The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount
Read, Christopher. From Tsar to Soviets: The Russian People and Their Revolution, 1917-21. London: UCL Press, 1996.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot
Auty, Robert, and Dimitri Obolensky. 1976. "An Introduction to Russian History (Companion to Russian Studies;1)." Brisol, Great Britain : Cambridge University Press Ltd.
The Russian revolution was a monumental change for Russia they went from a government of ordocrasy to communism, with evidence it will show that this truly was a change Russia needed. Yet many argue that the death and outcome was not what the people had imagined when agreeing to communism.
Lastly, is the politics which would form from a dictatorship government across nations, and the effect that had on the economy. Marks demonstrates how each Russian theme influenced world history by citing before mentioned individuals and the regions which were impacted: United States, England, Mexico, and China to name a few. This is done using studies conducted on revolutionary violence, examinations of Russian characters in Chinese fiction, and visual examples embedded in the text. Counterevidence is not his burden, however had he touched on it more some of his connections would be more concrete, for example anarchism on its own is a stretch. There is a lack of context, or it is brief when he discusses how the topics influenced the world but is understandable as he deals with complex and broad topics. In general the book is an advancement in Russian inclusivity with world history simply by existing, a great addition to a topic long neglected. While it is an interesting read, it may seem incomprehensible to those with limited historical background, it is directed to the academia
This essay shall address the issue of how the far the brutality of Bolshevik Regime ensured the maintaining of it’s power between the years of 1917-24. This essay shall explore topics concerning the ‘Dictatorship Of The Proletariat’, The Cheka, War Communism, The Red Terror and other potential reasons for the Bolsheviks remaining in power. This essay shall also explore the various views put forth by various Historians such as Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes.
The first section of Fitzpatrick’s essay discusses how Marxism was such an important part to creating classes during the Bolsheviks rule in the beginning of the 20th Century. She notes that this western belief system was popular with Russian intellectuals, especially on revolutionary left. (173) However, around the 1890’s industrialization was starting to catch up with the Marxist dreams, and the first soviets were founded in Moscow and Petersburg in 1905 helped bring down the tsarist regime in February 1917 (Suny 173).
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.
Within a few days in February 1917, Tsarist Russia came to an end. The Romanov family, who had ruled Russia since the 17th century, were overthrown and the monarchy crumbled. Traditional historian Bernard Pares argues that incompetent ministers and weaknesses of Nicholas II is to blame. While traditionalist historian Edmund Walsh blames the incompetence of the Tsarina and her mysticism beliefs. There are however many factors contributing to the Russian revolution of February 1917, such as: World War 1, political and economic failures. Therefore this essay will consider the impact of each factor in order to assess whether the winter of 1916-17 was the final straw for the people of Russia.
In 1917, a revolution started more specifically the Russian Revolution. Many people were impacted by this revolution. It started in 1905 when Russia was suffering military defeats in the Russo-Japanese War. Following, Russians flooded the streets protesting. About 300 people were killed and many were wounded. The two leaders during this time were Czar Nicholas II and Vladimir Lenin. Czar Nicholas II was the leader who caused the Russian Revolution because of his bad leadership.
The Russian Revolution began in 1917 and lasted until late 1930’s, the revolution was very brutal with total death of 3 million people and 7 million people were arrested (Document 12). The revolution broke out when Nicholas II comes to power because Bloody Sunday leads to Duma, then he steps down and the Duma sets up a provisional government thus sparking the want for domination and the revolution kicks off (Book). By the end of the revolution Russia was definitely weakened in some aspects but strengthened as a nation. Therefore, the Russian people were better off after the Russian Revolution because they benefited from a better economy, government, and living conditions.
The Russian revolution was going on in 1917, during the final phase of World War 1. Russia had bean in the war , and transformed into the union of soviet socialist republicans(USSR). During the war tzarism was overruled and taken over by a democracy. The russian Revolution generally took out powerful leader and spread power throuhgout the country and the government. Russia was probably changed the most but also for the better during WW1.
Threatened by the event Bloody Sunday, Tsar Nicholas II faced the choice of military dictatorship or granting a new constitution. In the end, he determined to write a new constitution called the October Manifesto. Issued and signed by the Tsar, he promised to guarantee civil liberties as his last venture to continue his family’s history of unlimited autocracy. When the document was signed, it rested the anger most Russian civilians had for their Tsar. Although, the public was not pleased when it came to their attention that the Duma could not initiate legislation and Tsar would continuously dissolve the Dumas when they opposed him. One can see the contrast between the Tsar’s doing and his peoples needs, even after protests. In conclusion, the indifference brought upon the monarchy’s abdication and advanced in the outcome of the Bolshevik
The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s