Recommended: Consequences of 1905 russian revolution
In addition, in a letter to Tsar Alexander II, Leo Tolstoy, a writer and an officer in the Russian military during the Crimean War, described the Russian army as a wave of slaves that lacked any form of military sophistication and undermined the honor of his country (Doc 3). Considering that Tolstoy gives a firsthand account of the war and that he was writing to the leader of Russia, this document is definitely accurate when describing how insufficient Russian military strategy was at the time. As a result of a brutal defeat during the Crimean War, which was caused by the greater development and modernization of opposing powers, Russian leaders gradually liberalized their rules and invoked more social change in Russian society. Perhaps using Western Europe as inspiration, slight transitions to a factory economy increased infrastructure, and a more advanced military led to economic gain for Russia. Still, most of Russia’s economic progress can be attributed to its internal
Nicholas II’s inability to respond to or embrace change was the determining factor in the decline of the Romanov Dynasty. To what extent is this statement accurate? Introduction: The inability of Tsar Nicholas 11 to respond to or embrace political and social change during a time of crisis contributed significantly to the collapse of the Romanov rule over Russia.
I enjoyed perusing Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book The Russian Revolution. I think critics are not giving her enough credit for exploring the social, cultural, and even the psychological history of revolutionary Russia. The setting she describes of the feudal setting is consistent with that described by Richard Pipes. This is a difficult history to elucidate as the psychology and culture of feudal systems is poorly documented. Historians have attempted to elucidate the feudal history of the Huguenot Empire leading up through the eventual success of the revolution in Switzerland.
Russia’s historical experience was eccentric but yet not completely divorced from European influence. In fact, in the 18th century European contemporary ideas were deliberately brought to Russia with a view to modernize its alleged medieval existence. Many contemporaries claim the ruler of that period, Peter I, the Great, to have transformed Russia “from non-existence into being” (Hughes 2009, 165). Or also as the English author Harold Nicolson wrote: “It was Peter the Great who, within a quarter of a century, transformed Russia from a barbaric Asiatic principality into a centralized monarchy, capable of playing its part in the European balance of power.”
1917 was an extremely volatile year for Russia, during which two complete revolutions of government took place within the space of eight months, and a formerly staunch and inflexible hereditary empire of over two hundred years was completely dismantled. The Russian Empire of the Romanovs was one of the largest in the history of the world, and experienced the implementation of one of the most sophisticated systems of government and civil service, one of the fastest and most far-reaching expansions of national infrastructure, and one of the most feared military forces of the time. Yet by the time of the outbreak of the Russian revolution in February of 1917, the idea of uprising had seemed rather obvious to those both inside and outside of Russia’s
The Russian Revolution led to extremely difficult times for Russian citizens because of the social, economic and cultural implications that the Communist regime led. Many have read about the scars that the Stalin and Lenin regime left. Stalin’s drastic economic turn led to the Russian people making massive economic, social sacrifices and cultural sacrifices that many of us now take for granted. Before the Communist movement within Russia occurred the standard of living was very comfortable. However, when Stalin came into power much of the economy was “not up to his standard” and he wanted Russia to become the “Soviet America, modernizing the USSR as quickly as he could” (152, Corhin, Fiehn).
The weak leadership of Tsar Nicholas II was the defining factor of the outbreak of the February/March 1917 Russian Revolution. What follows is an explanation of the complex set of circumstances, which were exacerbated by the weak leadership of Nicholas II, ultimately leading to his abdication in February 1917. “Nicholas II was an absolute monarch who could appoint and dismiss ministers at will, determine policy, and in wartime, command the Armed Forces” (MacMillan, 2014, p.196). As a child, Nicholas II was taught by an arch-conservative, Pobedonostsev, who loathed any kind of liberalism and democracy (Lynch and Woodland, 2008 p.12). The ideologies preached by Pobedonostsev, were concepts that Nicholas II would take to heart, as can be clearly seen in his subsequent policies.
This essay proposes to discuss the most reliable source on the causes of the Russian Revolution. Sources include the film Anastasia (1997), film October: Ten Days That Shook the World (1927), and a police report (1916). I am undeniable that the police report is the most trustworthy out of all sources. Evidence proves that the films are considered unreliable. Film October: Ten Days That Shook the World includes the storming of the Winter palace as an event distorted by myth.
The failures of the government and the Tsar during war time showed how the old bureaucratic system of autocracy was unfit to lead Russia to the modernity it needed to survive in the new industrial
The goal to make the Russian empire the best country in the world and a role model for foreign territories flourished among its citizens. Bourgeois traits, or materialistic and money-oriented characters denoted disgraceful nature and proclaimed and enemy of consolidation of the Russian people. The traditional thought endured that no one can attain immense wealth via honest methods. This attitude remained with the Russian peoples following the Great Northern War in 1721, past the 1917 Revolution, past the Soviet Collapse, until today. The essentiality lies within the revolutions in the 1917 and 1991, where their cause lay in political agendas shifting away from the alignment of the Russian culture, furthermore shifting away from people’s expectations of fair leadership.
The Russian Revolution, which was started by Lenin and his followers, was a rebellion that occurred in 1917 which forced higher powers to act to the needs of the lower class. For instance, many citizens were worried for their protection in consequence to the lack of survival necessities due to an early drought. Furthermore, their current czar during the time was incapable for his position as a czar and made horrendous decisions as czar. For example, when the czar, Nicholas, entered in World War I, he sent untrained troops into countless battles of failure which costed in mass amounts of lost life (paragraph 23).
Part of the struggle collided with medical knowledge and practices of the time. Prostitutes during this time greatly contributed to the spread of sexual diseases. Because the prostitutes were largely governed by the police, the prostitutes had to undergo frequent medical checkups to monitor venereal diseases, namely syphilis. If they were found to have contracted a disease, they would undergo treatment in a hospital for an extended period of time. If the prostitutes failed to go to their medical checkups, it would result in forced attendance to a correctional facility designed to “cure” these womyn of whatever disease they may have had.
Patriotic History: 20th century by Igor Dolutsky, discusses twentieth-century Russia through the lens of world capitalistic development of the nineteenth-century and its influences on the Russian Empire at the time. Igor Dolutsky frames his dialogue on twentieth-century Russia by first discussing nineteenth-century western Europe. Particularly, he focuses on the different characteristics during each “echelon” of capitalism. Dolutsky focuses primarily on the bourgeois’s development, growing control, and eventual revolution. The second echelon as he sees it was not entirely capitalistic.
This false leadership that Nicholas, the Tsar, acquired was presented to the nation involving war or involving the people’s treatment. This faulty leadership given by Nicholas was tested when he involved a dangerous man, Rasputin, into their government. The nation uproared in reply to the absurd decisions made by Nicholas which also resulted in the creation of many revolts, and also of the Russian Revolution. The nation did get what they wanted in the end, which was a new ruler and a stronger nation. The new Russian ruler, Vladimir Lenin, however consisted of plans to repay Romanovs for deconstructing their nation.
According to the author Sidney Harcave, who wrote The Russian Revolution of 1905, there were four problems in Russian society at the time that contributed to the revolution: the agrarian problem, the nationality problem, the labour problem, and the educated class problem. Individuals were unhappy with the Tsar's domineering standard and the dissents were a summit of the development of political gatherings who went for ousting the government and challenges for better working conditions, riots among the labourers, death of government authorities by Socialist Revolutionaries and so forth. From the season of Peter I (Peter the Great), the Tsarist progressively turned into a despotic administration that forced its will on the general population
