where citizens will give up liberties and in return the sovereign will protect each citizen *Locke—theorizes that the state of nature is relatively harmonious and improves on Hobbes ideas by handing over less power to the sovereign by electing people to represent them ~also said that the people had the right to rebel against elected officials *Rousseau’s dream was for direct democracy
French Revolution of Terror totally unplanned
~people (mob) were all coming to paris and somehow stumbled into a prison where they came upon weapons and political prisoners of the Enlightenment ~also Estates General in Versailles having a meeting b/c the king called them together during a financial crisis ~mob in Paris and Versailles delegates join up with each other and create an entire new gov’t -placed king under house arrest -build a building and elect delegates to what became the National Assembly
French Revolution of Terror--1789-1793
~two political parties -Jacobin—Robespierre *becomes party of terror -Girodins ~big question: what do we do with the King who is on house arrest? -charge the King with treason for treatment of citizens (he also tried to escape) -execute him in January of 1792 -Marie Antoinette was the sister of the ruler in Austria *executed in October (“let them eat cake”) ~After execution, the Jabobins really take control of France ~other European monarchs begin to attack France because they were afraid of being attacked by their citizens ~1793—beginning of year of terror
What is the Terror? (French Revolution of Terror)
*slaughter of antirevolutionaries ~secret trials, executions, etc. *defending the democratic ideals b/c this is the first republic in Europe *who would be worried in Europe? ~England, Hapsburgs (powerhouse of central Europe) -worried about having to fulfill the social contract theory (aka national security) ~French house that collapsed: Bourbon *who can we trust at home? ~political hysteria—people living in a mental state of siege *revolutionary tribunals—Committee on Public Safety led by Jabobins ~chairman of committee was Robespierre ~tribunals set up to charge people with crimes and deal with them ~statistics -numbers of victims: between 200 and 300,000 victims out of 2 billion in a space of almost 9 months *in Paris alone 17,000 killed *”enemy of the state”—once brought to trial chances of being declared innocent were very small ~once sentence of execution announced -guillotine: more human form of execution *there was a line to get killed *this was conducted in the central square of Paris in front of city hall when people would come and watch ~it was an enthusiastic, implicit population *Robespierre was also guillotined ~this was orchestrated by the internal gov’t not the people -gov’t knew that it needed people to fight the war against outsiders ~he was seemingly becoming a sort of dictator himself
St. Just--ideologist
*blood curdling democrat—has to do with a notion of gov’t where representatives are elected by the people with a notion of vigilance with trials to hold people accountable
Lessons learned in the year of Terror (1793-4)
*top-down terrorism *state terrorism ~democratic republic *first form of modern terrorism began under a democratic government *Pg. 101—call this “the founding act of modern state terror” *Pg. 108-109—St. Just’s statement on the bottom paragraph ~law of 22 Prairial *Prairial is the name of the month ~month on the newly created calendar with new months and years *created the first secular state b/c the Catholic Church (clergy) is being targeted ~two groups that were being targeted were the clergy and the aristocracy
Anarchist/terrorist phenomena
*years between ~Industrialization (before this populations were mostly agrarian, rural farmers) -people also much less educated ~Age of capitalism (feudalism has almost completely disappeared) ~Technology and inventions (steam engines, trains, explosives) -important for our purposes: explosives (Alfred Nobel) *anarchism: any authority is basically coercive ~anti-authoritarian: get rid of all power and everyone does their own thing; back to state of nature ~socialist: get rid of all power and reinvest in the community ~objective: avoid authority *most important people mentioned (Pgs 115-116) ~Founding Father of Anarchism: Pierre Joseph Proudhon ~Mikhail Bakunin ~Pyotr Kropotkin *most popular places for anarchism ~Italy ~Spain ~Russia
Battle of Waterloo—1815
Final defeat of Napoleon
*diplomat/double agent *firsthand account of the Carbonari ~tyrannicide was the reigning narrative in understanding terrorism -goes back to Aristotle -thesis: that people have a right to kill a tyrant under the protection of God ~this group serves as a transition from religious terror to secular terrorism -change is evident because of the French revolution during this time *Napoleon was a successful military officer who fought in Northern Africa (Algeria, Morocco) ~comes back to France as a hero ~gets himself crowned ~starts to try to take over all of Europe *Carbonari takes back to terrorism from below ~group in Southern Italy (confined geographical area) ~at this point the Italians fighting the French ~operated in secret cells ~they were the military officers in the Italian army (from upper-class/aristocratic families) -during the day they would take orders from French occupying forces and at night would meet, plot, and kill (and take off their uniforms and would blacken their faces with coal) ~they went against the catholic no-poison rule (technology: used poison bayonets to stab officers above them and their subordinates) ~targets: military officers complicity with the occupying French forces ~formed through Guelph Council
1807—Carbonari began operating around Naples
*ceremony to what a Carbonari initiation (what one has to go through) ~largely based in Christianity (mimics Christ)
Once Napoleon’s occupation of Europe ends, there is a post-war conference which is important b/c it issues a treaty
*last international treaty had been established in 1648 after the 30 years war *went back to independent monarchies (1815-1848=the Restoration) ~Bourbon—France ~Hapsburg—Austria
Congress of Vienna—1815
*everyone spoke French due to French occupation and the French enlightenment *new movement emerges as a result of the Industrialization process— transformation of social classes ~beforehand had the following classes: aristocrats (including clergy) and peasants ~new structure starts in the 19th century: bourgeoisie and the proletariat (new economy: change from farms and land to money/capital) *there is a drama going on about unsavory working conditions which leads to the development of labor unions at the beginning of the 19th century ~first in France ~discontent in the working class and resistance was inevitable -supposedly groups that do nothing more than demand less hours and more money ~previous alliance between aristocracy and the crown which is now the bourgeoisie and the crown -demonstrations and violence against the state *even used funerals as demonstrations
1848—multiple European revolutions (only happened again in 1989)
*rebellions of discontented workers begin in France ~develops all across Europe (except England) (*German exiles in Prussia—Marx and Ingles—who were asked to write a small treatise for the working class of Europe—Communist League in Brussels— appeared in published form in 1848—Communist Manifesto) *Kings are leaving palaces and democracies are established in all European Countries ~by spring of 1849—each gov’t was thrown back into a monarchy *Heinzen’s Murder ~published in an obscure German, radical newspaper ~prof thinks this is the founding document of modern terrorism ~argument: our enemies have resorted to murder in many forms so we must do the same even though it is unjust -first premise: murder is unjust/a crime against humanity -second premise: if one looks back at history, it’s a bloody/murderous/and violent trail (violence is a necessary fore for historical change) -third premise/conclusion: we must also do it or we will get run over ~wrote this knowing the Austrian/German armies were approaching ~how does he distinguish between good and back guys? Bipolar picture of the world -reactionaries/barbarians—elitists who rule -freedom party—peasantry ~he is not writing from a religious base ~arguing for a moral obligation to stay with the freedom party
Insurgent terrorists from below (mostly only in France, specifically Paris)
*this is when acts of violence against civilians started *1890s *Ch. Gallo—founding of wine *Vaillant—bomb into stock exchange *Ravochol—bomb into French version of parliament *Emile Henry ~Paris Commune story ~His father was a Communard who moved to Switzerland ~motive: revenge ~1896—train station restaurant *place where ordinary people are *brought a paper bag with an explosive into the restaurant and killed around a dozen people *caught, had a trial (where he made a pitch to bring the impoverishment of the poor to the eyes of the rich), and he is executed *his mother stood up at his trial and said “thank God you have avenged your father”
Major leaders bumped off in the 1890s
*President Carnot of France *Canovas—prime minister of Spain in 1896 *Empress Elizabeth—wife of emperor of Austrian empire *King Umberto of Italy—assassinated by peasant dishwasher in 1900 *McKinley—assassinated by anarchist *King Carlos of Portugal—assassinated by anarchist
Freedom fighters vs terrorists (Page 27 of HoT)
*distinction is in the eyes of the beholder *hegemony of ideals vs open discussion
Presidential campaign
*word “appeasement” has come back *1938—prime minister of England Neville Chamberlain went to talk to Hitler and allowed Czechoslovakia ~speech: Peace of Our Time
Ireland Discussion
*violence from British occupation/rule and the Irish wanted to detach from England *Irish “freedom fighters” ~Michael Collins—IRA leader *Who is the good guy here? Involved both civil and colonial struggle
*genocide—this is when the term was created *who’s in control of this area of the world pre-WWI? Ottoman Empire *prior to the war, there was cooperation b/w leadership of Armenia and the Russians and the Turks used this as an excuse to target the entire Armenian population based off of mistrust (discrimination based on ethnicity) ~Turkish gov’t given instructions to “deport/eliminate” every Armenian that could be found (most died by execution) -estimates between 1-1.5 million killed -all civilians *Turkish gov’t still does not acknowledge that this happened (it isn’t in school or university books there)
Croatian/Serbian mess in the Ottoman Empire (most recently in the Balkans)
*Serbs—Eastern Orthodox Christians *Croats—Catholic *Bosnians—Muslims *All these people ruled by larger authority *Yugoslavia—posed a trans-national identity on all people ~nothing resolved b/c each group wanted to have their own independent country
Jean Maitron—The Era of the Attentats
*attentat: assassination attempt *classic book about the anarchist movement *published in 1955 *provides an explanation for why the wave of anarchist attacks finally took place *thesis: well before the war, even though the most spectacular assassination attempt starts the war—Franz Ferdinand, the intensity of the kind of assassinations that made up the late 1890s and early 1900s began to ebb; the recruitment allure “cause” which had attracted so many young people to violence, the theory was to obliterate the state as a political goal. ~argument: strike movement took over the show and that’s why the attentats really came to an end ~uses newspapers to show that there was a shift to support strikes instead of violent movements ~at end, mentions general strike *some of the most famous theoreticians were having doubts about using terror as a means to achieve political, anarchical goals
John Most—Advice for Terrorists
*he grows up in Germany in the 1880s right after the Paris Commune *he is a left-winger and ebbed between Marxism and anarchism (finally leaned more toward anarchism) *because of his controversial writings he was given the choice of jail or expulsion—he decided to go to London (where he set up a newspaper) *Feb 1, 1981—Alexander II of Russia was assassinated ~Most wrote a celebratory article about the killing -Most got kicked out of London (this was an age of royalty and government were all connected through marriage) *Next, he went to the US ~lived in Patterson, NJ ~got a job in a munitions factory where he would bring stuff home and assemble bombs ~published a paper for years “Freedom” -last page included mail-order bomb ad which he personally sold for little money -letter bomb ~he republished Heinzen’s “Murder” ~published quite a number of pamphlets *argument: do whatever you have to do to get the job done regarding the economic class question ~we have a right to revolt as long as people are still being exploited *who is he after? No one is ruled out *his argument widens the spectrum of targets (much like Emile Henry) *is much like Heinzen in his advocation of weaponry and arming oneself *he was a former chemistry student
Henry David—Prelude to Haymarket
*he is a historian who wrote about the Haymarket affair *historical background ~large American cities had large immigrant population ~then, a large section of immigrant populations in this area were placed in impoverished conditions and were bludgeoned by newspapers ~immigrants got jobs at the lowest levels of society ~at this point there are no labor unions in America ~there was a private police force called the Pinkerton Detective Service (PDS)—called “Pinkertons” -there were no unions to protect against Pinkerton guards abusing people when a strike occurred -local press and local gov’ts found all this to be acceptable ~McCormick harvester company -meeting called in Haymarket Square -speeches made by local leaders in multiple languages (Germans largest group) -police called in Pinkerton guards *response to the event: articles published that said that radicals became threats and were put down by the police (which elicited a major, negative response from underground radical press) *5 of 9 people were hanged and weren’t even at the event two months later after a “kangaroo trial” ~the five were hanged b/c of what they WROTE about the event (they were sympathizers) *if you looked at the Chicago Tribune around the time of the Haymarket affair the op-ed/editorial page didn’t look much different from the “objective” paper *Smith Act—attack on the Communist Party of the United States *US was last country in the western world to have labor unions
Irish World—O’Donovan Rossa’s Dynamiters and John Devoy--Lomasney
*Finnian groups became IRA *Until this time (1880), the battles had been taking place on the Irish soil *attack on central prison in London ~attempt to blow up that prison
Emma Goldman—The Psychology of Political Violence
*1880s-90s *She is a significant intellectual who was silence b/c the views she had were threatening/challenging *Immigrant from Russia—grew up in the Jewish part of Pales settlement ~Age of the pogroms from Russia *Goldman had a relative in Germany where her parents sent her *Later gets sent to another relative in Rochester and works in a sweatshop *She eventually comes to NY and becomes an anarchist supporting the views of Heinzen, Most, and Propokin *She could speak in English, Russian, Yiddish, and German and used this to make speeches
Russian contributions to terrorism
*before the late 1870s, there was virtually no terrorism in Russia (like what we associate with insurgent terrorism now) ~Russia rushes into terrorism dramatically ~Once the insurgent form of terrorism is established in Russia, it sets a model and the People’s Will is the first modern, terrorist insurgent group *Once anarchist violence became as widespread as it was in the 1890s, there was still nothing like the People’s Will *Targets that the People’s Will chose are almost always chosen for symbolic purposes
-earliest example of Russian terrorism *1825 *resembled and were contemporaries of the Carbonari *seeking not to unify but the 2 goals were ~abolition of serfdom ~transformation of the Russian autocracy into a democratic republic (*Russia has 11 time zones) *Pavel Pestel—guard officer who becomes a leader of the Decembrists *The document found when the gov’t arrested Pestel was the Green Book ~it was a treatise/manifesto-type document of how power was to be dealt with when obtained ~it also made plans to form a “garde perdue” or “secret guard” whose mission was to find, capture, and kill every member of the Romanov family
Third Section
secret police force coupled with the Russian intelligentsia—politically committed intellectuals created a repressive atmosphere
Alexander Herzen
published Russian paper (The Bell) in London and smuggled it back to Russia *Founder of Russian populism
Land and Freedom (Zemlya I Volya)
*1861—surfs emancipated in Russia *demonstrations took place when the people thought that the gov’t didn’t go far enough by emancipating the surfs ~pamphlets distributed advocating violence ~police arrests
1866 tried to kill the tzar, but was wrestled to the ground by a drunken peasant who held him there til the police came *Hell—group of 10-12 people with which he was associated
White terror
state terror organized by the monarch (or in this case the emperor) *Russia didn’t give out capital punishment but exceptions have occurred (like Karakozov)
1869-appears for the first time with one document and one event *”Revolutionary Catechism”—one is supposed to learn this as a matter of faith ~this is the first Russian treatise on Terrorism (much like Heinzen’s document’s influence on European terrorism) ~committed first murder of the University of Moscow—the student killed didn’t want to blow up the train so Nechaev killed him so he wouln’t inform (he knew too much)
formed group to manifest peaceful propaganda to peasants to make them active agents instead of passive recipients (populism) *early 1870s—populist movement (non-violent) *peasants would tell on the radicals who would say mean things about the tsar *mad summer of 1874—students went south to witness to the peasants to rise up
Land and Freedom
*group splits in 1879 (had been together since 1876) ~People’s Will—1879-1881 ~Marxist organization we will come back to later
People’s Will
*who are their targets? Nobility (mostly gov’t officials) ~governor general of a province ~members of judiciary ~members of the cabinet ~tsar himself *technology? *two major leaders ~Zheliabor ~Perovskaia *important figure in 1878—Vera Zasvlich ~Shot at Governor General of St. Petersburg -she was aquitted later on -why was she motivated? A prisoner in the Peter and Paul fortress had been whipped b/c he didn’t take his cap off. She wrote several letters for leniency in treatment of this guy and she got no response. So she got pissed and put a pistol in a muff and makes and appointment with him and shoots him in his soldier when she gets there. (She claimed she did not mean to kill him.) *deliberate attempt at assassination that succeeds in 1879 *hitlist: failure in success (kill the emperor finally in 1881) ~they lived to kill him in order to inspire an uprising ~people’s will is destroyed b/c they begin arresting people and discovering paper -execute 5 members of the leadership -first woman experience execution/capital punishment
preparing a constitution when the tsar was killed *evidence of how the People’s Will was so out of whack and didn’t know what was going on in the gov’t or with the peasants
State terror launched pogroms in response to the revolutionary assassination of the tsar
*worked out a deal with the French gov’t in Paris and were able to infiltrate groups planning to screw with the Russian gov’t abroad *state actions create a sense of national unity and is reactionary (nationally security) and acting defensively ~does this make the state a passive recipient instead of an instigator -author asserts that the state terror was a response to the killings
Russia Pre-19th Century
*only kind of violence that existed before were (1) palace coups and (2) massive peasant uprisings (usually 1/century) *Decembrists in 1825 almost led to the first instance of terrorism (Pasteal’s Green book) *Protest literature and pamphlets in the streets *First shot—Karakozov in 1866—fires on the tsar for the liberty of the peasantry ~The people still thought that the tsar (“the little father”) was their liberator *Second event—Nechaev—killed the guy in his inner circle *Mad Summer of 1874—summer of peaceful protest ~revolutionaries thought police were too repressive ~actually the peasants turned the students in b/c they spoke badly of “the few father” and local priest, etc. *People’s Will break from Land and Freedom and for 70 years carry out acts of violence until 1881 when they kill the tsar ~found out about those in the group (5 executed including the first woman) *1886—police broke up attempt to kill the successor by the group calling itself People’s Will (which included Lenin’s older brother—Alexander Ulyanov)
Party in charge of the violence starting around 1902—Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR)
*these are mostly the children whose fathers/mentors/etc fought for the People’s Will *in favor of peasants *targets: government *state and SRs both killed about 4000 victims *Kaliaev—represents the ethical problem of the terrorists ~Fall 1905 ~Revolution lasted for about 9 months ~assigned to assassinate Grand Duke Serge (Uncle of Nicolas II) -watched him and documented his life -noticed that he came to get in his carriage at the same time each day ~gets to the carriage and sees that his nephew is in the carriage and he cannot do it ~Grand Duke Serge was later assassinated when he was alone in his carriage *Savinkov-- *Gershuni *Azef—double agent (even thought to be a triple agent for awhile) ~starts out with the gov’t ~commits an assassination to keep his cover ~confesses to the gov’t who keeps him going b/c he was a valuable resource ~died in exile ~trial in London of Russian revolutionary exiles where he was exposed
Social Democrat (SD)
*were not involved in much violence at this time *Marxists ~state provided possibilities for the working class later by helping the industry expand *worked in favor of working class/proletariat
*question of whether it’s the constitution or the patriot act *ability of the CIA and the Military Justice System had the right to do what they have been doing *rendered to another country where torture can take place or where they gov’t has been waiting for them without any sort of lawyer or representation (water boarding)
Bakunin—Revolution, Terrorism, Banditry
*Founder of Russian anarchism *succeeded by Kropotkin *he never killed anybody in his life *identifies violence with revolution on Pg. 69 *devotee of the peasant uprisings of the late 1700s and early 1800s ~Rasin and Pugachev were the leaders of the peasant rebellions (mentioned page 69)
Sergey Nechaev—Catechism of the Revolutionist (1869)
*disturbing *manifesto: how to be a good/effective terrorist ~how to live your life *understood that you could have no attachments (no love) ~they will serve as distractions and can also use them to barter *fist statement in gender equality in terrorism ~what matters is your commitment to the cause, not your gender
Nikolai Morozov—The Terrorist Struggle
*essay which uses the term “terrorism” in the title *1880 published in Geneva in Russian ~example of huge community of radical Russians who conducted acts of Revolution abroad *was a member of People’s Will and was executed for his writing only (never killed anyone) *enemy: the state (the tsar and his associates) *the revolution is in the name of the people (peasants) *specifically talks about the tsar’s assassination *he describes those who commit acts of violence martyrs and heroes *claims terroristic revolution is better than the other/traditional type of revolution ~more cost efficient b/c there is less loss of life *two tactics at end: (1) clarify theoretically the point of the struggle and (2) show in practice the usefulness of the means it employs
David Footman—Killing and Emperor
*trial of 5 members of People’s Will b/c they just killed the tsar ~the members tried were not all actors in the actual assassination of the tsar (some were major and some were minor systems) *trendsetting trial b/c no crime of this magnitude had ever succeeded in terroristic history ~there was still one more assassination attempt up the sleeve of the remaining members of the People’s Will *gov’t decided to have a trial to legitimize their own position ~also, invited the international press (the article is based upon the correspondent from the London Times that was in St. Petersburg at the time) *important passages ~introduction sets framework (including manifesto which describes the 5 as dangerous people) ~terrorists must explain their killings or they are just murderers (that is the job of the terrorist to distinguish) ~Zhelyabov takes the job of explaining why they did what they did (*sidebar: the year before, the People’s Will wrote a letter to the US Congress abhorring the assassination of President Garfield b/c the US had a system— democracy—to get rid of a tyrant legally) *state their case with two conditions: amnesty for political crimes, proper republican representation *call themselves the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party (they should be distinguished as the People’s Will) *the correspondent is not in favor of Zhelyabov *Zhelyabov’s argument: only one who didn’t have counsel (so was allowed to defend himself) ~separates himself from anarchists (those who wish to overthrow all gov’t and authority) ~wants to mention his party’s principles ~mentions the peaceful past and how the gov’t drove him to a violent means to reach his end ~Narodnik: person who is a populist ~never mentions that the peasants were against him (couldn’t admit that b/c it would kill the cause) ~Lipetsk conference: tiny rural town where they met to argue out whether to use violence or not (this is when they split into the two parties) *Kibalchich: drafted a project for a flying machine and is the major bomb maker for the party (he was the chemist of the People’s Will Party) *Four ended up being executed (4 men and 1 woman) and the fifth player a woman’s sentence was reduced to life in prison b/c she was pregnant
Amy Knight—Female Terrorist in the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party
*first article ever written about women as Russian terrorists *which female attributes lend themselves well to terrorism? ~society doesn’t give women the chance to do much else outside the social norm of staying home ~deep feeling of inadequacy (psychological) ~education issues *have we looked at men specifically in this way before? Not really. Only in romanticized ways.
Pre-Revolutionary Russia time frame
pre-1917 Russia
Amy Knight—Female Terrorists
*what characteristics were important about women? ~inadequacy and psychology of being marginalized *had deep understanding of unequal position (*sidebar: women embarrassed the gov’t of Russia regarding their lack of education by going abroad to a university in Zurich) *contradiction: she wants us to understand that the women have a conscience and aren’t just cold-hearted killers *very few women lived past the age of 30 (suicide or mental illness) *tactics are means of the overall strategy *buzzword for SRs and People’s Will: populists—commitment to uplift the masses *are we stepping into the boundary line of the innocents? *check back to Jean Maitron’s article about explaining lowering violence in western Europe because another movement took over the people in western Europe: the strike movement *Witte (“pronounced vitta”)—minister of finance in the 1890s who created an industrialization movement from above for Russia ~creates a working class that ends up playing a role against the gov’t later (theory of unintended consequences) *shadow gov’t: parliamentary democracies have an underground cabinet ready to take over at a moment’s notice (within 24 hours) *economic terrorism: biggest part in France but some also I Russia ~at extreme: sought a general strike ~agitated workers in factories *syndicalists: people who were militant labor union organizers who wanted to take down the state to create a socialist republic and at least to abolish monarchies
Before 1917—Pre-revolutionary era
~autocracy (special form of monarchy) that goes back to the 10th century and Peter and Catherine the Great ruled since the 18th century ~rulers are tsars/emperors—long title “Emperor and Tsars of all the Russias”
~emancipation of the surfs ~intelligensia—intellectuals who are politically motivated and become the conscience of the state (revolutionary movement forms from these intelligentsia)
1905 Revolution Russia
longest revolution and most devastating with its impact ~strikers/workers/peasants sabotaging life into a general radical movement ~Tsar Nicolas II—the duma was created to curb the revolution
Political party framework in Russia
~Social Revolutionaries (SRs) -populists -believe in uprising of the masses -represent peasants (~Land and Freedom splits into People’s Will and the Black Repartition in 1879 who shows up again in 1917) ~Social Democratic -legal marxists -had to operate underground b/c they were outlawed and couldn’t participate in Duma -views on terrorism: -SD’s split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903 *differences weren’t about terrorism but about how to structure the party ~the Bolsheviks thought that change should happen much faster than the Mensheviks
How do we get from a party that condemns terrorism before 1917 to a party that runs a country based upon state terror?
~is there continuity from Lenin to Stalin?
February Russian Revolution
the monarchy collapses (Nicolas abdicates the throne) -war—great losses and German advance -labor strike movement -peasantry had lost faith in the “little father” monarchy *1891 famine and cholera epidemic -SRs (mobilizing peasantry) and Marxists (mobilizing workers) -military decides to pull Nicolas off the throne and his brother Michael takes the throne and soon abdicates for a provisional government *Kerezensky—provisional government head *complete and general amnesty: everyone who was a political prisoner was now freed and revolutionaries who had left the country could come back ~all formerly banned and imprisoned people dedicated themselves to overthrowing the government *Duma dies
October Russian Revolution
*Petrograd Soviet (soviet means counsel)—republic ~elected counsel of workers and peasants meeting at the time *October 27, 1917—Lenin seizes power ~military insurrection planned for many months -group of people uniformed and armed -(ps there was an arrest warrant out for Lenin) ~hands power to the Petrograd Soviet *SRs, anarchists, and SDs all work together in the new gov’t—later become victims of the Red Terror ~anarchists get targeted first -threats to authority, the state ~SRs targeted next *civil war breaks out in 1918-19 due to enormous resistance ~red terror is necessary/justified b/c the regime was threatened by the civil war ~White army attacks from the east (Siberia) ~another group came from the north to fight the red -US sent a joint-allied expeditionary force with Britain—very poorly executed ~peasants ended up supporting the Red Army -ps the white army had an awful reputation for being vicious conquerors *1921—Party Congress ~all political parties banned (Mussolini did this a few years later) ~Bolsheviks changed their name to Communists in 1920 ~Now there can be no legal resistance to what the gov’t is trying to do ~clergy and monarchists (landowners) fled the USSR
Lenin dies January 1924—no law of succession
-power struggle -“free” decade *literacy—free education -became illegal to be unemployed -Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin—three power players *Stalin and Trotsky have a fight over who is supposed to take over for Lenin ~Stalin forces Trotsky into exile (kicked out of the country and goes to Turkey)
1929-1930—Stalinism established through the 1930s
-Great Terror—trials of alleged terrorists *public trials -Stalin gains complete control
December of 1940—Stalin realized he made a mistake letting Trotsky out of the country
-Stalin sends a secret agent who was fluent in Spanish to infiltrate the inner Trotsky circle -Uses an ice pick to kill Trotsky

Deck Info