Abstract
The beginning of the twentieth century heralded the major changes that the autocratic Russia of Czar Nicholas II would have to manage. The precarious existence of the peasants and the majority of the townspeople, coupled with internal and external conflicts had turned The Russian Empire into a powder keg ready to explode. A first sign of this explosive situation was shown on 22nd January 1905, "the bloody Sunday", when soldiers of the imperial guard opened fire on unarmed protesters, who demanded only to hand the Tsar a petition expressing their discontent with the living conditions, they were subjected. The news of the massacre at the gates of Winter Palace was spreading rapidly causing shock and terror in the hearts of the people and also the desire to bath in the blood this injustice and with it the entire autocratic Tsarist regime. The news reached the ears of sailors aboard
Keywords: The Mutiny on the battleship PotemkinGreat BritainBritish pressRomaniainternational relations
Introduction
Submission for analysis of events from the early twentieth can create perplexity for the general
public, especially because the mutiny on the Russian battleship Potemkinreceived wide exposure in
both art and historiography. But we believe that for this reason it is necessary the reassessment of
issues that in different historical periods, were either presented from a perspective of a doctrine and
ideology, or were shown in an incomplete and deficient way, being obscured those matters that did not
fold the ideological profile of the moment. The Potemkin uprising was one of those events used by the
political power of the moment to legitimize itself and to articulate the ideological speech before a
society in a constant search of heroes.
Presenting the events of the summer of 1905 in a romanticized way, booth in press, literature,
cinema or historiography, of various historical periods, had altered the actual substance of the mutiny
on Potemkin, so this is one of the main reasons we propose a critical revaluation of the topic by
analyzing the media in a foreign country, booth rival and hostile, following its positioning in relation to
an event that reveals the internal difficulties of Czarist Russia and its vulnerability in the Russo-
Japanese war.
Method
The main goal of this research is to analyses the perception of the British press on the mutiny on the
Russian battleship Potemkin, because British media watched with great interest the events in the
summer of 1905 for several reasons. The government in
rival at that time, because she was threatening the safety of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, so the
safety of the shortest routes to India. The British authorities also feared that Russia will support the
revolutionary movements in North India that would have jeopardized her position in the most
important of her colonies. Furthermore, the subject of the mutiny on the Potemkin was highly
publicized in the media of that time across mainland, so, the
last, but not list, Britain was facing similar internal problems. At the beginning of the twentieth century
Britain's main internal problem was the widespread poverty in her big cities. In the most important
European metropolis at that time peoples were starving and dying because of misery, and this state of
affairs had led to numerous strike movements, especially in the docks.
For this purpose, we propose to study and analyze a substantial number of articles in the British
newspapers of that period and to observe which was the general opinion of the press about the
revolutionary events in the Tsarist Russia in general, and the mutiny on the battleship Potemkin,
particularly. We also intend to analyze the reports concerning the interaction of the crew on the
battleship Potemkin with the Romanian authorities in Constanta.
For achieving the proposed objectives, we will use the observation method, the historical method,
the contextual analysis method and comparative critical method.
Review of Literature
As we stated previously, while leftist government of Russia the historiography has paid great
attention for the mutiny on Potemkin. Proofs in this matter are works like: A.P. Platonov,
chernomorskogo flote v 1905; V. V. Maksakov et al. (eds), Krasnyi arkhiv—istoricheskii zhurnal; I. P.
Voronitsyn, Iz mraka katorgi 1905-1917. And the later works of B. I. Gavrilov,
Vosstanie na bronenostse Potemkine and P. Kardashev, Burevestniki, revoliutsii v rossii i flot.
Western historians, as Robert Zebroski observed (2003, p. 9), have treated the Potemkin mutiny as
„an isolated incident that does not warrant closer examination”. Therefore, the pages dedicated to the
uprising on the battleship Potemkin can be found in the works dedicated to a wider problem, like the
revolutionary movement in Russia: Richard Hough,
amid Repression ; Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905; Leonard F. Guttridge, Mutiny: A History
Christopher M. Bell & Bruce A. Elleman, Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century: An International
Perspective.
Although the uprising on the battleship Potemkin received an ample exposure in the Russian and
international historiography the references concerning the press coverage, especially the Western press,
are very sketchy and insufficient for us to shape an opinion on how the events were perceived by the
public opinion in those countries. Therefore, a study that focused especially on this issue should be, we
believe, welcomed.
The background of the events
After the defeat in the Crimean War, the tsarist authorities engaged in an ambitious naval program
meant to transform Russia in a great naval power, that could resist the British or the French fleet, in the
case of war (McLaughlin, 2003, p. 117-118). But without an educated middle class, that could provide
technically proficient personnel to operate and maintain the sophisticated shipboard machinery, the
Russian navy had to be made up mostly of peasants, but also with some better educated workers, many
of whom had a „radical past”, harboring revolutionary sympathies (Zebroski, 2003, p. 10).
The brutish, and humiliating life conditions on the ships, and the longtime of conscription, arouse
the feelings of anger and frustration in the minds of the sailors, now united in the new ideal to
overthrow their officers traditional rule, that looked so much alike the tsarist authority (Zebroski, 2003,
p. 11), that orchestrated the massacre on „Bloody Sunday” (Surh, 1989, pp. 165-167). The Russian
navy, unlike the army, remained highly aristocratic in organization. The naval officers’ corps remained
an „impermeable elite controlled by the tsar”, and the accession of sailors without noble descent was
prohibited (Zebroski, 2003, p. 13).
But the most serious problems for the sailors, and, also, the triggers of the mutiny were the poor
quality and quantity of food. Even if in the documents the diet looks pretty decent, in the reality the
food was far worse. Deficient in meat and vegetables, the food was often outdated and altered
(Zebroski, 2003, p. 11).
In fact, the food issue, was a source of growing tensions between officers and sailors, for some
years. In July 1903 the tensions escalated into near mutiny when the sailors on the
performing their duties to protest against tainted meat in the borscht. But after several hours of
negotiations, the officers listened their requests and they were served fresh food (Zebroski, 2003, p.
12). The escalation of the situation was avoided, but not for too long.
In the morning of 14/27 June 1905 some sailors on the premier battleship of the Black Sea fleet,
bad smell was their day meat, which appeared to be altered and teeming with maggots. The bad news
quickly spread among crewmembers, whom agreed to launch a passive boycott against eating the
borscht with the spoiled meat (Zebroski, 2003, p. 16). Their idea has annoyed the officers, who ordered
the sailors to eat the borscht or face punishment. Some of them refused, causing uproar. To avoid an
escalation of the disobedience the culprits had to be punished. So, one of the leading figures of the
disobedience, Grigory Vakulinchuk (Bascomb, 2007, pp. 44-46), an
shot and killed (Bascomb, 2007, p. 84).
This act has caused an outburst of anger. Several officers were killed and the rest of them were shut
away in the cabins. After the disarming of the officers and their closure in cabins, Afanasy Nikolaevich
Matiushenko, the other leading figure of the mutiny, seized control of the ship (Zebroski, 2003; p.18).
Having sensed trouble aboard the
the battleship, Lieutenant P.M. Klodt von Iurgensburg, tried to flee to safety, but was stopped by
Matiushenko and his colleagues (Zebroski, 2003; p. 18).
So, after a spontaneous uprising, the sailors on the
but they had no idea what to do next. Realizing that running a ship it's not as easy it might seem, the
mutineers tried to persuade their colleagues to join their efforts, even if they knew there were some that
opposed. The last ones were convinced by force. Then, the mutineers had elected a ship’s commission
that had three main purposes: "to act as a forum to set policy; to supervise the running of the ship; and
to keep the mutiny alive until the rest of the fleet could follow suit" (Zebroski, 2003; p. 18).
The main goal for Matiushenko and his colleagues was to spread the fleet-wide mutiny, and to join
the strike in Odessa. The sailors hoped that their example will be followed and that it would spark
sympathetic revolts in the Black Sea region and throughout all of Russia (Zebroski, 2003; pp. 14, 18).
The mutiny on
radical parties, that missed a great revolutionary opportunity. The Russian authorities were devastated
by the news of the Potemkin uprising, fearing an inflammation of the situation in and around Odessa
region. So they exemplary mobilized to give a firm reply to the mutineers (Zebroski, 2003; pp. 19-20).
Britain, a rival of Russia at that time, watched with great interest the events on
revealed a wide-ranging weaknesses of the autocratic empire. So, the British Ambassador to St.
Petersburg and, especially, the
presenting the events in the Russian Empire.
British media perception of the mutiny on Potemkin
One of the first and most detailed accounts of the Potemkin incident occurred, on 16/29 June 1905,
in the
Russian warships", the journal reported: "The city is in a state almost of stupefaction, for it is in
momentary fear of being bombarded by a Russian warship in possession of mutineers. The mutinous
ship is the Prince Potemkin, the newest and most heavily armed battleship of the Black Sea Fleet. She
arrived in the roadstead last night with a torpedo boat in company. Both vessels were in full possession
of the mutineers and both were flying the red flag of revolution in place of the Imperial Standard and
the national colors” (1905, June 29, p. 7). Next, there were presented the reasons of the revolt, „the
abominable character of the rations served out to them”, the moments of confrontation, the killing of
the officers and the takeover of the battleship command by the insurgents.
But, the main attention was focused on the repercussions of the
Odessa, and the possibility that the mutiny would expand both in town and on the crews of the military
vessels that were to be brought to the Odessa for suppressing the mutiny. „This afternoon the mutineers
signaled to the naval and military authorities on shore demanding that ample supplies of provision
should be sent out to her. If, it was added, the supplies were not sent by sundown the mutineers would
bombard the city. The heavy guns of the great battleship are even now trained on the defenseless city.
The Governor has telegraphed urgently to Sevastopol for a squadron of the Black Sea Fleet to be sent
at once, but the townspeople are not reassured by this action, as they are in mortal dread that the
bombardment may take meantime. There is also some reason to fear that if other warships come here
they will merely join mutineers. Then the city will be helpless between a hostile mutinous fleet and
fifty thousand men ashore” (1905, June 29, p. 7). After that, there were mentioned the intensification of
the strike in Odessa, favored by the presence on the
mutiny leader on the battleship, that „had perished for the truth”, according to his colleagues.
Similar accounts have appeared in the
Capture a Russian Battleship” (1905, June 29, p. 4), in the
Disorders. Mutiny on a Battleship” (1905, June 29, p. 5), and in the
the title „The mutiny on a Russian Battleship” (1905, June 29, p. 3).
that „have brought things to a pretty pass at the important Black Sea port of Odessa”. „The
circumstances which have led up to this desperate situation are painfully simple. There is naturally a
good deal of disaffection in the Russian Navy, and it has recently been fanned by events at home, bad
treatment, and brutal methods of repressing complaints”, concluded the author of the article (1905,
June 29, p. 3).
More interested in the character and the evolution of the movement from Odessa was the
harbor. All the warehouse and four or five Russian steamers have been burned. Several Cossacks have
been killed and some 300 of the rioters. The military are rapidly restoring order. A great amount of
merchandise has been destroyed” (1905, June 29, p. 4).
The news of the mutiny shocked Tsar Nicholas II, who immediately met with his cabinet to devise a
plan for suppressing the rebellion. They had decided to send three battleships, a light cruiser, and four
torpedo-boats to capture the
confrontation with the mutineers, about 40 members of the crew of the battleship
the overwhelming majority of
surrender. At the same time, the training ship
A.M. Petrov, wanted to join the
thwarted by the torpedo boat
Demoralized by the failures of their fellow mutineers, and lacking coal and provisions, the sailors on
This development of events was widely reported by British press. Thus, on 17/30 June, the
this evening. His orders are to summon the
after which he is to assist in the restoration of order in the town”. It was also mentioned the possibility
of spreading the rebellion into the other military ships brought in Odessa to force the
surrender: „The events at Odessa, Libau, and, according to the latest advice, at Reval, reveal such a
state of disaffection that even in official circles it is doubted whether the gunners of the Black Sea
warships will fire on the
rioters against the soldiery, they would form an armed and organized force which would most probably
be joined by a section of the troops” (1905, June 30, p. 7).
In conclusion, the
Tsarist authorities and on the empire's public image: „The news has opened the eyes of those who
hitherto been most obstinately blind to the danger threatening the country. A reaction has now come,
and a revolution is not only admitted as possibility, but the word is even being applied to the present
occurrences. It may be said without exaggeration that the Odessa mutiny has made a far greater
impression on the ruling classes than the defeats in Manchuria and the annihilation of the Baltic Fleet
combined” (1905, June 30, p. 7).
Besides the interest awakened by an insurrection broke out in one of the rival Powers, and the
compassion for its victims, the British press was very interested in the situation of citizens and goods
from „the Island”. „This aggressive movement caused great excitement throughout the city, and added
fuel to the disturbances which had already begun.
last night, says: The quarantine station, the harbor warehouse, stores, offices, and some of the Russian
shipping have been fired by the revolutionary bands in the town. The whole of the buildings are in
flames, which are now brilliantly illuminating the whole portion of the city toward the sea. All the
foreign ships are preparing to slip their mooring in the case of need. (...) Great anxiety prevails in
English shipping circles with regard to the position of the many British vessels now at Odessa" (1905,
June 29,
The terrifying news from Odessa had created anxiety, also, in the House of Commons, so the
Members of Parliament had requested answers and explanations about the safety of the British citizens
and their property: „Sir Albert Rollit asked the Prime Minister whether any precautionary measures
were intended to be taken regarding the matter for the protection of British lives and shipping and other
property in the Black Sea” (1905, June 30, Aberdeen Journal, p. 6). But Mr. Balfour gave a vague
answer „it is difficult to say what precautions can be taken regarding disorders which take place in a
town not under British jurisdiction” (1905, June 30, Aberdeen Journal, p. 6).
The Concern of the Members of Parliament was entitled, because at the time of the revolt, in the
port of Odessa there were a significant number of British ships: „The following is the list of merchant
steamers in Odessa harbor: Iran, Orestes, Cranley, Omega, Para, Frederick, Knight, Eastfield,
Thistledu, Soldier, Prince, Jelunga, Florio Rubattino, and Austrian-Lloyd boat, and a steamer
belonging to the
thought likely that some of them have been able to leave the port” (1905, June 30,
p. 7).
Russia was on a powder keg but she was still trying to keep up the appearances, so after sending its
warships in Odessa, the Tsarist authorities hurried to announce through diplomatic channels that the
insurgents had surrendered and the situation was under control. The news was immediately published
in the British press: „Mr. Keenan, United States Consul at Odessa, telegraphs to the State department
that firing there ceased soon after the arrival of the Admiral Kruger's squadron today, and the
p. 6).
have tamely surrendered to Admiral Kruger's Squadron without firing a shot. The Russian
no stomach for real revolution when it comes to facing the gun which his fellow-peasant will fire at
him when commanded by his superiors. Odessa has been partially destroyed, and hundreds of its
citizens killed in this abortive attempt at revolt. The authorities having now gained the upper hand it is
to be presumed that scores, if not hundreds, of rioters and sailors will suffer for their temerity by a slow
death in the prisons of their country” (1905, July 1, p. 7).
Only two days after the assurances from the Tsarist authorities, the British press reported that the
Potemkin battleship had escaped from „Kruger's ambush”, and headed for the port of Constanta
(Kustendji). „The telegrams received from Odessa during the weekend have been contradictory in the
extreme, but a message received early this morning from Kustendji, on Dobrudja, Roumania, points to
the single conclusion that the rebel battleship
by a torpedo boat and another vessel, and is now in Roumanian waters. The report that she had
surrendered, sent to Washington in an official message, was probably supplied to the American Consul
by the authorities at Odessa, the latter still persisting in the statement that the vessel has been rescued
from the hands of mutineers” (1905, July 3, Manchester Courier, p. 7).
On Sunday evening, 19 June/1 July, the
delegation composed of Major N. Negru, the Port Commandant, and his assistant, went out to meet the
sailors. The mutineers on the
needed. They had, also, asked the Port Commandant to deliver 15 envelopes containing proclamations
to the various European consulates in Constantza (Zebroski, 2003, p. 22).
In the brief proclamations the mutineers had mentioned the reasons for their revolutionary action
and they guaranteed safe passage to all foreign vessels in the Black Sea, stating that their quarrel was
strictly with the Russian government. Major N. Negru agreed to forward the letters to his government,
guaranteeing that, at a minimum, an envelope would be delivered to the British consulate (Zebroski,
2003, p. 22).
On Monday, 21 June/3 July 1905,
the battleship Potemkin entry into Constantza harbor and the insurgents encounter with the Romanian
port authorities: „The rebellious crew of the battleship
267, anchored of Constantza within the three-mile limit this evening, firing the usual salute. The
commander of the Roumanian Black Sea Division boarded the
customary salute to his rank by a deputation of sailor. No officers were visible, and the sailors stated
that their plans for future were not yet decided. Meanwhile they requested to be allowed to buy the
necessary provisions and to take in water, which they were permitted to do pending the receipt by the
Roumanian authorities of instructions from Bucharest” (1905, July 3, p. 2).
In the same day,
them been granted political asylum: „The demand made on the Roumanian authorities for the supply of
the ship's needs is likely to be an embarrassing one. The right of asylum in foreign territory by political
refugees is well understood. But the case is somewhat different when the said refugees have purloined
so tangible a piece of Tsar's property as a first-class battleship” (1905, July 3, p. 3).
The
about their future conduct: „Much excitement prevails on board the
opinion among the leaders, some of whom want to land in Roumania, while others propose that they
should return to Russia and join the other mutinous ships” (1905, July 3, p. 3).
have found the Roumanian authorities at the port of Kustendji, acting under orders from the capital,
firmed to deal with than they expected, and are now in an extraordinary predicament. Yesterday they
were without coal and without food, which were refused. (...) The Captain of the Port later offered
terms to the mutineers, viz., to give up their ships, land without arms, and be treated as foreign
deserters. These conditions, when submitted to the mutineers, raised serious dissensions on board the
battleship, many being for accepting them, and others for returning to Odessa and bombarding the port”
(1905, July 4, p. 7).
Taking advantage of the apparent Russian weaknesses in suppressing the mutiny, the Austro-
Hungarian press reported somewhat ironic that Russian authorities waited for Romania, to resolve a
situation that they had been unable to solve.
colleagues, presenting also the firm position adopted by the Roumanian authority in full contrast with
the clumsiness of the Tsarist Vice-Admiral: „The Vienna correspondent of the
this to be the prevailing belief in the Austrian capital, and Hungarian as well as Austrian newspapers
are quoted as affirming that the
squadron when steaming defiantly out of Odessa Roads. It would see as if Russia was likely to be
ultimately indebted to the Government of Roumania for doing for her what she has so egregiously
failed to do for herself in bringing the mutinous battleship once more under authority. The crew of the
Kustenji, under the orders sent them from Bucharest. Having steered their ship to Kustenji, the
mutineers required food. They received, however, only the conditional Assurance that if they would
give up their ship and come ashore as foreign deserters they could count on the privilege of asylum, but
that while they retained possession of a warship belonging to a foreign State they could not be
permitted to obtain food or other supplies in a Roumanian port” (1905, July 5, p. 4).
The authorities answer did not please the mutineers, so they left the Roumanian territorial waters:
„Under such circumstances it will be no easy matter even for the enterprising crew of the
and sympathizers at Odessa” (1905, July 5, p. 4).
In the days that followed, news and contradictory rumors were coming from all directions with an amazing pace.
But in the same day,
We don't know where the confusion came from but the next day the majority of the British press announced that the mutineer battleship had arrived in Theodosia, Crimea, and „had asked for coal, provisions, and a doctor” (1905, July 6, Western Times, p. 4). The crew have also „issued a declaration to the foreign Powers informing them that a decisive struggle has begun against the Russian Government, and adding:
So the
7, p.8).
Hunted by an entire Russian fleet, and putted to flight by the Theodosia's authorities, the
demoralized ship’s commission decided to return to Constanza, „with the exception of Matuschenko,
the leader of the mutiny, who resisted for some time, and wished to blow up the ship” (1905, July 10,
Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, p. 6).
On 25th June/ 7th July, the Potemkin steamed into the harbor and surrendered the battleship to Romanian authorities (Zebroski, 2003, p. 23). „The Roumanian flag now floats over the
The population of Constanța sympathizes with the mutineers, and had received them well, in the disapproval of a Russian agent which reported that the sailors were „greeted as hero’s ant as criminals as they should have been” (Zebroski, 2003, p. 23). The surrender took place at one o'clock, the mutineers would convey to any frontier they choose, being set at liberty (1905, July 10, Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, p. 6).
One with another the Tsarist authorities were satisfied that an embarrassing episode was over. In this regard, The London „Express”, Odessa correspondent alleged: „I have excellent reasons for stating that the end of the Potemkin affair is highly satisfactory to Russia, and that indeed a quiet hint had been conveyed to Roumania that such a settlement would welcomed in St. Petersburg. Russia will, no doubt, make show of indignation at Roumania for her
Results
As stated in the introductory chapter of this work, most often the media perception, based on the
impressions of the moment - fruits of fleeting emotions and passions - differs from the critical analysis
of historiography. In some cases, an event with a minor political importance can benefit from
overexposure in the media, the actors involved, the purpose and the results, being modest compared
with the record newspaper articles. We believe that the same thing has happened in the case of the
mutiny on Potemkin.
Being perceived as a sign of vulnerability in the wall of tsarist government by the rival powers, the
Russian sailors revolt has aroused great interest for the British press, which offered huge titles and
generous columns in its pages. But the odyssey of the Russian battleship and its „fearless” crew, that
had risen against arbitrary tsarist administration, had to end relatively quickly and without fanfare.
Hunted by the powerful Russian fleet leaded by the vice-Admiral Krieger and chased away with
gunfire in Odessa and Theodosia, the mutineers on the Potemkin had to surrender in the hands of the
Romanian authorities, just days after refusing their offer. Beyond the media mystification, the mutiny
on Potemkin was an unsuccessful attempt to determine a general strike in the Black Sea and then across
all Russia. Therefore, despite their glorification by the British media and by the population of
Constanta, who received them like heroes, the leaders of the mutiny failed to persuade even their own
comrades on the ship, and about triggering a general strike, it proved to be an illusory plan from the
beginning. So we believe that the analysis of the articles dedicated to the mutiny on the battleship
Potemkin by the British press showed that the emotion of the moment may give to particular events an
unduly high allure, and this ascertainment may serve to the historian in positioning toward to
information provided by the press, in analyzing the facts.
Conclusions
The mutiny on the Potemkin showed to a great public the serious problems faced by the Russian state
and society in the early twentieth century. Even if the mutiny on Potemkin has not reached its goals, the
profound political, economic and social problems would escalate over time, and in 1917 they would give
the coup de grace to the autocratic power on St. Petersburg. As has been demonstrated, the British press
has watched closely the events in Russia, because of the aversion of the two Great Powers, and also
because Britain faced similar problems, even if not so severe as those in the eastern empire. The rivalry
between the two states made the stories in the British press to be favorable for the insurgents, until the
conclusion of the mutiny, presenting them as victims of the Russian autocratic regime. However, after the
agreement with Russia in 1907, the British government and press have shown more tolerance on the
political and legislative excesses of their new allies, the vehement tone and criticism being directed with
predilection towards the German-speaking Powers of the Triple Alliance.
References
- Aberdeen Journal Dublin Daily Express Dundee Evening Telegraph.
- Edinburgh Evening News Exeter and Plymouth Gazette.
- Gloucester Citizen.
- Gloucestershire Echo Lancashire Evening Post Lincolnshire Echo.
- London Daily News Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser.
- Northampton Mercury Nottingham Evening Post Portsmouth Evening News Sheffield Evening Telegraph Western Times, Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, Bascomb, N. (2007). Red Mutiny: Eleven Fateful Days on the Battleship Potemkin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Zebroski, R. (2003). The Battleship Potemkin and its Discontents, 1905. In Bell, C. M., & Elleman, B. A., Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century: An International Perspective. (pp. 9-31). London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. Surh, G.D. (1989). 1905 in St. Petersburg: Labor, Society, and Revolution. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
04 October 2016
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-014-3
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
15
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-1115
Subjects
Communication, communication studies, social interaction, moral purpose of education, social purpose of education
Cite this article as:
Trofin, Ș. (2016). The Mutiny on the Russian Battleship Potemkin in the British Press. In A. Sandu, T. Ciulei, & A. Frunza (Eds.), Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, vol 15. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1027-1038). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.09.128