Rosie Owen 11H There were many causes of the Bolshevik Revolution. Which do you consider to be the most important? The under lying causes of the Bolshevik Revolution are rooted deep in Russia's history. For a long-time, autocratic and repressive Tsarist regimes ruled the country and most of the population lived under severe economic and social conditions. During the 19th century and early 20th century various movements aimed at overthrowing the oppressive government were staged at different times by workers, peasants, and members of the nobility. Two of these unsuccessful movements were the 1825 revolt against Nicholas 1 and the revolution of 1905, both of which were to establish a constitutional monarchy. Russia's badly organised and unsuccessful involvement in World War 1 (1914-1918) added to popular discontent with the government's corruption and inefficiency. In 1917 these events resulted in the fall of the Tsarist government and established the Bolshevik Party, a radical overshoot of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, as the ruling power. There were many effects of the war on the people back home in Russia, food was getting short and many of the male peasants had been conscripted in to the army. This meant that there was a shortage of farm workers and less food was produced. The Russian railway system was being used to carry supplies to the war front and
What triggered the Tsars fall? Many in Russia would argue that it was the catastrophic impact of war coupled with the failure or the Tsar/Tsarina to embark upon the problems created by involvement in World War One that triggered the Tsar's fall. Nevertheless it is fair to say that discontent among the Russian people had been growing for several years. This dissatisfaction destabilized the position of the Tsar and undermined his authority. Was it a series of mitigating circumstances and bad luck that brought on the Tsar's downfall? Or was the Tsar's own incompetence the key to his failure? There were many causes for the growing discontent in Russia before 1914. There were various politically related issues linked to power, control and government. Nicholas was a deeply religious man and believed he had been chosen to rule Russia by God and felt that he did not have to consult others about his decisions. In the period of late 19th and early 20th century there was an age of modernisation spreading through Western Europe. Everything had advanced, both technologically and socially. But the Tsar's refusal to adapt to his rapidly changing country created serious social and political grievances. A huge civil service was employed to carry out decisions about the country (the Tsar always having the final say) but getting decisions carried out in such a vast country with poor
The March Revolution 1917 a) The conditions are so bad in Petrograd because peasants who used to work on the farms were forced to move into the towns to work in the factories to help in the producing of guns and uniforms for the soldiers. This caused several problems; because all the people who worked on the farms were forced to move into the city there was a food shortage because there weren't enough people to tend the land and the food that was being made was being sent off to the army so there was a near on famine. The second problem was that there were not enough housing for all the people that had suddenly moved into the towns so they often slept in the streets. Another problem was that the workers tended not to be all to good at working in the factories so they made little difference to the Russian army. Also their wages had gone up by 100%, which at first sights is good. However, the prices of food had gone up by 500%. Basically real wages declined. Transportation of food was also another reason for food shortage. These again were used to carry the Russian army and supplies to their home front. These are all reasons why conditions were so bad in Petrograd. b) This could lead to a revolution because people were getting grumpy due to the lack of food and the way they had to work harder. The war effort was going badly and people were upset that they were
Why did the Tsar abdicate following the February 1917 Revolution, but not after the 1905 Revolution? Russian kings called themselves 'Tsar', meaning emperor. Unlike the rulers of the other great powers, by 1900 the Tsar still ruled the country on his own, with help from ministers he chose, who answered only to him. The people in Russia had no right to vote and there was no parliament. Local government was in the hands of provincial governors appointed by the Tsar. The whole system depended a lot on the ability of the Tsar. If the Tsar was talented and a strong leader then the government might work well, despite the size of the country. But in complete contrast if the Tsar was weak the country may slip back into anarchy. Therefore most of the Tsars were harsh and repressive in the way that they ruled. In many ways, Russia was still in the middle ages. Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) was Russia's last emperor, he was born on 18 May 1868 in Tsarskoe Selo. Nicholas succeeded his father's throne, Alexander III, when his father died from liver disease on 20 October 1894. Nicholas was 26. The same year Nicholas married Princess Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt, the grand daughter of Queen Victoria. Alexandra played a huge part in convincing Nicholas to resist ever growing calls for increased democracy within Russia. Alexandra was a firm believer in the autocratic principle. Nicholas
"Collectivisation was undoubtedly a real revolution from above in the countryside." Do the results of collectivisation justify this conculusion?
"Collectivisation was undoubtedly a real revolution from above in the countryside." Do the results of collectivisation justify this conculusion? Stalin's policy of collectivisation has often been accredited to have ruined Russian agriculture and unnecessarily caused untold misery to many millions of simple peasants. In this essay I aim to analyse whether Stalin's programme of collectivisation in the 1930s was a the "revolution from above" of which he claimed it was, or if it was in fact an overly brutal and hideously ineffective policy. This term is used to explain a process whereby a government uses its power to instate drastic change, with presumably beneficial results. In this essay I will argue that Stalin's policy of collectivisation did not succeed at all as a revolution, and was indeed a hindrance to Russian agriculture. I aim to answer the question through looking at Stalin's success in three main areas, economic, political and social (due to the sheer mortality rate). One of the main reasons for collectivisation was to provide investment capital through sales of grain. Economically, most historians agree that collectivised Russian agriculture did not present a great improvement. Ward states that "By the early 1940's, 50 million Soviet Citizens were still reliant on ration cards for their daily bread and meat production did not reach pre-collectivised levels until
"Despite his reputation as the 'Tsar Liberator', Alexander II had failed to satisfy the growing mood for change in Russia by the time of his assassination in 1881" Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement.
"Despite his reputation as the 'Tsar Liberator', Alexander II had failed to satisfy the growing mood for change in Russia by the time of his assassination in 1881" Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement. Tsar Alexander II earned the unofficial title 'Tsar Liberator' from the Russian serfs when he introduced the Edict of Emancipation in 1861. This was an Edict that gave the serfs their freedom and enabled them to become free citizens. At the time of Tsar Alexander II coming to the throne, there was a great demand for change in Russia. Reformation was seen as essential to Russia's survival in the modern European world and Tsar Alexander II knew this. During his reign Alexander II reformed things such as the judicial system, the military and local governments but also, in some ways, contradicted his reform and introduced some reactionary measures which included reviving exile to Siberia and restricting zemstvos from communicating with each other. These reactionary methods may not have been too welcome in a society where there was a great demand for change. Tsar Alexander II reformed many important things that improved people's lives greatly, but there is still a lot of evidence that shows Alexander had failed to satisfy the people. One main sign that people are not dissatisfied is unrest, for instance in 1861 there were 499 incidents of serious rioting. 1861
'The Russian Revolution Was Ultimately Caused By Bad Weather.' How Far Do You Agree With This Assessment Of The Causes Of The 1917 Russian Revolution? The Russian Revolution in 1917 was a major turning point in history for the Russians. There were many causes leading up to the revolution however, was the main one bad weather? On the one hand, bad weather was extremely important. Without the bad weather, many other causes would not have occurred. There was no coal in the winter of 1915 and so the harsh conditions of the weather, hit the civilians with a massive blow. This angered them, and soon their anger was directed towards the Tsar. Bad weather also iced over the railway lines in 1916. This in turn made import of food into such cities as Petrograd extremely difficult. The slow import of food meant that food which was able to reach the cities, rose sky high in price. Unfortunately the workers weren't able to afford these amounts and so many starved through the cold months. Often queues formed for bread however, there was no bread to be bought. The weather also affected soldiers fighting in the war. This led the soldiers to side with the workers during strikes and with their help, the workers were able to overthrow the Tsar. However, on the other hand, there also many other factors which caused the revolution. Firstly, there was World War 1. Russia's performance in the war
The Romanovs had ruled Russia since 1613. When the last tsar of all, Nicholas II, was appointed to the throne in 1894, there was no hint of the fate that awaited him. Many among the huge crowds that lined the streets for his coronation celebration saw him as their "little father." They believed God had supposedly appointed Nicholas to rule an empire covering about one-sixth of the earth's land area. In 1894, Russia was at peace. Foreign investors promoted its industrialization. Russia was ranked among the world's greatest powers under the autocracy of the Romanovs. Although well intentioned, Nicholas was a weak ruler, out of touch with his people, easily dominated by others and a firm believer in the autocratic principles taught him by his father. He ruled Russia as an autocrat. Propaganda and the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged his people to love and respect their tsar and look on him as a father who had the right to rule them. Nicholas II ruled a police state, called the okhrana, which responded brutally to anyone who dared question his authority. He had absolute power. He declared the law and could overrule any existing law. Political parties were illegal until 1905. There was no parliament until 1906 and even then, Russia was hostile to its existence. He was free to appoint and dismiss his advisers without giving reasons. In 1900, the Russian empire
What were the causes of the 1905 Revolution in Russia? The 1905 Revolution was triggered by a peaceful march of workers that turned into a bloodbath after the Tsar's secret police (the Okhrana) panicked. This began the revolution, but it was only a trigger factor in the revolt. Tsar Nicholas II at that time led Russia. He was a monarch who had inherited the position from his father, Alexander, who as a leader had much more respect and control due to his ruthlessness. Nicholas wanted to emulate his father but could not. Although the Tsar allowed for a degree of power to be shared by his ministers, he was by and large a dictator. By January 1905, the majority of the Russian population had desired change for some time. The peasant classes (agricultural labourers) were treated like animals even though the economy was predominantly agrarian. The industrial workers (those who worked in factories and in mines), a growing part of the workforce, were also relied upon by the Tsar to provide a modern industrialised economy, yet they were treated poorly with unions being banned and working conditions in general being inadequate. However, the lower classes were not alone in their oppression by the Tsarist state. The middle-class intelligentsia had political rights that were derisory in comparison with their Western counterparts who had been given the vote decades previously. Russia at
Why was the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 successful? Part 1 Karl Marks was not Russian and he died 34 years before the Russian revolution, he was a German who spent most his life in England. He worked as a journalist but wrote books on history, religion, economics, society, and philosophy. Marx hated the system of capitalism because he thought that it was capitalism that had produced the problems of industry, poor living conditions and the social gap of the rich and poor. He thought that the system destroyed people and made them greedy and that people only wanted something if it was worth money. Karl Marx realised that there was not enough money to make everyone rich but he did thin k the world would be better if society was turned on its head and started again. He had a list of ideas and together they are called communism, meaning that everything is owned in common. The lists of ideas are: • As there is not enough of everything to go around, everyone should be given just what they need rather than what they wanted. • People should be taught to share things together rather than keep things for themselves, no-one should have any possessions. • If everything is shared then there can be no theft. There will be no need for policeman. There would be many problems creating this perfect world. Karl Marx had three solutions on how this could be done. His first solution of