Did World War 1 Cause The Russian Revolution

n March 2nd 1917, the rule of a 300-year-old dynasty was laid to rest as Tsar Nicholas II signed his warrant for abdication, officially sanctioning the end of the Romanov Dynasty. The immediate cause permitting this action was the success of the February Revolution however; this event evolved because of several internal and external factors, both long and short term in nature. Predominant among all we recognise the perpetuation of an outdated system of rule, the repercussions of rapid industrialisation, emerging doctrines of liberalism, political inflexibility and the vices imposed by the First World War. These factors progressively embellished societal discontent among the Russian people and inexorably stimulated the insurrection of the February Revolution.

In the late 19th century Russia had been notably behind Europe economically, they weren’t in possession of the modern farming technologies that could efficiently provide for a large country. As a result 90% of the Russian population were peasants (Massey, 4). The serfs lived in deep poverty; they didn’t have the appropriate apparatus to produce enough crops and most of their landlords had unbelievably high demands. In an effort to reform the economy’s recession tsar Alexander II liberated the serfs. However this created more bad for both the serfs and the nobles. In the beginning the serfs saw this is a great victory and another reason to be thankful for their tsar. But as timed pass by the peasants saw this life of liberty and freedom to

In 1917, there were many major world events going on. World War I was under place and had been since 1914. There were civil rights movements in the United States. A worldwide influenza epidemic had broken out. The Chicago White Sox won the world series against the New York Giants. During the year 1917, there was also a major revolution in Russia. The people of Russia split themselves into several political groups, all fighting over how the government should be run. One of these groups was the Bolshevik party. They were a communist party and ended up taking over Russia by the end of the revolution. For the revolution to begin and finally end with a communist power in Russia, there needed to be causes. The three major causes of the Russian Revolution were Russia’s participation in World War I, an unstable government and Vladimir Lenin.

Wendell Berry eminently alleged, “In a society in which nearly everybody is dominated by somebody else's mind or by a disembodied mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to learn the truth about the activities of governments and corporations, about the quality or value of products, or about the health of one's own place and economy” (“Quotes About Economy”). This, in fact, relates back to the Iranian Revolution. With these caveats in place, the Iranian economy may be designated as: oil-centered, state-ruled, imports-reliant, and stagnant. During 1970, Iran had attained remarkable industrialization and economic modernization based on an import-substitution model, supported by the international request for oil. Nevertheless, this affluence was surpassed by the many socio-economic failures of the Shah, Mohammad Reza, who was the monarch of Iran. Further, the pace of growth had slowed dramatically by 1978. Since the fall of the Shah, the economy has proven to be obscure due to a combination of factors, including intrusion in the economy and instabilities in the worldwide market. Economic activity was further disrupted by years of domestic political upheaval. Among the varying classes, there was much discontent with the socio-economic changes that the Shah was implementing because the redundancy rates were extraordinary. Despite the fact that the Shah modernized Iran by emerging a sturdy central government, the Iranian Revolution was not considered an achievement because the

The emancipation of the serfs by Alexander II in 1861 was the inevitable result of a rising tide of liberalism in Russia, supported by the realisation that Russia’s economic needs were incompatible with the system, and driven by the fear that that without reform the state itself could be shattered by revolution. Russia’s defeat in the Crimean war was also a major influencing factor as “Defeat in the Crimean war laid bare Russia’s weakness, so well conceived reforms were set in train and permitted the birth of politics… Russian tsars had learned little during the century: at its end, they were still claiming to be absolute rulers” (Russia).

Serfdom, a system of virtual slavery tying the Russian peasants to their landlords, was abolished in 1861 under the imperial demand of Tsar Nicholas II. This change was put in place for many reasons, including military defeat in Crimea, the economy and political system, which all contributed to the backwardness of Russia as a nation, as they prohibited the introduction of other major reforms. In my view, the most important cause of emancipation was the state of the economy, because the nature of serfdom prevented the country from catching up with the west, and the most important consequence was that the military was able to dramatically

Without the Russian Revolution, a large part of the 20th century would be missing. The Revolution had spawned the soviet union and the communist party, which brought the world a new way of thinking about government, society and the economy. But it also brought fear to capitalist nations.

One more important discussion in modern historical studies of the Great Reforms is what kind of a “watershed” were they in Russian History. Whether or not the Great Reforms can be counted as a line of demarcation in Russian history is hotly debated. The Reforms uncontestedly constitute a watershed in the history of the serfs, but Russia as a whole, in terms of political and social development, is not agreed upon. Some historians like Bruce Lincoln, see the reforms as a missed watershed. A subtle attempt at reform that continued the old regime and did not alleviate problems, but compounded them. Much of recent scholarship does seem to agree that the reforms had another more important “watershed” development: they undermined the state ideologically.

The Russian revolution was a time which ended the Russian monarchy, created the provisional government and led to Russia being the world’s first communist country. Some significant causes were food, coal, industrial supply shortages, Bloody Sunday, Russification and the living conditions for peasants. This essay will be educating you about the revolution and the significant causes of the revolution.

These forces led to minor uprisings resulting Bloody Sunday which in turn led to full scale revolt. In 1900 four out of five citizens of the Russian Empire were peasants who had a life expectation of only fifty which was only if they made it past five years old which half didn’t. This combined with having to pay a redemption payment for the government giving them land meant the quality of life in the villages was very low. Those who left for the cities did not find the greener pastures they were looking for, instead they were greeted by 15 hour days, meagre wages and the constant threat of unemployment if they formed unions. Also as Russia was an autocracy all classes had no ability to have a say in the way the county was run.

(Ruthchild, 240). This shows that problems continued even after the Tzarist regime ended. The “dual powers” disappointed many and resulted in the Russian Civil War. The Bolshevik Revolution is perceived to be a “proletariat socialist revolution” but it was far from creating equality. It was another group seeking to oppress as they have been oppressed.

Russia, 1917, they have Nicholas II as their Tsar, Russian are losing hope in their leader, and they want change. Russia’s economic system was bad, their government was corrupting and the Duma, their parliament, was slowing going away. The main cause of their revolution was their involvement in WWI, Russia came nowhere close to the industrialized Germany, so they had an extremely weak military compared to them, leaving them with a great loss of men. WWI had them in an economic crisis with the cost of war efforts. It starts with the February Revolution, in St. Petersburg, workers were throwing strikes in the street, destroying police stations and going against the policies requests to leave, so they take open fire at the crowd killing them.

The Russian revolution was caused by its bad leadership, of its tsar Nicholas ii. Russia was going into World War 1 untrained and poorly equipped men. Farmers were being taken away to serve their country; with the farmers away food shortages began to put strain on the government. He was later effected the economy, land area (specifically where food was grown) and transport in and out of Russia. All of this lead up to the revolution of 1917.this was the dark times for Russia.

Why did Revolution break out in Russia in 1905? In 1905, thousands of people gathered outside the Winter Palace, demanding change and immediate reform. Although their revolt was ultimately unsuccessful, it is important to wonder why many people were disgruntled with the Tsarist regime. It can be argued that 1905 revolution resulted in both long-term and crucial short term factors: the long-term factors which will be discussed are peasant land-hunger, the declining economy and the exploitation of Jews. For the first factor, I will begin by discussing the reign of Alexander II to Nicholas II; this will allow us to show the developments in time of peasant outrage. Secondly, the essay will discuss the reign of Alexander III who began terrible

One of the many questions that revolve around the 1905 Revolution in Russia is whether the Tsar himself or other factors were responsible for the creation of the revolution. While all the passages emphasise the point throughout that there was huge discontentment in Russia, the Interpretations disagree as to the reason for this discontentment that formed the revolution. Interpretation A persuasively demonstrates that the Tsar himself and his weakness as an autocrat was the main reason for the Revolution. The argument is Passage C is also convincing to a large extent, but as will be discussed, merely supports the view of A. Interpretations D and B are able to be severely criticised, Passage D attempts to argue that the revolution was caused by the existence of long term resentments against Tsarism. Passage B, on the other hand, attempts to argue that the revolution was driven by the proletariat force. However both D and B, as we shall see, are unconvincing arguments. It is difficult to contradict the fact that the Tsar and his own failings were responsible for the 1905 revolution. More succinct