Fanny Yefimovna Kaplan (February 10, 1890 – September 3, 1918), also known as Fanya Kaplan and as Dora Kaplan), was a Russian political revolutionary and an attempted assassin of Lenin.
 |
Lenin bewigged and clean shaven, Finland, 11 August 1917 |
On 30th August, 1918, Lenin spoke at a Moscow factory called "Hammer and Sickle". As Lenin left the building and before he entered his car, Kaplan called out to him. When Lenin turned towards her, she fired three shots. One passed through Lenin's coat, the other two hit him in the left shoulder and jaw.
Lenin was taken back to his living quarters at the Kremlin. He feared there might be other plotters planning to kill him and refused to leave the security of the Kremlin to seek medical attention. Doctors were brought in to treat him but were unable to remove the bullets outside of a hospital. Despite the severity of his injuries, Lenin survived. However, Lenin's health never fully recovered from the attack and it is believed the shooting contributed to the strokes that incapacitated and later killed him.
Kaplan was taken into custody and interrogated by the Cheka. She made the following statement:
My name is Fanya Kaplan. Today I shot at Lenin. I did it on my own. I will not say from whom I obtained my revolver. I will give no details. I had resolved to kill Lenin long ago. I consider him a traitor to the Revolution. I was exiled to Akatui for participating in an assassination attempt against a Tsarist official in Kyiv. I spent 11 years at hard labour. After the Revolution, I was freed. I favoured the Constituent Assembly and am still for it.
When it became clear that Kaplan would not implicate any accomplices, she was executed on September 3, 1918.
Shortly before the above mentioned events, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 signed on August 31, 1907, in St. Petersburg, Russia, brought shaky British-Russian relations to the forefront by solidifying boundaries that identified respective control in Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet. This agreement seemingly ended a long-standing struggle for power that had gone on at the expense of lesser-developed regions throughout Central Asia. Though these imperial powers had experienced relatively few major conflicts between them over the previous hundred years, an underlying rivalry, otherwise known as “The Great Game”, had exacerbated the situation to such an extent that resolution was sought by the early 20th century. Many believe that these negotiations primarily served to forge a political alliance in fear of the growing strength and influence of Imperial Germany. As a consequence of the Anglo-Russian agreement, they crushed any chance of Persian autonomy. The idea of a reformed Persian state was not what these powers had in mind; they enjoyed both stability and control in Persia and planned to keep it that way. Overall, the Convention represented a carefully calculated move on each power's part in which they chose to value a powerful alliance over potential sole control over various parts of Central Asia.
Grater Persia at the beginning of the Great Game in 1814
The Great Game or Tournament of Shadows in Russian, were terms for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British an Russian Empires for supremacy in Central Asia. The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo Russian Convention of 1907. A second, less intensive phase followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Great Game dwindled after the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union became Allies during World War II.
So now we have the continuing NATO-Afghanistan game. What next?
Video is an interesting view of matters. Follow the links to parts 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Part 4 is not pleasant viewing.
Shortly before the above mentioned events, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 signed on August 31, 1907, in St. Petersburg, Russia, brought shaky British-Russian relations to the forefront by solidifying boundaries that identified respective control in Persia, Afghanistan and Tibet. This agreement seemingly ended a long-standing struggle for power that had gone on at the expense of lesser-developed regions throughout Central Asia. Though these imperial powers had experienced relatively few major conflicts between them over the previous hundred years, an underlying rivalry, otherwise known as “The Great Game”, had exacerbated the situation to such an extent that resolution was sought by the early 20th century. Many believe that these negotiations primarily served to forge a political alliance in fear of the growing strength and influence of Imperial Germany. As a consequence of the Anglo-Russian agreement, they crushed any chance of Persian autonomy. The idea of a reformed Persian state was not what these powers had in mind; they enjoyed both stability and control in Persia and planned to keep it that way. Overall, the Convention represented a carefully calculated move on each power's part in which they chose to value a powerful alliance over potential sole control over various parts of Central Asia.
 |
| Izvolsky |
 |
| Nicolson |
Formally signed by Count Alexander Izvolsky, Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire, and Sir Arthur Nicolson, the British Ambassador to Russia, the British-Russian Convention of 1907 stipulated the following:
1. That Persia would be split into three zones: A Russian zone in the north, a British zone in the southwest, and a neutral “buffer” zone in the remaining land.
2. That Britain may not seek concessions “beyond a line starting from Kasr-i-Shirin, passing through Isfahan, Yezd (Yazd), Kakhk, and ending at a point on the Persian frontier at the intersection of the Russian and Afghan frontiers.”
3. That Russia must follow the reverse of guideline number two.
4. That Afghanistan was a British protectorate and for Russia to cease any communication with the Emir.
A separate treaty was drawn up to resolve disputes regarding Tibet. However, these terms eventually proved problematic, as they "drew attention to a whole range of minor issues that remained unsolved".
Why the British persist in sticking its nose into Afghanistan is a mystery. This "Great Game" has been going on for some 200 years now. Is it not time for closure?
 |
So now we have the continuing NATO-Afghanistan game. What next?
Video is an interesting view of matters. Follow the links to parts 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Part 4 is not pleasant viewing.
