Dairy Extract Of A Soldier and Worker Who Marched On Bloody Sunday
Dairy Extract Of A Worker Who Marched On Bloody Sunday. Monday 10th January 1905 My whole family killed. My daughter trampled and wife shot. I joined the march as I thought it would be fun. It was supposed to be so peaceful. All we were doing was going to give a Petition to the Tsar to ask for a better and fairer society but it ended up with thousands dead or wounded. I walked out onto the field approaching the Winter Palace with hope in my heart and great expectations. I believed this would work. The Tsar had to take action when he learnt that so many people were unhappy with the conditions of life for some. We sang as we walked, laughed and joked around with everyone. I carried my 4-year-old daughter, Emily, on my shoulders and held my wife's arm as we went. We were met by the Russian Army who told us that the Tsar was not in and we should return home but we had all been told before the march that the Tsar would most likely have instructed his army to inform us he was absent when he wasn't really, so we ignored them. When the first of us had come within 15 feet of the barrier of soldiers they fired warning shots into the air. My daughter screamed and my wife clung to my arm but we did not honestly believe they would turn their guns on their own people so marched on anyway. A few children ran into me as they tried to escape but I pushed them forward again so they
How and why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution?
How and why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution? First of all to understand how the Tsarist regime survived in 1905 it is necessary to answer the question what happened in 1905. Then it is possible to see how the Tsar combated these problems. In the years before 1905 there was increasing social turmoil caused by rapid industrialisation: There was no legal way of expressing political views (no Parliament), there was a discontented and oppressed working class, and a desperate and poverty stricken peasantry. The middle classes were discontent because of the absence of a political voice for the vast population. The peasants were poor because they owned no land for themselves and of poor harvests and heavy taxing by the Tsar to pay for industrialisation. The working classes had to work in very poor working conditions, for very long hours and for very little pay. Therefore most sectors of Russian society were in opposition to the state. Only the gentry, the state-dependant industrialists and the army supported the regime. It is not surprising, therefore, that three illegal, political parties stemmed from the situation. One such party was the Social Democrats (1895), which followed the teachings of Marx, believing in a proletarian revolution. In 1903 the Social Democrats split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks believing in a small well organised
Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917?
Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917? Nikita Turkin ATL "The immediate cause of the Revolution of 1917... [was]... the collapse of Russia's fragile political structure under the strains of a war of attrition." (Pipes) While war may have been the trigger which brought the feelings of a nation to a head in St. Petersburg, and finally started that a revolution in the bread queue, "the reasons for this comprehensive collapse of the structures of the old regime were, however, rooted deeply in the history of the Russian sate." (Waldron) Liberals, have said that social unrest and mass disturbance were direct products of war, the truth lies closer with the Revisionists, who, while not over exaggerating the role of either revolutionary parties or over- simplifying the 'people's wishes' like the Soviets, stipulate that February was a culmination of socio- economic preconditions and political precipitants. Even if we discard the Soviet Marxist viewpoint that the recurring trade cycle in the world of economics changes completely the political systems and social hierarchies of countries, it is valid to say that economics plays a part in a country's affairs. Revisionists point that it is the personally damaging experiences of the Russian peasants and workers that influenced their decision to cause social unrest and political mayhem, but it is with "uncanny foresight" that P. Durnovo
Do you agree with the view that Stalin successfully removed ‘treachery’ and ‘counter-revolution’ in the USSR in the 1930’s?
Do you agree with the view that Stalin successfully removed 'treachery' and 'counter-revolution' in the USSR in the 1930's? The use of terror became a central part of the soviet regime during the 1930's with the launching of the great terror against prominent party members. A series of show trials were held which saw former leaders of the regime accused and then executed. The purges went beyond former leaders who had fallen out with Stalin, and were extended to include army personnel and middle-ranking party officials. In fact, anyone who found himself or herself labelled as an 'enemy of the people' be them peasants, factory workers, class enemies, even the secret police themselves became a victim of the great purges. Throughout this time, millions were forced into labour camps, executed, tortured, put on trial, died of diseases and starvation or simply 'disappeared'. The justification of all the death and terror that took place was that all these people had committed the crime of being an enemy of the state and were trying to overthrow the revolution. Theses purges definitely removed something from Russia, but whether it was 'treachery' and 'counter-revolution or whether it was removed successfully is a totally different question/matter. The 1930's saw the introduction of a new economic plan to modernise Russia and make it more powerful and influential. Stalin initiated
How and why was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution?
How and why was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution? According to Marxist theory there needs to be a total change of power in order for a revolution to take place, this puts the phrase '1905 revolution' into serious doubt. It is evident that there are many factors that appear to be leading towards revolution however it is debatable weather these factors were strong enough to be called a revolution itself. Survival of this period was attained certainly in the short term, however we must ask how influential the '1905 revolution' was in the eventual downfall of the tsar in 1917. Before we can fully understand how and why Nicholas survived 1095 it is important to recognise the conditions of Russia leading up to this period and how they were caused. Unrest had been evident in Russia for a long period of time; it can be dated as far back as to the assassination of Alexander 2nd in 1979 or even further. At a time where Russia needed to move forward in order to 'keep up' with the world powers, Russia focused on a scheme of reaction and russificatioin beginning in 1881, which was maintained by Nicholas when he came into power in 1894. Opposition groups such as the Liberals had been forming due to the unrest within the country. A slump in the economy prior to 1905 following the economic spurt of the 1890's caused great unrest within the cities, the peasants were unhappy
Tsarist rule in the years 1856 - 1917 and Communist rule from the death of Lenin to the death of Stalin both depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. The similarities between the two forms of government were therefore much g...
Tsarist rule in the years 1856 - 1917 and Communist rule from the death of Lenin to the death of Stalin both depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. The similarities between the two forms of government were therefore much greater than were the differences. How far do you agree with this judgement? It cannot be denied that both Tsarist and Soviet government did indeed rely on a high degree of central power and state control. However, the statement incorrectly follows that "therefore" the two regimes had more similarities than differences. The fact that the period 1856 - 1917 involved the rule of Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II meant three different styles of rule, and ultimately different levels of state repression. However, since both the communist and Tsarist regimes faced similar difficulties, the sheer size of Russia and the ever present problems with agriculture, for example, they both inevitably had similar aims. Both regimes wished to modernize Russia, while preserving their own position of authority and prevent Western intervention. However, the methods each regime used to do this and the results of these methods differed between them. The motives of their aims also varied - Stalin had a political motivation for isolation from the West (communism versus capitalism), whilst the Tsar wished to preserve Russian tradition and
What were the causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917?
< What were the causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917? > Revolution is an act of making a successful, violent attempt to change or remove a government. The word 'successful' makes a revolution somewhat a big thing, because there usually are changes after a revolution. However, a revolution does not happen in a short time because of a trivial reason, but happens over a long time of significant events. This is true especially in Russian Revolution in March 1917's case. One of the very long term causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917 are the economic causes. At the beginning of the twentieth century, all the peasants were living a hard life. Their main food was grain made into rye bread or porridge, and cabbage soup, which did not contain enough nutrition for the peasants who had to work all day in the farm without any animal and sometimes even without tools. Pies and pancakes were delicacies only eaten on religious days and at festivals. However, that was when the harvests were good and when there was food to go around. When the harvests were bad, there was starvation and disease: 400,000 people died in 1891 when crop failure coupled with cholera hit the countryside. The fact that peasants lived in highly unhygienic cottages where the temperature inside is hardly any higher than outside, crowded with people did not help to prevent or stop the disease. There
Study Sources A, B and C. Do these sources give similar or different impressions of Stalin?
) Study Sources A, B and C. Do these sources give similar or different impressions of Stalin? Explain your answer. (6) These sources give different impressions of Stalin, however there are some similarities. Source A is a cartoon published in Paris in the 1930´s. It shows Stalin and the results of his policies according to the artist. The cartoon features Stalin showing three pyramids of skulls as if he was a tour guide. The caption under reads, "Visitez L´URSS ses pyramides!" This translates to, "Visit the pyramids of the USSR!" This source is very famous and was drawn by an exiled Russian, therefore the artist could be bitter and biased against Stalin and his policies. Source B is an official Soviet painting of Stalin with workers at a hydroelectric power station in the 1930´s. It is trying to show the results of industrialization. It shows Stalin talking to the workers, they seem very proud to be meeting Stalin. Because it is an official Soviet painting it is very likely to be biased and a source of propaganda as it would be Stalin or the government who commissioned it Source C is a photograph of Stalin congratulating wives of army officers. The women are reaching for Stalin in a fanatical manner; they seem desperate to touch him. The source is a photograph, which gives the impression that it is a reliable source. However this isn´t true, Stalin could have had
Stalin: Man Or Monster? Sources Question
Stalin: Man Or Monster? . Source A is giving a bad impression of Stalin. This source shows mountains of skulls and Stalin is just stood there looking like he is proud of a personal achievement. It depicts Stalin as a monster, and these "pyramids" are the results of his purges. Both sources B and C contradict source A. Sources B and C both show Stalin in a positive nature. In both sources Stalin is with his people. In B he is mixing with low class workers. The workers and Stalin are very relaxed and laughing with each other. The background is very promoting of Stalin as it has a huge hydroelectricity power plant and has obviously been put there by Stalin. In source C however it is not about Stalin's achievements, this source shoes Stalin reaching out to his people. In this picture there is no sense of fear. Genuine enthusiasm meaning the propaganda is working. This source gives the impression he is really caring to his people. Even still he is seated above the woman he is shaking the hands of whereas in source B he is there as an equal. 2. Source D (i) is written to show Stalin as he wants to look. Stalin describes himself as better than the other people in the story. He is the only one who cares about this dead mans life. This shows this source was meant for propaganda. Of coarse this is another reason why it could be inaccurate. If he cared for human life so much
Why did the Tsar Abdicate after the 1917 Revolution but not after the 1905 Revolution
Why did the Tsar Abdicate after the 1917 Revolution but not after the 1905 Revolution? Introduction: Before the 20th century Russia was still very much living in the medieval age with a Medieval standard of living. Before the mid 19th century, Russia's peasants were subjects to a form of slavery and were known as "Serfs". This from of slavery was abolished in 1861and peasants were aloud land for themselves - but at a price. The peasants did not receive enough land to make a living and were given land in strips, making it difficult to improve on the current inefficient harvesting methods. Bad harvests often brought famine and the Russian population wanted a more modern Russia. As Russia moved into the 20th century a very high percentage of the Russian population were peasants who wanted a change from the agricultural ways - into a new industrialised nation. This was because the current system was too harsh on the peasants who were not getting enough food or money to support their families or themselves, with all the money going to upper class landowners. Another rising problem was the steadily increasing population, which meant less land for peasant families to grow food. Because of this Russia had had a spurt of industrial growth and factories were popping up in all major towns and cities. Many young men from the peasant villages went off to the cities looking to work at the
