rse, giving the peasant a scapegoat and one more reason to dislike the Czar. Due to his mistakes, Nicholas became extremely unpopular among the Russian lower classes, bringing about an inevitable Revolution. Fulgencio Batista, the son of poor farmers in Cuba, was elected president in 1940. At the beginning , he greatly improved the education and economy. However, his term ended in 1944, when he moved to Florida. During that time, corruption made its way back to Cuba, so Fulgencio;s return through an overthrow of the government was widely welcomed by the people. To their astonishment, he returned as an oppressive, cruel dictator, embezzling money, favoring corruption , managing to be hated by the majority of the Cuban population. …show more content…
Instead , the people of Cuba started slowly focusing on Fidel Castro, a rebellious leader who strongly opposed Batista, and Lenin, a Russian Communist Revolutionary. Castro traveled to Mexico in 1955, where he met Che Guevarra, who was a very important figure, giving him advice in succesfully defeating Batista.In 1956 Castro returned to Cuba along withhis brother and Che Guevarra . They launched a number of attacks against Batista's forces, however they lost,most of their men being captured. They escaped and hid in the Sierra Maestra Mountain Range, using guerilla war to successfully capture major areas of Cuba, causing Batista to fly to the Dominican Republic in 1959.Lenin, also a strong , rebellious figure in Russia, was exiled prior to the Revolution, focusing his energy on revolutionary politics. He returned to St. Petersburg and began working with other Marxist thinkers. Their ‘work’ attracted some unwanted attention and they were arrested and exiled to Siberia. He returned once more and stepped up, vocalizing his views . His number of supporters soon started increasing , mainly due to the devastating effects the war with Japan and WWI had on Russia’s economy, pushing people of all classes to side with Lenin. The “Bloody Sunday” pushed the Czar to offer several political concessions, most importantly an elected legislative assembly, or Duma. Lenin wasn't pleased, and believed that a …show more content…
The lower class of Russia, which was composed of the working people felt misrepresented- or not represented at all.Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III of Russia, who was also the Emperor of Russia, before Nicholas. He was the heir of approximately 200 years of Czarist rule in Russia.Coming from a very rich family, Nicholas could hardly relate to the lower class. He had inherited Russia’s rule from his dad, and was not elected, which meant he was not necessarily qualified to correctly rule Russia, as he later proved through his actions.After he had angered the working class by slaughtering their own people, losing major battles in the war with Japan as well as in WWI, there was no way for him to amend for the mistakes he had made. Therefore, had the people been given the choice of taking down the Czar, they would have not hesitated.Their anger was represented through Lenin, with whom they felt they could connect to.Due to their dislike for the Czar, not many were dissatisfied when he was overthrown, and lated ordered to be executed by
In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,
Tsar Nicholas II was a poor leader. It seems that he does not want to be the Tsar (71). When the Tsar received the telegram of the destruction of the Russian fleet a Tsushima, he simply placed into his pocket. He shows no interest in being a leader. A normal would have quickly reacted to that situation but the Tsar did not. During his reign (Nicholas II), Russia was in disaster (72). Forcing someone to do something, that person does not want to do will lead to disaster. He such a "leader" that Kaiser Wilhelm II patronizes him of "only fit to live in a country house and grow turnips." (9). The man has no strength, his is everything but strength. There are many holes in the government of Russia and in his leadership. The holes could have been filled up if he had picked up the slack and pushed himself to be leader. The resulting consequences of his poor leadership could have also been
The fall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1914 proved that the Tsar could not handle the problems of Russia. Ironically, he would have been ideal as a constitutional monarch, but was adamant against the idea. As the First World War started Russia’s problems arises, from short-term and long-term causes. The war brought back inflation which led to “demonstrations over food shortages combined with workers’ grievances,” (Hosking, 2012, p. 91) thus this destroyed Nicholas’s image as Father of Russia. Military became ineffective as the transport system was not adequate, thus leading to food supplies decreasing in key cities such as Petrograd. Historians believe the impacts of the First World War led to Russian society becoming unstable and was ultimately the main reason of the downfall of the Tsar. However other factors, such as the Tsarina placing large amounts of trust into Rasputin who was notorious for his reputation as an alcoholic and a womanizer (Westwood, 2002, p. 215) and the role of the revolutionaries due to Lenin promising peace, land and bread, eventually leading to the growth of the Bolsheviks Party. Although, it can most rightfully be deemed that the impact of the war was the main reason for the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.
“The power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers and handed over to the revolution. That is the fundamental task. A general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is quite inadequate for achieving the task itself”(Trotsky). The ineffectiveness of the strikes can be found in the fact that in nearly every occasion the soldiers were ordered to shoot on the crowd, stopping the revolts and leaving the tsar as obnoxious to the situation as before. Also the peasants in the countryside suffered land-hunger due to the growth of population caused by the decreased of mortality rates. Backwardness was also caused by the “open field system”, which didn’t motivate the peasants to improve their machinery or seeding methods since their land would be taken away from them and redistributed when a member of the community died. Nicholas II was a weak, indecisive and obstinate ruler who, being very conservative and reactionary, used extensively the secret police (“Third Section”) and the army to suppress uprisings and political enemies. He alienated the intelligentsia and angered the liberals with his lack of political participation and exaggerated reliance on the Fundamental laws, which said that the tsar was appointed by god and was rightfully in charge of the country. As a response, the liberals initiated a banquet campaign that started in November 1904, and ended in January 1905 with the aim of making the tsar give
The privileged nobles, who possessed land and serfs, supported his autocratic rule. The main theme of the Russian history in the 19th century is that the non-nobles who detested the Czarist government asked for an improvement in their disconsolate and deprived life. When the Czarist government ignored this matter they revolted for the first time in 1905 and than for the second time in 1917 by which the Czarist government was finally overthrown. Hungry strikers on March 8, 1917 mobbed the streets of Petrograd, their demand was bread. In order to appease the misery of his people Czar Nicholas II resigned his throne to his brother, Michael. His brother knew that everyone hated Czardom so he rejected the throne on March 15. The Provisional Government than took over and Czardom after ruling Russia for three centuries came to an end.
Whilst St Petersburg was growing and thriving around him, it seemed as though the Tsar turned his back on the requirements that come with large crowds of people such as, resources, food supplies, housing, etcetera. Due to his closed mindedness the overpopulation of factories, shortages of income and lack of basic necessities became a huge issue. The people stuck in this great poverty began to lose faith in the Tsar and once again sought for a new source of power. Another factor that adds to this cause is the fact that when the Russian society came up with the idea of a government, to help guide the Tsar towards helping his people and modernizing his laws and mindset, he refused to let the people have a say. Nicholas ultimately took away all power from what little government they did set up, called a ‘duma,’ when he set the ‘Fundamental Laws.’ These laws meant that he would overrule all of the duma’s decisions or suggestions. For example, the first law stated, “To the emperor of all the Russias belongs supreme autocratic power.” Then in 1907, the Tsar changed to voting laws to make sure that revolutionaries could not be elected. This meant that all the elected candidates were politicians that were great followers of Nicholas, meaning he got what he wanted. Consequently leaving no way of communication between Nicholas and the lower class of Russia, causing the tragic conditions to continue. As the poor became progressively poorer, malnourished and uncared for the Tsars inaction and lack of sympathy caused a radical
Fulgencio Batista was elected President of Cuba between 1940 and 1940. In 1952 Batista declared that constitutional guarantees and the right to strike will be suspended. He became a dictator with absolute power over Cuba. Batista turned the Cuban capital of Havana into one of the largest gambling cities in the world. Batista reorganised the Cuba’s treasury so that political representatives and himself can take freely from the riches. Under Batista’s rule, education and health care wasn’t free to the general public. The Cuban public were not satisfied with Batista and how he was ruling Cuba, the people didn’t have a say in decisions in government, were treated unfairly with high taxes, selling/giving the peoples land to American business owners.
the people’” but many others disagreed . They felt that he was manipulating the family. This only added to the discontent and secrecy surrounding the family. Many people did not like how isolated the family was, not only from everyday Russians, but also the aristocracy. This made Nicholas an incapable leader because he separated himself to a large extent from Russian society. His shyness added to the list of reasons why he was a bad leader for Russia which lead to the end of the Old Regime.
The means by which Nicholas II sought to rule as Tsar as well as his intrinsic characteristics played a significant role in the occurrence of Revolution in 1917. Nicholas was conservative by nature. His insufficient leadership tuition, brought about by his unexpected ascendance to power in 1894, forced his unwavering reliance on the systems established by his predecessors. Nicholas was a man of weak fortitude, his poor decisions and miscalculations throughout his reign owe much to his personality.
For many Cubans the Batista government was simply a puppet regime with the puppet masters being wealthy Americans. This was because his economic policies favoured foreign investors and did little for the development of domestic industries, which resulted in the wealth of the country being concentrated in the hands of a wealthy whtite minority. Consequently, in the 1950s, this harsh regime caused political resistance to reach to its boiling point. In response to these high levels of frustration, Fidel Castro and a small rebel group led a successful revolutionary army into Havana in 1959. This was the first step on the road to a new era in the lives of many Cubans.
Fidel Castro, inspired by José Martí who first dreamt of a Cuban Revolution who died a martyr before he could succeed, wanted to overthrow the corrupt government under Fulgencio Batista. Castro gathered an army of revolutionaries known as the Fidelistas who were driven by nationalism, idealism, patriotism, and the thought of possibly becoming a martyr, a historical glory of Cuba. The result of this revolution in Cuba was an overthrow of the government and the start of a Communist state that still remains today.
In January 1959, the brutal, American-backed Cuban dictator, Batista was overthrown by Fidel Castro and his guerrilla army. Initially president Eisenhower welcomed the revolution as Batista was seen to be a weak and embarrassing ally, as well as the fact that a more politically stable Cuba would become a more reliable Cuba.
Castro’s involvement with the foreign and domestic politics during the early Cold War period greatly influenced the outcome of the Cuban Revolution. Without the actions taken by foreign powers like the United States and Russia, some events on the domestic front may have had very different results. It is important to understand how every nation’s foreign policies can influence more than just one other nation, and this was especially true for Cuba. It was this mix and chain of events which produced the communist Cuba that we are familiar with today.
In 1940 to 1944, communist Fulgencio Batista withheld power as the president of Cuba and then from 1952 to 1959, United States backed dictator until fleeing Cuba because of Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement. Socialist Fidel Castro governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008. Fidel Castro’s intent was to provide Cuba with an honest democratic government by diminishing the corrupt way in which the country was run, the large role the United States played in the running of Cuba as well as the poor treatment & the living conditions of the lower class.
Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus