Factsheet on imperial russia
Fact Sheet on imperial Russia Intro Before the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917, Russia was under an autocratic ruling system. If you look at a map Russia is about 100 times the size of the United Kingdom. The ruling system was poor, some may argue about this. Since Russia was so big would it really be the Tsar Nicholas II's fault? To try and solve that question, there will be four sections to give some reasoning to people's thoughts. Geography: Russia's geography not only made the temperature of Russia uninhabitable, the temperature in some places made it difficult very difficult, basically impossible for crops to grow since some of Russia is in the Arctic Circle. Most of the inhabitants of Russia lived on the border of Russia. (The map of Russia below shows the population density of different parts of Russia.) The fact that the size of Russia was so big made it even harder for the Tsar to give commands to his country. Since Russia was so large it shared a lot of borders with a few countries, some people from other countries would cross the border into Russia with different languages and cultures. This in a way could help the Tsar because he might've had more allies (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/ussr_pop_1974.jpg) since his country had people from other countries living there. But when it was time for the army to complete orders and try to find
Why did Imperial Russia succumb to Revolution in 1917?
Why did Imperial Russia succumb to Revolution in 1917? Darshan Sanghrajka Matriculation number: 010000962 24th October 2002. Imperial Russia had thus far survived the evolving forces of political change but in this very observation is the implicit and incorrect perception of uncontested autocratic strength; Indeed Imperial Russia was actually"... a powder keg waiting to explode"1, and the essay will illustrate this by initially explaining the immediate catalysing military, political and economical effects caused by the war and then addressing some underlying issues which pre-date the War, back to the grievances of the Emancipation of Serfs in 1861. The argument is that there was a striking contradiction in the way the country was run; The Tsarist Empire was on one hand, implementing rapid industrialisation whilst simultaneously, attempting to sustain total autocracy. Problematically, both in absolute terms are mutually exclusive. However, had the Tsar compromised by conceding some of his power, the political, economic and social issues fuelled by the pressures of an elongated war, would not have led to the Revolution in 1917. Such contradictions shall be discussed further in this essay. War was militarily disastrous for Russia, with its inferior industry making her inadequately prepared for war. Defeats occurred even in early 1914, exemplified by Tannenberg. The
'British failure at Gallipoli contributed to the collapse of Imperial Russia'.
'British failure at Gallipoli contributed to the collapse of Imperial Russia'. Gallipoli has previously been crudely blamed for the Russian Revolutions of 1917, like many critical events in history, there is always more than one event that triggers such action. This paper will examine the lead up to the battle of Gallipoli the main events that took place during this period, Britain's part in the Gallipoli operation, the impact and consequences of the decisions made by British military in charge. It will also look at its involvement and by the nature of its decisions whether Britain had a part to play in the aforementioned revolutions. Britain and France were fully aware the importance of staying neutral with Turkey, in the event of any hostilities. Both were greatly distressed when two days before the outbreak of the First World War, Turkey formed an alliance with Germany against Russia, although Turkey was not committed to any military action. Britain could predict the disastrous affects this would have on Britain as grain was transported from Russia through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which was under the Turkish Ottoman Empire. It also hindered the export of military arms and supplies from Britain to Russia, the Ottoman Empire had a history of repressive rule under the Hamid family, when in1877 Sultan Mohammed V Hamid took over the rule from his brother he
In what ways, and with what success, did Alex II attempt to modernise Russia and preserve imperial power?
Transfer-Encoding: chunked History Essay In what ways, and with what success, did Alex II attempt to modernise Russia and preserve imperial power? Tsar Alex II was placed into power in the conclusion of the Crimean War in 1856. His popularity was largely non-existent due to him announcing the end of the Crimean War. It stained Imperial Russia under his name which ultimately created the perception that he was a weak leader and that Russia was in danger. Alex II’s intentions were unlike the previous Tsar, he looked to restabilise Russia and to restore their name as a superpower. To do this, he instated 8 reforms that targeted all aspects of society in the hopes of making Russia a contender against the Industrialised Western Europe aswell as to secure his power. These 8 reforms varied in success despite their intentions to eradicate the economic plight from Russia. There were reforms that aided in preserving Imperial power and others that damaged the idea of maintaining an Imperial Russia. The first reform introduced to Russia by Alex II was the idea to for the Emancipation of the Serfs. It granted him the titles ‘The Liberator’ due to the seemingly generous sacrifice for the Serf population. His intention however, was to liberate the Serf population a on a small-scale in order to supress revolutionaries. Alex II saw that the Serf population was beginning to become
Which of these judgements best Reflects the State of Imperial Russia in 1914? By 1914 all the Signs were there that Imperial Russia was heading towards a Major Confrontation between intransient Tsarism and the Forces of Change or
Which of these judgements best Reflects the State of Imperial Russia in 1914? "By 1914 all the Signs were there that Imperial Russia was heading towards a Major Confrontation between intransient Tsarism and the Forces of Change" or "The Prospects of Stable evolutionary Development in 1914 were good until Foreign Affairs Intervened" Hanoom 13Sh The 1905 revolution had tested the strength of Tsarism at its core. However, the survival of the regime was due to the fact that whilst in 1905 the Russian rebels were confidant enough to voice their discontent they were not on a mission to usurp tsarist authority. It can be argued that whilst there was an active petitioning for change in 1905 by 1914 many critics came to the realisation that real change under despotic and authoritarian Tsarism was a long way off. But whether or not this itself had set Russia on an irreversible path against the established system is debatable. The main argument against the intervention of foreign affairs being instrumental in stopping Russia's prospects of stable evolutionary development is that Nicholas did not keep to one of the key concessions of the October Manifesto by a granting constitutional monarchy. Nicholas had absolutely no intention of handing power to the people and the Duma was the creation of an urgent need to appease the 1905 rebels. Once calm was restored to Russia he treated the
Russian imperial interests in central Asia.
Yen Hoang Final Paper Prof. Darwin 2/6/2004 RUSSIAN IMPERIAL INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA "Like the United States in America, France in Africa, Holland in her colonies, and England in East India," the Russian presence in Central Asia was "less out of ambition than absolute necessity", so wrote the Russian Chancellor A.M. Gorchabov in a dispatch to Europe as the Russian army stormed the gates of Tashkent, the capital city of Turkistan. Comparing Russia's movement into the territories south of her border to these classic European colonial adventures, Gorchabov suggested a picture of involuntary expansion, and evoked that familiar notion of conquest as Europe's destiny to carry progress to the barbaric frontiers of civilization. Russia, he argued, had no aggressive designs on her neighboring tribes and was only doing her duty. In principle, no imperial power could have legitimately objected to Gorchabov's argument. Yet, the idea of an agrarian Russia being an imperial power to highly industrialized players like the British and the German, performing the same goals that they, will all their resources, strived to, seems rather ambitious. From an economic point of view, Russia could not have been a less likely imperialist. After the Crimean War, she suffered from a chronic lack of capital and a rising dependence on capital imports from Europe1. Attempts to develop an
Running head: IMPERIAL MANIFESTO ON POLAND
The document of Imperial Manifesto of Poland was created by the Russian Tsar Nicholas I. The document that Nicholas I is referring to was written on March 25, 1832 after the Polish troops were severely defeated by the Russian army in the November uprising. This document is Tsar Nicholas's proclamation of Russian rule over what was known once as Poland. Which was "a political entity that was created out of the Duchy of Warsaw at the Congress of Vienna Congress." (Wikipedia, Congress of Poland). The Imperial Manifesto of Poland takes away the Constitutional Charter that was issued to Poland during the Vienna Congress in 1815. When Poland was created in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna it was "one of the few contemporary constitutional monarchies in Europe, with the Tsar of Russia as Polish King." (Encyclopedia, Congress of Poland). The constitution that was granted to Poland at that time was one of the most free constitutions in the 19th century. As it is stated, "Congress Poland had a parliament which could vote on laws and was responsible to the tsar. It had also its own army, Polish currency, budget, penal code and was separated from the rest of Russian lands by a customs boundary." (Wikipeadia, Congress of Poland). As it is said, "Initially Alexander I was crowned as the King of Poland and obeyed the constitution" (Encyclopedia, Alexandar I King of Russia), therefore he
Is There Still an Imperial Presidency?
IS THERE STILL AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY? Writers of the constitution intended for congress to be the most powerful branch of government. They invested in the president: the powers of the monarch, but subjected him to the democratic principles of accountability which was ensured by a complex system of parliamentary and judicial checks and balances. For over a century the US got along fine with a relatively weak president whose major role was simply to carry out the laws and policies made by congress, however, there has been erosion in this system. Presidential power only started to grow after the 19th century when the US set out on its path to empire. A great transformation of the president's power came with Franklin D. Roosevelt. When he came into office in 1933, he declared the great depression1 a national emergency and announced that he would treat the depression as a war. Although congress did not approve of this, he still presided over the nation. Roosevelt also stayed in office for more than four terms until his death in 1945. His forceful leadership and many years in office inspired a term, 'the imperial presidency' that would be applied to subsequent president with similar leadership style. Imperial means one that is superior in authority or acting like an emperor. Roosevelt's successors used the cold war to justify continuity of the imperial presidency. There was
The Russian revolution of 1917 which triggered the collapse of the Tsarist regime represented a watershed in the history of Imperial Russia.
The Russian revolution of 1917 which triggered the collapse of the Tsarist regime represented a watershed in the history of Imperial Russia. The issue here concerns the reasons as to why Tsar Nicholas II was unable to keep sufficient support in February 1917 to defeat the revolutionary forces. The first reason as to why Tsar Nicholas II was unable to keep sufficient support in February 1917 to defeat the revolutionary forces was the fact that the humiliating defeats suffered by Russia in World War I undermined the rule of Nicholas II. During the declaration of the war on 20 July 1914, demonstrations and strikes I the capital ceased immediately. The first flush of patriotic enthusiasm came in the form of "Liberal criticisms of the government in the Duma, and the popular strikes and anti-government demonstrations promptly stopped."1 Initially, the war served as a diversion for the people from the many acute socio-economic problems of Russia, however in the long run, the major defeats and losses that led to unnecessary casualties, costing one third of Russian army lives resulted in wide-spread disillusionment that then led to demoralization in the army. Military generals of mediocrity and low caliber led to a loss in respect and support in the Tsarist regime from the army and the fact that Nicholas II took up the position of commander-in chief of the Russian meant that he was
What prinicples governed foreign and imperial policies from 1856-1902?
What principles governed foreign and imperial policies from 1856 to 1902? Britain's foreign policy towards Europe was laid out in 1815, where there was a degree of consistency in the principles upon which the policies were based but the methods used to guarantee Britain's interests changed over time. Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain from 1859 to 1865 and foreign secretary from 1830-41 is remembered for his direction of British foreign policy; his aggressive actions were seen as very controversial. One could argue that his nationalist orientated version of foreign policy was emblematic of Britain's policies abroad in this period and was followed up to 1902. However, this is too simplistic a definition of British foreign policy. We must consider other elements of foreign policy, such as Britain's defence of the British Empire, Britain's desire to preserve the balance of power in Europe. Both Russia and France were considered as the main threats to the European status quo. Britain also supported newly emerging states and their independence, as long as it coincided with their own vested interests. Finally, free trade became a consistent strand of British foreign policy throughout this period; there was little deviation to the pursuance of this economic policy. One of Britain's primary objectives from 1856 to 1902 was to maintain a balance of power throughout Europe.
