The Impact Of Political Change On Russia

After WW1, There was a power struggle for the leader of Russia. High level government workers Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky fought for the throne after the untimely death of Vladimir Lenin.

From 1856 onwards the aim of turning Russia from a once agrarian, illiterate and backwards country and into a political superpower was set. A multitude of developments began with Nicholas II being a catalyst of change for the Russian people. Writers of Marxist Russia such as Joan Hasler1 however believe that the Tsars abdication merely prevented revolution happening for a few years. The significance of his abdication caused demands for a new and improved governmental structure to be in place in order to get Russia back on its feet after the devastating defeat in world war one. New political developments took place after the abdication of the Tsar including a new improved Duma who quickly realised they had little trust and loyalty to the tsar and decided to take it upon themselves to improves Russia on their own. Nearing the end of the Romanov dynasty there were 3 new political groups aiming to rule Russia, the duma, the Bolsheviks and the soviets which alone gives us significant evidence that the Tsars reign and abdication created a significant turning point in the political development 1856-1964.

It appeared that they now had the power to defeat in a war against major European nations such as Russia and became a new threat. In the meantime, Russia finds itself in a time of reconstruction, trying to avoid any type of anarchy. The changing times for Russia left them vulnerable to invasions.

This demonstrates that since the stress of waging war was tremendous, it should be no surprise that the first war could be a primary cause of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, the major powers of Europe hurt Russia in World War I; yet, by 1917, all the combatants horrifically suffered from the strains of war economically, proving this to be a long-term cause. This was, to a great extent, considerable because the military defeats and social strains of World War I had created a crisis in Imperial Russia. Before, Russia had some military accomplishments and they were on their way to being successful. Nevertheless, their triumphs were not long-standing; hence, Russia was not able to be victorious due to the fact that Russia decreased in economy because of the limitations in Russia. Similarly, restraints included the shortage of food and the huge problems with getting the obligatory materials for the army during World War I, which shows that this was momentous. Along with Russia being defeated and having a scarcity of supplies, Russia also showed economic oppression due to the pressure in jobs workers faced.

In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the

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.

1855 was a tough time for Alexander II to take the throne. Russia was in the middle of a costly war

How Much Russia Changed from 1856-1894 During the years of 1856 and 1894, Russia changed immensely in its policies and general state. It went from being an ageing superpower into a country with internal problems and an ambience of civilian unrest. Alexander II realised the need to modernise Russia in order to prolong their status as a superpower. This stemmed from their defeat in the Crimean war. To modernise and industrialise Russia, a free workforce was needed and this could only be made available if people were freed from the land.

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

Russians knew very little of peace. Since the reign of the Grand Duchy of Moscow (1480-1547) until the reign of the Russian Empire (1721-1917) Russia had been at war or engaged in military conflict on fifty separate occasions. The leadership and the citizens within the empire lived with war and the ravages of war for four hundred and

The Crimean war was a long, brutal battle which took place in 1853 and lasted through 1856. Some of the battles before the Crimean war lead up to this battle, For instance, when the Napoleonic wars ended there was the great powers, which were assembled in Vienna then this great power would restore the European state system. During the year 1853, Russia occupying the Danubian principalities(Moldavia and Walachia) they did this to intimidate Istanbul, and by them doing this it threatened Austria’s economic lifeline the Danube, this meant “sick man”, Turkey proved themselves by being remarkably dexterous and truculent.Outmanuvering Austria, Britain and France, they still favored a diplomatic settlement, from this movement, they declared war on

The Crimean war, lasting from October of 1853 to February of 1856, was a major conflict fought primarily between the Russians, the British, the French, and the Ottoman-Turks. The Russians fought by themselves, while the other great powers formed the allies during the war. Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars, great powers in the area gathered to restore order in the European state system. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna came together in order to resize and balance out forces of the main powers so they could remain at peace (Wikipedia “Napoleonic Wars”). The gathering of these great powers ended in the creation of the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, also called the Vienna Settlement. The Treaty of Vienna, made when the Congress of Vienna came together, was created to keep the peace between major and minor forces by balancing the power of territories based on size. It ensured that large territories didn’t have too much power and small territories had just enough power. The settlement was based off of the idea that monarchies were more stable than republics and would keep the peace for much longer. In the end, the Treaty of Vienna failed primarily because of the weaknesses that were forming in the Ottoman-Turkish Empire and the opportunities those weaknesses provided for European interference.

The war is an event that is widely considered to be a cause of the outbreak of the February 1917 revolution, despite in 1914 it appearing as though the Tsars’ power and authority had increased. This is because after Russia losing the First World War, many problems had been worsened such

The Russian revolution of 1917 and 1905 remain to be very significant historical events. I say this because revolutions are very rare events in history. The Russian revolutions were milestones in Russias history, as these events changed the political system of the country. The change of political governments was very meaningful as the autocracy caused a majority of the Russian population to be oppressed. Through the revolution, the citizens of Russia were able to change the government's autocratic ways and enforce new socialist policies, using the teachings of Karl Marx. The poor quality of life that the majority of Russian citizens experienced was ignored by Russia's autocratic government. The poor working conditions, poor living conditions and the wage gap between the nobles and peasants was also swept under the rug. With the additional loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, the Russian people's hostility towards the government grew. Leading to the protests of

¬There was immense change in the way Russia was ruled from 1855-1956, however there was also continuity within that change, in the sense that many themes were repeated throughout the 100 years. The nature of the autocracy in the period changed with the October 1917 revolution, however, many of the aspects of Tsarist autocracy remained within the rule of the Communist leaders, such as the implementation of terror starting from the Okhrana from Alexander II to the NKVD at the end of the period, the use of propaganda to gain state control, centralisation of power, and war as a driver of change.